and other members of Congress is the staff of the Science Policy Research Division of the Legislative Reference Service of the Library of Congress. A recent statute 10 establishing a Congressional Office of Technology Assessment is a step toward strengthening these review capabilities in the legislative branch.

The highest levels of executive branch overview of Federal R&D start in the Executive Office of the President, where science and technology programs receive the attention of the Science Advisor to the President, the Office of Science and Technology, the President's Science Advisory Committee, and the Federal Council for Science and Technology. Specific

10 Public Law 92-484, Technology Assessment.

Department

Agriculture

Commerce

Defense

Army

Navy

areas of science and technology are under the purview of the National Aeronautics and Space Council, the National Council on Marine Resources and Engineering Development, and the Council on Environmental Quality. Further broad reviews are provided by the Office of Management and Budget.

Six executive departments and the three armed services have offices of an Assistant Secretary or Deputy Under Secretary for Research, Science, Technology, or similar designation; three other departments, including DOD, assign other equivalent titles. Two departments have no such office. Eight independent agencies also have high administrative officials responsible for the R&D function (see table 1).

Sources: National Science Foundation. Report 70-38. Federal Funds for Research, Development, and Other Scientific Activities. Fiscal Years 1969-1971, vol. XIX, Sept. 1970, p. 2. (19561969)

National Science Foundation, Federal Funds for Research, Development, and Other Scientific Activities, Fiscal Years 1970, 1971, 1972, vol. XX, pp. 92-93. (1970)

National Science Foundation, Federal Funds for Research, Development, and other Scientific Activities, vol. XXI, Table C-7. (1971)

National Science Foundation, Report NSF 72-300, National Patterns of R&D Resources, Funds and Manpower in the United States, 1953-1972, p. 4. (1972)

Figure 2

slow but steady. By 1957 the growth rate accelerated, reaching a peak of over 12 percent of Federal budget outlays in 1964-1965, and an expenditure peak of $17.0 billion in fiscal 1968 (see fig. 2).12 The total R&D obligations declined after 1967 to $15.5 billion in fiscal 1971. This represents about seven percent of the Federal budget. 13 R&D obligations are ex

12 Ibid.

13 Calculated by the Commission from data in Special Analyses of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 1973, p. 18, compared with the $15.5 billion.

Source: National Science Foundation, Federal Funds for Research, Development, and Other Scientific Activities, vol. XXI, table C-7.

Figure 3

pected to total $15.2 billion in fiscal 1972 11 and $17.8 billion in fiscal 1973.15

Complete data for fiscal 1971 are summarized in table 2 and figure 3. Nearly half of the total R&D was funded by DOD, 24 percent by NASA, 9 percent by AEC, and 8 percent by HEW. Smaller expenditures were made by the National Science Foundation and the departments of Transportation, Agriculture, and Interior, and other departments and agencies. These data include funds for some major system developments that are beyond the scope of this part of the report. A detailed treatment of R&D funding by DOD relating to major systems may be found in Part C, Chapter 4.

14 Note 2, supra, p. 4.

15 Special Analyses of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 1973, p. 281.

CHAPTER 3

Some aspects of civilian agency R&D growth, arising from new priorities and requirements in agencies previously performing or procuring little R&D, are a principal source of the needs and opportunities for improvement in Federal R&D procurement policies and procedures. R&D is decreasing in the hardwareoriented agencies, whose missions mostly serve the Government as a consumer, but it is increasing in civilian-service agencies whose R&D goals ultimately develop community services and economic resources used by the public. The need for these agencies to improve their R&D procurement techniques highlights the need for Government-wide improvements in policies and procedures for R&D procurement.

Certain patterns characterize the distribution of funds by different agencies to different R&D performers. For example, in-house laboratories and industry receive the major share of DOD, NASA, DOT, and EPA funding. All of these agencies are involved considerably with development of hardware or processes that are important in the industrial sector. AEC relies heavily on its Government-owned, contractor-operated (GOCO) laboratories, and HEW and NSF use academic performers predominantly. Nonprofit institutions are prominent in Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO) programs, while in-house laboratories dominate the R&D efforts of such old-line agencies as Agriculture, Commerce, and Interior.

Federal Research and Development Laboratories

Federal in-house R&D has increased steadily year after year; between 1960 and 1968 the dollar obligations doubled. Between 1969 and 1972 obligations are expected to rise by about 18 percent. In fiscal years 1970-1972, Federal in-house work represented about 25 percent of all Federal R&D, a higher level than prevailed during the 1960's.1 Table 2 shows the total R&D obligations for each agency for fiscal 1970 and the amount and percentage allocated to in-house laboratories. As noted in table 2, DOD obligates nearly 50 percent of the total Federal R&D funds and expends 27 percent of its obligation on in-house activity. Most of DOD's R&D funds are spent on R&D related

to major weapon systems as discussed in detail in Part C, Chapter 4.

In relation to the total work of all performers in each R&D category, the Federal in-house laboratories perform a larger percentage of basic and applied research than development work. The latter is performed largely by industry. However, in actual dollars the laboratories' major effort is development. Table 3 shows the in-house R&D effort by category for fiscal 1970.

Recommendation 4. Strengthen in-house capabilities to support technology advancement in the private sector, and specifically the procurement-related technical and management capabilities in laboratories by:

(a) Clarifying the assigned roles of the laboratories;

tems that are proposed, designed, and built by private sources; and

(d) Maintaining technical competence by continuing to conduct basic and applied research and development projects.

In addition to the above recommended inhouse roles, we believe that Government laboratories should specifically conduct R&D related to instrumentation standards; large, unique Government facilities; and appropriate systems analyses. It is often difficult to draw a clear line between the type of R&D performed by in-house laboratories and the type performed by other organizational resources. Similar projects might be conducted by an in-house laboratory, an FFRDC, a university, a nonprofit research institute, and a commercial firm.

There is some evidence that past practice and tradition have been factors in Government agency choices between available resources. The older agencies (such as Agriculture, Interior, and Commerce) perform more than 50 percent of their R&D and an even higher percentage of their basic and applied research in-house. Newer agencies (such as AEC, NASA, and HEW) have relied more extensively on the private sector, possibly because they do not have adequate in-house laboratory facilities. DOD originally performed a substantial amount of R&D in its own laboratories, but as requirements have increased (both in volume and complexity), support from outside resources was needed.

The efficiency and effectiveness of the Federal laboratories are very difficult to measure. The Harry Diamond Laboratory has done outstanding work in special research areas; the

Source: National Science Foundation, Federal Funds for Research, Development, and Other Scientific Activities, NSF 71-35, vol. XX, pp. 9, 16, and 21.