Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Source Description
Records pertain to the Office of Science and Technology Policy.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
285791639
label
Life Sciences - General [1990]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
285791639
contentType
document
title
Life Sciences - General [1990]
description
Records pertain to the Office of Science and Technology Policy.
citationUrl
identifierLocal
62039-005
collections
Records of the White House Office of Science and Technology (George H. W. Bush Administration)
Allan D. Bromley Files
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
285791639
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
423376ecde868164
ocrText
Originally Processed With FOIA(s):
FOIA Number:
2005-0336-F
2005-0336-F
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the George Bush Presidential
Library Staff.
Record Group/Collection:
George H.W. Bush Presidential Records
Collection/Office of Origin:
Science and Technology Policy, Office of (OSTP)
Series:
Bromley, D. Allan, Files
Subseries:
General Science Files
OA/ID Number:
62039
Folder ID Number:
62039-005
Folder Title:
Life Sciences - General [1990]
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
0
0
0
0
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
June 22, 1990
MEMORANDUM TO GOVERNOR SUNUNU
FROM:
D. ALLAN BROMLEY Duan
SUBJECT: ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR OF OSTP FOR LIFE SCIENCES
As you know, James Wyngaarden, who has served during this past year as the OSTP
Assistant Director for the Life Sciences, has agreed to accept election as the Foreign
Secretary of the National Academy of Sciences.
As soon as his election was announced in April I undertook an extensive search for a
suitable replacement who could cover the broad range of biological and medical issues
that come to OSTP and replace Wyngaarden in such other roles as Chairman of the
biotechnology working group for the Competitiveness Council, as an example.
In this search I consulted with the Institute of Medicine, the NAS, FASEB, and the
Deans of a number of the major medical schools. One name came to the top of some
three quarters of all the lists of possible candidates. That name was:
Donald A. Henderson M.D., M.P.H.
Dean, School of Public Health
Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore
Other persons who were suggested by a number of consultants included:
J. Edward Rall M.D., Ph.D.
Deputy Director for Intramural Research
National Institutes of Health, Bethesda
David Rall M.D., Ph.D.
Director of Environmental Health Science
National Institute of Health, North Carolina
David Korn, M.D.
Vice President and Dean of the Medical School
Stanford University, Stanford, California
My Associate Directors and I met with all four of these individuals. David Rall
subsequently withdrew because of deteriorating health.
We were unanimously in agreement among ourselves and with the majority of our
consultants that it would represent a very real coup were we able to bring Henderson
to OSTP.
He is considered, worldwide, as the one person who deserves credit for the total
eradication of smallpox. He is considered the dean of public health activities in the
United States and has the confidence of the biomedical community.
He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and was awarded the National
Medal of Science; this and his other awards, listed on the accompanying curriculum
vita, attest to his reputation both nationally and internationally.
The only basis upon which we have a possibility of attracting him is that he is just
retiring from the Johns Hopkins Deanship, a position that he has held with
distinction since 1977.
My colleagues in OSTP and I have met with him on several occasions for lengthy
discussions and are enthusiastic about the possibility of his joining us. He would be
a more than worthy successor to James Wyngaarden and would bring a significantly
broader range of experience and interest to OSTP.
My recommendation is that the President nominate him as Associate Director for the
Life Sciences of the Office of Science and Technology Policy.
SENT BY: Olivetti FX 2100 ; 5-23-90 ; 12:25 :
3019550258-
2023953261:# 2
APRIL 1990
CURRICULUM VITAE
DONALD AINSLIE HENDERSON
BORN:
September 7, 1928
OFFICE ADDRESS: 615 N. Wolfe Street
Lakewood, Ohio
Baltimore, MD 21205
301-955-3540
MARRIED:
Nana Irene Bragg
HOME ADDRESS: 3802 Greenway
Rochester, New York
Baltimore, MD 21218
September 1, 1951
301-889-2880
CHILDREN:
Leigh Ainslie, 1954
David Alexander, 1956
Douglas Bruce, 1960
EDUCATION:
A.B., Oberlin College, 1950
M.D., University of Rochester School of Medicine, 1954
M.P.H., Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health, 1960
Honoris causa:
M.D., Universite de Geneve (1980)
LL.D., Marietta College (1978)
L.H.D., State University of New York (1981)
Sc.D., University of Rochester (1977);
Oberlin College (1978);
University of Illinois (1979);
University of Maryland (1980);
Yale University (1986)
Albany Medical College (1989)
SENT BY: Olivetti FX 2100 ; 5-23-90 ; 12:25 ;
3019550258-
2023953261:# 3
-2-
APRIL 1990
POSITIONS HELD:
Mary Imogene Bassett Hospital, Cooperstown, New York, Intern in Medicine, 1954-1955; Resident
in Medicine, 1957-1959
Communicable Diseases Center, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Assistant Chief,
Epidemic Intelligence Service, 1955-1956; Chief, Epidemic Intelligence Service and Assistant to
Chief, Epidemiology Branch, 1956-1957; Assistant Chief, Epidemiology Branch and Chief,
Epidemic Intelligence Service, 1960-1961; Chief, Surveillance Section, Epidemiology Branch,
1961-1965; Chief, Smallpox Eradication Program, 1965-1966
World Health Organization, Chief Medical Officer, Smallpox Eradication, 1966-1977
Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health, Dean and Professor of Epidemiol-
ogy and International Health, 1977-
PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES:
American Board of Preventive Medicine, 1963-
American College of Epidemiology, Fellow, 1990-
American College of Preventive Medicine, Fellow, 1978-
American Epidemiological Society, 1963-
American Public Health Association, 1956; Fellow, 1961-
American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 1981-
Association of Schools of Public Health, Treasurer, 1978; Vice-President, 1981-1982; 1987-1988;
President, 1988-
Indian Society for Malaria and Other Communicable Diseases, Fellow, 1975-
International Epidemiological Association, 1965-
Royal College of Physicians (Edinburgh), Fellow, 1986-
Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, Fellow, 1976-
SENT BY: Olivetti FX 2100 ; 5-23-90 ; 12:26 ;
3019550258-
2023953261 4
-3-
APRIL 1990
SCIENTIFIC AWARDS AND RECOGNITIONS: (United States)
National Medal of Science, 1986
National Academy of Sciences - Public Welfare Medal, 1978
Charles S. Dana Foundation Award for Pioneering Achievement in Health, 1986
American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Fellow, 1986-
Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Sciences, Member, 1978-
Albert Schweitzer International Prize for Medicine, 1985
American College of Physicians - James D. Bruce Memorial Award, 1978
American Public Health Association - Rosenhaus International Award for Excellence, 1975
American Academy of Pediatrics- Honorary Fellow, 1980
Johns Hopkins University - Distinguished Alumnus Award, 1982
Michigan State University - Walter F. Patenge Medal of Public Service, 1984
Vanderbilt University School of Medicine Medal, 1990
Ohio Foundation of Independent Colleges, Hall of Fame, 1990
Blue Cross-Blue Shield - 50th Anniversary Distinguished Service Award, 1979
U.S. Association for the United Nations - Joseph C. Wilson Award in International Affairs, 1978
U.S. General Accounting Office - Comptroller General's Special Recognition, 1986
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
. Superior Service Award, 1964
- Sustained Superior Performance Award, 1966
U.S. Public Health Service - Distinguished Service Medal, 1976
- Commendation Medal, 1962
Delta Omega Honorary Public Health Society - Member, 1979
Outstanding Alumnus Award, 1980
Sigma Xi - Member, 1956
SCIENTIFIC AWARDS AND RECOGNITIONS: (Other Countries)
The Japan Prize, 1988
Republic of China - Health Medal of the First Grade, 1988
Government of Uruguay - Medal of Abnegation, 1988
Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia, Honorary Professor, 1988
Commemorative Award of Seventh World Congress of the International Physicians for the Preven-
tion of Nuclear War, 1987
Gairdner Foundation (Canada) - International Award of Merit, 1983
Royal Colleges of Physicians of the United Kingdom - Faculty of Community Medicine - Honorary
Fellow, 1981
Royal Society of Medicine
Richard T. Hewitt Award, 1986
Honorary Member, 1980
London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and
Hygiene - George McDonald Prize and Medal, 1976
Government of Ethiopia - Medal for Contributions to Health, 1979
Government of Afghanistan - Roghtya Neshan (Health Medal), 1976
Ernst-Jung Foundation, (Germany) - Ernst-Jung Preis fur Medizin, 1976
Government of India - Special Award, 1975
Indian Society for Malaria and Other Communicable Diseases - Special Award, 1975
Lahore, Pakistan - Certificate of Merit, 1977
SENT BY: Olivetti FX 2100 ; 5-23-90 ; 12:26 ;
3019550258-
2023953261:# 5
4.
APRIL 1990
AWARD TO WHO FOR SMALLPOX ERADICATION:
Special Albert Lasker Public Health Service Award, 1976
SPECIAL LECTURESHIPS:
Alumni Reunion Lecture, Oberlin College, 1990
Cleveland City Club Forum Speaker, 1990
Vanderbilt University World Health Week, Keynote Speaker, 1990
Kathryn Boucot Sturgis Lecture, 1990
Alumni Reunion Lecture, University of Rochester, 1989
John P. McGovern Lecturer, Baylor College of Medicine, 1989
Annual Banquet Address, Clinico-Pathological Society of Washington, 1989
Phyllis Lewander Memorial Lecture - Children's Hospital National Medical Center, Washington,
D.C., 1989
American Pediatric Society - Washington, DC, 1988
Bloomfield Lecture - Case-Western Reserve University, 1987
Joseph Mountin Lecture- Centers for Disease Control, 1987
Agaard Lecture - University of Washington, 1987
Frontiers of Science Lecture - University of Florida, 1987
Eighteenth International Pediatric Congress - Keynote Speaker, 1986
Chief Guest and Keynote Speaker, 30th Aniversary of Indian Public Health Association - Calcutta,
India, 1985
National Convention on the Management of Health Systems - Convention Orator; Jaipur, India, 1985
P.D. Agarwal Memorial Oration - Calcutta, India, 1985
Oberlin College Sesquicentennial Speaker - 1983
Harvard Medical School Bicentennial Speaker - 1982
Rameshwar Sharma Oration - School of Medicine, Jaipur, India, 1981
Harben Lecture - Royal Institute of Public Health and Hygiene, London, 1980
Stephens Lecture - Oberlin, Ohio, 1980.
V.W. Scully Distinguished Lecture - Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, 1979
Joseph C. Wilson Lecture - Rochester, New York, 1979
Julia M. Jones Memorial Lecture - American Lung Association and American Thoracic Society, 1979
Merck Sharpe and Dohme Lecture - Canadian Public Health Association, Ottawa, Canada, 1977
James Bordley III Lecture - Mary Imogene Bassett Hospital, Cooperstown, New York, 1977
Jenner Memorial Lecture - Bristol (UK) Royal Infirmary, 1975
Commencement and Convocation Addresses:
San Diego State University School of Public Health - 1988
University of California (San Diego) School of Medicine - 1984
Michigan State University School of Medicine - 1984
University of Southern California School of Medicine - 1978
SENT BY: Olivetti FX 2100 ; 5-23-90 ; 12:27 ;
3019550258-
2023953261:# 6
-5-
APRIL 1990
PROFESSIONAL COMMITTEES: (Present)
World Health Organization
Expert Advisory Panel on Virus Diseases, 1976-
Committee on Orthopoxvirus Infections, 1981-
Consultant Group on Poliomyelitis Eradication, Chairman, 1988-
Pan American Health Organization
Technical Advisory Group on Immunization, Chairman, 1985-
American Journal of Epidemiology,
Board of Overseers, Associate Editor, 1965-1977; Chairman, 1984-
Editorial Advisory Board - Bibliography of Bioethics, 1979-
International Association for Maternal and Neonatal Health, Scientific Council, 1981-
Rotary Foundation of Rotary International, Polio Plus Advisory Committee, 1985-
Government Accounting Office
Advisory Board, Program Evaluation and Methodology Division, 1988-
U.S. Department of State
Advisory Committee on Oceans, Environmental and Scientific Affairs, 1988-
Department of Health and Human Services
National Vaccine Advisory Committee, 1988-1989; Chairman, 1990-
Secretary's Council on Health Promotion and Disease Prevention, 1989-
Association of Academic Health Centers
Task Force on Health Promotion / Disease Prevention, 1989-
"AIDS Patient Care" magazine - Editorial Advisory Panel, 1987-
United Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Association, Scientific Advisory Panel, 1988-
Institute of Medicine, Board on International Health, 1988-
Charles A. Dana Foundation Awards Jury, 1990-
Foundation for Development of International Health (Japan), Scientific Consultant, 1990-
BOARD OF DIRECTORS/TRUSTEES:
Indian Institute of Health Management Research, 1985-
Maryland Society for Medical Research, Inc., 1978-
Population Crisis Committee, 1981-
International Center for Diarrheal Disease Research (Dhaka), 1988-
Medical Alumni Association, Mary Imogene Bassett Hospital, 1989-
BIOGRAPHICAL LISTINGS:
Who's Who in the World
The International Who's Who
Who's Who in America
Who's Who in Frontiers of Science and Technology
American Men and Women in Science: Medical and Health Sciences
Dictionary of International Biography
SENT BY: Olivetti FX 2100 ; 5-23-90 ; 12:28 ;
3019550258-
2023953261:# 7
-6-
APRIL 1990
PROFESSIONAL COMMITTEES: (Past)
American Public Health Association
Committee on Hepatitis, Chairman, 1961-1965
Multiple Antigen Committee, 1964-1966
Epidemiology Section Council, 1965-1967
Surgeon General's Advisory Committees on:
Influenza, Secretary, 1961-1963
Measles Vaccines, Secretary, 1963
Immunization Practice, Secretary, 1964-1966
World Health Organization
Special Committee on Measles Vaccine, Consultant, 1963
Scientific Group on Human Virus Vaccines, Member, 1965
Global Commission for the Certification of Smallpox Eradication, 1978-1980
Program Advisory Group for the Prevention of Blindness, 1978-1982
Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases - Scientific and Technological Advi-
sory Committee, 1982-1984
Caribbean Epidemiology Center - Scientific Advisory Committee, 1980-1983
National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences
Board on Science and Technology in International Development, 1981-1983
Committee on Research Grants, 1982-83
National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine,
AID Health Strategy Study, Steering Committee, 1978
Steering Committee for the Study on Clinical Investigations in Developing Countries, 1978-1980
Advisory Committee on Health, Biomedical Research and Development, Chairman, 1981-1983
Steering Committee, Study of Tropical Diseases, 1984-1987
Government Accounting Office
Research and Education Advisory Panel to the Comptroller-General, 1977-1986
Department of Health and Human Services
PHS Hospitals ad hoc Advisory Committee, 1978
Secretary's Committee on Influenza, Vice-Chairman, 1979
National Ethics Advisory Board, 1977-1980
CDC Programs and Policy Advisory Committee, 1978-1980
Immunization Practices Advisory Committee, Centers for Disease Control, 1982-1986
Chairman, Mayor's Task Force on Environmental Carcinogens (Baltimore), 1977-1978
NASA- Planetary Protection Study Group, 1978
Executive Office of the President, Office of Science and Technology
Task Force for Science and Technology in Foreign Assistance, Chairman, 1980
Advisory Committee on Science, Technology and Development, 1978-1979
Consultant, 1978-1982
Harvard University,
Visiting Committee, University Health Services, 1981-1985
Burroughs-Wellcome Fund - Pharmacoepidemiology Awards Committee, 1983-1987
City University of New York Medical School, National Visiting Council, 1986-1989
Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Sciences,
Committee on the Evaluation of Poliomyelitis Vaccine, 1987-88
U.S. Agency for International Development
Research Advisory Committee, 1983-1990
PUBLICATIONS:
More than 100 scientific publications dealing primarily with smallpox eradication, epidemiology and
immunization.
SENT BY: Olivetti FX 2100 ; 5-23-90 ; 12:28 ;
3019550258-
20239532611# 8
February 1990
Book
Fenner, F, Henderson, DA, Arita, I, Jezek, 2, and Ladnyi, ID.
Smallpox and Its Eradication, published by World Health
Organization, 1988.
Book-Chapters (BC)
(1) Karzon, DT, Henderson, DA
Current Status of Live Attenuated Vaccines.
Advances in Pediatrics Volume XIV, 1966, PP. 121-200.
Year Book Medical Publishers, Inc.
(2a) Henderson, DA
Smallpox.
Maxey-Rosenau Preventive Medicine and Public Health, 10th
edition, edited by Sartwell, P.E.
Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1973, PP. 104-116
(2b) Henderson, DA
Smallpox.
Maxcy-Rosenau Preventive Medicine and Public Health, 11th
edition, edited by Last, J.M. New York.
Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1980, PP. 95-110.
(2c) Henderson, DA
Smallpox.
Maxcy-Rosenau Preventive Medicine and Public Health, 12th
edition, edited by Last, J.M. Appleton-Century-Crofts,
1985, PP. 129-138.
(3a) Henderson, DA
Smallpox.
Epidemiology and Community Health in Warm Climate
Countries. Edited by Russell and Standard. Churchill
Livingstone, Edinburgh, 1976, PP. 160-167.
(3b) Henderson, DA
Smallpox.
Epidemiology and the Community Control of Disease in Warm
Climate Countries, edited by Robinson. Churchill
Livingstone, Edinburgh, 1985, PP. 249-261.
(4a) Henderson, DA
Variola and Vaccinia.
Cecil Textbook of Medicine, 16th edition, edited by
Wyngaarden, J.B. and Smith, L.H. W.B. Saunders,
Philadelphia, 1982, PP. 1658-1663.
(4b) Henderson, DA
Variola and Vaccinia.
Cecil Textbook of Medicine, 17th Edition, edited by
Wyngaarden, J.B. and Smith, L.H. W.B. Saunders,
Philadelphia, 1985, PP. 1724-1728.
SENT BY: Olivetti FX 2100 ; 5-23-90 ; 12:29 :
3019550258-
2023953261:# 9
-2-
February 1989
(4c) Henderson, DA
Variola and Vaccina.
Cecil Textbook of Medicine, 18th Edition, edited by
Wyngaarden, J.B. and Smith, L.H., W.B. Saunders,
Philadelphia, 1988 (in press).
(5) Henderson, DA
Smallpox: Eradication of a Killer.
Encyclopedia Brittanica, Medical and Health Annual -
1979, PP. 125-144.
(6) Henderson, DA
Explicit Goals for Prevention and Public Health.
Working for & Healthier America, edited by McNerney,
W.J., PP. 87-94. Ballinger Publishing Co., Cambridge,
1980.
(7) Henderson, DA
Lessons from The Smallpox Eradication Experience in Medicine,
Science, and Society, edited by K.J. Issalbacher, John Wiley
and Sons, New York, PP. 715-726.
(8) Foege, WH and Henderson, DA
Management Priorities in Primary Health Care in Selective
Primary Health Care Intervention, edited by Walsh, J.A.,
Warren, K.S. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago and
London, PP. 313-321.
(9) Henderson, DA
Smallpox and Vaccinia in Vaccines, edited by Plotkin, S. and
Mortimer, T., PP. 8-30. W.B. Saunders Company, 1987.
(10) Warren, KS, Bundy, DAP, Anderson, RM, Jamison, DT, Davis, A,
Senft, A, Prescott, NM, Henderson, DA
Helminth Infections.
Chapter in Evolving Health Sector Priorities in
Developing Countries, December, 1989.
SENT BY: Olivetti FX 2100 ; 5-23-90 ; 12:29 :
3019550258-
2023953261:#10
February 1990
Scientific Papers
(1) Armijo, R, Henderson, DA, Timothee, R, Robinson, HB
Food Poisoning Outbreaks Associated with Spray-Dried Milk - An
Epidemiological Study.
Am. J. of Public Health 47:1093-1100, 1957.
(2) Poskanzer, DC, Henderson, DA, Kunkle, EC, Kalter, SS, Clement, WB
and Bond, JO
Epidemic Neuromyasthenia, An Outbreak in Punta Gorda, Florida,
New Eng. J. Medicine 257:356-364, 1957.
(3) Clement, WB, Henderson, DA, Lawrence, JW and Bond, JO
Epidemic Neuromyasthenia, An Outbreak in Punta Gorda,
Florida - An Illness Resembling Iceland Disease.
J. Florida State Med. Assoc. 45:422-426, 1958.
(4) Henderson, DA and Shelokov, A
Medical Progress: Epidemic Neuromyasthenia-Clinical Syndrome.
New Eng. J. Med. 260:757-764, 814-818, 1959.
(5) Henderson, DA and Hawn, CVZ
The Epidemiology of Antibiotic-Resistant Staphylococci in the
Community.
Surg. Clinics of North America, 40:971-982, 1960.
(6) Trotter, Y, Dunn, FL, Drachman, RH, Henderson, DA, Pizzi, M and
Langmuir, AD
Asian Influenza in the United States, 1957-1958.
Am. J. Hyg. 70:34-50, 1959.
(7) Quirce, JM, Vargas-Mendez, o, Nunez, J, Montoya, JA, Brody, J,
Henderson, DA and Martins da Silva, M
Vaccination with Attenuated Polioviruses in Costa Rica.
First International Conference of Live Poliovirus
Vaccine, Scientific Publication No. 44, Pan American
Sanitary Bureau, 1959, PP. 510-513.
(8) Dull, HB, Jensen, KE, Rakich, JH, Cohen, A, Henderson, DA and
Pirkle, CI
Monovalent Asian Influenza Vaccine. Evaluation of Its Use
during Two Waves of Epidemic Asian Influenza in Partly
Immunized Penitentiary Population.
J. Amer. Med. Assoc. 172:1223-1229, 1960.
(9) Aach, RD, Elsea, WR, Lyerly, JL and Henderson, DA
Efficacy of Varied Doses of Gamma Globulin During an Epidemic
of Infectious Hepatitis, Hoonah, Alaska, 1961.
Am. J. Pub. Health 53:1623-1629, 1963.
(10) Langmuir, AD, Henderson, DA, Serfling, RE, Sherman, IL
The Importance of Measles as a Health Problem.
Am. J. Pub. Health 52 (Supp.) :1-3, 1962.
SENT BY: Olivetti FX 2100 ; 5-23-90 : 12:29
:
3019550258-
2023953261:#11
-2-
February 1990
(11) Guinee, VF, Casey, HL, Ruthig, DW, Henderson, DA, et al.
A Collaborative Study of Measles Vaccines in Five United
States Communities.
Am. J. Pub. Health 53:645-651, 1963.
(12) Henderson, DA, Witte, JJ, Morris, L, Langmuir, AD
Paralytic Disease Associated with Oral Polio Vaccines.
J. Amer. Med. Assoc. 190:41-48, 1964.
(13) Langmuir, AD, Henderson, DA, Serfling, RE
The Epidemiological Basis for the Control of Influenza.
Am. J. Pub. Health 54:563-571, 1964.
(14) Henderson, DA
Viral Hepatitis: Experience in the United States.
The Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly XLIII (2):
Part 2:404-411, 1965.
(15) Foege, WH, Leland, os, Mollohan, CS, Fulginiti, VA, Henderson, DA,
Kempe, CH
Inactivated Measles Virus Vaccine.
Pub. Health Reports 80:60-64, 1965.
(16) Joseph, PR, Millar, JD, Henderson, DA
An Outbreak of Hepatitis Traced to Food Contamination.
New Eng. J. Med. 273:188-194, 1965.
(17) Dizon, JJ, Alvero, MG, Joseph, PR, Tamayo, JF, Mosley, WH,
Henderson, DA
Studies of Cholera E1 Tor in the Philipines.
1. Characteristics of Cholera El Tor in Negros Occidental
Province, November 1961 to September 1962.
Bull. Wld. Hlth. Org. 33:627-636, 1965.
(18) Joseph, PR, Tamayo, JF, Mosley, WH, Alvero, MG, Dizon, JJ,
Henderson, DA
Studies of Cholera El Tor in the Philippines. 2. A
Retrospective Investigation of an Explosive Outbreak in
Bacolod City and Talisay, November 1961.
Bull. Wld. Hlth. Org. 33:637-643, 1965.
(19) Tamayo, JF, Mosley, WH, Alvero, MG, Joseph, PR, Gomez, CZ,
Montague, T, Dizon, JJ, Henderson, DA
Studies of Cholera E1 Tor in the Philippines.
3. Transmission of Infection among Household Contacts of
Cholera Patients.
Bull. Wld. Hlth. Org. 33:645-649, 1965.
(20) Mosley, WH, Alvero, MG, Joseph, PR, Tamayo, JF, Gomez, CZ,
Montague, T, Dizon, JJ, Henderson, DA
Studies of Cholera El Tor in the Philippines.
4. Transmission of Infection among Neighborhood and Community
Contacts of Cholera Patients.
Bull. Wld. Hlth. Org. 33:651-660, 1965.
SENT BY: Olivetti FX 2100 ; 5-23-90 ; 12:30 ;
3019550258-
2023953261;#12
-3-
February 1990
(21) Guinee, VF, Henderson, DA, Casey, HL, Wingo, ST, Ruthig, DW, et al.
Cooperative Measles Vaccine Field Trial. I. Clinical
Efficacy. II. Serological Studies.
Pediatrics 37:649-665, 1966.
(22) Witte, JJ, Henderson, DA
The Cerebrospinal Fluid in Type III Poliomyelitis.
Am. J. Epidemiology 83:189-195, 1966,
(23) Morris, L, Witte, JJ, Gardner, P, Miller, G, Henderson, DA
Surveillance of Poliomyelitis in the United States, 1962-1965.
Pub. Health Reports 82:417-428, 1967.
(24) Neff, JM, Lane, JM, Pert, JH, Moore, R, Millar, JD, Henderson, DA
Complications of Smallpox Vaccination. I. National Survey in
the United States, 1963.
New Eng. J. Med. 276:125-132, 1967.
(25) Neff, JM, Levine, RH, Lane, JM, Ager, EA, Moore, H, Rosenstein, BJ,
Millar, JD, Henderson, DA
Complications of Smallpox Vaccination. II. Results Obtained
by Four Statewide Surveys.
Pediatrics 39:916-923, 1967.
(26) Miller, G, Gale, J, Villarejos, V, James, W, Arteaga, CG, Casey, H,
Henderson, DA
Edmonston B and Further Attenuated Measles Vaccine - A Placebo
Controlled Double Blind Comparison.
Am. J. Pub. Health 57:1333-1340, 1967.
(27) Henderson, DA
Smallpox Eradication and Measles-Control Programs in West and
Central Africa - Theoretical and Practical Approaches and
Problems.
Industry and Tropical Health VI, 112-120, Harvard School
of Public Health, Boston, 1967.
(28) Arita, I, Henderson, DA
Smallpox and Monkeypox in Primates.
Primates in Medicine 3:122-123, 1969.
(29) Gelfand, HM, Henderson, DA
A Program for Smallpox Eradication and Measles Control
throughout West Africa.
J. of International Health 2:24-33, 1966.
(30) Arita, I, Henderson, DA
Smallpox and Monkeypox in Non-Human Primates.
Bull. Wld. Hlth. Org. 39:277-283, 1968.
(31) Henderson, DA
La Evaluacion en los Programas de Vacunacion.
Boletin de la Oficina Sanitaria Panamericana 66:426-434,
1969.
SENT BY: Olivetti FX 2100 ; 5-23-90 ; 12:30 ;
3019550258-
2023953261:#13
-4-
February 1990
(32) Millar, JD, Roberto, RR, Wulff, H, Wenner, HA, Henderson, DA
Smallpox Vaccination by Intradermal Jet Injection.
Bull. Wld. Hlth. Org. 41:749-760, 1969.
(33) Henderson, DA
The Status of the Global Smallpox Eradication Programme in
September, 1969.
Proceedings of Symposium on Smallpox, Yugoslav Academy of
Arts and Sciences, Zagreb, 23-35.
(34) Arita, I, Henderson, DA
Freeze-dried Vaccine for the Smallpox Eradication Programme.
Proceedings of Symposium on Smallpox, Yugoslav Academy of
Arts and Sciences, Zagreb (1969), 39-50.
(35) Henderson, DA
Control and Eradication of Smallpox.
Tropical Doctor 1:33-35, 1970.
(36) Henderson, DA
Smallpox Surveillance in the Strategy of Global Eradication.
Health Centre Journal 12:59-66, 1970.
(37) Wehrle, PF, Posch, J, Richter, KH, Henderson, DA
An Airborne Outbreak of Smallpox in a German Hospital and its
Significance with Respect to Other Recent Outbreaks in Europe.
Bull. Wld. Hlth. Org. 43:669-679, 1970.
(38) Henderson, DA, Labusquière, R, Millar, JD, N'Dow, PJ, Nicholas, CC,
Rey, M, Ristori, C, Sulianti-Saroso, J
Design for Immunization Programs in the Developing Countries.
International Conference on the Application of Vaccines
against Viral, Rickettsial and Bacterial Diseases of Man.
PAHO (Washington) (1971) 626-635 and Pediatrica Indonesia
12:408- 426, 1972.
(39) Henderson, DA
Smallpox: The Problem.
International Conference on the Application of Vaccines
against Viral, Rickettsial and Bacterial Diseases of Man.
PAHO (Washington) (1971) 139-143.
(40) Henderson, DA
Epidemiology in the Global Eradication of Smallpox.
Intl. J. Epidemiology 1:25-30, 1972.
(41) Henderson, DA
Smallpox Vaccination.
Proceedings of the Seminar on Vaccination in Africa.
Centre International de l'Enfance (Paris), 1971,
PP. 44-46.
SENT BY: Olivetti FX 2100 ; 5-23-90 ; 12:31 ;
3019550258-
2023953261:#14
-5-
February 1990
(42) Henderson, DA, Arita, I
Monkeypox and its Relevance to Smallpox Eradication.
WHO Chronicle 27:145-148, 1973.
(43) Henderson, DA
La Variola.
Medecine et Hygiene 31:709-719, 1973.
(44) Henderson, DA
Eradication of Smallpox: The Critical Year Ahead.
Proc. Royal Soc. 66:493-500, 1973.
(45) Henderson, DA
Genesis, Strategy and Progress of the Global Smallpox
Eradication Program.
J. Communicable Dis. 6:155-159, 1974.
(46) Foege, WH, Millar, JD, Henderson, DA
Smallpox Eradication in West and Central Africa.
Bull. Wld. Hlth. Org. 52;209-222, 1975.
(47) Henderson, DA
Global Smallpox Eradication Programme.
Swasth Hind 19:116-118, 1975.
(48) Henderson, DA
Smallpox Eradication - the Final Battle (Jenner Lecture).
J. Clinical Pathology, 28:843-849, 1975.
(49) Henderson, DA
Surveillance of Smallpox.
Intl. J. Epidemiology 5:19-28, 1976.
(50) Henderson, DA
Current Status of Smallpox in the World.
J. Com. Dis. 7:165-170, 1975.
(51) Henderson, DA
The Eradication of Smallpox.
Scientific American 235:25-33, 1976.
(52) Arita, I and Henderson, DA
Monkeypox and Whitepox Viruses in West and Central Africa.
Bull. Wid. Hlth. Org. 53:347-353, 1976.
(53) Henderson, DA
Smallpox Eradication.
Proc. R. Soc., London, 199:83-97, 1977.
(54) Henderson, DA
History of Smallpox Eradication.
Times, Places, and Persons (Supplement to the Bulletin of
The History of Medicine), edited by A.M. Lilienfeld,
Johns Hopkins Press, 1980, PP. 99-108.
SENT BY: Olivetti FX 2100 ; 5-23-90 ; 12:31 :
3019550258-
2023953261:#15
-6-
February 1990
(55) Henderson, DA
The Saga of Smallpox Eradication and Beyond (James Bordley III
Lacture).
Occasional Papers. The Mary Imogene Bassett Hospital,
Cooperstown, New York, 1977.
(56) Henderson, DA
The Saga of Smallpox Eradication: An End and a Beginning.
Canadian J. of Public Health 70:21-27, 1979.
(57) Henderson, DA
Mobilization of Health Manpower to meet health needs: Lessons
learned from the Smallpox Eradication Program.
Human Resources for Primary Health Care in the Middle
East, PP. 140-150, Amer. U. of Beirut, Lebanon, 1980.
(58) Henderson, DA
Landmarks in American Epidemiology: Smallpox Eradication.
Public Health Reports 95:422-426, 1980.
(59) Henderson, DA
Strategy and Development of Global Smallpox Eradication
Campaign.
J. of International Society for Tropical Medicine and
Malaria (in press).
(60) Henderson, DA
The Deliberate Extinction of a Species (Harben Lecture).
American Philosophical Society, 126:461-471, 1982.
(61) Henderson, DA
Expanding Horizons on a Diminishing Planet.
Pediatrics. 61:770-774, 1981.
(62) Henderson, DA
Primary Health Care as & Practical Means for Measles Control.
Reviews of Infectious Diseases 5:606-607, 1983.
(63) Henderson, DA
Education has an Urgent Need for Redirection.
Oberlin College Sesquicentennial Papers, Oberlin Alumni
Magazine, PP. 20-22.
(64) Henderson, DA
Public Health Training for Physicians From Abroad: Current
Problems and a Look at the Future.
Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates,
Public Health Workshop, April, 1984.
(65) Henderson, DA and Arita, I
Utilization of Vaccine in the Global Eradication of Smallpox
in Vaccinia Viruses as Vectors for Vaccine Antigens, Elsevier,
New York, 1985, pp. 61-67.
SENT BY: Olivetti FX 2100 ; 5-23-90 : 12:32 ;
3019550258-
2023953261:#16
-7-
February 1990
(66) Henderson, DA
Challenge and Change in our Health Systems.
Jaipur, India, October 25, 1985 (in press).
(67) Henderson, DA
Public Health and Virus Diseases.
Indian Journal of Public Health, 39:223-225, 1985.
(68) Henderson, DA
P.D. Agarwal Memorial Oration.
Calcutta, India, October 1985.
(69) Henderson, DA
Principles and Lessons from The Smallpox Eradication Programme
Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 65 (4) 535-546
(1987).
(70) Henderson, DA
Application and Problem Solving in Health Research for the
Developing Countries.
Independent International Commission on Health Research
for Developing Countries, Geneva, July 1987 (in press).
(71) Henderson, DA and Sorensen, AA
Relationship Between the Work Setting and Professional
Education in Public Health, IOM, March 1987 (in press).
(72) Henderson, DA
Eradication of Infectious Diseases: Utopian or Realistic?
Ernst Jung Prize Symposium, 1987 (in press).
(73) Henderson, DA
Session I: Strategies for Vaccine Delivery: Introduction
Reviews of Infectious Diseases, Volume II, Supplement 3,
May-June 1989, 1987 (in press).
(74) Henderson, DA
New Dimensions in International Health
Reviews of Infectious Diseases, 1987 (in press).
(75) Henderson, DA
Child Survival Revolution
Bellagio III Conference, March 12, 1988 (in press).
(76) Henderson, DA
The Child Survival Revolution
Pediatric Research, 1987 (in press).
(77) Mosley, WH, Henderson, DA
International Health in Development in the 1990s,
Issues in Science and Technology 1988 (in press).
SENT BY: Olivetti FX 2100 ; 5-23-90 ; 12:32 ;
3019550258-
2023953261:#17
-8-
February 1990
(78) Henderson, DA
Defining Global Medical Education Needs
Academic (1989) Medicine, Volume 64, Number Five Supplement, 59-S12
(79) Henderson, DA
Prevention Point-Counterpoint. Medical vs. the Public Health Model of
Am Journal of Preventive Medicine, 1989 (in press).
(80) Henderson, DA
Introduction to Session II: Strategies for Vaccine Delivery
Reviews of Infectious Diseases, 1989 (in press).
(81) Henderson, DA
Conference on Emerging Viruses
Surveillance Systems and Intergovernmental Cooperation
Washington, D.C., May 1989 (in press).
(82) Henderson, DA, Rakel, RE
The Worldwide Eradication of Smallpox
Houston Medicine, September 1989 (in press).
(83) Mosley, WH, Jamison, D, Henderson, DA
The Health Sector in Developing Countries: Problems for the
1990s and Beyond
Annual Review of Public Health, July 1989 (in press).
SENT BY: Olivetti FX 2100 : 5-23-90 ; 12:33 ;
3019550258-
2023953261:#18
February 1990
Other
(1) Henderson, DA
An End . and & Beginning.
World Health (Feb. -March, 1975), PP. 12-17.
(2) Henderson, DA
Smallpox Eradication - the Global Strategy.
World Health (October 1973) PP. 8-16.
(3) Henderson, DA
Smallpox . Death of a Disease.
National Geographic, December, 1978, PP. 796-805.
(4) Henderson, DA
Smallpox Shows the Way.
World Health (February, 1977) PP. 22-27.
(5) Henderson, DA
Smallpox Target Zero.
Rochester Review (Spring, 1980), PP. 2-5.
(6) Henderson, DA
A Victory for All Mankind.
World Health (May 1980), PP. 3-5.
(7) Henderson, DA
Commentary on the Feasibility of Eradication.
World Health Forum 2:482-484, 1982.
(8) Henderson, DA
Book Review of P. Razzell's Edward Jenner's Cowpox Vaccine:
The History of 1 Medical Myth.
J. Hist. Med. 37:236-238, 1982.
(9) Henderson, DA
Letter to the Editor: Global Measles Eradication.
Lancet, July 24, 1982.
(10) Henderson, DA
Smallpox After Eradication: Storing the Virus.
Encyclopedia Brittanica, Medical and Health Annual -
1980, PP. 254-256.
(11) Henderson, DA
Book Review of D. Baxby's Jenner's Smallpox Vaccine: The
Riddle of the Vaccinia Virus and Its Origin.
J. Hist. Med. 37:595-597, 1982.
(12) Henderson, DA
Continuing Education in Health Management.
Jaipur, India 1986 (in press).
SENT BY: Olivetti FX 2100 ; 5-23-90 : 12:33
;
3019550258-
2023953261:#19
-2-
February 1990
(13) Henderson, DA
Op-Ed: "How the U.S. Shortchanges World Health."
The Evening Sun, Friday, January 30, 1987.
(14) Henderson, DA
Stocks of Variola Virus.
American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 77, No. 2,
PP. 238-239, February 1987.
(15) Halsey, NA; Henderson, DA
Editorial: "HIV Infection and Immunization,"
New England Journal of Medicine, 316, PP. 683-685, 1987.
(16) Henderson, DA
The Lessons Learnt
World Health Forum, Vol. 8, 1987.
(17) Henderson, DA
Op-Ed: ... And for the World Health Organization, Washington
Post, June 17, 1987.
(18) Henderson, DA
Introductory Note to: "Outbreaks of Smallpox Due to
Variolation in China 1962-1965," American Journal of
Epidemiology, Vol. 128, No. 1, 1988.
(19) Henderson, DA
Poliomyelitis and Smallpox Eradication
World Health, 1989 (in press).
HENDERSON, DONALD AINSLIE, university dean: b. Cleve.. Sept. 7,
1928. 3. David Alexander and Grace Eleanor (McMillan) H., m. Nana Irene
Bragg. Sept. 1. 1951: children: Lagh Ainslie. David Alexander. Dougles
Bruce. B.A., Oberlin (Ohio) Coll.. 1950. D.Sc. (hon.), 1979, M.D., U.
Rochester (N.Y.), 1954. D.Sc. (hon.), 1977: M.P.H., Johns Hopkins U.,
1960: LL.D. (hon.). Marietta (Otuo) Coll.. 1978: D.Sc. (hon.). U. III., 1979,
U. Md., 1980: M.D. (hon.). U. Geneva. 1980: L.H.D. (hon.), SUNY. 1981;
D.Sc. (hon.), Yale U.. 1986. Diplomate: Am. Bd. Preventive Medicine.
Intern. then resident Mary Imogene Bassett Hosp., Cooperstown. N.Y.,
1954-55. 57-59. chief epidemic intelligence service Center Disease Control,
USPHS. Atlanta. 1955-57: chief surveillance sect. Center Disease Control.
USPHS. 1960-66: chief med. officer smallpox eradication WHO. Geneva.
1966-77; dean Johns Hopkins U. Sch. Hygene and Pub. Health. 1977-.
Contbr. articles to med. jours. Recipient Commendation medal USPHS.
1962. Disting. Service medal. 1976: -Erast Jung prize. 1976: award Govt.
India-Indian Soc. Malana and Other Communicable Diseases, 1975;
Rosenhaus internat. award for excellence. 1975; George MacDonald medal
London Sch. Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. Royal Soc. Tropical Medicine
and Hygiene. 1976: Health medal Govt. Afghanistan. 1976; Spl. Albert
Lasker Pub. Health Service award for WHO. 1976: Public Welfare medal
Nat. Acad. Scis.. 1978. Joseph C. Wilson award in internat. affairs. 1978;
James D. Bruce Meml. sward. 1978: 50th Anniversary Disting. Service
award Blue Cross-Blue Shield. 1979; medal for contons. to health Govt. of
Ethiopia. 1979; Outstanding Alumnus award Delta Omega. 1980: Disting.
Alumnus award Johns Hopkins U.. 1982: Internat. Ment award Gairdner
Found.. 1983; Albert Schweizer Internat. prize for medicine. 1985; Nat.
Medal Sci., 1986; Richard T. Hewitt award Royal Soc. Medicine. 1986,
Charles Dana Found.award for Pioneering Achievement in Health. 1986;
Japan prize in Preventative Medicine. 1988. Fellow Nat. Acad. Arts and
Seis., Am. Acad. Pediatrics (hon.), Royal Coll. Physicians U.K. (bon.); mem.
Nat. Acad. Arts & Scis., Inst. Medicine Nat. Acad. Scis., Am. Public Health
Assn.. Internat. Epidemiol. Assn.. Royal Coll. Physicians (Edinburgh),
Royal Soc. Tropical Medicine and Hygene. Indian Soc. Malaria and Other
Communicable Diseases Home: 3802 Greenway Baltimore MD 21218 Of-
fice John Hopkins U Sch Hygiene Pub Health 615 N Wolfe St Baltimore
MD 21205
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
July 11, 1990
MEMORANDUM FOR SECRETARY JAMES
WATKINS
FROM:
D. ALLAN BROMLEY
Duan
SUBJECT:
BASIC RESEARCH
You perhaps will recall from a decade or so ago when a group at MIT, under the
auspices of the Club of Rome, carried out a major computer-base study that
culminated in a publication entitled The Limits of Growth. In many ways it was the
ultimate illustration of the famous garbage-in-garbage-out rule of computer usage.
The first group that really pointed this out in detail and published a book in
response entitled The Limits of Doom was the science policy research unit at the
University of Sussex in England.
Recently under a grant from the National Science Foundation, John Irvine, Ben
Martin, and Phoebe Isard, who are members of this research unit, have undertaken a
study of how the U.S. Government supports academic research and in particular, how
competitive from an international point of view that support is at the present time.
Erich Bloch recently sent me a copy of the paper that the group has produced and
points out that there are two very important conclusions. They are the following:
1. In relation to its size and wealth, the United States invests less overall in
academic and related research than leading scientific nations in Western
Europe with the apparent shortfall being largest in the physical sciences.
2. While the U.S. is still the predominant world player in academic research,
if life science is excluded, however, or if expenditure is normalized for
difference in population, then the U.S. compares less favorably with the
European countries.
I believe that both of these conclusions are matters of serious concern for us in the
United States. We have long recognized that by any of the usual measures, such as
fraction of gross national product and the like, our support of research and
development overall is substantially less than that in Germany or Japan. What we
have not recognized prior to this report was that the situation is more broadly based
in Europe when we focus on academic research in comparison with the United States.
It is also the case that once we face the European community in 1992, where there is
substantial discussion and consensus building internal to the EC, I expect us to find
ourselves crunched evermore effectively between Japan on the one side with the other
Pacific Rim nations accelerating rapidly, and the European Community on the other.
This document from the University of Sussex simply underscores the conviction that I
think we share that we, as a nation, are under-investing in research and development
generally and in the support of academic research, particularly in the physical
sciences.
I though that you would find this report interesting.
Enclosure
IS US GOVERNMENT SUPPORT FOR ACADEMIC AND
RELATED RESEARCH INTERNATIONALLY COMPETITIVE?
John Irvine, Ben R. Martin and Phoebe A. Isard
Abstract
In relation to its size and wealth, the United states invests less overall
in academic and related research than leading scientific nations in Western
Burope, with the apparent shortfall being largest in physical sciences.
New technologies are increasingly crucial to a nation's economic
prosperity. Because many of these technologies depend on the results of
science, basic research seems set to play a fundamental role in economic
and social development.1 Sence, the zajor industrial nations (and those
that aspire to greatness) are all investing heavily in basic research,
whether conducted in academic, government or industrial laboratories.
Responsibility for developing and maintaining the necessary science base at
present rests largely with federal and state governments rather than
industry. This raises two questions. First, how much should government
invest in research within universities and related laboratories? Given the
increasingly competitive nature of science as well as technology, funding
agencies need to know how their spending compares with that in other
nations, both in overall terms and at the level of specific fields.
second, what funding mechanisms are cost appropriate for supporting
academic and related research? For example, what emphasis do different
countries place on institutional core-funding of universities relative to
,,ecr-reviewed projects (or programmes) and intramiral work conducted within
agency laboratories? Such comparisons may provide scien insights into which
funding arrangements work most effectively.
In what follows, we examine the main trends in US government expenditure on
academic and related research between 1975 and 1987, looking at the
similarities and differences between the United States and five other
industrial nations (the United Kingdom, Federal Republic of Germany,
Netherlands, France and Japan). our analysis draws upon the findings of a
study undertaken for the National Science Foundation and the British
Advisory Board for the Research Councils' which reported comparable
John Irvine and Ben Martin are Senior Fellows of the Science Policy
Research Unit, University of Sussex, Brighton BNI SRF, England. Phoebe
Isard it now & Research Associate in the Department of Community Medicine,
University of adinburgh, Edinburgh EH8 9AG, scotland. No order of
seniority is implied by the author name-order.
2023203728
202 034 4034,5 4
-2-
figures on spending broken down into nine fields (e.g. physical sciences)
and forty subfields (e.g. chemistry) for each country. In addition, we
identify the factors underlying changes in the level and distribution of
academic funding by government using information from the published
literature and from interviews with agency officials and science-policy
specialists. Among the issues addressed are the political priority given
to basic science in general as well as to specific fields, and the
pressures underlying the restructuring of research-support mechanisms that
is underway in many countries. However, one question outside the study's
remit relates to the changing balance between private and public-sector
finance for academic research. When interpreting our results, therefore,
the reader needs to bear in mind not only that industrial funding varies
from country to country, but also that much academic research is supported
by charitable foundations, especially in the biomedical and health fields.
Approach
Disaggregated data were compiled for three categories of expenditure: (a)
academic research financed through general university funds given to
institutions by federal or state governments; (b) academic separately
budgeted research provided in the form of grants, contracts and other
finance earmarked for specific research projects by public-sector funding
agencies; and (c) academically related research undertaken outside
universities in (1) national or international laboratories operating
central facilities for use by scademic scientists (e.g. Fermilab or the
National Optical Astronomy Observatory), and (11) institutes financed
primarily through government core-funding which are engaged in longer-term
basic research similar to that conducted within universities in other
nations (e.g. the intramural programs of the National Institutes of
Health).
As can be seen from Figure 1, coverage of academically related research
includes certain types of expenditure by Federally Funded R&D Centers
(FFRDCs) and research council establishments in Europe together with basic
work in agricultural and medical laboratories, many of which have a role in
postgraduate training. Academically related research can be viewed partly
as a residual category enabling funding for functionally equivalent
organizations formally outside universities to be taken into account, hence
ensuring that the financial statistics for different countries are truly
comparable. This helps overcome a major limitation with data from the
-3-
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Such figures
are widely used in international comparisons of academic research, but
reflect the varying definitions of the higher education sector exployed in
different countries. For example, the OECD statistics cover only
doctorate-granting universities in the Netherlands, while junior and
technical colleges are included for Japan and the US figures even encompass
mission-oriented FFRDCS such as Los Alamos.
To compare trends in real terms from 1975 to 1987, expenditures for earlier
years were converted to 1987 prices using the OECD deflators for gross
domestic products. Although this procedure may understate the rate of
inflation for research costs', especially in fields where there has been a
significant increase in the sophistication of experimental equipment and
facilities, the lack of internationally comparable R&D deflators means
there is currently no alternative. National currencies were then converted
into US dollars. Since official exchange rates fluctuate appreciably and
rarely represent actual domestic spending power or labour costs, we have
relied mainly on the 'purchasing power parity' (PPF) rates calculated by
OECD. However, economists differ over whether this represents the best way
to compare research expenditures so alternative figures based on average
official exchange rates (CERS) are also reported. Finally, in presenting
the results, we have frequently contrasted US spending with that for the
four European nations combined (henceforth termed 'Europe') which have a
not dissimilar aggregate population.
Trends in overall expenditure
Table 1 contains purchasing power parity-adjusted expenditure data broken
down into general university funds (GUF), separately budgeted research
(ASBR) and academically related research (ARR). Although OUT grew by over
50% in real terms in the United States between 1980 and 1987 (largely as a
result of increased institutional finance from state administrations), it
still represented only 20% of total academic and related research compared
with around 45% for 'Europe' and over 65% for Japan. At the same time,
'Europe' appears to have begun to move a little towards the US funding
model by giving less emphasis to GUT and more to project-based and other
earmarked research support for universities, all four countries witnessing
large increases of 20-40% in ASER since 1980. Nevertheless, US expenditure
-4-
on separately budgeted research ($9.9 billion in 1987) still dwarfed the
total for the four European nations ($2.5 billion), with Japan Car behind
($0.9 billion). In contrast, 'Europe' gave greater emphasis to
academically related research, spending $3.3 billion compared to $1.9
billion by the United States despite the faster growth evident over recent
years. for academic and related research combined, the total for the four
European countries in 1987 ($11.0 billion) was approximately three quarters
of the US figure ($14.9 billion), while Japan's was about one-quarter ($3.7
billion). However, if official exchange rates are used, 'European'
expenditure rises to $13.3 billion (i.e. much closer to the us total of
$14.9 billion which, by definition, remains unaltered). In addition, the
Japanese total increases to $5.5 billion, well over a third of the us
figure.
What do the statistics show when spending is adjusted for differing country
size and economic strength? One way to do this is to express the results
in terms of expenditure per capita. Figure 2 reveals that, for academic
and related research combined, US spending of $61 per capita in 1987 was
breadly comparable with that by 'Europe' ($60) on a purchasing power parity
basis. Although the Japanese figure of $31 was relatively low, it should
be stressed that a considerable proportion of government research support
is concentrated in mission-oriented laboratories falling outside our
definition of academically related research - for example, the R&D
institutes coming under the Ministry of International Trade and Industry.
(Furthermore, the apparent gap compared with the other nations narrows
considerably when official exchange rates are used, Japanese expenditure
rises from $31 to $45 per capita while the (unaltered) US figure ($61) is
now somewhat below the 'European' average of $71.)
The conventional approach to normalizing research expenditures for
differences in size of national economies is to express them as a
proportion of gross demestic product (GDP). Figure 3 shows that the United
States devoted 0.34% of GDP to academic and related research in 1987,
appreciably less than 'Europe' (0.47%). However, the us figure increased
by 12% during the 1980s whereas that of 'Europe' remained constant and
Japan's dropped from 0,26 to 0.23 as rises in research spending failed to
keep pace with rapid economic growth.
-5-
In short, allowing for variations in country size suggests that the United
States probably invested less relative to 'Europe' in 1987. Certainly,
when comparisons are made excluding life sciences (i.e. biological,
agricultural and medical research - areas where, as we show below, support
has been much higher than elsewhere), then us expenditure emerges as
appreciably lower than the 'European' average irrespective of whether
expressed in per capita or GDP terms.
Distribution across fields
Table 2 contains data on academic and related research expenditure in 1987
broken down by field. TO take engineering research first, us spending of
$2.0 billion was 40% greater than that for the European countries and more
than twice Japan's. The United States and 'Europe' both committed 13% of
their overall funds to engineering (including materials research), much
less than the 22% figure for Japan. In contrast, physical sciences (i.e.
physics, chemistry and astronomy) accounted for under 15% of the Japanese
total, well below the six-country average of 21%. The us emphasis on
physical sciences (16% of overall effort) vas also far lower than in the
European nations (25%). Indeed, this is the only major scientific field
where 'Europs' outspent the United States. The budgetary share received by
life sciences in the US (49%) was well above that in 'Europe' and Japan
(34% in both cases), reflecting the high level of funding for the National
Institutes of Health. However, government support for arts and humanities
($0.4 billion) was considerably less than in 'Europe', this being the
result of a difference in cultural priorities as well as the greater
emphasis on general university funding in Western Europe.
International comparisons of the distribution of research effort across
fields are made easier if WB consider the Relative Expenditure Priority
(REP) index shown in Figure 4. This is defined as follows:
REP for field A in country X -
1 share of field A in country X
1 share of field A for all six countries
Hence, for physical sciences where the US share (15.6%) was just under
three-quarters of the six-country average in 1987, one obtains an REP of
0.74. After increasing between 1975 and 1984, this figure began to slip
back. Engineering, professional/vocational studies (e.g. architecture,
SENT BY:
5-30-90 ; 15:57
2023283729-
202 634 4634;# 8
-6-
education, law, management science) and arts/humanities also had index
values well below 1.0, although in the first two cases there have been
modest increases since 1980. The largest improvement was in mathematics
and computer science where the REP rose to 0.90. By contrast, appreciable
declines were recorded in environmental and social sciences. As might be
expected, the field with the largest REP in the US is life sciences with
1.35 in 1987, followed by environmental sciences (i.e. atmospheric science,
geosciences and oceanography) with 1.20.
A similar analysis can be carried out at the subfield level, although with
a lower degree of statistical confidence. Among US priorities for academic
and related research in 1987 were eerospace engineering (with an REP of
1.8), materials research (1.6), biological sciences (1.4), agricultural and
medical research (both 1.3), psychology (1.3) and political science (1.3).
Lower priority areas included languages (0.3), history (0.4), astronomy
(0.4), sociology (0.4), and chemical and civil engineering (both 0.7). Also
well below 1.0 were physics (0.75) and chemistry (0.77) - in other words,
it would appear that physical science is given only just half the funding
priority of life sciences in the united States.
Research support mechani
Let us now turn to certain policy issues concerning research-support
mechanisms which have surfaced over recent years. within universities, a
central concern in Europe and Japan has been the balance between
general university funds (GUF) provided to institutions relative to finance
for separately budgeted research (ASBR). Table 3 shows how the proportion
of academic research accounted for by separately budgeted grants - i.e. the
ratio ASBR/(GUF + ASBR) - has varied over time. Since GUT is largely tied
to the salaries of tenured university faculty who often cannot easily
transfer from one field to another, this index may be regarded as an
indicator of the degree of 'flexibility' available to policy-makers to set
new research priorities in line with changing scientific or societal needs.
The top half of the table reveals appreciable increases in the index since
1980 for Britain, West Germany and especially the Netherlands. Although
the gap has narrowed, the French figure (0.51) remains higher since much of
the nation's academic research is supported through CNRS and other
agencies. The United States has by far the largest index value, primarily
-7-
because, unlike the others, it does not operate a formal dual-support
system for university research. However, there are signs of a change here
as state governments have begun to provide universities with increased
core-funding for facilities and infrastructure to help overcome problems
associated with over-reliance on generally shorter-term federal project
funding.
For agencies, an equally important question during the 1980s has been the
balance between expenditure on intramural laboratories (i.e. ARR) and
separately budgeted finance for university research (1.e. ASBR), especially
paar-reviewed grants for individual investigators. The lower section of
Table 3 relates to trends in the ASBR/ARR index - - that 18, ASER divided by
ASBR plus academically related research (ARR). Since intramural funding is
often linked to the support of permanent staff in laboratories while ASBR
mostly takes the form of shorter-term commitments, this ratio may again
give an indication of the 'flexibility' to redeploy resources. There has
been a rapid increase in the British and Dutch indices, bringing them up to
the French level of approximately 0.5. In the United States and Japan, the
ratio has historically been much higher (between 0.7 and 0.8) because
government-supported research is generally conducted either on university
campuses or in mission-oriented laboratories falling outside our definition
of academically related research (e.g. Los Alamos, Lawrence Livermore and
the Jet Propulsion Laboratory).
A US expenditure 'gap'?
Given the earlier indications of & shortfall in US spending on academic and
related research relative to 'Europe', it is worth exploring the nature and
magnitude of the difference in greater detail. Cne way to do this is to
express expenditures in each field as a ratio of the average for the four
European nations (the 'European' average) - that is, in terms of the
Relative European Funding Index (REFI) shown in Figure 5. This is defined
as follows:
REFI for field A in country X .
Spending on field A in country X
'European' average spending on field A
Thus, overall US funding of $61.1 per capita for academic and related
research in 1987 translates into a REFI value of 1.03 when compared with
the 'European' average of $59.5 (based on purchasing power parities). At
-8-
the level of fields, the index for the us was particularly high for life
sciences (1.48) and environmental research (1.26), with engineering (1.08)
also supported rather more generously than in 'Europe'. In contrast,
physical science was accorded lower priority (0.66) - less than social
sciences (0.77) and only slightly higher than professional/vocational
studies (0.62) and arts/humanities (0.40), fields traditionally receiving
the least government support in the United States. Mathematics and
computing fared just a little better with a REFI of 0.84 in 1987. These
figures again point to a difference in political and cultural priorities
between the two continents.
Given the wide range of REFT values in Figure 5, an obvious question is,
'Bow much more or less would the United States have to invest in order to
attain the 'European' level?' The results in Figure 6 indicate that
expenditure on life sciences in the US was no less than $2.4 billion
greater than the 'European' average in 1987. This was apparently at the
expense of physical sciences (with a funding 'deficit' of $1.2 billion) and
arts and humanities (where there was a $0.6 billion 'gap'). Indeed, for
all the main fields excluding life sciences, there was a net 'deficit' of
$2.0 billion compared to the 'Duropean' mean.
Similar calculations suggest that Japan would also need to spend vastly
greater sums to bring it up to the four-country average - perhaps of the
order of $3.5 billion per anmm according to this indicator - primarily on
physical and life sciences.
How has the 'gap' between the United States and 'Europe' changed over time?
As regards the funding for all fields combined, after worsening between
1975 and 1982, the situation then improved over the next five years.
However, if we examine the field breakdown, it is apparent that the
turnaround steas largely from increased funding for life sciences. In
contrast, the relative situation of the loast well-endowed area - physical
sciences - has scarcely changed since 1984. Figure 6 also reveals a
decline in the fortunes of social sciences (including psychology), which
slipped from being $220 million ahead of 'Europe' in 1975 to a position
where there was an apparent 'shortfall' of 5230 million in 1987 following
major cutbacks at the beginning of the decade.
Such per capita-based estimates of absolute funding 'gaps' clearly need to
be treated with greater caution than the earlier data relating to
differences in relative expenditure priorities across countries. In
particular, the statistical dangers invelved in relying on figures derived
by subtracting one large and uncertain number (for the United States) from
another (for the 'European' average) should be recognized. Nevertheless,
the example of the 'balance of payments gap' statistics in the field of
economics illustrates that there is sometimes little alternative but to
employ imperfect indicators of this sort in policy-making. In such
circumstances, the best that can be done to minimize the uncertainties is
to explore a range of indicators. The preference of certain politicians to
view spending on academic research as a 'consumption' item (i.e. a cultural
luxury which can best be afforded by more affluent nations), and not just
as an investment in the future, is another reason why one needs to consider
parallel statistics on funding differences calculated from comparisons of
expenditure expressed as a percentage of GDP.
The results in Figure 7 illustrate how important it is not to rely on a
single indicator in assessing the relative level of spending by the United
States. For all fields combined, adoption of a GDP-based approach points
to a considerably larger us 'gap' of $5.9 billion compared to 'Europe' in
1987. This is much the same irrespective of whether life science is
excluded, and compares with the non-life science 'shortfall' of $2.0
billion suggested by the earlier per capita figures. The reason for such a
discrepancy between the two estimates is not obvious (although the fact
that using official exchange rates rather than purchasing power parities
substantially reduces the divergence may be significant). Nevertheless, it
is clear that both sets of indicators show a large deficit in five of the
eight main fields. In other words, it would appear that the United States
invests proportionately less than 'Europe' in a wide range of academic
research areas, though life science is relatively well funded. Moreover,
there seems little doubt that the amount by which US spending lags behind
that of 'Europe' is considerable for physical sciences, our estimates
ranging from $1.2 to $2.7 billion in 1987.
Conclusions
Before summarizing the main findings, we must again emphasize the intrinsic
uncertainties involved in comparing spending levels across countries with
2023283729-
202 634 4634;#12
-10-
rather different systems for financing and conducting research. Any
attempt to assess the 'adequacy' of US funding relative to 'Murope' must
therefore allow for the fact that our figures exclude the growing sums
given to universities by industry and charitable foundations. Decisions on
funding policy also need to take into account other measures of scientific
activity such as numbers of researchers. Furthermore, indicators of
research output (e.g. publication data) and of scientific impact (e.g.
citation statistics) are often at least as important as those relating to
inputs.
with these provisos in mind, let us turn to the conclusions which may be
drawn. rirst of all, in terms of absolute spending, US support for
academic and related research in 1987 ($14.9 billion) was similar to the
combined expenditure of Japan and the four European nations ($14.7
billion). Hence, the United States is still by far the dominant world
player in the sphere of academic research. However, if life science is
excluded, or if expenditure is normalized for differences in population,
then the United States compares less favourably with the European
countries. Similarly, 'Europe' invests appreciably more in academic and
related research relative to GDP. Irrespective of the basis used for
comparison, Japanese spending has remained extremely low in international
terms. This is despite the government's expressed intention to strengthen
fundamental science in response to criticisms voiced especially in America
that Japan has been 'free-riding' on the scientific efforts of the United
States and Western Europe instead of contributing its 'fair share' of
resources to the support of basic research.
At the field level, the picture is more complicated as a result of the
dominance of US expenditure on life sciences in 1987, the figure of $7.3
billion amounted to 45% more than the total spent by the other five nations
combined. The effect of the expansion in NST support for engineering can
be seen in the gradual increase in the Relative Expenditure Priority (REP)
index, although it was still only 0.92 in 1987. Conversely, investment in
environmental sciences remained at a level 20% higher than the
international average in 1987 despite a decline in the field's share of
total US government spending in recent years.
While the low priority given to social sciences, professional/vecational
studies and arts/humanities is perhaps predictable, the relative funding
-11-
situation of physical sciences in the United states may cause some concern
not least because of the technological and economic significance of much of
the research within the field. In 1987, the Relative Expenditure Priority
index stood at 0.74, little higher than the value for Japan (0.69) and
considerably lower than for the Federal Republic of Germany (1.19) and
France (1.41). Furthermore, although the REP rose between 1980 and 1984,
it has since begun to fall back. At the subfield level, US expenditure
priorities include aerospace engineering, materials research, biological
sciences and medical research. In contrast, chemical and civil
engineering, physics, chemistry, astronomy and several humanities areas all
have low REPs.
As regards mechanisms for financing research, the United States relies
predominantly on separately budgeted grants, whereas the 'dual-support
system' operated in European countries results in academic research
receiving two-thieds of its finance through general university funding.
This may be one reason why concern about inadequate investment in
facilities and instrumentation has so far been more muted in Europe.
However, during time 1980s the Netherlands, United Kingdom and Federal
Republic of Germany have begun to move somewhat closer to the US model by
giving greater emphasis to separately budgeted funding. The hope is that
this will result in academic research becoming more responsive to changing
scientific and societal needs.
Finally, our analysis of differences in government funding across countries
suggests that overall spending by the United States at best matched that of
'Europe' in 1987. At worst, there was a sizeable funding 'gap'. While
life science was supported reasonably well, the indications are that
physical sciences received far lower support than elsewhere - by $1-2
billion less per annux relative to the 'European' average. of course,
there is no reason why the same disciplinary priorities should be adopted
in the United States as in 'Europe'. However, the magnitude of the
difference does suggest that US policy-makers should at the very least
reconsider whethe: existing priorities are in line with national needs.
Such a reassessment might possibly conclude that most of the existing
scientific advances over coming decades are likely to occur in new areas of
life sciences. This would imply that Europe is placing too much faith in
004
-12-
the physical sciences, having failed to recognize that the rapid rate of
advance seen in the post-war era is now slowing. However, an alternative
conclusion could be that the high political visibility of health research
is primarily responsible for the situation in which the agency responsible
for supporting this one field (i.e. the National Institutes of Health) has
a budget several times greater than that of the National Science Foundation
(whose task it is to support all areas of natural science, engineering and
social sciences). If so, a systematic appraisal of the country's social
and economic needs might well indicate that the balance of efforts between
physical and life sciences should be adjusted.
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge financial support from NSF (under Grant
No. SRS 8709101), the British Advisory Board for the Research Councils and
the UK Sconomic and social Research Council. The conclusions drawn,
however, are those of the authors alone and no endorsement of the findings
by any of the sponsors is implied.
References
1.
B.R. Martin and J. Irvine, Research Foresight: Priority-Setting in
Science, Finter Publishers, London (1989).
2.
J. Irvine, B.R. Martin and P.A. Isard, Investing in the Future: An
International Comparison of Government funding of Academic and Related
Research, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham (1990).
3. E. Mansfield, A. Romeo and L. Switzer, Research Policy, 12, 105
(1983).
-12-
Figure 1. Coverage of academic and related research in the six countries surveyedᵃ
Acknowledgements
General university
Academic separately
Academically related
funds (GUF)
budgeted research (ASBR)ᵇ
research (ARK)
The authors gratefully acknowledge financial support from NSF (under Grant
No. SRS 8709101), the British Advisory Board tot the Research Councils and
USA
institutional research
- federally financed academic research
-
academic research facilities provided by
funds in public doctorate-
(current and capital)
federally funded R&D centers (FFRDCs)
the UK Economic and Social Research Council The conclusions drawn,
granting universitles
state and local government financed
academically related research in
however, are those of the authors alone and no endorsement of the findings
- faculty salary contribution
academic research (current and
university administered FFRDCs
by public universities to
capital)
government-funded projects
- federal fellowship programmes
NIH intramural programs
by any of the sponsors is implied.
JAPAN
general finance for national
- Monbusho research grants to
- Monbusho intramural institutes
and public university faculties
national public and private
- basic research in national agricultural
including 'koza' funding)
universities
and medical institutes
References
-
institutional research finance
-
support for national and public
-
academically related research funded by
from government for private
university institutes
STA (e.g. at RIKEN)
universities
-
finance for joint-use' and Inter-
- international subscriptions
University Research Institutes
1.
B.R. Martin and J. Irvine, Research Foresight: Priority-Setting in
-
JSPS programs. fellowships and
Science, Pinter Publishers, London (1989).
studentships
-
contract research from central and
prefectural government agencies
2.
J. Irvine, B.B. Martin and P.A. Isard, Investing in the Future: An
International Comparison of Government Funding of Academic and Related
UK
- UGC-funded universities
- academic grants from the five
intramural research council
Research, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham (1990).
- polytechnics and Scottish
research councils (e.g. SERC)
work financed by the 'Science
central institutions
- government contract research
Vote'
- the Open University
-
Royal Society and British Academy
- international subscriptions
3.
E. Mansfield, A. Romeo and L. Switzer, Research Policy, 12, 105
grants and fellowships
(1983)
FRG
- universities
- academic grants from DFG and BMFT
- Max Planck institutes (apart
- integrated universities
- federal government contract research
from the fusion field)
- theological, arts and
- separately budgeted finance from
National Research Center
teacher-training colleges
state ministries
support for academic central facilities
- federal fellowship and doctoral
and/or fundamental science
studentship programs
- academically related 'blue list'
institutes and similar establishments
-
.
basic research in federal agricultural
laboratories
- various national academy programs
- international subscriptions
FRANCE
universities
separately budgeted Ministry of
- intramural CNRS and INSERM research
National Education funding
-
grandes écoles
basic research in INSERM. BRGM. IFREMER
various specialized doctorate-
-
CNRS support for associated
and INRA establishments
granting institutions
laboratories/teams at universities
-
various academically related institutes
grants from INSERM, INRA. IFREMER
(e.g. IRF and the Pasteur Institute)
and BRGM
international subscriptions
- other government grants and contracts
(e.g. from MRT)
NETHERLANDS
general funds for universities
- grants from research councils (NWO/
- intramural/academically related research
(including agricultural and
ZWO and STW)
financed by NWO/ZWO. STW and KNAW
technical)
- independent academic research
Ministry of Education and Science
- conditional financing for
institutes
Institutes
universities
Institute/Foundation for Educational
Institute of Applied Physics (TNO)
Research
- basic agricultural and health research
- government contract research
in MAF and TNO institutes
other academically related research in
government institutes
international subscriptions
OTES:
(a) Coverage relates only to the principal expenditure elements for each country and therefore excludes some minor
categories of spending.
(b) The generic term academic grants' in some cases covers not just project and program funding but also support
for fellowships and doctoral studentships.
FIG 2. TRENDS IN EXPENDITURE PER CAPITA
(In 1987 $ calculated using PPPs)
1987 $
80
0
60
40
20
0
1975
1980
1982
1984
1986
1987
UK
FRG
France
Neths
US
Japen
'Europe'
FIG 3 TRENDS IN EXPENDITURE AS % OF GDP
% of GDP
0.7
0.6
0
8
0.6
*
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
1976
1980
1982
1984
1986
1987
UK
FRG
France
Neths
US
Japan
'Europe'
FIGURE 4 RELATIVE EXPENDITURE PRIORITIES
FOR THE US (Breakdown by field, 1975-87)
REP
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Eng
Phys 8C Env sc Maths/comp Life SC Soc SC Pro/voc Arts/hum
1975
1980
1984
1987
FIGURE 5 RELATIVE EUROPEAN FUNDING INDEX
Breakdown by Field in 1987
REFI
2
1.5
1
0.6
0
Eng
Phys SC Env scMaths/compLIfe SC Soc SC Pro/voc Arts/hum
UK
FRG
France
Neths
US
Japan
FIGURE 6. US EXPENDITURE COMPARED WITH
'EUROPE' (per capita based divergence)
1987 M$ (Thousands)
3
2
1
0
- 1
-2
Eng
Phys SC Env scMaths/compLife SC Soc SC Pro/voc Arts/hum
1975
1980
1984
1987
FIGURE 7. US EXPENDITURE COMPARED WITH
'EUROPE' (Divergence on GDP basis)
1987 M$
500
0
-500
-1000
-1500
-2000
-2500
-3000
-3500
Eng
Phys SC Env scMaths/compL Ife SC Soc 3C Pro/voc Arts/hum
1975
1980
1984
1987
Table 1. Government funding of academic and related research (1987 Smillions)
s change
1975
1980
1982
1984
1985
1987
1980-87
UK
1,333
1,355
1,407
1,400
1,461
1,487
10%
FRG
2,037
2,040
1,928
1,992
2,047
2.125
4$
General
France
533
745
931
996
966
966
28%
university
Netherlands
624
55
706
620
613
591
-14%
funds
'Europe' subtotal
4,527
4,824
4,972
5,008
5,088
5,158
7%
(GLF)
US
1,775
2,056
2,184
2,509
2,872
3,097
51%
Japan
1,606
2,180
2,322
2,306
2,329
2,512
15%
UK
339
435
448
513
540
585
35%
FRG
577
589
575
591
699
730
24%
Academic
France
626
713
842
935
982
994
39%
separately
Netherlands
102
144
141
152
177
191
33%
budgeted
'Europe' subtotal
1,645
1,881
2,012
2,190
2,388
2,500
33%
research
(ASBR)
US
6,928
7,468
7,385
7,807
9,244
9,893
328
Japan
483
771
792
828
824
808
15%
UK
744
533
638
588
708
725
158
FRG
859
934
954
1,077
1,185
1,182
27%
Academi-
France
770
907
1.131
1,272
1,271
1,262
39%
cally
Metherlands
158
190
162
166
170
175
-7%
related
'Europe' subtotal
2,531
2,553
2,885
3,203
3,329
3,345
26%
research
(ARR)
us
1,057
1,325
1,337
1,795
1,875
1,915
38%
Japan
187
284
25B
284
317
335
18%
LK
2,417
2,422
2,493
2,801
2,704
2,797
15%
F16
3,473
3,563
3,455
3,651
3,921
4,037
136
France
1,929
2,355
2,911
3,203
3,219
3,212
36%
Total
Netherlands
884
1,018
1,008
937
MD
958
&
'Europe' subtotal
8,703
9,365
9,869
10,402
10,806
11,004
175
us
9,790
10,910
10,905
12,112
13,991
14,905
37%
Japan
2,276
3,235
3,373
3,418
3,470
3,735
15%
* Spending in national currencies was converted to us dollars using OECD
purchasing power parities' for 1987 calculated in early 1989.
Superceded Cy Figures 2 and 3
Table 2. Total government funding adjusted for country size
$ change
1975
1980
1982
1984
1985
1987
1980-87
UK
43.0
43.0
44.3
46.0
47.6
49.1
145
FRG
56.2
57.9
55.1
59.8
64.2
66.0
148
Replaced
France
36.6
43.9
53.4
58.3
$8.1
57.7
32%
PPP
Nether lands
64.7
72.0
70.4
65.0
65.9
$3
-9%
by
#
'Europe'
1
basis
50.1
54.2
56.1
57.3
59.0
59.5
10%
Figure 2
Expenditure
us
45.3
47.9
46.9
51.1
57.9
61.1
28%
per
Japan
20.4
27.7
28.5
28.5
28.6
30.6
10%
capita
(1987
UK
40.9
40.9
42.1
43.8
45.3
46.7
$
dollars)
FRG
77.1
79.4
76.9
82.1
88.1
90.5
14%
France
45.2
54.3
66.1
f2rt
71.8
71,4
N
DER
Metherlands
76.5
85.1
83.3
76.8
77.9
77.2
-98
Dropped
basis +
'Europe'
64.9
67.1
68.7
70.8
71.5
10%
US
45.3
47.9
46.9
51.1
57.9
61.1
28%
Japan
30.1
40.9
42.1
42.1
$2.2
45.2
10%
UK
0.439
0.005
0.418
0.413
0.402
0.398
&
FRG
0.556
0.484
0.472
0.479
0,490
0.495
&
Expenditure
France
0.355
0.373
0,443
0.477
0.462
0.433
21%
as a
Natherlands
0.611
0.618
0.625
0.556
0.543
0.532
-14%
Replaced
percentage
'Europe'
a
0.490
0.470
0,489
0.481
0.474
0.470
$
3 Figure
of GOP
us
0.315
0.299
0.300
0.300
0.325
0.336
12%
3
Japan
0.233
0.260
0.254
0.238
0.225
0.232
-11%
* Converted to US dollars using DECD 'purchasing power parities' (PPPs).
+ Converted to us dollars using CECD official exchange rates (CERs).
Unweighted average for the four European countries.
2
Table % Breakdown of academic and related research by field, 1987 (1987 $M) *
uk
FRG
France
Meths
'Europe'
us
Japan
Average +
Engineering
436
505
359
112
1,412
1,966
809
15.6%
12.5%
11.8
11.7%
12.8%
13.25
21.6%
14.3%
Physical aciences
565
1,015
995
208
2,743
2.325
543
20.2%
25.1%
29.7%
21.7%
24.9%
15.0%
14.5%
21.2%
Environmental sciences
188
183
172
27
570
859
135
6.7%
4.5%
5.35
2.8%
5.2%
5.85
3.75
4.8%
Maths and computing
209
156
175
34
574
595
$8
7.5%
3.75
5.45
3.5%
5.2%
4.0%
2.35
4.45
Life sciences
854
1,483
1,116
313
3,776
7,265
1,261
30.95
36.7%
34.7%
32.75
34.3%
48.9%
33.75
36.3%
Social sciences
187
210
146
99
a
754
145
(and psychology)
6.7%
5.25
4.6%
10.4%
5.86
5.1%
3.9%
6.0%
Professional and
161
203
67
82
513
490
369
vocational
5.75
5.0%
2.1%
8.5%
4.7%
3.35
9.9%
5.8%
Arts and humanities
194
251
218
83
736
411
BE
6.5%
6.2%
6.85
8.5%
6.7%
2.85
9.5%
6.8%
Multidisciplinary
5
32
3
1
12
217
28
0.2%
0.8%
0.18
0.15
0.45
1.5%
0.8%
0.6%
Total
2,798
4,037
3,212
968
11,005
14,904
3,735
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
* Converted US dollars using DECD 'purchasing power parities'.
+ Unweighted average for the six countries.
Replaced by Figure 4
Table 4. Trends in relative expenditure priorities for the united States, 1975-87
change
1975
1980
1982
1984
1985
1987
1980-87
Engineering
0.74
0.87
0.91
0.82
0.91
0.92
B3
Physical sciences
0.58
0.69
0.70
0.76
0.75
0.74
75
Environmental sciences
1.21
1.47
1.25
1.24
1.24
1.20
-18%
Figures used
Maths/conputer acience
0.60
0.78
0.80
0.88
0.91
0.90
16%
Life sciences
1.40
1.30
1.32
1.35
1.35
1.35
#
in Figure 4
Social act and psychology
1.52
1.20
1.01
0.89
0.55
0.35
-29%
Professionel/vocasional
0.50
0.51
0.52
0.57
0.55
0.57
11%
Arts and humanities
0.42
0.42
0.43
0.40
0.40
0.41
is
* The relative expenditure priority for field A in country X is defined as the
percentage share of spending by country X on field A divided by the average share
of spending by 812 six countries 6 field A,
3
X
Table 5. Changing enphesis on different research support Rechanisms, 1975-87
$ change
1975
1980
1982
1984
1986
1987
1980-87
UK
0.203
0.243
0.241
0.268
0.270
0.282
16%
BYS
0.221
0.224
0.230
0.229
0.252
0.256
145
ASBR/GUF
France
0.540
0.49
0.477
0,484
0.50%
0.510
45
1ndex
Nether Tands
0.141
0.173
0.165
0.197
0.224
0.244
41%
ASBR/(ASBRHOUF)
'Europe'
0.257
0.280
0.255
0.304
0.319
0.327
16%
US
0.796
0.784
0.772
0.757
0.753
0.762
is
Japan
0.231
0.261
0.254
0.264
0,251
0.261
03
UK
0.313
0.407
0.412
0.427
0.43
0.446
10%
E
0.402
0.387
0.375
0.354
0.35B
0.382
-18
ASBR/ARR
France
0.448
0.440
0.429
0.423
0.436
0.441
as
index
Metherlands
0.393
0.431
0.455
0.478
0.50D
0.521
215
ASBR/(ASBRHAR)
'Europe'
0.394
0.434
0.411
0,406
0.418
0,428
3%
us
0.854
0.844
0.847
0.813
0.831
0.836
-1%
Japan
0.721
0.731
0.754
0.744
0.722
0.725
is
Replaced by Figure 5
Table 6. Indicators of divergence in rational research expenditures in 1957 derived from
Relative European Funding Index (on a per Capita and PRP basis)
'European'
UK
FRG
France
Norths
us
Japan average +
Engineering
7.7
8.2
6.5
7.6
8.1
6.6
7.5
physical sciences
9.9
16.6
17.2
14.2
9.5
1
14.5
Environmental sciences
3.3
3.0
3.1
1.8
3.5
1.1
2.8
Expen-
Maths and computing
3.7
2.5
3.1
2.3
2.4
0.7
2.9
diture
Life sciences
15.2
24.2
20.1
21.4
29.9
10.3
20.2
Dropped
(1987
Social sc1 and psychology
3.3
3.4
2.6
6.8
3.1
1.2
4.0
$ per
Professionsl/vocational.
13
3.3
1.2
5.5
2.0
3.0
3.2
capita)
Arts and hunanities
3.2
4.1
3.9
5.6
1.7
2.9
4.2
Multidisciplinary
0.1
0.5
0.1
0.0
0.9
0.2
0.2
Total
49.1
65.0
57.7
65.3
61.1
30.8
59.5
Engineering
1.02
1.10
0.85
1.02
1.08
0.88
Physical sciences
0.69
1.15
1.19
0.98
0.66
0.31
Environmental sciences
1.18
1.07
1.10
0.65
1.26
0.40
Relative Maths and computing
1.26
0.87
1.08
0.79
0.84
0.25
European Life sciences
0.75
1.20
0.99
1.06
1.48
0.51
Funding
Social Et and psychology
0.81
0.85
0.65
Figures used
1.68
0.77
0.29
Index
Professional/vocetional
0.87
1.03
0.37
1.73
0.62
0.94
m Figure 5
(EFI)
Arts and humanities
0.77
0.97
0.93
1.33
0.40
0.69
Multidisciplinary
0.55
2.89
0.34
0.22
4,52
1.28
Total
0.83
1.11
0.97
1.10
1.03
0.51
Engineering
10
50
b
o
140
-110
Diver-
Physical sciences
-260
130
150
0
-1200
gence
Environmental sciences
30
10
20
-10
180
-210
from
Maths and conputing
40
-20
10
-10
-110
-270
expected
Life sciences
-290
250
-10
20
2360
-1210
expen-
Social sci and psychology
*
9
-80
40
-230
-350
Dropped
diture
Professional/vocationa)
-20
0
-110
8
-300
-30
(1987
Arts and hunanities
8
-10
-20
20
-620
-180
M$)
Multidisciplinary
0
20
-10
0
170
10
Total
-$90
390
-100
8
360
-3530
* Converted to us dollars using DECD 'purchasing power parities'.
+ Unwerighted average for the four European countries.
Because of rounding to the rearest no million. details my rot SUR to totals.
Replaced by Figures 6 and 7
Table 7. Indicators of divergence in US research expenditure for 1975-87 derived from 'Relative
European Funding Index'
Change
1975
1980
1982
1994
1986
1987
Since
1975
Engineering
-20
-$0
-150
-200
10
140
230
Physical sciences
-1700
-1500
-1550
-1310
-1220
-1200
300
Environmental sciences
8
220
110
90
170
180
i
Calculated
Maths and computing
-260
-220
-220
-180
-130
-110
110
Figures
2360
used
in
on 1 per
Life sciences
1380
870
730
1310
2000
1490
capita basis
Social sci and psychology
220
9
-20
-280
-250
b
-190
Figural
using pops +
Professional/vocational
-240
-320
-380
-340
-330
-300
20
Arts and humanities
-390
-520
-610
-650
-640
&
-100
Multidisciplinary
150
170
170
100
140
170
0
Total divergence"
-1030
-1430
-2130
-1470
-260
380
1810
Engineering
-700
-640
-700
-910
-TTO
-660
&
Physical sciences
-2930
-2710
-2700
-2720
-2690
-2720
-10
Environmental sciences
-180
0
-100
-200
-120
-120
-120
Calculated
Maths and conputing
-450
-420
&
-60
-40
b
-10
on a %
Life sciences
-170
-830
-960
-700
-100
230
1050
Fyure7
of GDP
Social sci and psychology
-50
-370
-690
-690
&
&
-300
basis
Professional/vocational
-40
-550
-600
-650
-680
-80
-90
Arts and hunanities
---
-80
-GSD
-1100
-1090
-1070
-230
Multidisciplinary
140
150
160
80
120
160
10
Total divergence
-540
-6220
-6860
-7340
-6460
-6930
290
* Expected expenditures were calculated using unweighted averages (1.e. not adjusted to take
into account the differing sizes of countries).
4 National currencies were converted to us dollars using CEOD 'purchasing power parities'.
Because of rounding to the nearest no million, details my not am to totals.
** TOTAL PAGE. 028 **
30.
90
02:57
PM
P27
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
July 13, 1990
File:
Watkins
Dear Jim:
This is a belated reply to your letter of June 6 concerning your thinking about DOE
support of individual investigators.
I am entirely in agreement with your feelings here and I would certainly be supportive
of an initiative on the part of DOE to bolster its support of such investigators, both
in the university and in the private sector.
I should tell you that for 30 years prior to coming to Washington I was a loyal
customer of DOE and was able to build the A. W. Wright Nuclear Structure
Laboratory at Yale from scratch with DOE support beginning back in 1963. Over
this extended period I had reason also to be involved with all the other Washington
funding agencies while I served as Chairman of Yale's Physics Department responsible
for some 5 to 7 million dollars worth a year in Federal grants and contracts. I can
tell you that consistently over this period working with DOE was vastly more
satisfying from the point view of a university researcher and administrator than was
the case with any other Washington agency. The people with whom we dealt in the
Office of Energy Research were uniformly of very high caliber and truly understood
what the nature of a university was and should be. This was anything but the case in
some of the other agencies.
I do believe that there is a level of pain in the community deeper than any I have
seen in the post-war period.
In substantial measure this reflects the fact that both NSF and NIH have in response
to perfectly reasonable requests from the community extended both the duration and
magnitude of their grants and contracts so that they have established an out-year
mortgage which this year has come home in a major way. Beyond that, it is
important to emphasize that the usually used parameter--the so-called success
rate--is very much open to manipulation. Over the past two years, for example, if we
focus only on the investigators who were successful in having an NSF proposal
funded, we find that on average these individuals submitted 1.9 proposals to NSF and
that their success rate in the usual measure was 150 percent, i.e., 50 percent of the
second proposals submitted by successful proposers were also funded.
Another manipulation comes in the reviewing and study group area. At NIH, for
example, a few years ago something approaching 67 percent of all the proposals
submitted were deemed excellent. Now the percentage exceeds 95 and I am quite
confident that this does not reflect a startling increase in the quality of the proposals
but rather an attempt on the part of people of good will to help the investigator
where they believe help is required.
I am strongly in favor of increased emphasis within DOE in this area. Just to give a
few numbers, in 1969, DOE and NSF jointly supported 90 small accelerator-based
projects at American universities with then AEC the dominant supporter. Currently
this number has shrunk to 11, with DOE supporting 5 and I am substantially worried
that the production line in the academic world for producing bright young scientists
in nuclear physics is slowly drying up. For the last many years my own old
laboratory at Yale turned out more PhDs in experimental nuclear physics than did
any other institution in the world, again with DOE support. While there has been a
perfectly natural trend on the part of university faculty members and students to do
some of their work at the facilities, primarily at the DOE national laboratories, it is
still true that students tend to be attracted by activities that take place on the home
campus and once attracted and given some training on that campus, they then can
quite profitably, in many cases, go off to take advantage of the superb facilities that
we have in the national laboratories. Lacking any home base, however, it is very
difficult to attract the best students.
While the emphasis in much of the discussion has been on individual investigators, I
would want to make a strong case for continued and perhaps emphasized DOE and
NSF support of small groups of university researchers who have chosen to pool their
resources and activities and function under block grants. This gives the researchers
supported under such grants a degree of flexibility that is simply not possible with
individual grants, and over a period of years makes it possible to build up a stable of
highly skilled technical support personnel as well as a reservoir of equipment and
instrumentation that again simply is not possible under the confines of an individual
grant or contract.
One of the major problems faced by university researchers in the recent past has been
the fact that with funding becoming increasingly tight individuals groups protected
their most precious resource, namely their people, associates and students, while
deferring any purchase of new equipment and instrumentation. That being the case,
it is now almost universally true that universities have far less modern and far less
extensive instrumentation for research than does the corresponding laboratory in the
industrial world. This in itself is making it increasingly difficult to retain students in
academia, following their education and training, where they are desperately needed as
members of a faculty that is soon to unravel as the large group of individuals first
given tenure in the late '50s and early '60s begin retiring as they are now doing.
DOE took a major leadership position in this area a few years ago, at least in the
nuclear physics field, and managed to provide a specific fund to improve the
instrumentation in the laboratories that it supports at universities. This made all the
difference in the world in the capability of these laboratories and, quite frankly, in
their ability to attract the best students. I saw this very clearly in my own
laboratory. I would think that expansion of such a program across the spectrum of
activities in DOE aimed at individual investigators and small groups of investigators
operating under block grants or contracts would bear handsome dividends.
In addition, a substantial expansion of DOE's support for individual and small group
investigators in the basic energy sciences, particle physics, and nuclear physics, would
assist in what I hope will be a government wide initiative to address the shortage of
funds for such support in Fiscal year 1992. This is a period when we as a nation in
our own self interest want to attract some of the brightest and best young people into
academic careers to train the next generation of young scientists and engineers. The
message that they are receiving from their mentors and from their own reading of the
tea leaves at the present time, is not an encouraging one. We have been losing many
of the people whom under normal circumstances we might have expected to stay in
academic positions. Anything that DOE can do in this way will certainly gain my
very strong support and it is my impression that Dick Darman and OMB will be very
interested in initiatives in this area because they too recognize that this is a serious
problem for the nation.
I congratulate you on this initiative as on so many others that you have undertaken
since you have taken up the leadership of the Department of Energy.
With warmest best wishes, let me know whenever I can be of help,
Sincerely yours,
Duau
D. Allan Bromley
Assistant to the President
for
Science and Technology
The Honorable James D. Watkins
Department of Energy
1000 Independence Avenue, Southwest
Washington, D.C. 20585
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
August 2, 1990
MEMORANDUM FOR C. BOYDEN GRAY
FROM:
D. ALLAN BROMLEY
Ann
SUBJECT:
OSTP ASSOCIATE DIRECTORSHIP FOR
THE LIFE SCIENCES
Again, at Chase Untermeyer's suggestion, I am writing to request that an
announcement of the President's intent to nominate Donald A. Henderson as the
OSTP Associate Director for Life Sciences be made as soon as possible.
A number of open issues were left when Jim Wyngaarden resigned July 1 to accept
the Foreign Secretaryship of the National Academy of Sciences and I would want to
bring Henderson on as a consultant to pick them up as soon as possible prior to
confirmation.
The announcement would again eliminate confusion and speculation.
Your help will be much appreciated.
cc: Chase Untermeyer
Mr. Campanello said.
Panel Says Nation Ha
WASHINGTON, Sept. 6 (AP) - If
global warming caused by human ac-
ing about these other costs," she WILL
tivity makes the world significantly
The panel recommended diversify-
hotter, the United States should still be
ing water supplies, Improving Insula-
tion in buildings and encouraging con-
ing
nonal able to no adapt at a reasonable cost, a
servation of as many animal species as
were like
sible as "a natural protection
by 2 to 9 at
inst surprises and shocks, climatic
middle of the nex
I
otherwise."
The adaptation
Ince climate change might force
Paul E. Waggoner, disting
be endangered species to migrate,
tist of the Connectlcut Agricu.
report said, "conservation efforts
periment Station in New Haven,
d to give more attention to corrl-
no cause for alarm. "The historic.
S for movement, to assisting species
evidence suggests that American
farmers can keep up with the gradual
a
urmount barriers, and to maintain-
specles when their natural environ-
climate change of the magnitude the
The
nts are threatened."
panel assumes," the report said., "The
in the gree.
he adaptation panel is one of four
capacity of humans to adapt is evident
cooling of the
a
in the rapid technological, economic
ald
imittees working together on a Na-
crush the upper
and political changes of the past. 90
States under ice."
Ated
al Academy of Sciences study of
policy implications of concern
years,". the panel sald. "The average
"None of the projected
of the
renewal period for machinery and
warming would make large a. as unin-
but herewith The article and
Retammendations ofthe NAS
Alan
ut global warming.
nother panel, one on "synthesis,"
equipment and the average age of
habitable," the committee wrote. "So
lished a report in April, saying the
buildings are one to three decades."
while we complain about the uncertain-
ty of warming by greenhouse gases, we
S1
ted States should take modest steps
Strain on Developing Countries
Imit production of greenhouse gas-
The report sald it might be harder
should not forget that It would make
111
despite uncertainty about the threat
for developing countries. to adapt to
any effects from cooling, which was a
subject. of some scientific, public and
8:01
lobal warming.
global warming. It encouraged "efforts
9:01
oth sides in the debate, those who
Congressional concern In the early
8:01
D:31
THE WHITE HOUSE
The Prepau, dings and
e Immediate action and those who
to advance regional mobility of people,
1970's, less likely."
11x
such measures are too costly con
gring the uncertainty, praised tha
7:0
ort and said It supported their argu
its.
reenhouse gases, like carbon diox
methane and chlorofluorocarbon
(Roter)
Ideathami The
Evan's subpand.
aperback-the
Reger Perter
sequel to Joshua
Joshua and the Children con-
his million-copy bestselling
When Joshua enters an ordi-
et with violence, he transforms
by working through the chil-
bite rival factions plotting to
good works, the way Is paved
: conclusion that turns into a
on of hope.
HUA
sensitive vayous.
Environmental Damage Likely
Eu
But the Texas Land Commissioner,
Wonthou W-+-L
Mr. Campanello said.
002
committed perjury at ms unal.
Indians, but 10 also brought advances, not De reached tor comment.
Panel Says Nation Has Ability to Adapt to Global Warming
WASHINGTON, Sept. 6 (AP) 1 If
global warming caused by human ac-
ing about these other costs," she wrote.
tivity makes the world significantly
The panel recommended diversify-
trap heat around the earth. The acade-
hotter, the United States should still be
ing water supplies, Improving Insula-
my's synthesis report said that grow-
capital and goods," better prepara-
able to adapt at a reasonable cost, a
tion in buildings and encouraging con-
Ing amounts of industrial emissions
tions for disaster and famine relief and
servation of as many animal species as
were likely to Increase temperatures
expansion of free-market economies,
I
sible as "a natural protection
by 2 to 9 degrees Fahrenbeit by the
so that changing prices can serve as
351
inst surprises and shocks, climatic
middle of the next century.
market signals that would encourage
C
otherwise."
The adaptation panel, headed by
people to adapt to global warming.
Sue
Ince climate change might force
Paul E. Waggoner, distinguished scien-
The committee concluded that even
Sw
be endangered species to migrate,
tist of the Connectlcut Agricultural Ex-
low-lying cities would be able to sur-
report said, "conservation efforts
periment Station in New Haven, found
vive global warming, but sald there
d to give more attention to corrl-
no cause for alarm. "The historical
seemed to be little that humanity could
Rt
S for movement, to assisting species
evidence suggests that American
do to help the marine environment
urmount barriers, and to maintain-
farmers can keep up with the gradual
adapt to climate change.
specles when their natural environ-
climate change of the magnitude the
The report also finds a silver lining
nts are threatened."
panel assumes," the report said., "The
in the greenhouse effect, saying that a
Septi,1991
he adaptation panel is one of four
capacity of humans to adapt is evident
cooling of the same magnitude "would
imittees working together on a Na-
in the rapid technological, economic
crush the upper Midwestern United
al Academy of Sciences study of
and political changes of the past, 90
States under ice."
policy implications of concern
years,". the panel sald. "The average
"None of the projected effects of the
but herewith The NVT article and
Alan
ut global warming.
renewal period for machinery and
warming would make large areas unin-
nother panel, one on "synthesis,"
equipment and the average age of
habitable," the committee wrote. "So
lished a report in April, saying the
buildings are one to three decades."
while we compluin about the uncertain-
ty of warming by greenhouse gases, we
S1
ted States should take modest steps
Strain on Developing Countries
Recommendations ofthe NAS
Imit production of greenhouse gas-
The report sald it might be harder
should not forget that it would make
11;
despite uncertainty about the threat
lobal warming.
for developing countries. to adapt to
any effects from cooling, which was a
subject of some scientific, public and
8:01
global warming. It encouraged "efforts
8:01
oth sides in the debate, those who
Congressional concern In the early
8:01
THE WHITE HOUSE
The Prepau, tendings and
e Immediate action and those who
to advance regional mobility of people,
1970's, less likely."
0:31
11x
such measures are too costly con
gring the uncertainty, praised tha
7:0
ort its. and said It supported their argu
reenhouse gases, like carbon diox
methane and chlorofluorocarbon
Ideatham The
Evan's subpand.
BaNjigards
aperback-the
Reger Perter
sequel to Joshua
Joshua and the Children con-
his million-copy bestselling
When Joshua enters an ordi-
et with violence, he transforms
by working through the chil-
bite rival factions plotting to
good works, the way Is paved
; conclusion that turns into a
on of hope.
HUA
sensitive vayous.
Environmental Damage Likely
Eu
But the Texas Land Commissioner,
W-+-L