One out of five science and engineering doctorates was awarded to foreign citizens in 1979. An estimated 70% of foreign science and engineering The problem here is not the number of foreign students enrolled in our programs. responsibility to provide advanced education to students from other nations.. The problem is that too few of the best American students are choosing graduate education over the job market. As a nation we are failing to attract our most able students into research and education careers. In this connection, and if you will forgive a personal item, I would like to note that as a young research physicist I was fortunate enough to attract research support from the Office of Naval Research in the late 1950s and early 1960s. This funding helped me direct ten graduate students to their advanced degrees in physics and electrical engineering. I cannot imagine a more effective expenditure of public monies. We are encouraged that the Department of Defense has responded to the requirements of the 1980s. DOD has announced a small (125 awards are planned in FY 1983) targeted program of graduate fellowships in engineering and the sciences to attract the most able U.S. undergraduates to graduate programs in fields critical to our national security and economy. Under this new program, the stipends ($12,000) will be more competitive with the job market. The universities selected by the students also will receive an educational allowance ($8,000) that better recognizes the present high costs of graduate education in the sciences and engineering. We fully support the Department's proposal. It is an excellent first step. We urge the Committee also to fully support it. As the program is implemented, we hope it will be possible to further strengthen it by providing both portable, merit-based awards to students and an equal number of awards to academic departments within universities active in DOD-supported research. Such fellowships should be allocated in proportion of the amount of DOD research support received. Together a balanced program of portable and departmental fellowships would provide a balanced program, designed to ensure a continuing flow of talented students to all those laboratories that perform D0D-supported research. III. Research Instruments and Laboratories Obsolete research instrumentation and outdated science and engineering laboratories are seriously hampering the efficiency and competitiveness of many federal university research programs, including those that perform DOD-supported research programs. Two studies completed in 1980 and 1981 by the Association of American Universities documented the erosion of research instrumentation and laboratories in our leading universities. universities are able to meet approximately half of their accumulated needs for laboratory renovation, modernization, and replacement and for high-cost specialized research equipment. A July 1981 report 3 found that For example, in recognition of the seriousness of this problem, the Utah State Legislature has appropriated some 3 The Nation's Deteriorating University Research Facilities: A Survey of Recent Expenditures and Projected Needs in Fifteen Universities. Association of American Universities, Washington, D.C., July 1981. $500,000 to the University of Utah in each of the last three years to fund replacement and upgrading of sophisticated but outmoded research instruments. This is a very significant step, but the annual depreciation of research equipment at my University exceeds $2,500,000. Serious unmet needs for laboratory renewal are also reported by other leading universities in many of the engineering and physical sciences laboratories that now perform, or are candidates to carry out, DOD research programs. A June 1980 AAU report to NSF states, "It is a telling fact that the equipment being used in top ranked universities has a median age twice that of the instrumentation available to leading industrial research laboratories." Figure 3 from that study shows the striking disparity between the equipment being used in universities and that used in comparable commercial laboratories. The Executive Summary from each report is appended to my statement (Attachments B and C). In commenting on this report, the recent Defense Science Board report states, "This finding is negated neither by the ability of top researchers to 'find' the equipment they need nor by university efforts to use their ,5 equipment more efficiently. After reviewing the evidence, the Defense Science Board drew the following conclusion. "Critical shortages in university equipment and 4 The Scientific Instrumentation Needs of Research Universities, National Science Foundation, June 1980. 5 The Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on University Responsiveness to National Security Requirements, pg. 2-10. YEARS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 FIGURE 3. Age of Instrumentation in Universities Twice That In Industry (Proportion of Instrumentation Inventory Purchased Less Than n Years Ago; Data Derived from Table A). Source: The Scientific Instrumentation Needs of Research Universities National Academy of Sciences June 1980. University computing equipment and facilities, Supported by the DSB report, the Department of Defense in its FY 1983 budget request include a special $30 million research equipment initiative designed to begin the task of upgrading engineering and science laboratories that carry out DOD-funded basic research. The Senate Armed Services Committee, in its report on the FY 1983 DOD authorization quoted above, fully supports the initiative. Recently three American Nobel Laureates for 1981; Dr. Donald N. Langenberg, Deputy Director of the National Science Foundation, and the Honorable Charles S. Robb, on behalf of the National Governor's Association, addressed the universities' instrumentation problem in testimony before Congressional committees. Their statements, Attachment A, support the conclusion that even in these times of budgetary constraint, key federal research agencies, including the Department of Defense, must take an active leadership role in renewing the laboratories of our nation's research universities. We congratulate Under Secretary DeLauer and the Department for this initiative. We urge the Committee to fund the Department's $30 million budget request for research instru mentation. Conclusion Much of what I have said this morning is relevant to the interests and responsibilities of other Congressional Committees and federal agencies. In fact, last year I gave 6 Ibid page 5-3 |