THE UNIVERSITY OFCHICAGO 88 RECORDOctober 10, 1980 ISSN 0362-4706 > An Official Publication Volume XIV, Number 4CONTENTS101 REPORT OF THE EVALUATION COMMITTEE ON COMPUTINGACTIVITIES AT THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO1 1 1 REPORT OF THE AD HOC COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT FUNDINGOF RESEARCH AND EDUCATION155 REPORT OF THE STUDENT OMBUDSMAN FOR THE WINTERQUARTER, 1980160 THE 376TH CONVOCATION ADDRESS: SCIENTIFICLITERACY, By Robert R. Wilson162 SUMMARY OF THE 376TH CONVOCATION163 THE 377TH CONVOCATION ADDRESS: CLIO'S VISION,By John Hope Franklin166 THE 377TH CONVOCATION STUDENT ADDRESSES— Kenneth M.Jacobs, Janet Mackey, Adam L. Schulman169 THE 377TH CONVOCATION: HONORARY DEGREES170 -J QUANTRELL AWARDS171 SUMMARY OF THE 377TH CONVOCATION172 THE 1980 RYERSON LECTURE: THIRTY PIECES OF SILVER,By Erica ReinerTHE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGOFOUNDED BY JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER© Copyright 1980 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved.vMtm^^Mmm^ <WWMlftW^IM>ffhSEVALUATION COfifilTTEE ON COMPUTING ACTIVITSEAT THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGOMembers of the Evaluation Committee on Computing Activities at the University of Chicagowere:Bernard A. Galler, Professor of Computer andCommunication Sciences, University of Michigan;Kenneth M. King, Vice-Chancellor for UniversitySystems, City University of New York, Chairman;M. Stuart Lynn, Director of the Office of Computing Affairs and Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University ofCalifornia at Berkeley;Joe B. Wyatt, Vice-President for Administration,Harvard University.The evaluation committee was appointed byPresident Gray and charged to evaluate the effectiveness of the computational support provided toacademic and administrative activities at the University of Chicago in the context of rapidlychanging technology, new computer applicationsand user groups, and a climate of increasing financial stringency. We visited the campus fromNovember 14 to 16, 1979* and talked to a broadrange of administrators, faculty members, andstudents and the management and staff of theComputation Center. Throughout most of thevisit, we had separate interview schedules inorder to increase the number of people interviewed who might have important and usefulinput. We were provided with, and also requestedand received, a great deal of relevant documentation. We were received with cordiality andwarmth by everyone.*The comments and recommendations in this report are related to the status of computer systems as of this date and do notreflect equipment upgrades that occurred in March of 1980 orany other changes that may have occurred since this date. In general, the committee found computationalfacilities at the University of Chicago to be excellent (with the notable exception of space forequipment and users). With a few exceptions, thefaculty indicated that the support services andhardware they required to pursue their researchwere available and state of the art or close to stateof the art. The committee was impressed by theexcellence and range of computer applicationscarried out by the faculty.The committee found the administration of theUniversity clearly determined to maintain state-of-the-art computer facilities at the University butconcerned about the problem of controlling theever-rising cost associated with achieving thisgoal. The committee found the management andstaff of the Computation Center to be competentand highly user-oriented.The overwhelming majority of academic userswere happy with the quality of services providedby the Computation Center and, with only a fewexceptions, felt a strong need for centralizedcomputer services. They were generally complimentary about the quality of staff support andreported instances where staff members had beenhelpful far beyond reasonable expectation. Theywere particularly happy about increasing University support of research and instructional activities and by the fact that charges for computertime had been periodically decreased. The relatively recent installation of a Dec 20 system providing enhanced interactive terminal support wasalso appreciated. Administrative users were lesshappy. In part, this unhappiness was related to thefact that some administrative systems are outdated and operationally cumbersome and provideinadequate support to the offices they were designed to serve.Although on the whole our impression waspositive, we identified some problems and a101number of issues that need resolution in the nearterm if the University is to maintain effectivecomputational facilities serving the diverse needsof students, faculty, and administrators. Theseproblems and the committee's recommendationswill be discussed in Section III. Section IV is asummary of committee recommendations.II. Some General Observations on theChanging Context in Which ComputerDecisions Are MadeIn the early 1970s, when the University ofChicago and many other major universities acquired their current principal computers, thejustifications for establishing a central facility witha large-scale computer were principally the following:1. Physical scientists required a large, fastcomputer and their requirements tended to dominate hardware decisions.2. Computers were not priced linearly with respect to increasing power but price increasedroughly as the square root of power. Consequently, users could get much more computation for their dollars on a large computer than on asmall one. Or, looked at another way, a substantial penalty in hardware costs was associated withmeeting computer requirements with a number ofsmall decentralized computers.3. Hardware costs rather than staff costs werethe major component of computer budgets.4. Central facilities enabled faculty in disciplines that were not funded as well as the physicalsciences to have access to computer serviceswhich they could not support on their own.In order to support expensive, large computers,universities needed to insure that as many applications as possible were run on those computers.Policies were often developed which restricted theright of faculty members or departments to securecomputers independently because the financialsupport of all segments of the university was required to amortize the big, central computer. Theavailability of a computer to all segments of thecommunity led to the continuous development ofnew applications and requirements.As we enter the 1980s the context for makingdecisions on hardware and the organization ofcomputer resources has changed in the followingimportant ways:1. The basic requirements for major computational power needed by physical scientists can beand are being met by super computers in nationallaboratories and by dedicated 32-bit minicomput ers easily acquired with grant funds. Consequently, the computer needs of the physical scientists are no longer an important factor in university computer decisions. Indeed, it is important torecognize that the perspective of physical scientists on campus computer needs often fails to recognize that computing has developed differentlyin other areas of the university.2. The price of computers is now discontinuousrelative to increasing computer power but ismoving toward a linear relationship so that nospecial cost-per-computation advantage exists forbig computers over little computers. In fact, forsome applications little computers have an advantage over big computers, whereas in others bigcomputers are the most cost effective. This hasgreatly enlarged the number of possibilities to beevaluated in making computing decisions.3. Staffing costs have become a very importantfactor in computer decisions. Advances in chiptechnology have greatly reduced hardware costs(at least for the entirely electronic components ofcomputers), but talented computer personnel arein short supply and are highly paid. New specializations have developed as a result of advances in telecommunications and the growth ofinteractive and data base applications. The diffusion of computer usage to new disciplines has increased the variety of software required to bemaintained at the university. There is an associated need for documentation, consulting, andtraining services. All of these factors, plus thegrowth of administrative applications, have resulted in a requirement for a large professionalstaff. In many circumstances, the staffing implications of a computer acquisition decision aremore important than the hardware componentsince distributing computers which are in themselves inexpensive can lead to expensive staffsperforming redundant work in multiple locations.4. The rapid growth in computer applicationsand the resulting extension of the base of supportfor central computer facilities have resulted in arelaxation of policies restricting the right of faculty members and departments to acquire theirown computers. Indeed, as demand exceeds capacity on a central computer, often the cheapestsolution is to offload applications that will run ona dedicated, small computer. This is particularlyeffective if staffing requirements for the smallfacility are minimal. With new technology, centralfacilities will often contain special-purpose, smallcomputers as well as a large-scale computer tiedtogether into a network in a usage environment102where the staff support costs are the dominatingfactor.5. There exist a growing number of facultywhose computer needs are still most effectivelymet with a central facility. These faculty require arich and diverse software library, consulting, education, and operational support — and the mosteconomic way of providing that support is at acentral facility.III. Problems, Opportunities, andRecommendationsThe problems, opportunities, and committee recommendations fall into five major categories:1. Policy and Planning IssuesA. There is a need for University recognition thatcomputing is an important function that will continue to grow and that will require continuing attention by top-level management. The volume ofcomputation at the University of Chicago (as wellas at every other university) has expandedsignificantly every year during the past decadeand will continue to expand for the foreseeablefuture. In the area of faculty research, computershave become an essential tool in the analysis ofcomplex systems, and, as simpler systems aremastered in the physical and social sciences, systems of greater complexity are being modeled.Humanists are continuing to discover ways inwhich computers can assist them. Faculty use ofcomputers as an information retrieval tool willcontinue to grow as additional important bibliographic and research data bases become available.Text editing facilities and phototype setting devices significantly reduce the labor associatedwith the production of scholarly articles andbooks and can be expected to become an essentialtool at research institutions like the University ofChicago. The need for increased instructional access to computers by graduate students, particularly those in the professional schools, has beenrecognized by the University, and the availabilityof interactive support has significantly expandedgraduate student computing activity. This use willcontinue to expand if supported and it should besupported. The availability of a richer undergraduate curriculum in computing-related subjectswould significantly expand undergraduate computing activity.In the area of administrative systems, there aremajor unmet responsibilities for support of theplanning and implementation of the president'sinitiatives, and major opportunities exist to im prove operational systems (systems that supportline operations such as registration, accounts payable and purchasing), to reduce manual effort, andto enhance the availability of management information. Office automation can be expected tobe a major activity of the coming decade.Around the country in general, it has been thehope of many administrators facing ever-tightening budgets that the development of mini-and microcomputers would cause the problemsassociated with operating large, complex, costlycomputer facilities to wither gradually away asdecentralized systems evolve. Unfortunately,these hopes are unlikely to be realized since bothfaculty and administrators require access to largeand diverse data bases which are expensive to install, update, and maintain and to a rich library ofprograms which are expensive to acquire andmaintain. Mini- and microcomputers, when theyare capable of dealing with this class of problem,must be tied into networks. This requires specialized talent and central coordination and management. The overwhelming majority of peoplewe talked to had no interest in managing hardwareor coping with the complexity of software andcommunications. They were happy that the University provided these services and expected theUniversity to continue to manage and operatecentrally most of the facilities they required.It is interesting to note that, rather than decreasing the requirement for a large computer, theincreasing availability of mini- and microcomputers has generated a growing interest in computing.This has contributed to the growing demands oncentral computing facilities for applications whichexceed the capability of the smaller computers.Maintaining state-of-the-art facilities in the faceof ever-increasing requirements and diminishingfinancial resources will be a major challenge totop-level University administrators. A centralcomputing resource and an organization for providing computer leadership and managing andcoordinating computer use University-wide willbe required for the foreseeable future. This organization, if it is to maintain state-of-the-artfacilities, will require an effective interface withtop-level management, support, space, and recognition.B. There is a need to develop computing andinformation system plans covering the next threeto five years. An information system is a systemwhich supports the operational requirements ofline organizations at the University (such as registrars, librarians, bursars, and controllers) and103the management information requirements ofmanagers at all levels. Lower-level managers needdetailed information to control day-to-day activities. Top-level administrators require summary information which allows them to plan andallocate resources intelligently over a longer timeframe. The University needs to develop long-range and operational plans to govern its computing and information system activities over thenext five years. Without such plans, many decisions may be made piecemeal, possibly as a result of targets of opportunity instead of as part ofoverall policies, priorities, and plans. Computerequipment planning should be subordinate toplanning designed to define and meet the functional support requirements of academic departments and administrative offices althoughthere is a close coupling between functional requirements and computer facilities planning.These plans should include: (1) an academic (research and instruction) needs assessment bymajor unit; (2) an administrative information systems plan; (3) a hospital information systems plan;(4) a libraries information systems plan; and (5) aresource and facilities plan derived from the requirements of the plans above.C. There is a need to develop a policyframework for computing and information systems. Planning, as recommended above, cannotproceed effectively in a vacuum. In order to limitthe number of variables to be considered to a realistic level, and in order to ensure that planning isconsistent with overall institutional goals andpriorities, such planning should be preceded by apolicy framework defined by top-level administrators. Such a framework would define the policyconstraints which circumscribe planning considerations and which are expected to remain unchanged over the forseeable future. Issues to beaddressed by a policy framework might include:(1) delineation of the roles and scopes of computing and information systems in relation to theUniversity as a whole; (2) delineation of broadoverall goals for computing and information systems; (3) delineation of overall organizationalstructure and management responsibilities, including the roles of advisory bodies, in support ofcomputing and information systems; (4) delineation of institutional constraints, including fundingconstraints; (5) delineation of planning methodologies and processes to be used in support of computing and information systems and ofplanning responsibilities and review and approvalmechanisms (the policy should, for example,define a process which precludes systems beingdeveloped piecemeal without a proper plan that includes initial costs, transition costs, operatingcosts, and benefits; (6) delineation of a classification scheme for the various structural elements ofthe plan, including definitions for these elements(as an example, information systems developmentactivities can be classified according to functionalarea, priority, scope, and phase, each requiringprecise definition; (7) specification of overall constraints on possible computer system architectures (centralized, decentralized, distributed) andof linkages required (networking) (for example,the policy should specify the circumstances underwhich a department could acquire a minicomputer, the review process, and the required linkagesto the central system); (8) delineation of authorities and responsibilities for the acquisition ofcomputers and for the development of informationsystems. The policy should, for example, specifysystems which will be developed and managedcentrally.One of the objectives of a policy framework isto ensure that system planning and decisionswhich may impact many segments of the university community are made in a proper, establishedpolicy context.D. There is a need to provide ongoing policy-level leadership. Computing has become a majorcomponent of the University budget. In theacademic area, the quality of computer access forsome departments is more important than thequality of the University library. Over the nextfew years, decisions on academic, library, hospital, student, and financial systems will havemajor, long-term financial implications, and theeffectiveness of these systems will impact mostareas of University activity. These activities areso important and expensive that they require theactive leadership of a knowledgeable, top-leveladministrator with access to the forums in whichmajor policy decisions evolve. Failure to provideeffective leadership by top management could result in the development of fragmented, uncoordinated, ineffective, and expensive systems.2. Computation Center IssuesA. The current governance structure is workingwell but the addition of a visiting committee wouldbe helpful. The current governance structure appears to insure adequate faculty participation indecisions which affect them. The members of theComputation Center Board take their responsibilities seriously and have made significantcontributions to the effective operation of theComputation Center. The two subcommittees ofthe board also appear to be working effectively.It has been suggested that the creation of a vis-104iting committee might be helpful. We support thisidea. A properly constituted committee, which includes trustees and knowledgeable representatives of national stature from the fields of education and business, could provide the Universitywith outside perspectives on computer-related instructional requirements, with industrial perspectives on important technological developments,and with practical advice on the disciplines required to evaluate successfully and to implementmajor administrative and educational systems. Acommittee with appointees of national distinctioncould also help to put into perspective the appropriate role of computing activities at the University.B. Staff morale is a serious problem. The staffof the Computation Center complained of declining morale attributable to four causes: (1) salariesat the University have not kept pace with inflationand are significantly lower for comparable skillsthan in the private sector; (2) intolerable overcrowding exists in offices; (3) the staff is in multiple locations; and (4) there is a perceived lack ofrecognition by the University administration oftheir importance and their contributions to theUniversity. As a consequence of these factors, therate of staff turnover is increasing and recruitingcompetent replacements has been difficult. Nationally, computer salaries have been rising at arapid rate because demand for computer personnel exceeds supply by a considerable margin.Clearly, a salary review is necessary and critical.Consideration of some outside contracting forturnkey systems is also appropriate. However, ata minimum, internal people with appropriate skillswill be required to develop specifications andoversee design and development. As a result, thecost to the University of the loss of key people canfar exceed the cost of adequate compensation.The problem of recognition is related to the factthat computer people are accustomed to beingtreated as professionals, in the manner of architects and physicians, and some need specialrecognition. Employees we talked to felt that theircontributions were not recognized by top-leveladministrators as important. We have previouslydiscussed the need for active leadership ofcomputer- related activities by a knowledgeabletop-level administrator with access to the forumsin which major policy decisions evolve. The manifestations of this leadership and the existence of avisiting committee should go a long way towardelimination of the alienation that was expressedby the staff.C. The Computation Center is severely handicapped by the lack of adequate space. The com puter equipment of the University is located intotally inadequate space which is so cramped thatproper maintenance, operation, and user access isnot possible. The staff is distributed in a waywhich hinders communication both among themselves and with users and makes effective management difficult. The high density of people inmany offices reduces staff productivity. Lack ofspace substantially impedes University efforts toupgrade and organize computer equipment in themost cost-effective way and to recruit competentstaff. We believe that computer requirements willcontinue to grow at the University and that, except for special-purpose computers requiring limited staff and communications support, the mostcost-effective way of organizing hardware, communications, and staff requires the constructionor acquisition of a new central site. The University needs a Computation Center with about30,000 square feet of usable space to houseequipment and the operations, systems, and applications staff. The requirements analysis developed by the Physical Planning and ConstructionOffice reasonably represents current requirements. If the University decides to locatethis space outside the main campus, on-campusspace of about 4,000 square feet will be requiredfor remote job entry equipment and user consultants. Since the Computation Center will increasingly become communications oriented, thecost of communication lines to all of the campusbuildings should be a factor in locating the Computation Center.D. Computer resource requirements will haveto be augmented in the near future. The 370/168 atthe University Computation Center is running atcapacity. A short-term and long-term solution tothe capacity problem is required. There are fourways to augment capacity in the short term: (1)Upgrade the 370/168 with an attached processor.(2) Offload some of the current load on to compatible computers. (3) Sell and replace the 370/168with a larger computer. (4) Begin to establish adistributed network of computers to augment the370/168.Some of these options may not be feasible because of current space constraints. Since a majorchange in hardware price, performance, and architecture is expected in the next two or threeyears, the long-term plan for hardware upgradeneeds careful evaluation in the context of an overall plan, a careful resource requirements analysis,an evaluation of financial resources, and anunderstanding of the implications of an expectednew generation of hardware.E. Fiscal policies require a careful review. A105careful analysis of all fiscal policies includingpricing policies, accounting policies, amortizationpolicies, and policies on the allocation of internally funded research and instructional funds isrequired. Greater flexibility in pricing is requiredto meet the varying needs of different classes ofusers. For example, users that are transactionoriented, like the library, could be charged by thetransaction, rather than charged for increments ofcpu and connect time that may cause cost to be afunction of machine loading. This might facilitatethe resolution of cost-benefit issues by such usersand enable them to put the cost of computer usagemore effectively into their operational perspective. Additional possibilities include bulk discountpricing, shift differentials, and the pricing of someservices by "connect time" of terminals. Someuser services which are currently priced should beprovided free, with the cost included under overhead. These include activities such as small, occasional consultation and short courses. However,this should be controlled by top management. Increased flexibility in pricing should result in tangible user benefits and an improved climate of interaction between users and the center.Current accounting policies appear to be unnecessarily complex. Simplification would resultin more realistic budgeting and reporting. Alsogreater disaggregation in usage accounting is required for effective management reporting andplanning. For example, myths have developedabout the percentage of time used by some classesof users which could easily be dispelled if accounting and reporting were adjusted to the appropriate levels.The University may have been handicapped inits flexibility by the ten-year amortization periodselected for the 370/168. The pace of technologicalchange now dictates amortization periods of theorder of four to six years for hardware purchasedat the beginning of its technological life.The process of distributing research and instructional computing funds is poorly understoodby the faculty. Consideration should be given toincreasing funds available for continuing facultyand graduate student research. Such funds shouldnot be limited to introductory seed money or granttermination situations. The most effective mechanism for distributing these funds, as well as themechanism for accounting for their use, needscareful review and analysis.F. Communications with users could be improved in some areas. The Computation Centerneeds better communication with its users withregard to available services, useful techniques,Computation Center performance, and user de mand and response characteristics. In our discussions with users, we encountered tensions andirritations based on misinformation and a lack ofinformation. In particular, aside from the need forgreater flexibility in pricing policies, users needbetter information on the rationale behind thecenter's pricing algorithms. Better information oncenter performance, usage statistics, and userdemand characteristics would reduce tensions dueto misconceptions about center priorities.Consideration should be given to joint appointments between the Computation Center and otherunits such as the Mathematics Department, theStatistics Department, the Division of BiologicalSciences, and possibly some administrative units.Such jointly appointed people (faculty, when appropriate) can provide communication paths between users and the Computation Center in bothdirections. These people can apply their specialized knowledge to the acquisition or development of programs useful in their discipline or administrative environment and provide consultingservice to their peers.3. Administrative Information Systems DevelopmentA. Administrative information systems planningis a related issue but separable from computerplanning. Administrative information systemplanning must be responsive to the president'smanagement initiatives. Planning responsibilityshould be charged to a member of the president'scabinet. The assessment of needs for administrative information systems shoud be given the attention of the president's "cabinet," and theexecutive responsibility for leadership and direction of the information systems planning activity(as well as executive oversight of any system design, development, and implementation) shouldbe designated by the president to a member of thecabinet, that is, a vice-president. Decisions shouldbe made at the cabinet level about those areas ofexecutive initiative in which information systemscan play an important role, that is, financial planning, budgeting, fund raising. Under executive direction, perhaps with outside help, staff at appropriate levels in the University can be organizedinto an ad hoc group for conceptual system planning leading to the preparation and presentation ofalternative scenarios for executive review and action. This planning process should be iterativeduring the period when various levels of administration think through the information systemalternatives and institutional management objectives that the systems will serve. Although thesesystems will be significantly dependent on com-106puter resources for implementation (and thus design), the specific computer resources to be usedare a secondary rather than a primary issue in theplanning process. The computer resourcealternatives should become an issue in the systemdesign process that follows planning. At thispoint, the administrative information systemsplanning should be more actively linked to the"computing plan."B. Information system characteristics and objectives must be carefully communicated. Afterthe alternative system plans have been completedit is important that interaction at key levels in theadministration (including the executive) continue.Choices must be made about the sequencing ofsystem development as it relates to the management objectives and the organizations affected.Written design specification should be preparedcarefully for the purposes of: (1) communicatingto various system users the specific capabilities ofthe system (outputs, etc.); (2) specifying to thedevelopers the requirements of the major systemcomponents; and (3) providing the basis for anexecutive assessment of system costs (both development and operating) and system benefits.When development and implementation of asystem are authorized at the executive level, thedesign specification should be augmented by amilestone schedule of detail design through implementation and updated by continual communication with the key levels of administration as thesystem moves to implementation.C. A project director should be appointed foreach major system that is to be developed. Theproject director should manage both the "absorption" problems of the system users and the "development" problems of the system im-plementors. A careful assessment should be madeof those persons who are candidates for projectdirector since project directors will be both coordinating and managing the efforts of skilledtechnologists, as well as University staff, duringthe project development and implementationperiod. The project director should be a University person qualified to deal with both management and technical issues and able to communicate credibly with all levels of administration.Such persons may be drawn from the administrative departments, the faculty, or the ComputationCenter. Consideration must be given to the funding of an interim "project office" reporting to thevice-president responsible for the major projectsto support peripheral expenses such assecretarial/clerical, travel, and consultants (ifany). The funding of the project office is ad hocduring design, development, and implementation of the major systems, but project directors shouldplay a continuing role in system management, use,and evolution. In other words, project directorsshould expect a future role in system use andevolution after initial system development is complete.D. Design, development, and implementationof major administrative systems cannot be fundedout of operating budgets. Some developmentcapital will be required. Because developmentalactivities are presently funded out of operatingbudgets and operating budgets are tight, shortcutshave been taken in the design, documentation,and writing of the systems and development hasbeen piecemeal. The consequence has been thedevelopment of inflexible systems that are expensive to operate and maintain and have resulted inlow user satisfaction. The development of majorsystems should be evaluated and funded as capitalprojects. It is not unreasonable to amortize thesesystems over a five-year life. In some cases, savings in future operating budgets can be used torepay the development loan. In other cases, costavoidance or benefits can justify forgiving some orall of the capital cost of development. One way ofimplementing such a plan is to establish a revolving capital fund for system development.Treating system development projects in thisway, if it is fully carried out, has the additionaladvantage of suggesting appropriate managementdisciplines to the principal parties in the development process — the user, the developer, and thefinancier. This discipline is essential to successthroughout the design and development stages ofa major computer-based system in much the sameway that it is essential in the design and development of a major building.E. A major overhaul of some existing operational administrative systems is required. TheUniversity of Chicago is running some systems forwhich the code is more than twenty years old.These systems were designed for second-generation computers and provide support forprocesses which are predominantly manual. Theyrun very inefficiently on fourth-generation equipment. They are expensive to maintain and proneto error. They are difficult to adapt to changingrequirements. Development of replacement systems has been hampered by the lack of an overallplan, the high cost of analyst and programmingpersonnel, and high turnover rates for personnel,all of which destroy continuity of effort. Modernization of these systems should be coordinatedwith new system development, but some systemrevisions may be cost justifiable as a separateproject, for example, accounts payable.1074. Instruction in ComputingA. The undergraduate computing curriculum isinadequate. Computer courses available toundergraduate students at the University ofChicago are not adequate to equip students withthe tools they will require to pursue effectivelyacademic or professional interests or to evaluateproperly the role of information systems in shaping events in the world around them. The recognition of the fact that computer programs are anessential tool for modeling complex systems,thereby making it possible to capture, distribute,and apply specialized knowledge and intelligenceto diverse applications, has resulted in computercourses being included in the core curriculum ofmany major institutions. At the University ofChicago, rudimentary courses in the FORTRANlanguage exist, and, through the availability of"get acquainted funds," students can play gamesand pick up some knowledge in a totally informalway. But this is far from adequate. Undergraduatestudents appear to know appallingly little aboutthe interplay of algorithms, mathematics, datastructures, hardware organization, operatingsystems, and computer languages in system modeling and problem solving or about effective programming style or technique. Such topics form theessential foundation for effective use of computers in all application areas. Students cannot beexpected to create on their own knowledge whichhas developed in the computer science community over the last thirty years. Other major universities provide at least a one-year course covering these concepts as well as providing the student with an understanding of the capabilities andlimitations of computers. We strongly recommendthat, as a beginning, at least one course coveringthese topics be offered in the College. The coursecould perhaps be offered by the Mathematics Department if they are interested, and student terminals could become part of a proposed mathematics laboratory. We further recommend that a faculty committee be constituted to review anddefine the minimum required course offering andto locate an appropriate departmental home forthese courses.B. The creation of a computer-literate environment would solve other problems. Most universities have a pool of students trained in the artof planning and implementing well- structured solutions to computational problems who are available for part-time employment. These studentsserve as teaching and laboratory assistants as wellas consultants on programming problems. Suchstudents create an environment in which facultylearn about computing and infuse this knowledge into their courses. The absence of these studentsat the University of Chicago has forced the University to hire expensive professional people fromoutside the campus to solve small problems or tolimp along with people who inadequately learnedcomputing on their own. Both academic and administrative systems have suffered from an inability to afford outside talent with the right competence and the unavailability of internal talent.The creation of a well- structured undergraduatecurriculum in computing (perhaps accomplishedby offering courses in established departments)and the development of a cadre of knowledgeablestudents would benefit other areas of instruction,faculty research, and administrative system development.5. The Library SystemThe University library has invested considerableresources over the years to develop an operationalon-line computer system (LDMS) in support ofacquisitions, cataloguing, circulation and (to alimited extent) bibliographic retrieval. Most ofthis development was externally supported; however, the University contributed at least the indirect overhead costs. A noticeable portion of thelibrary's budget supports the operational aspectsof this system. The impressive feature of the University of Chicago's system is that it is an integrated system in support of all four functional requirements, as opposed to the fragmented andmostly incomplete approach characteristic ofother efforts around the country, including national networks such as RLIN (Research LibraryInformation Network) and OCLC (Ohio CollegeLibrary Center). Apart from some minor operational problems with message-switching telecommunications equipment (which can and should beremedied), the system appears to work well, andthe library and its patrons benefit from the functional integration. It is supported by a competenttechnical staff.Several areas of concern were expressed bymembers of the University community, principally: (1) the large proportion of the library'sbudget devoted to data processing; (2) the apparent divergence between the LDMS approach andoverlapping national efforts, such as RLIN andOCLC; (3) the appropriate methodology forbringing LDMS into true production status; and(4) the strain that LDMS places on existing computer resources. Comments and recommendations with respect to these areas are addressed below:1. Library Data Processing Costs: Data processing costs are a large proportion of the library's108budget. This, however, may be appropriate. Sinceone benefit of automation is that it may producecost savings in labor-intensive activities, onewould expect that a highly automated librarywould spend a much higher percentage of itsbudget on data processing than one that is nothighly automated. Indeed, the high data processing costs may indicate greater efficiency. The onlymeaningful questions are those which directly address production costs compared with otheralternatives. The key questions are whether theaverage cost per transaction (for example, volumeacquired, volume catalogued, and volume circulated) is less at the University of Chicago than atother comparable libraries and whether the average cost of such transactions has been decliningover the years compared with alternativemethods.Unfortunately, the library does not appear todevelop and maintain such data; it should indeeddo so. Billing by the Computation Center on atransaction basis (see above) could facilitate this.It should also be noted that, compared withearlier years, the bulk of the library's data processing costs are for operational production support and not for development. However, the residual maintenance efforts appear not to beplanned and prioritized on a cost-effective basis;this should be remedied.2. Relationship between LDMS and nationalefforts: LDMS is not currently one of the systemsbeing promoted nationally. In particular, mostmajor research libraries now participate in eitherOCLC and/or RLIN in support of cataloguing requirements, with concomitant benefits fromsharing of bibliographic records. However,neither of these utilities supports all the functionalfeatures of LDMS (notably, acquisition and circulation functions are absent), and conversionwould appear not to be cost effective, at least atthis time. In any event, there is no national standard in place, and the future directions of OCLCand RLIN — and their interrelationships — are unclear. (See, for example, The Chronicle of HigherEducation, February 11, 1980.) However, overthe long term, the University of Chicago shouldexplore an appropriate relationship with, forexample, RLIN which would be of mutual advantage in the sharing of bibliographic records andwhich would complement the University's ownactivities.3. Production status of LDMS: LDMS hasgrown through metamorphosis over the years intoa large, complex system which uses a considerable amount of computer resources. The primaryemphasis has been on meeting functional re quirements, not on software engineering. From asystems viewpoint, it is still in prototype status,although undergoing relatively little new development at this time. Clearly the system requiresstreamlining if it is to be brought into true production status as a maintainable system which takesfull advantage of modern systems and softwareand hardware technology. This potential forstreamlining could be analyzed by one of severaloutside firms that specialize in computerhardware/software optimization. This systemstreamlining may also facilitate its use by otheruniversities.A joint effort is being pursued with IBM and theUniversity of Wisconsin somewhat with this endin mind, although this joint project is anexploratory effort directed more toward a newsystem than toward a production version ofLDMS. However, the University should be actively considering other alternatives in case thiseffort does not come to fruition. Alternative approaches should be developed as part of a comprehensive library information systems plandriven by functional goals, priorities, and cost-benefit considerations rather than by reacting totargets of opportunity. The articulation betweenLDMS (or its successor) and the national utilitiesshould form part of this plan.4. LDMS use of computing resources: LDMSruns at very high priority on the ComputationCenter's IBM 370/168, taking a significant proportion of the system resources during primetime. This may be expensive and appears to manyusers to cause degraded service. LDMS couldpossibly be offloaded at some point onto a separate computer, which is differently priced (transaction prices, bulk discount prices) to reflect thespecial situation. There are many valid ways to dothis. This computer should, however, continue tobe managed by the Computation Center. Arguments that the library should run its own computer center were not found to be either manage-rially or financially persuasive.In general, the library lacks a cohesive plan forthe future operation and development of LDMSand other library information systems processingactivities. Such a major activity requires bothlong-range (three to five years, updated annually)and operational (one-year) plans. Careful planningcould resolve many of the issues raised above.IV. Summary of Major Observations andRecommendations1. The University has excellent computerfacilities. With a few exceptions, academic userswere happy with the quality of services provided109by the Computation Center. A major central computing resource and an organization for providingcomputer leadership, management, and coordination of computer use University- wide will be required for the foreseeable future. This organization will require an effective interface with top-level management, support, space, and recognition. Computing requirements will continue togrow for the foreseeable future. The Universityneeds to develop comprehensive plans for computing and information systems covering the nextthree to five years. This plan should be precededby a policy framework defined by top-level administrators.2. Over the next few years, decisions onacademic, library, hospital, student, and financialadministrative information systems will havemajor long-term financial implications; the effectiveness of these systems will impact most areasof University activity. These activities are so important and expensive that they require the activeleadership of a knowledgeable top-level administrator with access to the forums in which majorpolicy decisions evolve.3. A visiting committee on computation activities should be created. A properly constitutedcommittee which includes trustees and knowledgeable representatives of national stature fromthe fields of education and business could providethe University with outside perspectives oncomputer- related instructional requirements, withindustrial perspectives on important technologicaldevelopments, and with practical advice on thedisciplines required to evaluate successfully andimplement major administrative and educationalsystems.4. The rate of computing staff turnover is increasing, and recruiting competent replacementshas been difficult. A salary review is necessaryand critical.5. The computer equipment of the University islocated in totally inadequate space that is socramped that proper maintenance, operation, anduser access are not possible. The University needsa new Computation Center with about 30,000square feet of usable space to house equipmentand the operations, systems, and applicationsstaff.6. The 370/168 at the Computation Center isrunning at capacity. Short- and long-term solutions to the capacity problem are required.7. A careful analysis of all fiscal policies, including pricing policies, accounting policies,amortization policies, and policies on the alloca tion of internally funded research and instructional funds, is necessary.8. The Computation Center needs better communication with its users with regard to availableservices, useful techniques, center performance,and user demand and response characteristics.9. A major new initiative in the design and development of administrative systems is required.Design, development, and implementation ofmajor administrative systems cannot be fundedout of operating budgets. We recommend thatmajor systems be evaluated and funded as capitalprojects.10. The undergraduate computing curriculum isinadequate. At a minimum, a one-year course introducing students to the interplay betweenalgorithms, mathematics, data structures,hardware organization, operating systems, andcomputer languages in system modeling andproblem solving is required. A faculty committeeshould be created to review and define theminimum required course offering and to locate anappropriate departmental home for these courses.11. The creation of a well- structured undergraduate curriculum in computing (perhaps accomplished by offering courses in established departments) and the development of a cadre ofknowledgeable students would benefit other areasof instruction, faculty research, and administrative system development.12. The library needs to develop a plan to address the future of LDMS and related systems activities. LDMS is a comprehensive system whichprovides impressive functions not availablethrough national networks, although there is someoverlap. The plan should include examination ofthe cost effectiveness of LDMS, examination ofcost-effective alternatives for the software engineering required to bring LDMS into true production status, and provision for improved articulation between LDMS and national utilities inthe sharing of bibliographic records.V. AcknowledgementWe wish to thank the large number of personsinterviewed from the administration, faculty, students, and staff for their candor, patience, andcooperation. Individuals interviewed were constructive, articulate, and analytical in their evaluation of the current status and future requirements. We found the interviews to bestimulating as well as enlightening. It has been agreat pleasure to participate in this evaluation.110REPORT OF THE AD HOC COMMITTEEON GOVERNMENT FUNDINGOF RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONI. IntroductionPresident Hanna H. Gray established the Ad HocCommittee on Government Funding of Researchand Education in May 1979. After considering herrequest (see Appendix A) and consulting with her,the committee identified six major undertakings:1. The discernment and analysis of trends infederal support of the University's research andeducational functions and the comparison of thesewith those at other major research universities;2. The discernment of faculty perceptions concerning the University's administrative and service support systems for research, includinginternal policies and practices;3. The identification of incentives and disincentives at the University for seeking government funding;4. A consideration of whether the Universityshould take a more active role in soliciting grantsand contracts and, if so, how that effort should beorganized;5. A clarification of the implications for theUniversity of the revisions of Circular A-21;6. An examination of the impact of governmentfunding and policies on the nature of the University, its effect on the quality of faculty and students and, therefore, on the University's future.Overarching these specific inquiries is thecommittee's basic purpose: an assessment of howpatterns of external research funding and internaladministrative and service arrangements for support of research are affecting the quality of thefaculty and of their research. The key issue is nothow much government support comes to the University but rather how strong is its faculty. Government funding will rise in relation to the qualityof the faculty.The development of and changes in attitudestoward government funding of basic research overthe years form an important background to thecommittee's work. Beginning after World War IIthere was a tacit understanding that generousgovernment support of scientific research in universities provided social and economic advantages. By placing emphasis on the quality of thepeople supported rather than on the specific pur pose of the research, government agencies madepossible the realization of the nation's capabilityto attain a position at the forefront of virtuallyevery field of scientific research.Throughout the fifties and well into the sixties itwas widely recognized that basic research had resulted in the unexpected social and economic advantage of new and valuable technologies andproducts and, on the assumption that this wouldcontinue, the scope and amount of governmentsupport of university research grew rapidly. A reaction set in when, in the late 1960s, the costs ofthese programs became highly visible. The relevance of fundamental research as well as itscosts came under attack. This resulted in a reduction in the rate of growth of government funding ofacademic research at a time when research costs,for a variety of reasons, were increasing markedly. There have been indications of a recent reversal of this trend as shown in Table F-l, Appendix F.In the late 1940s, when government support wasa novelty, it was viewed as a small perturbation onthe university, making it possible for a facultymember to pursue research for which funds couldnot be found within "normal" university resources. It was assumed to have little influenceeither on the overall distribution of faculty effortor on the selection by the faculty of areas of research. These assumptions have changed markedly as a consequence of the increases in complexity and scale of university-based researchwhich required large increases in governmentsupport.At the University of Chicago roughly 40 percentof expenditures, exclusive of the hospitals andclinics and other auxiliary enterprises, during thepast sixteen years have been charged to federalsources (see Table F-4, Appendix F, which alsoshows that a similar situation prevails at othermajor research universities). Considering thattotal University expenditures include many itemsother than scientific and scholarly research, a verylarge proportion (perhaps 70 percent) of the University's research funding has the federal government as its source. It is clear, then, that government funding has for some years been an111essential ingredient in the lifeblood of the University. This has had many direct and indirect effectson the character and policies of the University,some of which may not be fully recognized eventoday.In the late 1960s Presidents George W. Beadleand Edward H. Levi appointed an ad hoc FacultyCommittee on Federal Grants and Contracts,chaired by Dr. Stanley Bennett. The committeereport of June 13, 1969 addressed itself to "thepresent situation of the University with respect tocontracts and grants, including thoughtful evaluation of policy questions, problems and dangers,and delineations of the role which federal grantsand contracts play in the activities and missions ofthe University." (The summary of the BennettCommittee Report is included here as AppendixB.) We find ourselves in basic agreement with theBennett Committee's conclusions and recommendations but feel they must be reassessed inlight of current factors.In addition to issues dealt with by the BennettCommittee, our committee was concerned withthe need for the University community to rec-ojgnize the importance of government funding asthe principal source of support for scientific andscholarly research. We would not be able to dowhat we, as scholars, are here to do at anythinglike the present level, and in the ambience that weseek, without such funding. It is vital to the healthof the entire University. Because such funds arealmost always awarded on the basis of scientific orscholarly merit, they can only be raised by facultymembers themselves.This must be done, of course, in the context ofthe University's overall mission to acquire and totransmit knowledge. Furthermore, though theprimary focus of government grants is on research, their impact on our teaching must also beconsidered. The heart of the matter is that government and other grants must facilitate, withoutin any way distorting, our scholarly purpose. Easyto phrase; how to achieve?It would be a mistake, in our view, to see theproblem simply as one of attracting as much government funding as possible to support the research we want to do. There are delicate and difficult problems of excessive reliance on government funding which could threaten a great privateuniversity. We must preserve an unfettered autonomy in defining our scholarly mission. Therecould well be too much, as well as too little, government support of our research. This balancemay differ — does and should differ — from one division to another, among and between facultiesand departments. The burden of maintaining excellence rests firston the faculty, but the president and provost alsocan play a decisive role. First and foremost, theircontinuing support of faculty efforts to improve itsown quality is essential. In addition, the presidentand provost can do much to create the ambiencein which the scholarly virtues will thrive. Thisambience depends not only on academic strengthbut also on the quality of administrative and service operations. In this connection we find thatthere are clear opportunities for improvement ofthe University's administrative areas which wouldenhance our capacity to recruit and retain themost highly qualified individuals for our faculty.Such a faculty is the key to all of our purposes as auniversity, and its quality is the basis for any expectations of an increased level of governmentsupport (or of any other form of support for thatmatter).The first task of our committee was to determine whether there are indeed any problemsrelated to the amount and nature of governmentfunding at the University and, if there are, to provide convincing evidence. Next we sought to determine causes: What, if anything, inhibits facultymembers from seeking funding? What, if anything, prevents them from receiving the supportthat they seek? We also hoped to identify ways ofsimplifying the intra-University process of obtaining government grants or contracts and to determine whether there is a constructive role forthe University administration to play in this highlydecentralized process.We began by asking the deans of the Social,Biological, and Physical Sciences Divisions tomeet with us and present their views based onextensive experiences with government grantsand contracts. We also met with the president andprovost to gain additional insights into our task.John Wilson joined us for a session during whichhe gave us the benefit of his experience as provostand president of the University and as an experienced scientific administrator in the government.William Cannon, vice-president for business andfinance, also provided us with insights into government funding that he has gained as a financialand contract manager on both the government andthe University sides. We heard from several of themembers of our faculty who had extensive experience with the grant and contract system. Thesemeetings occupied us fully for the summer of1979.Because our task had many facets, we dividedinto subcommittees to give smaller groups time toconcentrate on each major topic. The extensivedata we needed on government funding in this and112other universities were collected under our direction by a consultant. These data are reported in alater section on "Trends in Government Support. ' 'Our conclusions and recommendations are summarized in the next section.The substance of our task is reported in the following sections: "Trends in Government Support," "Raising Grant Funds," "AdministrativeArrangements and Procedures," and "Impact ofGovernment Funding on the Nature and Future ofthe University." These are followed by severalappendixes: the charge to the committee; a description of University procedures for acquiringgovernment grants and contracts for the benefit ofthose who are not already familiar with them; thesummary of the Bennett Committee Report; thememorandum to the faculty from the provost onrevised OMB Circular A-21; an explanation of theUniversity's basis for indirect cost; and supplementary financial data concerning governmentfunding.Among the recommendations set forth in thenext section are several concerned with stepswhich would strengthen the University's backingof faculty research in general and, in particular,faculty efforts to raise government funds to sustain their research. These steps include encouragement of strategic planning in research areasneeding long-range attention (Recommendations 9and 22c), carrying out necessary net faculty reductions in a manner consistent with such planning and so as to increase overall quality (Recommendation 17), and providing a research contingency reserve line item in the Universitybudget (Recommendation 18). As an essential aidin implementing these and other recommendations, the appointment of an experiencedfaculty member to a new position in the president's or provost's office is proposed (Recommendation 22), as is the formation of a standingcommittee of the faculty (Recommendation 23).IB. Conclusions and RecommendationsA. Trends in Government FundingFederal funding is an essential element in the University budget. Federal expenditures amount toabout 40 percent of net expenditures for academicprograms. The same situation prevails in almostall comparable institutions.Federal funding of academic research since thelate 1960s has not kept pace with the rate ofgrowth of the gross national product and has doneeven more poorly compared with the rate ofgrowth of total federal obligations. Government concern about accountability forwork done under grants and contracts has led toincreasingly complicated administrative requirements, placing a great burden on investigators and distracting them from their realpurposes: research and teaching.Recommendation:1 . The University should work in concert withinfluential members of the faculty, with other universities and with interested government agenciesto strengthen the support of fundamental researchby the government and to mitigate the burden ofadministrative regulation. Some provisions shouldalso be made for backup funding from privatesources for very important research that wouldotherwise be defeated by government regulation.Total federal support of the University ofChicago is strong relative to other comparableuniversities. However, there are indications thatsupport of the University by the Department ofEnergy and the National Science Foundation isdecreasing relative to others and that Departmentof Defense support for fundamental research islagging. Discussion with faculty and examinationof records indicate that these discrepancies occurlargely in one or two important areas of the physical sciences where activity in the University hasfallen to subcritical levels.Recommendation:2. Departments and institutes of the PhysicalSciences Division should be encouraged by thedean and provost to identify major areas for whichresearch excellence is required but lacking and toestablish strategies likely to rectify the situation.Government agencies supporting the physicalsciences are increasing their emphasis on theapplied sciences with a consequent apparent reduction of opportunities to obtain funding for research in the basic sciences of interest to mostfaculty of the Physical Sciences Division.Recommendation:3. Departments of the Physical Sciences Division should be encouraged to reexamine carefullythe relationships between their basic science activities and broadly defined concepts of appliedscience.Government sources of support for the socialsciences and humanities often prefer one-time,limited-term grants thereby causing a lack of continuity and predictability in funding patterns.Recommendation:4. Departments in the Social Sciences andHumanities Divisions should be encouraged to113continue to identify opportunities for meetingtheir scholarly research objectives with the help ofappropriate government agencies. They and theSchool of Social Service Administration should beassisted by their deans and the provost inestablishing strategies for stabilizing funding patterns.Recent changes in government policies andtheir interpretations are eroding the all-importantrelationships among academic research, education, and training, resulting in a reduction in support for graduate student research, traininggrants, and fellowships.Recommendation:5. Every effort should be made to reverse thistrend both in the national policy-making activitiesof the officers and faculty of the University and inproposals for research grants and contracts. Faculty and administration should seek and exploitopportunities to obtain support for educationalprograms.B. University PoliciesThe proportion of the University budget contributed by government funding should be maintained and will probably need to be increased ifthe quality of the University of Chicago is to bemaintained.Recommendations:6. Continue to regard federal grant and contractprograms as opportunities for the University andits faculty members and encourage faculty to become familiar with them.7. Continue to regard the raising of governmentgrants and contracts as an important responsibility of individual faculty members whichwill be strongly supported by the president andprovost.8. Continue to allow faculty members full freedom to prepare applications in accordance withtheir own initiatives, wishes, and research aimsrecognizing that the ultimate criteria for acceptability must be left to the traditional processesof the University. (See Recommendations 10, 11,and 16.)9. Support strategic planning by divisions, departments, and institutes for frontier research inareas of strength, including commitments to provide risk capital for faculty and facilities development where such commitments are clearlyjustified and long-term impact has been evaluated.10. Continue present practice of submitting tothe federal government only those applications that have originated from faculty members, research associates with rank, or senior researchassociates and that have been examined and approved at the departmental, divisional, and central administrative levels for their suitability andrelevance to the function of the University in accordance with guidelines of Recommendation 15.11. In accordance with the Statutes of the University, accept no grants or contracts which impose conditions of secrecy, prohibit the publication of results, are classified as "secret" or "confidential" or are otherwise restricted in openness,which provide for consultative services involvingrestricted or classified information, issues, or operations, or which are otherwise inconsistent withfree inquiry.12. Regard participation of faculty in nationalresearch and educational policy and decisionmaking as part of their role as faculty members.Current University policy limiting fourth-quarter salary support of faculty to two ninths ofacademic-year salary encourages off-campus activity and reduces the incentive for seeking government support.Recommendation:13. Revise the policy on fourth-quarter salarysupport permissible under grants and contracts topermit compensation for up to three ninths ofacademic year salary.Faculty savings are an appropriate and desirable means for gaining support for normal facultyresearch activities.Recommendation:14. Encourage applicants for government support to include their own research time and effortin proposed budgets.Released time from normal faculty duties is appropriate on a limited basis under special circumstances requiring that the faculty member spendmore than normal effort on research supported bythe government.Recommendation:15. When the terms of a proposed grant orcontract necessitate released time, require thatdepartment chairmen and/or deans determine thatthis is consistent with departmental needs andpolicies.The requirements for documentation of the wayin which academic personnel allocate their timeestablished by revised OMB Circular A-21 have apotential for serious impact on the lifestyle of theentire University.114Recommendation:16. In complying with requirements, the University should define "full work load" in a mannerthat minimizes its impact on the freedom of thefaculty to pursue legitimate academic and professional activities. The standing committee ofRecommendation 23 should have the opportunityto review the proposed procedures.The quality of faculty and research in some special areas of the University has suffered fromcurtailments due to budget stringencies, resultingin, among other adverse effects, lost opportunitiesfor gaining government support for research activities of importance to the University.Recommendations:17. Faculty reduction should be accomplishedin a manner planned to result in increased strengthin areas perceived by the faculties to be essentialto maintaining the quality of the University. Thiswill require vigorous recruitment in selected areaseven while curtailing the total size of the faculty.18. The University budget should include acontingency reserve to provide for preparation ofproposals, "seeding" of new research initiatives,and emergencies. This is in keeping with the practices of other large research institutions and usually is considered, at least in part, as an item ofindirect cost.C. University FunctionsAdministrative and support services to the largeresearch establishment of the University lack theefficiency and spirit required to maintain a research environment in keeping with the quality ofthe University.Recommendation:19. Commission an external evaluation of theUniversity's management systems and supportactivities serving research operations.The faculty is confused and concerned aboutindirect cost recovery. There is a need for continuing discussion and clarification of this subject.Recommendation:20. Provide the faculty with an annual report onthe basis for computing indirect costs and the percentage charged to sponsored research (like thatin Appendix E) and include a report on anychanges in indirect costs, policies, or procedures.The processing of proposals is hampered byserious problems largely due to overlapping andpoorly defined responsibilities, the lack of clearguidelines, and frequent failure of investigators toset realistic schedules. Recommendation:21. Provide the faculty with a clear statementof guidelines for internal review of proposals to besubmitted to the government. Include a checklistof responsibilities and schedule for review ofspecified elements of a proposal at each administrative level: departmental, divisional, and central. Scheduling should be designed to expediteprocessing. Provision should be made for finalcertification of overall compliance with requirements at just one level, possibly different fordifferent units of the University.D. University OrganizationExisting arrangements for dealing with government and University research policies, administrative procedures, and support services needcloser attention in order to meet faculty concerns.Recommendations :22. The president should establish a new position, reporting to her or to the provost, for a faculty member with substantial experience in research and a good knowledge of the governmentfunding apparatus to be responsible for: (a) advising the president and provost concerningproblems and issues faced by the faculty in seeking and implementing government grants andcontracts, (b) serving as a means of communication between the faculty and the president andprovost about their concerns in this area, (c) providing visible presidential support for strategicplanning in the divisions, departments, and institutes and advising the president about on-goingplans, their impact on the quality and future of theUniversity, (d) acting, when it seems appropriate,as a representative of the president and provost inmeetings and dealings with agency program managers to display their interest in government-supported research, (e) advising the president andprovost about areas of national research policywhich should be given attention and in which theUniversity should involve itself, if possible, incooperation with other universities.23. The president should establish a standingfaculty committee, chaired by the provost, to provide continuing advice from all sectors of the faculty concerning matters of funding policies and toassist and advise the faculty member in the newposition proposed in Recommendation 22.III. Trends in Government SupportA. GeneralBefore detailed funding data are presented,something should be said about trends in the115policies and attitudes of the agencies providing thefunding. The early 1960s were "honeymoon"years for science and government. Agencybudgets for fundamental research fields increasedrapidly and the funds were distributed with qualityin mind, either to the most highly qualified workers or to institutions showing evidence of an intention to increase research quality ("Centers ofExcellence" programs). Restrictions on and conditions attached to the use of these resources wereminimal. It was assumed that highly qualifiedpeople would make the correct decisions in exploratory fields of science. Funds Were madeavailable to cover equipment costs and evenbuilding construction costs in some cases.Enough money was available to allow agencyprogram administrators, in consultation with faculty members, to. make quick decisions tofollow-up on new research opportunities. Therewas a minimum of regulation and red tape.This began to change when government research budgets became so large as to be highlyvisible. The tacit understanding of the social andeconomic advantages of academic research wasquestioned and support began to fade. Furthermore, social and political developments leading toan antitechnology trend had consequences for research activities in universities. For reasons bothgood and bad, there is increasing emphasis onregulation in most fields of academic research.Within this context, a desire for accountability hasoften introduced the language of the marketplaceinto the negotiations between some governmentagencies and universities. These agencies havetaken a position as purchasers of precisely definedresearch products, regarding academic investigators as vendors of those products. Thistrend has been quickened by the urgency of technical problems associated with energy and environmental concerns.The shift from emphasis on grappling with fundamental problems to solving applied problems isof particular significance to the University ofChicago. Since we tend to emphasize the basicsciences, and have no professional school in engineering or fields of applied physical sciences, wehave not had the opportunity, as in most othercomparable institutions, to cushion the effect ofthis shift on total government support to the University. This difference must be taken into account in making comparisons with other institutions.Although the amounts budgeted in current dollars for fundamental academic research continueto increase, the increase is at a much slower rate than before. The rapid growth up to the middlesixties produced a high fixed-cost item (the well-established programs) which, along with inflation,consumes most of the available dollars. The fundsavailable to start new research activities, eitherthose proposed by younger scholars or those initiated by established scholars, are therefore verylimited indeed. Furthermore, funds required forthe replacement of obsolete equipment by themore complex and more expensive state-of-the-art equipment have not been available for someyears. And it became a matter of governmentpolicy some years ago to undertake no new commitments to fund building construction on university campuses.Finally, recent funding trends have reduced therole of research in graduate education. During thehalcyon years of strong support, the support ofresearch in universities was justified partly by itscontributions to the education of graduate students and postdoctoral fellows who were participating in the research programs. That is no longerlooked upon as a justification for funding by various agencies which take the view that universitiesare vendors of research. Since the objective is tofurnish a product at the lowest cost, they wish tosee only experienced personnel used. The surplusof trained scientists caused by the suddendownturn in research funding has reinforced thesetrends. Many program directors in the NationalScience Foundation, for example, take the position that since job opportunities are severely limited in certain fields, it is undesirable to train morePh.D.'s in those fields. Therefore they discouragethe use of their research funds for supportinggraduate students.There are still government funds available forthe direct support of graduate students and postdoctoral fellows in some fields. For example,there is a substantial program of training grants inthe biological sciences. A corresponding programin the physical sciences was terminated someyears ago because it was viewed as an anomaly toseparate education from research at this level;many researchers believe that an apprenticeshipin the laboratory provides the ideal training forresearch. This decision, combined with more recent attitudes against support of education as partof research programs, has imposed a harsh limitation on the funding of graduate education in thephysical sciences.In the social sciences a decade or two ago, substantial funding was available for training grants.During the early seventies, cutbacks led to thecurrent reduced level. In spite of this, the Social116TABLE D: FEDERAL OBLIGATIONS BY TYPE OF ACTIVITY(Current Dollars in Thousands)1971-72 1973-74 1975-76 1977-78Academic ScienceResearch and DevelopmentPhysical Sciences 274,929 267,101 317,223 416,760Math and Computer Sciences 46,317 48,918 70,141 74,914Environmental Sciences 161,185 171,620 208,451 302,610Life Sciences 819,187 1,031,130 1,281,420 1,598,644Psychology 55,833 54,549 50,159 64,467Social Sciences 112,995 110,417 123,894 159,222Other Sciences 56,186 104,685 65,246 77,067Engineering 175,547 189,336 214,190 379,848Total Research and Development 1,702,179 1,977,756 2,330,724 3,073,532Fellowship/Training 404,459 306,905 188,072 195,268Other Academic Sciences 364,423 315,821 336,740 383,873Total Academic Sciences 2,471,061 2,600,482 2,882,536 3,652,673OilierTOTAL 1,350,524 1,559,064 2,092,258 3,329,9693,821,585 4,159,546 4,974,794 6,982,642Sciences Division has managed to retain severaltraining grants. If the division has less than itsshare of government funds allocated to training, itis probably a result of the shifting of those fundsfrom predoctoral to postdoctoral training and thedivision's reluctance to become heavily involvedin such postdoctoral training.The amounts of money discussed in the following sections are large and their size may obscurethe central issues of government funding: An investigator seeks the amount required to supporthis or her work. The importance of the funding isnot measured in total dollars but in terms of itsadequacy for covering the needs of the research.For maintaining the viability and quality of theUniversity, the small grant can therefore be just assignificant as the large one. The large totals aremade up of many small as well as a few largegrants and contracts, and any conclusion drawnabout the process must be geared to both.Bo Government Feeding of Universities and CollegesInformation on the funding of academic institutions is available in terms of federal obligations for each fiscal year. Since obligations referto a commitment to provide funds, possibly over aperiod of two or more years, they are not directlyrelated to university budgets, which are con cerned with the annual flow of money. A two-yearaverage of obligations should be roughly comparable to annual expenditures and we have adjustedthe available information by expressing it in termsof such average values. Table I is a summary ofadjusted government obligations to universitiesand colleges in the United States for the years1971-78.*In Table I the major category "other" refersprimarily to student aid, which is currently running about half of the total. Our primary concernis with the other half.The item called "other academic sciences" includes R&D plant, facilities for instruction in sciences and engineering, general support for scienceand, finally, a subcategory called "other scienceactivities," referring to conferences, workshops,special courses for college and high school students, etc.The total growth of about 48 percent shown inthe academic sciences category may be comparedwith the growth of 1 14 percent in total federal obligations and of 58 percent in the gross nationalproduct deflator. Readers are encouraged to drawtheir own conclusions."The National Science Foundation is the source of all information on government obligations given in this report exceptthat given in Table F-l.117^ VO ~h Tt ONOn O CN m CN CN CN »o 003 *e3 0 0 cn m voen ^h 0^ r^ t^ t^ Os^ CN CNsa 2 t-H Tt" 00" m" *-h" »0 m" »o >o£H On2? it m 00 rf 0 «o <n || O£ rr tj- m 00 in t-» mt">» 55 o09 > vo cn m cn VO VO r- r- m"&& CN vO vO O ^ t> ^ ^. O^m"m Tf 0 rn VO 00 t-H O O*flj O cm m i-h0 r* m 0 m rf 0 m00 r^ 32 On Os m 0 O vo 0 r^ CNH cn r- 00 cn CN 00 vo «o 00vo"-^ •O *"H Tt Tfrr- *-h 00 <n vO OS 00 rf CN£ d.2 'e3 t-H in ^ CN r-^Tf CN 00 0 r^ <* ^t 00 0^sa 2 ~* rf r- m *S 0" m T* 00"Po h 00fe ^ ~£ ll -<t os 0 »n vo m t^ >o ^«^ »n rj- on 00"1 ^ ^ ^ 00 Ta CN O CNJ> 5? *£ rn »n 00 *-h r^5; So > ^ On 0" 00" »n" 0" 9 9 0"N ^t 100 ~M O mfH m^CN00 r- 00 »-< 00 ^HCN 0 ,"S On 00 O Oin t^ »-h on O ON ON^H 00 >n r^ t*^o m t* 0 Oncn vo vo r^ On ^h m 00 rfH — < r- vO t}- r-OS^^"-^ m 0 00 cn vo in >r> O «o£ d Tf r- 0 •*¦Tf n 0> 00^ t"» CN -^J- m 0:§ 2 O^ CN ^ "\ °\»-< vo On m" ~* r-T »o 0 VO"o h 0b m5 ON O O ~*O m On cn 00 t-H H O ^tt^ vo 0 m 00 »orA ^ vO^ O^ ^ r^ 0^ t-;l> 09 > os" m" t> r^ rn" on cn" cn" l^"ON* Q ~ tj- ^- 00 t-H ^- tj- m f*ONt-n CN CN —< 0 «n tj- ^ •^t13 os 0 r^~ CN^h Tt On >n t^ CN cn »o Tf^t 00 Os cn »o£ t^ 0 O t^ vO ~« O »o ONCN in 0 On ^ O vo ^^~ «o^"^ 00 r-» r- m vO ^* On »oOn rf ON£ dr<t> t_ •n cn On vO •O ON •O>0 0\ t N ^ CN >0 ^H "*^ r- ^ ^t ^ 00 O f» 3tin ^ rfcn | a ,-h »-. 0 r- O -H t^ On t^tr r^ rj- 00 m r* 0 ^H t^ r*I CN in CN 00 00 0 <N t^fH $ i>r*> d ^. r- ^ ^ vo^ t TT OS m «o w-T 00" CNON ^H TJ- m <n 01-4 r^ON f- in rfr CN O ss; m73 On m in »n On m 00*"1 "*". T ^ <N Tt ^ °. <o- 0 0" vo" Os" Tt" r- 00 ^ 0"H N «n >0 O t^ »o »o Tj- CN00^m"^ O>> >» ^ v .2 a.ti >> w .ts ^» ^ D ^</j .-e ee t» .ts J^ OaInst. hnology aUniver Universi usettsIn hnology tiUniver Univers tyof rnia,BerltyofChi .21Califomi ofTec Columbi Harvard Massach ofTec Princetoi Stanford Universi Califoi Universi >P< LUOzUJ0(0„ ULdb Occ O¦a -1H UJ^ ULcnC/5 >-CD0 (/)UJs =si> 0>II(/) COStoo-I<ccUJQUJUJ-Iffi<t-H <L> 13 00 >o r- r- 0 cn ^ CN 00u o\o^t t 0^ >0 ^H 000> 0 <n m m m «o m «o wn vOPQ 1X tj- m rn »-h n- v*T cn" mCNCN25 73 On </-> rn m »o «o cn m 'tf<> 0 8^ = 10 h 10 «n 0 00tl *S vO^ » "^t «n 0^ CNSn >. •O t-< Tt ^f" r-T cn" vo" rf sfXi ^ CS ^H >o CN ^fH CU|. r-»73 Os vo vo1^ O O m t^ 0in N h O </->2 s 36 0 r- rj- «o 00 *-* CNS SP VO CN O O rn »o r- 00 00^0 m ri- ^h rn ^h CN ON<n"c3 •O VO ON O O (^ m r^ CNu r» «o «o m 0 »o 0 r^ £}6PQ 0 ^-H 0^ Os^ rn rn 0 00^ >o O'1 m" tj-" m" «-T Tt" m" cn" ?XVO 13 OS t-H 0 t^ 'r* on O Os ^f5; 0 cn m ^ 0 r^ m «/-> 00'S vO^ O^ ^ *"1 °°- ^1 •o vo^ 00^t- >» rl 0" *-<" -h" r»" oC -^¦" 0" JCOS X ^H CN t-H m ^ Onv4 Oh »n"3 00 tH Tt^H IO ^H m x tCN O VO m 000 «*/ 86 O 0. R 0. 00 O f* °V ^ -^tS M) vo" ^t CN t (S h r-^ in^O cn m t-n CN t-n cn 00CN"3 Os O <0 m ^t 0 (N 00 ^K t-H 00 t^ -h m cn r^ r^ O<L> #o *-< fsl^ CN IO « Tf ^ °. ONPQX rn" m" CN ^ ^" »n" m" 2Tt "rt CN O CNt— 1 0 rn 00 CN «0 On m 00fr O m ^ 0 0 »n mm 'S m^ 0^ 00^ vo^ 0^ ^ ON CN vO^S; >> 0" vo" ~Z >o" t»" Tf" CN 00" r^X m t-^ 00l-H Oh ^O On ^t 00 CN "* 00 CN 013 t^ t^ cn r^ 0 m 0 m rn0 0 On O 00 °* ^ ^ 0^ r^*PQ W) »o *-h r- CN CN ^h" r-" 00"^o CN CN ^ CN mO^*3,0 00 Tf 0 m 0 »o ¦^t m r*«* Tt IO •O Tj- T^ l^ On CNo> ""* ^\ ^ in Q\ h CN Or 00^PQJ3 Tt" ^t" ^-T ^" m" cn 00"VOCNO VO ^ CN r^ m cn cn r*- _«^7 On m cn ^h on cn O m m1 m ^t m 1^ CN ON O^ On ^t>>£ 0 r- 0 »o 00 m ^-T on" m001 0 X0 m ^» h ox rn Tf t^^ m m m O tT 00O O N tn io ^ ONs Of) xf 00 rt ON CN t*"* ^•" ^* On^O t-H fS| 00Z? O- .s >-C/3 ,-y «5 (Z) .ti ^ 2Z* S ^ CO*J 2P > «>00 ^ 'S > * -2 "1 .^ «*H ^ <+HOS X! «J '-' 'S 0 •— ^ c3 J3 c ^ University0 California University0Califomi ofTec Columbi Harvard Massach ofTec Princetoi Stanford < S3— r *o0 Ou. X!> OaW Ohcr(L) <UT3 T33 3— c c118An analysis of the adjusted obligations is presented in Table II. This table shows separately thetotal obligations, the part assigned to research anddevelopment, and the part assigned to fellowshipand training at each of eight selected universities.Totals include, in addition to research-relatedmonies, those assigned to the major category"other" in Table I. A breakdown of the researchand development obligations among three majorscience categories is shown in Table III.Table II shows that total research and development obligations to each of these universities,with the exception of Massachusetts Institute ofTechnology (and, for a brief period, Princeton)had a steady growth over the period. At 65 percent, the net growth of the University of Chicagowas greater than any of the other selected universities except Stanford (71 percent). Fellowshipand training funds, on the other hand, have fluctuated considerably and have shown a net decrease in all of the selected universities, exceptPrinceton. The net decrease of Chicago is 27 percent. Chicago was fifth in 1971-72 and third in1977-78.Separation of these changes by major sciencecategory, shown in Table III, reveals significantdifferences between fields. Growth in the biological sciences has been steady at each of the universities (except for Princeton in 1973-74). Despite a net growth of 88 percent, Chicago remained in fourth place during the 1971—72 to 1977-78 period. When interpreting the dollarlevels in the life sciences, the absence of medicalschools at California Institute of Technology,Massachusetts Institute of Technology, andPrinceton should be kept in mind.For the mathematical and physical sciences thetrends are erratic although all these universitiesexcept Princeton ended with net growth. Thecombined average growth was 65 percent whileChicago's growth was 48 percent. In 1971-72,Chicago was going through a period of substantialdecreases in funding for these fields (see alsoTable VII) but started to recover about five yearslater.Again, no simple trend is shown by the behavioral sciences. Chicago began (in 1971-72) withlower funding than all but three of the other universities (Massachusetts Institute of Technology,California Institute of Technology, and Princeton)and, in 1977-78, found itself in the same relativeposition. It was one of four members of the groupshowing a decrease, Columbia, Harvard, andStanford being the others.Federal obligations to the University of Chicagoare shown in Tables IV and V, the former brokendown by activity and the latter by governmentagency. Comparative information about the otherselected universities corresponding to that inTable V is presented in Appendix F, Tables F-5 toF-9. (We have acquired, and will make availableto interested individuals a large amount of detailedTABLE IV: FEDERAL OBLIGATIONS TO THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGOBY TYPE OF ACTIVITY(Current Dollars in Thousands)1971-72 1973-74 1975-76 1977-78Academic ScienceResearch and DevelopmentPhysical Sciences 6,865 5,492 7,600 9,036Math and Computer Sciences 911 806 854 933Environmental Sciences 2,162 1,956 2,236 4,694Life Sciences 14,944 18,732 25,340 28,045Psychology 893 1,143 703 1,016Social Sciences 1,800 1,875 1,875 1,496Other Sciences 307 884 612 1,311Engineering 899 1,200 947 889Total Research and Development 28,781 32,088 40,167 47,420Fellowship/Training 7,145 6,536 4,824 5,235Other Academic Sciences 933 2,886 1,001 965Total Academic Sciences 36,859 41,510 45,992 53,620Other 3,238 3,744 2,715 4,119TOTAL 40,097 45,254 48,707 57,739119TABLE V: FEDERAL OBLIGATIONS TO THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGOBY AGENCY(Current Dollars in Thousands)1971-72 1973-74 1975-76 1977-78Agriculture 0 1 10 52Agency for International Development 0 0 0 0Commerce 241 142 64 38Defense 1,311 756 510 448Energy 4,484 3,800 4,136 4,285Environmental Protection Agency 87 49 3 0Health, Education and Welfare 23,070 30,426 32,170 39,511Housing and Urban Development 0 0 5 5Interior 0 0 0 0Labor 135 17 0 28NASA 3,164 2,452 3,201 3,882National Science Foundation 7,603 7,610 8,571 9,448Nuclear Regulatory Commission 0 0 35 40Office of Economic Opportunity 0 0 0 0Transportation 0 0 0 0TOTAL 40,095 45,253 48,705 57,737information backing up these tables and figures.However, the material presented here will sufficefor our discussion.)It should be kept in mind that all of these figuresare based on government obligations, that is, acommitment to make the money available duringthe given period. They cannot be compared directly to year-by-year expenditures, which aremuch more closely correlated with research activity. However the accounting for expendituresinvolves a long lag time and cannot be obtainedquickly for recent years. As it is, the federal records of obligation are available in this amount ofdetail only through FY 1978 (ending September30, 1978) and therefore do not show whether thereis any very recent abrupt change in trend.C. Analysis of Federal Funding at the University ofChicagoComparisons on the basis of the obligation datapresented in Section III B reveal some clear anddisturbing trends in government funding of theUniversity. Of course all academic research institutions have suffered from the failure ofacademic research funding to keep pace with thegross national product. In the face of that situationwe might be encouraged by the fact that total research and development funding has increasedmore rapidly at the University of Chicago than atmost of the other selected universities (Table II). However, examination of significant parts of thistotal immediately reveals that there is a developing problem of balance between fields; increasinggrowth in the support of the life sciences atChicago has been the principal source of thesegains (Tables III and IV).Further insight into this situation is provided byan examination of the distribution of supportamong the different agencies. Agencies of particular significance for the University and forwhich the obligation information for other universities was available are the Department of Defense, Department of Energy, Health, Educationand Welfare, National Aeronautics and SpaceAdministration, and National Science Foundation(Table V and Appendix F, Tables F-5 to F-9).Comparisons among the selected universitiesshow clear trends:Department of Defense: Chicago had the lowestfunding in 1971-72, and it decreased at Chicagowhile increasing at all but one of the other institutions.Department of Energy: In 1971-72 Chicago funding was greater than that of any of these institutions except Massachusetts Institute ofTechnology. By 1977-78 almost all but Chicagoshowed substantial net increases, most of whichtook place after 1975-76. The net decrease (current dollars) at Chicago was about five percent.Health, Education and Welfare: Essentially all in-120stitutions had steady and substantial increasesduring the period, Chicago greatest (net 72.3 percent) of all but Massachusetts Institute ofTechnology, although its relative position(number four) did not change.NASA: In 1971-72 Chicago funding was lowerthan all but one of this group of institutions. By1977-78 only Chicago and Stanford had net increased funding (22.7 percent in current dollars atChicago). All others but California Institute ofTechnology show substantial decreases in funding.National Science Foundation: In 1971-72 four ofthese institutions had greater funding thanChicago and by 1977-78 the number had increasedto six. All except Chicago (and California Instituteof Technology in 1972-73) had increasing funding(in current dollars) throughout the period.These comments should make it clear that thoseinvestigators at the University whose work issupported by Health, Education and Welfare andby NASA have been quite successful in their efforts to raise funds. This is reflected in the factthat the life sciences at the University have faredwell compared to other fields. If the trend continues, it could have serious consequences for theUniversity in view of the almost overwhelmingimportance of government support for research.Therefore, it seemed imperative that we attemptto identify possible causes for the changes in balance that have occurred.As a step in this direction, more direct information concerning government funding patterns atthe University was gathered from the records ofthe comptroller. Again we obtained much detailed information on annual expenditures which can bemade available to those who have an interest. Forour present purpose, the information presented inTables VI and VII suffices. Table VI shows thebreakdown of government expenditures by University division or school and Table VII by funding agency. Comparison of Table VI with TableIV and Table VII with Table V provides sometie-in with the obligational data of Section III B.However it should be kept in mind that Table IV islimited to research and development funds whichwould not include most of those designated for theprofessional schools, colleges, or "miscellaneous" categories. Also to be noted in comparingTables V and VII is that the National Endowmentfor the Humanities and "other agencies" areshown in the former but not the latter.Table VI shows that in 1977-78 the BiologicalSciences Division accounts for 58.1 percent oftotal expenditures, increasing to 59.0 percent in1978-79. About 9.1 percent (estimated from TableIV) of this represents fellowship and trainingfunds which play an important, but distinctly different, role from research and development funds.In particular, only a small portion of indirect costsis recovered from the government on traininggrants. Nevertheless, the life sciences are carrying an increasing fraction of the burden. In comparison, the Physical Sciences Division accountsfor 22.7 percent of total expenditures in 1977-78,increasing to 23.2 percent in 1978-79.Perhaps it is more enlightening to compareagencies. Table VII shows that the dominantagencies are Health, Education and Welfare, National Science Foundation, Department of Energy, National Aeronautics and Space Adminis-TABLE VI: TOTAL GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES BY DIVISIONTHE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO(Current Dollars in Thousands)1968-69 1973-74 1974-75 1975-76 1976-77 1977-78 1978-79Biological SciencesDivision 17,915 23,847 30,573 31,925 33,761 35,590 36,531Humanities Division 493 360 495 780 1,537 1,905 2,105Physical SciencesDivision 10,757 10,894 11,439 11,691 12,493 13,915 14,345Social Sciences Division 3,836 3,147 3,084 2,788 3,016 3,813 3,663Professional Schools 3,621 2,837 2,793 2,888 2,778 2,891 3,080College 41 32 146 164 194 241 278Miscellaneous 3,577 2,791 1,645 1,938 2,349 2,939 1,764Total GovernmentExpenditures 40,240 43,908 50,175 52,174 56,128 61,294 61,766121TABLE VII: GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES BY AGENCYTHE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO(Current Dollars in Thousands)1968-69 197^-74 1974-75 1975-76 1976-77 1977-78 1978-79Department of Commerce 246 114 113 85 63 91 90Department of Defense 1,937 918 965 586 529 463 485Department of Energy 4,667 3,733 4,001 4,364 4,361 4,385 3,970Department of Health,Education and WelfareNat'l Institutesof Health — 11,648 15,738 17,772 20,889 23,450 23,962Other 22,361 15,178 16,660 16,286 15,656 15,780 16,692Total HEW 22,361 26,826 32,398 34,058 36,545 39,230 40,654NatT Aeronautics andSpace Administration 2,732 2,699 2,966 3,089 3,342 3,799 4,450NatT. Science Foundation 6,940 8,442 8,170 8,355 8,438 8,871 8,955NatT. Endowment forthe Humanities 16 314 474 474 1,424 2,441 1,921Other Agencies 1,341 860 1,088 1,L63 1,426 2,014 1,340Total GovernmentExpenditures 40,240 43,906 50,175 52,174 56,128 61,294 61,865tration, in that order in 1977-78. Their expenditures respectively made up 64.0, 14.5, 7.2, and 6.2percent of the total in that year and changed to65.7, 14.5, 6.4, and 7.2 percent in 1978-79. Again,it is important to recognize that the Health, Education and Welfare figure includes, in addition toresearch funds, a substantial portion forfellowship/training, student aid, and educationalservices. It is difficult to obtain an exact breakdown of these expenditures but they probably account for at least ten of the Health, Education andWelfare percentage points quoted.Two separate features of the Department of Energy funding deserve attention. A sharp drop occurred from 1968-69 to 1973-74 and, after a periodof growth, another occurred in 1978-79. We foundthat there are two unrelated causes for the earlychange. As a result of government policy considerations, substantial shifts of support from Department of Energy (actually Atomic EnergyCommission in those days) to National ScienceFoundation funding took place. That accounts fora $500 thousand drop in Department of Energyfunds after 1968-69. Another $500 thousand is accounted for by a grant to the Computer ResearchInstitute in 1968-69 which was not extended.The 1978-79 reduction probably results fromtwo factors: a decision by the Department of Energy to reduce its support of the basic biological sciences, especially those relating to nuclearmedicine, and an increasing interest in basic research relevant to energy technologies. Theformer has lead to a reduction in the level of support for the Franklin McLean Institute and thelatter to reduced opportunities for new proposalsin the physical sciences.Growing emphasis on applied physical scienceand engineering programs may generate seriousproblems for the University in the future. Much ofthe newly available money is for areas of work inwhich there is little interest on campus.* This is atrend which may be in part responsible for ourslow recovery from the era of the Mansfieldamendment with respect to Department of Defense (DOD) funding. At the top levels of theDOD it is said that funding of basic research inuniversities is being increased and that there isevery intention of trying to return to an earlier"golden" era when the DOD was among thestrongest supporters of academic science. Theremay be some evidence for that change in the information presented here on other universities,but there is no indication of it at the University ofChicago.*Note that the president's budget for FY 1981 has substantialincreases for the National Science Foundation concentrated inengineering and computer research and $10 million for oceanmargin drilling — none of them representing likely activity here.122Some of the decrease in Department of Defensefunding in the early years can also be ascribed totransfers to the National Science Foundation, andthere is indication of rather rapid growth in National Science Foundation support between1968-69 and 1973-74. However there is very littlegrowth in current dollars since then, in fact moredetailed information on obligation shows a sharpdrop between FY 1977 and FY 1978.Support by the National Endowment for theHumanities is of particular interest because it represents a relatively new and particularly suitablesource of funds for the University. Table VIIshows a rather rapid growth of this support until1978-79, at which time expenditures dropped byabout $600 thousand — a substantial fraction of thetotal. The records show that 1977-78 was a specialyear in which NEH made two one-time grants tothe University in support of special library acquisitions and programs (which are not assignedto any of the divisions or schools). In addition, alarge part of the total NEH funding represents alimited-term grant for the National Humanities Institute.Another irregular situation exists in connectionwith the category "other agencies" in Table VII.The funding is erratic because it is made up ofirregular and unpredictable one-time grants.Again there is a sharp drop between 1977-78 and1978-79 which, together with the drop in NEHfunds, accounts fully for the leveling off in1978-79 of the total University expenditures ofgovernment funds.Questions have been raised about the correlation between numbers of faculty and amounts ofgovernment funding. Relevant information for theperiod 1978-79, including numbers of faculty andgrants awarded by division and school, are presented in Appendix F, Table F-10. It is immediately apparent that government funding inthe natural sciences is roughly proportional to thenumbers of faculty. The fact that the dollars perfaculty member are about five times greater thanin other areas may be attributed in part to thegreater costs of research in natural sciences associated with equipment, technical services, etc.However the number of grants per facultymember is apparently an even more significantfactor.The School of Social Service Administrationstands out as a special case. The dollar values offederal grants per faculty member in 1978-79 weregreater than in the natural- sciences. This may beascribed in part to the phenomenon referred to asa potential problem in the physical sciences: an increased interest on the part of governmentagencies in applied science. In this connection, itshould be mentioned that the distinction betweenbasic and applied sciences is not drawn nearly sosharply in the life sciences as it is in other sciences.Another important reason for the special situation in SSA is the existence of a very substantial(about one third of the total) core grant on a year-by-year basis in effect in 1978-79. These fundswere not raised by individual faculty to supporttheir research efforts and are therefore not strictlycomparable to most of the other figures in TableF-10. Furthermore, the grant has now been terminated and a sharp drop in the total is, unfortunately, anticipated. We have here anotherexample, similar to that in the humanities, of thelack of continuity and predictability which is to beanticipated for those government agencies thathave not yet established clear basic objectives relating directly to continuing scholarly work.B. Comments and SuggestionsTotal federal obligations to the selected universities, as shown in Table II, have not keptpace, with only one exception, with inflation asmeasured by the GNP deflator. For the Universityof Chicago the growth from 1971-78 was 144.0compared to a deflator of 158.3. There is evidentlya national problem which must be addressed byuniversity administrations, faculties, and government agencies in concert.Apart from the common problem, the University's overall competitive position appears to be astrong one, indicating that our faculty is vigorously seeking and securing needed governmentsupport. However, there are troublesome featuresto this generally favorable picture, and they appear to need attention. They are in the areas ofresearch supported by NSF, DOE, and DOD,therefore largely in the physical sciences. Part ofthe difficulty is that the research budgets of theseagencies have not fared nearly as well as those ofHEW. But comparison among the selected universities indicates that that is not the entire story.To the extent that the demonstrated or anticipatedquality of performance is the principal basis forawarding grants and contracts, these comparisonsof funding success may be taken as a measure ofexcellence in research.By this measure, then, there appear to be someproblem areas in the physical sciences at the University. The existence of a problem has probablybeen overshadowed by the strong areas of research in the division, some of which have been123developing rapidly in recent years. Conversationswith members of the division reveal a serious concern about other research areas in which the division also once had such strength, or promise, butnow does not because of losses of faculty and failure to make key appointments.Successful repair of the damage caused by theselosses requires thoughtful planning on the part ofaffected departments or institutes with the fullknowledge and support of the dean and provost.This appears to us to be a case in which the absence of funding is a signal for a commitment onthe part of the University, which, if made withgood judgment, could yield benefits greatly exceeding the cost.A quite different, troublesome matter concernsthe uncertainties surrounding the National Endowment for the Humanities. Since this is a relatively new source, it should be showing realgrowth at this time but, although there have beensuccessful efforts by members of the faculty,there is no indication of a pattern of growth. Therelatively high level of current funding is limited interm, and it therefore holds no promise for thefuture. Lack of continuity appears to be characteristic of the way in which NEH does business,and a change is likely only if a substantial effort isundertaken in cooperation with other universities. The dean and provost should encourageand assist the faculty to deal with this problem instrategic terms.IV. Raising Government FundsSecuring government grants is the responsibilityof the individual investigator. That is the view ofprogram officers in the government agencies andof the larger research community. Where teamwork or a high degree of cooperation in research isdesirable or necessary, individuals may join together to seek an "umbrella grant" and name oneof their members to act as spokesman. There areoccasional opportunities to respond to invitationsto bid for special grants or contracts in the form ofinstitutes or centers addressed to special areas ofstudy. Although they may be somewhat morecentralized, the responses in this case also are expected to come from the investigators themselves.Although the direct responsibility for raisingthese funds rests with faculty members, the University has a great influence on the process byestablishing procedures for seeking and administering grants and in the way it deals with generalquestions concerning government policies andpractices. The degree to which the University shows interest in and support of the broad research objectives and plans of faculty can alsoinfluence their efforts and affect their fortunes. Allof these factors must be examined if we are tounderstand the causes of success and failure in theraising of government funds.A. Incentives and DisincentivesThe incentive for seeking government fundingmust arise from the objectives and wishes of individual faculty members. Unless procedures, administrative arrangements, and working conditions are conducive to making the effort, andunless the investigators, above all, have the perception that government funds are needed, andwill be used to further their work, the incentivemay be short lived.Our information indicates that none of theseconditions are adequately satisfied at the presenttime. We have been subject to substantial anecdotal evidence of inadequacies in the existingsystem arising from a variety of sources andcauses. Furthermore, the investigators have notbeen given enough information about the indirectcost recovery from their grants and contracts tofeel that it is done fairly. These perceptions arebelieved to act as a strong disincentive for seekinggovernment funding and serve to encourage faculty to avoid getting involved, if they can. Somespecific causes of these perceptions are discussedin Section V, "Administrative Arrangements andProcedures," but most details are being recordedin a separate report to the president.The extent to which these complaints may beexaggerated cannot easily be determined, nor is itimportant. What is the degree to which the perception of a grievance undermines the purposes ofthe University? Steps must be taken to changethat perception in order to establish the reputationof a university that works. This is needed not onlyto enhance faculty recruitment but also to serve asan incentive for those who are here.There is no stronger incentive than necessity.Those who have no other possible source of support for their research will go to governmentsources. Because it is almost always simpler,others are likely to choose another route. Thereare several alternative sources, including privatefoundations, consulting arrangements, and funding through independent institutions which maythemselves be funded by the government.Another alternative is the one available to facultymembers who require no more than an office, alibrary, part-time use of a departmental secretary,and a salary to carry out their studies. That, of124course, is the traditional image of scholarlyworking conditions. Tradition also has it that theUniversity will provide these services.The only incentives for seeking governmentfunding for those having the freedom to chooseamong these latter alternatives would be eitherthat their scientific or scholarly studies would beaided in some way or that it would be helpful tothe University community and would thereforeenhance the total scholarly environment. For thelatter notion to act as an important incentive, thecommunity as a whole must be convinced that thefunds are well and fairly used. And it is equallyimportant that there be University-wide recognition of the contributions made to the collectivegood by those who raise government funds.Several of those who met with the committeecalled attention to the incentives associated withincreasing the time available for personal researchefforts in the form of support for the summerquarter or for "released time" during theacademic year.The summer support or fourth-quarter compensation issue is quite straightforward. For a facultymember holding a three-quarter appointment onegood reason to seek government support is to receive compensation for summer work. For manyyears, the University has had a policy of limitingfourth-quarter compensation to two ninths of theacademic year salary. Although most facultymembers would prefer not to interrupt their research, they are strongly tempted to do so in orderto earn a full three-months pay by working forother institutions. In our view, a change in theUniversity policy to permit three ninths compensation for the fourth quarter, when governmentagencies allow it, would not only increase the incentive to apply for government grants but alsowould have the beneficial effect of maintaining ahigher level of research and intellectual activity onthe campus during the summer. It would also helpto overcome a difficult competitive situation in recruiting those highly qualified individuals who aremost likely to garner grants, since many of ourcompetitors already permit three months compensation for the summer.The subject of released time bears on the natureof the University and requires careful discussion.We take it up later in this report in Section VI on"The Impact of Government Funding on the Nature and Future of the University."B. ProceduresThe procedures for securing government supportare usually specified by each agency in terms of its own policies, rules, regulations, and needs. Thesevary widely from agency to agency and are constantly changing, usually in the direction ofgreater complexity. Support of university research is normally in response to unsolicited proposals, that is, to proposals prepared by investigators based on their own research plans.However, there are situations in which an agencymay send out a request for proposals (RFP) insome specific area of research and a facultymember, or a group of faculty members, may respond if their research objectives coincide withthose of the agency.The internal guiding principles under which thefaculty applies for research support delineated inRecommendation 4 of the Bennett Committee Report are particularly relevant: "Allow facultymembers full freedom to prepare applications orto refrain from applying, in accordance with theinitiative, wishes, and aims of each facultymember, without pressure or coercion from theUniversity or any of its officers, deans, or chairman."In view of the significance of federal support tothe academic goals of the University, we favor amodification of Recommendation 4 of the BennettCommittee Report as follows: "Allow facultymembers and research associates with facultyrank or senior research associates freedom to initiate and define the objectives and plan of applications for research or teaching support." In addinga provision for research associates with facultyrank, we recognize a change* in the categories ofacademic appointments which occurred in 1977.In deleting phrases of the Bennett Committee recommendation, we recognize the need to retainfaculty freedom but also the need to transmit tothe faculty the importance of outside support ifthe University is to have the ability to maintainand increase its strengths. There must be a balance between the freedom of the faculty to obtainsupport and the recognition of the University'sneed for substantial outside support if it is to abideby its commitment to existing faculty and if it is torenew its faculty.At present, internal procedures for obtaininggovernment grants and contracts are largely adhoc. They are described in some detail in Appendix C and there is additional discussion of them inSection V.Some divisional administrative officers circulate monthly lists of available opportunities and*Memorandum of September 21, 1977 from D. Gale Johnson,Provost, to Deans, Directors, and Chairmen.125deadlines for the submission of proposals. Thedecision to submit a proposal is made by individual faculty members. Once written, such proposals are subject to scrutiny by various administrative units: departmental, divisional, and central.Such scrutiny is directed to budgetary items andinstitutional commitments including indirect versus direct cost recovery, space and facilities, andthe procurement of equipment. Some divisionshave an elaborate administrative structure to dealwith such questions, others none at all. Thus someproposals are subjected to elaborate scrutiny,others to very little. The internal review processcan take months before the decision to approve ordisapprove a proposal is finally made.Once it is submitted to an agency, the successor failure of any proposal depends upon manyfactors: intellectual merit, of course, but alsotimeliness, clarity, and relevance, to name but afew. It is frequently advantageous if the proposerunderstands how the review process works andespecially if he or she has served on peer reviewboards or has participated in the review process inother ways.C. Government Policies and PracticesThe success or failure of University efforts toraise government funds depends strongly on aknowledge of government policies and practices,and it may depend on the ability of the Universityto influence those policies and practices. Ourknowledge of these matters comes to us in a variety of ways: newsletters and magazines of theprofessional associations are constantly reportingon them, they are discussed formally and informally at meetings of professional societies, information is conveyed through contacts betweeninvestigators and program officers of the agencies,and so forth. By far the most effective channel ofcommunication is provided by those who participate in the policy-making process, investigatorswho serve on advisory committees, reviewboards, the National Research Council, andothers. They are in an excellent position to knowabout existing policy and shifts in policy. In particular, they are in a good position to know aboutnew government programs that may be of interestto their colleagues. They are also in a good position to provide communication the other way, toinform the agencies of the capabilities and interests of their colleagues. Like it or not, that is theway to success for most of the major researchuniversities. Comments made to this committeeindicate that we suffer from some weakness in thisarea. Of course many members of the faculty are too busy with their research and teaching to accept additional responsibilities. However, there isalso some indication that policy-making publicservice activity is not felt to be in keeping with thestyle of this University. If that is the case, we shallhave difficulty in maintaining our position in research as its dependence on government sourcesincreases, and our strong position in research isthe key to that coveted style.The channels of communication open to facultymembers are through the lower levels within theagencies. The investigator deals with an agencyprogram officer and even most of the committeesand boards deal with middle management. The influence on government policy-making at that levelis minimal; their greatest policy role is in theinterpretation, which is more influenced by themanagers' interest in making the most of a limitedbudget than in any general purpose of those whoset the policies.There is another necessary channel of communication: that between fiscal officers of theUniversity and of the government. Again, this iscommunication at the middle management leveland is not likely to affect policy. In contrast toprogram managers, the government fiscal managers interpret policy in as literal a manner as possible. Rarely the twain shall meet. The result isthat the responsible fiscal officer of the Universityis often getting signals from Washington that arequite different from those received by investigators.The existence of these two channels of communication, frequently working at cross purposes,is one of the important messages we must conveyto the University president and provost. Thechannels are linked effectively in Washington onlyat the top management levels of the agencies.Major differences can be resolved only at thatpoint, and effective University influence can onlybe expected if the faculty has overt backing fromthe president's office. The absence of a visibleactivity of this kind has been a cause of frustrationfor faculty, who feel that much of the effort theyinvest in such matters is unproductive and simplyserves as one more distraction from their primarytasks. There is an urgent need for someone whohas delegated authority to speak for the University on matters of government policy and practiceat the highest levels. That person must be of andhave the respect of the faculty, be experienced ingovernment-supported research at the workinglevel, and must have a good knowledge of thegovernment apparatus in its larger aspects, atleast in some major areas.126It is only through such high-level interventionthat we can hope to be heard effectively on crucialissues affecting government funding throughoutthe University. However, the utilization of thatrepresentative of the president need not be limitedto dealings with Washington since opportunitiesfor the University to manifest its strong interest ingovernment-supported research on campus occurfrequently when agency program officers visit thecampus to review research activities. A brief visitby those agency representatives to a representative of the president or provost who is known tothem, at least by reputation, can provide occasionfor clarification of the University's questions concerning the agency's policies and intentions withregard to those particular programs. At the sametime it would make the agency representativeskeenly aware of the high level of interest withinthe University.In order that the president and provost be in aposition to be kept informed about faculty concerns and be able to make quick soundings of faculty opinion, a small standing committee representing each of the divisions and professionalschools should be established by the president tosupport the designated representative in providingthat advice.Do PlanningThe writing of a proposal to a government agencyinvolves a significant amount of planning. Formost proposals for work of a fundamental nature,it can be assumed that the planning is very loose inthe sense that the investigator tries to avoid constraints that will exclude the pursuit of unexpected opportunities. In fact the concept of planning, especially long-range planning, is not part ofthe usual academic image and is not expected toplay the important role in a university that it doesin more disciplined (regimented?) institutions.However, since most of the scientific andscholarly work of the University is governmentsupported, raising funds for that work requiresserious advance thought and planning. Suchthoughtful planning must be initiated by facultybut requires strong encouragement and supportfrom the administration.Scholarly excellence being both the objective ofthe University and the strongest attraction for anykind of support means that it must also be thefocus of planning. We must plan to build onstrength and therefore look for planning initiativeswhere quality already exists, or where there arespecial opportunities to establish quality.The recognition of special opportunities is an important factor, especially in what is known as"big science." Examples from past experienceare the construction of the world's largest accelerator in the Chicago area or opportunities formounting space experiments in satellites. The future possibilities for a high-intensity neutronsource at Argonne offer a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for both physical and biological sciences. Institutes or centers specializing in fundamental studies in the humanities and in social,biological, physical, or mathematical scienceshave also become recent projects offered by government agencies.Most projects of this kind go through years ofplanning, construction, and implementation.Those who exploit them must plan for it from thestart and continue planning ahead as the workunfolds. The planning process must include theearly political stage during which the decision ismade to place the facility in a given location or todetermine its clientele and later stages when important policy decisions are being made. The University must be involved at the highest levels inthis process in order to maintain or improve itsposition at the frontiers of knowledge. We cannotbe satisfied with less than that.Being involved means not only political actionbut also execution of a planned strategy to back itup. It requires the recruitment of young faculty ofthe highest quality in the given area of strength,and the support of those faculty so that they mayget a running start. This clearly implies a willingness to take some chances based on judgments ofquality, but we all know that the name of the gamein building and continuing a great university issuccessful risk-taking of just that kind.Other risks must also be taken in the form ofcommitments to provide needed facilities and services to exploit special opportunities. Risk capitalis also needed to cover the costs of proposal preparation for new projects since preliminary stepscan be complex and time-consuming, especiallyfor long-range projects or those requiring the design of new instruments. These investments willpay off handsomely in funding from both government and private sources if they are made on thebasis of good, strategic planning.¥B Adtnlnistratiwe Arrangementsand ProcedyresThe way in which research proposals are processed through University offices, the handling ofthe financial affairs of the resulting grants andcontracts, and the services required to implement127research depend on the administrative structuresof the University and on the way the investigatorsmanage their research operations. In view of thefact that research operations of the Universityrepresent a growing, highly diverse, eighty milliondollars per year enterprise, their administrationdeserves careful attention.Within the University, there exists a great rangeof administrative arrangements and proceduresfor handling grants and contracts. We believe thisstate of affairs is largely unavoidable: The basicphilosophy of the University seems to be to permit the individual faculty member and the administrative groupings of faculty to pursue theirgoals with as much freedom as possible, withinthe limits set by considerations of the University'sgeneral welfare. Quite diverse sets of needs areassociated with grants in different areas withindepartments. However the very looseness ofthese arrangements has permitted the system todevelop serious weaknesses which must be remedied, albeit without undermining the autonomyof the faculty.A. The Processing of ProposalsAll proposals are submitted in the name of theUniversity and must therefore be carefully reviewed to verify that the University's interestsand responsibilities are taken into account. Someof the matters that must be considered by internalreviewers are:Is there space available for the proposed research?Is the proposal compatible with other priorcommitments and obligations of the faculty members involved?Has the budget an item for so-called "facultysavings"? If not, why not? If so, is the amountappropriate?Has the appropriate or required format beenused?Does the proposal meet the several requirements of the granting agency as they apply tothe proposal? These include: approval by a humansubjects' rights committee, approval of housingfacilities for animals, statement about recombinant DNA, and justification of budgetitems.The practices for handling proposals varywidely: In one department in the Physical Sciences proposals written by experienced facultymembers often receive only cursory scrutiny atthe departmental or divisional level, while at theother extreme the Division of Biological Scienceshas its own associate dean and Office of Spon sored Programs. Dissatisfactions expressed byadministrators focus on the uneven workload;many proposals come to administrators withindays or hours of the date they are due at thefunding agencies, especially in late September.(About 40 percent of proposals arrive at the Officeof Sponsored Programs within three days of theirdeadlines.) It seems doubtful that faculty members can be persuaded to complete their proposalswell before these deadlines; memos from the provost and from deans have had little effect and anyattempt to impose deadlines within the Universitywould evoke a storm of protest.The unexpected arrival at OSP of a complexproposal without prior consultation (for example,a proposal that cuts across departmental lines orinvolves another university, perhaps with a subcontract) also creates problems. And there may bedifficulties with proposals being submitted tofunding sources with which OSP is not familiar.The inconvenience in these instances lies in thefact that the proposal writers are not aware thatOSP is responsible for determining that the necessary arrangements have been made and the requirements of the funding source have been met.Faculty dissatisfactions are of two kinds. Theyexperience difficulties in obtaining informationabout the requirements of the University and ofthe funding agencies. Dissatisfaction also develops when a proposal must be approved at threelevels (departmental, divisional, and University)and the faculty member receives from each levelinstructions about necessary changes in thebudget or the front page. It is the apparent triviality of many of these "corrections" that arousesirritations.While faculty annoyance is itself undesirable,these irritations must be remedied for more compelling reasons: they discourage faculty initiatives, damage the reputation of the University,and increase costs.Several possible remedies have been suggested.They include:1. Better communication through informationleaflets providing up-to-date information on requirements and practices of the University andeach agency.2. Provision of checklists against whichproposals will be tested for compliance with requirements and practices.3. Establishment of agreements among the reviewers at the three levels so that each item on thechecklist is the responsibility of just one level.A corollary to such suggestions is that a formatfor proposals should be established with reference128to checklists and that portions of proposals beprocessed in advance. It would be necessary toencourage faculty to make use of this opportunity,for example by preparing and submitting budgetsearly without waiting until narrative justificationshave been polished. The reward would be a reduction in the level of aggravation.B. Administration of Grants and ContractsThe anecdotes concerning administration practices heard by this committee lead one to the conclusion that we were trying to fit a (Bactrian)camel into a dromedary's skin. The administrativearrangements of this University, like many others,were designed to serve the needs of an institutionoperating on endowment income, tuition fees, andgifts. The advent of the era of government fundingwas viewed as a marginal benefit and the associated administrative changes were marginal.Although marginal adjustments have been madeover the years, the current arrangements are apparently not well adapted to the needs of the University' s research establishment.Many of the complaints we have heard have todo with administrative response time. Others haveto do with constraints on selection of support personnel for research operations. All are concernedwith the efficiency, dedication, and spirit of administrative actions and personnel. These difficulties can be understood in the context of aninstitution well equipped to deal with the pace andneeds of traditional scholarly and educationalprograms but not geared to the contrasting needfor expediting and managing high-powered research programs involving very expensive piecesof equipment, tight schedules, severe regulations,and strict accountability. The disparity betweenthe needs should be obvious.In view of the fact that the University is a verylarge research institution, there is a need for acorresponding research administrative structure—to fit the other hump of the camel. The totalstructure must, of course, be compatible withboth kinds of service.The design of administrative structures is amanagement issue, not in the purview of a facultycommittee. However, our observations have ledto the conclusion that there is a need for facultyrepresentation in discussions of these issues at thetop administrative levels of the University. Thedifficulty felt by the faculty in communicatingtheir concerns is a clear demonstration of thisneed. Possibly, the same person suggested inSection IV C to advise the president and provostabout government policy matters could serve this purpose, too. The standing advisory committeecould provide an essential channel of communication also.C. ServicesMany of the services required for research activities are administrative in nature. They includefinancial recordkeeping, purchasing, personnel,etc. Technical services such as building maintenance, heating and cooling, power distribution,remodeling and moving, etc., are also required.Discussions of these services with this committeehave repeatedly focused on either of two separateissues: One is the effectiveness with which theservices are provided, and the other is their cost.Many of the points made about administrationof grants and contracts in the foregoing sectionapply to technical services as well. There is anadditional point to be made concerning the spiritin which services are offered. We have heard fromfaculty sources their judgment of the efficiency,spirit, etc., with which services are provided.Something must, however, be said about anotherside of the matter, the incentives for support staff.All of us understand the research incentives offaculty, and the rewards. It is not justified to assume that these incentives and rewards are sharedby the University support staff. Unlike the specialized technical staff associated with a givenproject who do share such rewards, the Universitysupport staff do not. The rewards for support-service staff are largely financial and even theseare not always conducive to high efficiency. Overtrecognition by faculty of notable contributions,when they occur, would not go amiss.If we seek an efficient, dedicated service staff,we must be willing to pay the price. Overall, thatis the most cost-efficient way; it will pay for itselfin the long run. This very tangible recognition oftheir importance will both serve to encouragehighly qualified staff to join and stay with the University and will encourage their sense of institutional commitment.The other question, concerning the cost of services, is a complex one. The cost of the servicesprovided to a research program that is government supported is presumed to be paid throughindirect cost recovery. Indirect costs are discussed in the next section but the point made hereis that there is a general perception of a level ofindirect costs well above the level of services provided. In fact some investigators find, in the absence of adequate services, that it is necessary touse direct research funding to provide supplementary services. This use of direct funding is129perfectly appropriate if it results from special services required for federally supported research.That may include special management requirements for large projects or special technicalservices. However, it must not include generalservices provided by the University and presumably paid for by indirect cost recovery.The services an investigator can expect in return for indirect cost recovery can only be determined from a knowledge of the way the indirectcost recovery formula is determined and applied.That is the subject of the next section.D. Indirect Cost RecoveryMore than any other one subject, this one hasbeen cited by those who met with the committeeas an area needing attention. A probable cause forthis situation is the prevailing ignorance of facultyconcerning the factors determining indirect costsand the disposition of money so recovered. It isastonishing how difficult it is to penetrate the details of the accounting associated with indirectcosts to obtain a broad picture. This difficulty hasencouraged some members of the faculty to inventconspiratorial theories about the purposes anduses of indirect cost recovery. We do not believeany of these theories are justified.We find that the most useful purpose that wecan serve in regard to indirect costs is to try toclarify the situation by summarizing what welearned about them. First, we should emphasizethat we are satisfied that we are dealing here withreal costs of research in the University. Weshould also note that, in trying to explain thesecosts, we are dealing with a matter that is incidental to the real purposes of our committee,which is concerned primarily with ways to helpmembers of the faculty to do the work they wantto do by finding support through governmentagencies. That is the thrust of the charge made tothis committee by Mrs. Gray as we understand it.Indirect costs are costs of the operation of theUniversity that cannot be readily identified asthose associated with a specific program or programmatic function. They include many servicesand functions but are not readily broken down sothat they can be assigned function by function.Because of this complexity, it is necessary tomake extensive use of averages in assigning indirect costs to a great variety of activities aridfunctions. To do otherwise would require a considerably increased accounting effort which, inturn, would be reflected in greater costs. Averaging necessarily introduces some inequities. However, the price that would be paid in trying to account in detail for all indirect costs would undoubtedly be much more serious than any of thoseinequities.The general principle is that the University determines, on the basis of the prior year's experience, the total costs of those functions which fallunder the rubric "indirect." Then, the part of thattotal cost that can be ascribed to sponsored programs is determined. For example, in 1977-78 thetotal relevant indirect costs for the Universitywere $52 million. The amount of this that wasallocated to sponsored research was approximately $15 million. The amount allocated is usedto determine the indirect cost rate. At the presenttime that rate is presented as a percentage of directly charged salaries and wages in the sponsoredprograms. Given that percentage, which is 76 percent for 1979-80, anyone preparing a proposal isin a position to determine the indirect costs fromthe budget associated with a proposal.The indirect cost rate is determined in negotiations with government representatives leading toan estimate based on cost experience for the yearpreceding the negotiating. To the extent that therate yields a cost recovery varying from actualcosts, the amount of the variance may be includedin the calculations for a future year.The provost's memorandum of December 10,1979 pointed out that there has been a recent revision in the government rules for determining indirect cost recovery. This has appeared in theform of a revised Office of Management andBudget Circular A-21. Mr. Johnson's memorandum is attached to this report as Appendix D. Theprincipal thrust of the revision is that the calculation of an indirect cost rate will be based onModified Total Direct Cost (MTDC) rather thanon salaries and wages. Aside from details discussed in the provost's memorandum, it is intended that this change should not affect the totalamount that the University recovers. In otherwords, the determination of an indirect rate isgoverned by the dollar amount to be recovered,the approximately $15 million of the foregoingexample.More detailed information concerning the wayin which the indirect cost recovery rate has beendetermined is given in Appendix E. Describedthere are the categories of costs included in thisdetermination, the total amounts of each for1977-78, and the percent allocated to sponsoredresearch for each category.Having determined these allotments, whichmust of course be justified to government auditors, the total amount of the indirect cost to be130assigned to sponsored programs is determined byadding up these charges. This was 72 percent ofthe salaries and wages directly charged to sponsored programs at the time the estimate was madefor the period including 1977-78; therefore 72 percent is the negotiated indirect cost rate used ingovernment proposal budgets for 1977-78.About 27.5 percent of the $52 million in totalindirect costs is charged to sponsored programs.Comparatively, government expenditures for research in the University (Tables VI and VII, Section III C) are 28.5 percent of the total Universityexpenditures for 1977-78 (shown in Appendix F,Table F-l). The fact that these are about the sameencourages us to believe that calculated indirectcosts are reasonable.Aside from deviations produced by the grossaveraging, government sponsored research programs recover most of their indirect costs fromthe government. To pay for the indirect costs ofother scientific and scholarly research, the University must turn to other sources of unrestrictedfunds since restricted grants from private sourcesrarely cover more than a small fraction of suchcosts. Examination of the University's consolidated budget shows that indirect cost recoveryfrom the government amounts to about 22 percentof total unrestricted income.On the basis of what has been said here, it canbe understood why those faculty members whoexert themselves to obtain government grants andcontracts feel that they are contributing to thesupport of the University as a whole. Much of thecost of their research, including indirect costs andeven some part of faculty salaries, is covered bythe federal funds they have raised. Of course,someone must raise these funds and our impression is that most investigators have a favorableattitude toward taking this responsibility, not onlybecause of the necessities but also because it addsto the total quality of the University environment,which is important to them. This attitude places asignificant burden on those whose work could besupported by government funding through theUniversity but who choose other alternatives. Allsuch alternatives lead to uncompensated indirectcosts that are subsidized by the efforts of thosewho obtain government funding and of those whoraise other unrestricted funds for the University.Indirect cost recovery from agencies other thanthe Public Health Service raises major issueswhich are a cause for concern. The reason that thePublic Health Service stands alone is that theypay indirect costs through a separate channel.Therefore these costs do not play a direct role in determining budget levels of individual programsin that agency. For other agencies, the negotiationwith each investigator leads to a budget level including indirect costs. From the time that government funding leveled off, the total dollar levelsof most continuing projects in the University haveremained nearly constant while the indirect costrecovery rates have been climbing. The indirectrate was 46 percent of salaries and wages in1968-69, 56 percent in 1973-74, 72 percent in1977-78 and is 76 percent in 1979-80. One reasonfor this anomalous situation may be that it hastaken time and experience to fully identify indirectcosts. Another reason must be that while inflationand added facilities have increased the University's indirect costs, the University has not beenin a position to raise its other expenditures proportionally (for example, faculty salaries have notkept pace with inflation) and they form the basefor estimating the indirect rate.The indirect cost is taken off the top of nearlyconstant research budgets with the result that lessand less is left to cover direct costs. That meansthere is less support for research assistants andpostdoctoral research associates and less moneyfor equipment although its cost is increasing muchfaster thvan inflation. The final outcome is muchless research for the same amount of money. Forthis reason we have an obligation to make oursupporting administration as cost effective andefficient as possible.Another issue of great concern for some of thelarger contracts and grants in the physical sciences is the revision of OMB Circular A-21 discussed in the provost's December 10, 1979memorandum. That change will have differenteffects on different types of projects and may bevery costly to some of them. Information provided to the committee suggests that if fundingagencies do not make adjustments to total budgetsto compensate for this shift, an appreciablenumber (about 30 percent) of non-Public HealthService grants may incur reductions in their directcost budgets. The total "shortfall" within theUniversity could be of the order of $1 million.This would presumably represent a temporarydislocation that would be corrected as grants arerenewed and budgets renegotiated. The initial impact on some individual grants could, however, besevere. The third and fourth paragraphs on thesecond page of the provost's memorandum address this issue. As Mr. Johnson indicates, stepsare being taken to try to mitigate that impact. Theoutcome remains to be determined.The revised regulations apparently require131more detailed accounting for and documentationof the allocation of personnel (including faculty)time and effort, including the recording of "100percent of effort." While recognizing the need foraccountability, we consider it important that theseregulations be implemented in a manner that willminimize their impact on the atmosphere and styleof the University and on the freedom of the faculty to pursue their legitimate academic and professional activities. This calls for careful attentionto the definitions of the terms "full time" and"100 percent of effort." An attempt should bemade to arrive at definitions of these terms whichwould accommodate the right of faculty membersto engage in independent professional and scholarly activities within reasonable limits that do notinterfere with the performance of their Universityactivities. This may require re-examination andmodification of the University's statutes.VI. Impact of Government Funding onthe Nature and Future of the UniversityThe impact of government funding on the natureof the University began to be felt many years agoand its cumulative effect has been enormous, asshould be clear from our historical comments inSections I and III A. The statement that federalsources comprise some 70 percent of all sourcesof support for academic research is evidenceenough. Adding to this condition the effect of increasing complexity of research methods, likelychanges in economic structure, and changingpolitical conditions, the impact can be expected tobecome even greater in the future.The Bennett Committee addressed this issueand their recommendations make a convenientspring-board for much of this chapter. Theyspoke, with what seems to us to be a contemporary and persuasive voice, of many of the issues tobe addressed here, and they give us the opportunity to weigh the added experience of ten years informing our own recommendations.A. Balance among Teaching, Research, and OtherObligationsThe Bennett Committee's first recommendationstressed the importance of preserving academicautonomy in allocating each faculty member's responsibilities between teaching and research. Thisshould be made in accordance with the University's needs and commitments and should be immune from the fortunes of research grant applications. Hence they argued that "grant applications carrying provisions for partial faculty salariesshould be discouraged." This recommendationcarried forward the Bennett Committee's earlierview that it is wise "to construe teaching and research responsibilities of faculty members in amanner not coupled closely to the sources offunds contributing to a faculty member's salary."Our committee is somewhat troubled by therigidity of this position on what would now becalled "released time." Sometimes, and in somedivisions, faculties, or departments, it is appropriate for research obligations, under the terms of agovernment grant, to include a period duringwhich the faculty member is relieved entirely ofteaching obligations. Occasionally, of course, theresearch will be off-campus and released time isessential. In other cases, the project blends wellwith the researcher's on-going, on-campusteaching activities and released time is unnecessary and undesirable, or it may be that theteaching function is better served in the laboratorythan in the classroom. What has happened, itseems to us, is that, in the decade since the Bennett Committee wrote, the University has heededthe committee's adjuration not to let researchgrants skew the balance between research andteaching, but has also worked out diverse accommodations at the divisional, departmental, andfaculty levels to handle this problem. Any generalrule, beyond a broad principle of not letting research grants skew this balance, would be objectionable and counterproductive. Diversity of arrangements decided at the divisional or department or faculty level, whichever is appropriate tothe particular case, are to be preferred to anyUniversity- wide rule.Although general rules are undesirable, thereare certain aspects of this released time questionto be kept in mind. Released time may serve as adesirable incentive to a faculty member to seekgovernment funding. It may free a faculty memberto spend more time teaching in the laboratorywhere some are more effective than in the classroom. And it may help provide relief from administrative and committee duties which caninterfere with research activities. However, itcould undermine the character of the Universityto allow negotiations over released time to forceon us government formulas determining standardteaching loads.There are, of course, some grants (for example,career development awards) that are conditionalon release of the faculty member from all teachingand administrative responsibilities for the period132of the grant. Eligibility of our faculty for suchawards must not be jeopardized.One way in which federal funds help the University as a whole is through "faculty savings,"which is the term used to describe the contribution toward faculty salaries permitted under theterms of some grants or contracts. This contribution is considered to be payment for part of thetime spent by the faculty member on the researchprogram supported by the grant. Since, normally,that time would be spent in the same way in anycase, it is not looked upon as released time,although any substantial imposition upon thattime for other purposes by the department wouldcertainly elicit objections from faculty. Because itis to the advantage of the University as a whole,deans encourage the inclusion of permissible faculty savings in all proposals.The permissible levels vary from agency toagency and even within agencies. Although theyare allowable under general federal policies, middle management policies in some agencies aremore restrictive. There are agencies in which theprogram managers will not provide any supportfor academic year salaries of faculty.A good general principle is to include in theproposed budget the maximum allowable facultysalary support when submitting a new proposal.However, for continuing programs for which thetotal level of funding is being held constant, faculty savings should be increased only to the extentthat it will not reduce the funding available forresearch, since that could lead, for example, to areduction in the number of student assistants orpostdoctoral associates.The question of summer support, which wasdiscussed as an incentive in Section IV A, also hasimplications for the nature of the University. Aspointed out there, it is desirable to have increasedincentives for faculty members to do their workon campus insofar as that is possible because thisenhances the intellectual environment in a way forwhich there is no substitute. On the other hand,there are substantial arguments against pressingfaculty into summer-quarter (or other fourth-quarter) appointments. For many it is better totake this period for their own reading, research,and writing independent of any grant or othercompensation if they can afford to do it. Raisingthe ceiling from two ninths to three ninths is antipathetic to that course. But having discussed thisquestion at some length, the committee is of theview that the ceiling should be raised to threeninths. Our competitive position with other uni versities, together with financial pressures onfaculty at a time of swift inflation, seems to us toshift the balance of the argument in favor of relaxing the two ninths ceiling so that faculty whochoose to spend three months in their fourthquarter doing research may be paid for their fulleffort.Another aspect of the federal grants process deserving of our attention is the pressure on facultyby government agencies to give unsparingly oftheir time to serve on advisory committees, tocarry out peer reviews, and to provide technicalconsultation services. Most investigators considerthis to be both a natural responsibility associatedwith government support and an opportunity toinfluence policy and programmatic trends in theagencies. However, it implies a third element,along with teaching and research, in the distribution of faculty "loads." We believe that these external activities are very important to the University in many ways and that they should be encouraged. Departmental assessments of faculty performance and departmental assignments to internal committees should give due weight to nationalservice.At the same time, the University must be prepared to stand on the principle that the facultymember is to have freedom of choice about theseservices, that it will not be a party to any unsuitable (or unwanted?) overt or hidden agreements ingovernment contracts requiring service from theinvestigator, and that it will defend his or her rightto refuse to perform such service.B. Risks Associated with Government FundingTo what extent is the University likely to be affected adversely by pervasive dependence ongovernment funding? The risks that have beenrecognized from the outset include federal control, capricious funding, subversion of scholarlyobjectives, imbalance among disciplines, and diversion of loyalties from the University to a government agency. We believe that thirty years' experience shows that, while concern about theserisks is justified, all of them can be met by a determined and alert faculty and University administration.Government funding makes us more vulnerableto government regulation since withholding offunds can serve as a strong punitive measure.However, government regulation of universitiescertainly cannot be escaped by refusing to acceptfederal support of research.A real danger to the purposes of the University133would be introduced by accepting the controls associated with government classified research orother limitations on publication of scholarly research. Therefore we support Recommendation 6of the Bennett Committee:"Accept no grants or contracts which imposeconditions of secrecy, or of prohibition of publication of results, or which are classified as 'secret'or 'confidential' or otherwise restricted as toopenness, or which provide for consultative services involving restricted or classified information, issues or operations, or which are otherwiseinconsistent with free inquiry."The recommendation is in accordance with thestatutory formulation of the basic policies of theUniversity (see the Statutes of the University,enacted by the Board of Trustees, Statute 21)which provides binding guidance on this matterand amply protects scholarly values, and, in particular, the right of publication of research results.Although "capricious" may be too strong aterm, there are year-to-year changes in fundingpatterns that can be very troublesome. They arecaused by a variety of factors including OMBpolicy decisions to emphasize one field and de-emphasize another, congressional budget decisions, and agency efforts to adjust to budgetchanges. Although these changes may not even benoticeable in the total university budget, they canbe devastating to the individual investigator whois affected adversely.There appear to be two ways in which theproblem might be mitigated. One is to establishgood liaison between the highest levels of theUniversity and the highest levels of the agenciesto encourage policies designed to prevent such incidents, such as multiyear funding arrangements.Also if an investigator asks the University tointervene with an agency, the mechanism wouldbe in place. The other way is to establish a reserveemergency fund that would be available to bridgea transition brought about by unexpected withdrawal of support.The possibility of subversion of scholarly objectives was recognized by the Bennett Committee and their third recommendation was intendedto head it off:"Regard Federal grant and contract programofferings as opportunities which the Universityand its faculty members can examine and evaluate, so determining the suitability and relevance ofthe several programs to the function of the University and the scholarly objectives of its individual faculty members." But for the one word "offerings," which wasprobably used inadvertently, we concur in thisrecommendation. An offering in the sense of agovernment Request for Proposal (RFP) definestoo limited a class of opportunities. More commonthan responses to RFP's are the unsolicited proposals submitted to one or more agencies on theinvestigator's own initiative. The decision as tothe nature of the endeavor is then left in the handsof the investigator and the scholarly objectives aredefined independently of specific agency objectives.There is a class of RFP appropriate for consideration by the University and within it are certaintypes for which a response may be important to asubstantial segment of the faculty. For example, agovernment agency wishing to support some sub-field of scientific research or to provide a mechanism for the academic community to take advantage of some special research facility may circulate an RFP for a "research institute" or "center"in that subfield, with very few intellectual stringsattached. Interested faculty members should havethe freedom to decide whether to respond or not.If they find that a response is in their best interestsand those of the University, the University mustexamine the conditions very carefully to be cer-Atain that it understands, and is willing to accept,the associated risks before giving its approval.We have obtained anecdotal evidence that somesignificant opportunities for responding to suchRFP's have been missed. Such missed opportunities are a serious matter since they could provideneeded support for good work. A more subtle reason for taking them seriously is that any universitythat does exploit these opportunities successfullyis apt to be in a position to recruit the most distinguished active scholars in the field, possibly including some of our own colleagues.The fifth recommendation of the Bennett Committee provides that the University should continue to submit only those grant applications"which have originated with and been preparedby faculty members and which have beenexamined and approved at the departmental level,at the level of the division, school, college or institute, as may be appropriate, and at the level ofthe Central Administration of the University."Our committee reaffirms the thrust of this recommendation, modified so as to take into account theright of a research associate with faculty rank tosubmit a proposal for consideration. In Section IVB we proposed a similar modification to BennettCommittee Recommendation 4.The temptation to adjust research objectives tomatch them to federal programs is sometimes134considered to be a significant hazard but it doesnot appear to be very great for our faculty. Thereare situations, of course, in which a facultymember must make a choice between activities ofabout equal interest and scholarly content. Thechoice will clearly be influenced by the existenceof a federal program which can support only oneof those activities.Evidently the ninth recommendation of theBennett Committee was addressed to this issue. Itprovides that special care should be taken in reviewing grant applications which may be directedtowards "result oriented" federal granting programs, or which may otherwise offer danger ofdistorting scholarly aims of the applicant and theUniversity. Some have read this recommendationas tending to discourage applicants for grants tosupport projects in applied science. This was not,we feel sure, the intent of the Bennett Committeeand it is certainly not ours. Any simplistic assessment of the relative value of basic and appliedprojects is to be resisted. Such views tend to failto perceive the complexity of the interaction between the basic and the applied and tend further toinhibit scholarly creativity. The ultimate criteriafor acceptability of research and scholarly objectives must be left to the traditional collegia! processes of the University.Another hazard associated with any form of restricted funding and seemingly of considerableconcern to some segments of our faculty is thepossibility that there will be a severe shift in thebalance on campus in favor of selected disciplines. We feel that the opposite view can betaken, that it is necessary to find sources of support for every discipline that belongs on the campus. Every effort must be made to gain the support needed to maintain the quality of excellencein that discipline. The effort must be made by bothfaculty and administration.The much greater cost of work in the scienceshas not been a cause for imbalance between, say,the sciences and the humanities. On the contraryit has proved to be an incentive for the scientist tobecome involved in fund raising for his or her ownwork. And, as we have already noted in our discussion of indirect costs, the total University benefits. This committee suggests that the way tomaintain balance is for all members of the facultyto take an interest in obtaining support for theirwork whether or not it is an immediate necessity.Finally, we come to the danger of diversion ofloyalties from the University to a governmentagency. It can be presumed that the scholar's primary loyalty is to his or her work. Any agencyhelping with that work will share in the benefits of that loyalty. Certainly if the scholar perceives thatthe University is playing a constructive role in theacquisition of necessary government funding, theUniversity as well as the agency will realize thebenefits of that loyalty. On the other hand, if theUniversity appears to be interfering in or hindering a constructive relationship between the investigator and a sponsoring agency, there will be ashift in loyalty toward the agency. To some extentthis has been occurring because of the many frustrations suffered by faculty over the administration of government funds. The frustrations anddistractions associated with getting caught between University and federal bureaucracies haveeven led some faculty members to seek government funding of their work through surrogates ofthe University.Our point is that government funding in itselfdoes not jeopardize loyalty to the University. Therisk is in the way the funding is handled.C. Organizational IssuesAt various places in this report we have suggestedactions which could require some adjustments inthe organization of the University to take accountof the large role of government funding. Althoughwe have suggested that more efficient management systems are needed to deal with such a largeresearch enterprise, we are aware of dangers inherent in the proposal. We must not lose sight ofthe overriding importance of maintaining thecharacter of the University. Therefore, although athorough and efficient management of research-related business dealings is needed, it must bekept under academic control. It may also be desirable to provide some insulation between thesebusiness operations and those of the more traditional academic functions.This desire to protect the academic nature ofthe University is one reason for recommendingthe appointment of an officer of the faculty, reporting at the level of the president and provost,to provide support for research activities. It is alsoa reason for establishing a small standing facultycommittee advisory to that officer. There is precedent for such a committee. In May of 1964, thenProvost Edward Levi established such a committee which met generally quarterly until the end ofthe 1976-77 academic year. Topics discussed,often repeatedly, included: levels of federal funding, freedom of publication, charging tuition togrants and contracts, conflicts of interest. In general, such a committee should be of assistance tothe University in providing a constant stimulus toattracting and wisely using government grants. Italso would provide a mechanism for assuring that135the administration is aware of faculty concerns.This suggestion is consistent with, and providesa specific mechanism to implement, the other tworecommendations of the Bennett Committee,numbers 7 and 8, which read as follows:"7. Exert, through its associations and individual faculty members, and otherwise, as may behelpful and in the public interest, influence on theFederal Government designed to promote sound,adequately financed, stable Federal grant andcontract policies." 8 . Provide mechanisms whereby faculty members can get competent and knowledgeable advicefrom colleagues whenever the foregoing recommended policy guides appear to be insufficient, orwhere questions of judgment and interpretationarise, and encourage faculty members to seeksuch advice in any doubtful case."It is our view that the character of the University, which is rooted in the excellence of its scientific and scholarly research, can best be preserved by implementing the above recommendations.Robert G. Sachs, ChairmanJack D. CowanDonald W. FiskeGodfrey GetzJulian R. GoldsmithJack HalpernElliott KieffEvelyn M. KitagawaNorval MorrisMelvyn J. ShochetE. H. UhlenhuthCedric L. Cher nickJonathan F. FantonAPPENDIXESA. CHARTER TO THE COMMITTEEThe Ad Hoc Committee on Government Fundingof Research and Education was established byPresident Hanna H. Gray in May 1979. Her appointment letter to committee members includedthe following charge:"The committee is requested to review the trendsin the support of the University's research andeducational functions. Such a review should coverchanges both in the absolute level of funding andin the relative importance of governmental funds in our total sources of support. It would be important to compare our levels of governmentalfunding over the past decade with that of othermajor research universities and with the total offederal funds obligated to colleges and universities. Any insights concerning the reasons fordifferences would be of significant value."Advice on factors which either encourage ordiscourage faculty from seeking governmentalfunding would also be of significant value. Suchconsideration should include both internal andexternal factors. In particular, it would be desirable to know whether the University should take amore active role in soliciting grants and contractsand, if so, how such encouragement and supportshould be organized."There are a number of issues related to indirect cost recovery, ranging from the recent revisions of federal regulations for determining indirect cost recovery to the importance of indirectcost recovery to the University's unrestrictedbudget. The revised and recently issued CircularA-21, "Principles for Determining Costs Applicable to Grants, Contracts and Other Agreementswith Educational Institutions," (the regulationgoverning how costs may be charged to federalgrants and contracts) may require significantchanges in recordkeeping, in allocation of costs between direct and indirect, and in the total amountof indirect cost recovery. In particular, we will berequired to calculate indirect costs on the basis ofmodified total direct costs rather than on salariesand wages. The possible implications of thischange on various areas of the University seemworthy of exploration."There are a variety of other issues that I believe could be fruitfully explored by the committee, and of course the committee will identify additional matters for consideration."The members of the committee were:Robert G. Sachs, Chairman, Professor in the Department of Physics and in the Enrico FermiInstitute;Jack D. Cowan, Professor in the Department ofBiophysics and Theoretical Biology and in theCollege;Donald W. Fiske, Professor in the Department ofBehavioral Sciences and in the College;Godfrey Getz, Professor in the Departments ofPathology and Biochemistry and in the College;Julian R. Goldsmith, Charles E. Merriam Distinguished Service Professor in the Department ofGeophysical Sciences and in the College;Jack Halpern, Louis Block Professor in the Department of Chemistry;136Elliott Kieff, Professor in the Departments ofMedicine and Microbiology and in the Committees on Virology and Immunology and Chiefof the Section of Infectious Diseases;Evelyn M. Kitagawa, Professor in the Departmentof Sociology and Director of the Population Research Center;Norval Morris, Julius Kreeger Professor in theLaw School;Melvyn J. Shochet, Associate Professor in theDepartment of Physics, in the Enrico Fermi Institute, and in the College;E. H. Uhlenhuth, Professor in the Department ofPsychiatry;Cedric L. Chernick,£* Officio, Vice-President forSponsored Programs;Jonathan F. Fanton, Ex Officio, Vice-Presidentfor Academic Resources and Institutional PlanningB. SUMMARY OF THE REPORT OF THECOMMITTEE OPi FEDERAL GRAFTS ANDCOMTFIACTS AT THE UNIVERSITY OFCHICAGO*In July 1966, the provost appointed a committeechaired by Dr. H. Stanley Bennett to examine thesituation of the University with respect to government grants and contracts. In June 1969, theBennett Committee submitted the attached report. It is being sent to members of the faculty forinformation.John T. WilsonDean of FacultiesMembers of the Ad Hoc CommitteeSidney Davidson, Arthur Young Professor, Director of the Institute for Professional Accounting, Graduate School of BusinessRobert Gomer, Professor, Department ofChemistryNathan Keyfitz, Professor, Department of Sociology (on leave Spring Quarter 1967; resigned1968)J. A. B. van Buitenen, Professor, Department ofSouth Asian Languages and CivilizationsKnox Hill, Professor, Department of Philosophy,Director of Undergraduate Programs in PhilosophyRobert McCleary, Professor, Department of Psychology (sat with the committee during Spring*This report was originally published in the University ofChicago Record, Volume III, Number 8, October 3, 1969. Quarter 1967, when Professor Keyfitz was onleave from the University of Chicago, and replaced him in 1969 after Professor Keyfitz' sresignation from the University of Chicago faculty)Dr. H. Stanley Bennett, Robert R. Bensley Professor of Biological and Medical Sciences,Professor of Anatomy, ChairmanL Charge to the CommitteeThe committee was asked to report on the presentsituation of the University with respect to contracts and grants, including thoughtful evaluationof policy questions, problems and dangers, anddelineations of the role which federal grants andcontracts play in the activities and missions of theUniversity.II. What Is a Grant, and What Is a Contract?A federal grant or grant-in-aid is an instrumentconveying a conditional gift which provides financial assistance to a grantee for support of an activity which serves the public interest but which isnot the conduct of a federal function, and whichimposes on the grantee an obligation to expendthe funds for matters essential to the purposes forwhich the grant was made but which involves nospecifications or assumption of a product or of agiven result.A federal contract is an instrument derived froman agreement between two parties, whereby thegovernment obtains promises of goods, services,or other considerations deemed necessary for theconduct of a federal function.III. Brief History of Committee ActivitiesThe committee has been working for over twoyears, meeting with faculty members, deans, administrators, and students of the University ofChicago, studying relevant federal and universitydocuments, and visiting Harvard University andthe University of Michigan in an effort to comparethe situation at Chicago with that at other universities.IV. The General SettingIn 1966, federal government commitments to theUniversity of Chicago, including those for capitalexpenditure, were over $45 million, representingabout 1.5 percent of the $3 billion which includedall federal commitments to higher education thatfiscal year.As of April 1, 1969, at the University of Chicagothe annual level of government grants and contracts for research and training, excluding fundsfor capital expenditures, was over $44 million.137This is about one third of the combined operating expenditures of the University. These figuresexclude the special U.S. government contractprojects managed by the University (such as theArgonne National Laboratory), but include student aid, student services, and plant operation.In percentages of university expenditures derived from federal funds, the University ofChicago resembles the University of Michiganand Harvard. In amounts of federal funds committed to the University, Chicago ranks abouttwelfth amongst universities of this nation — inthese amounts sitting in proximity to Harvard, theUniversity of Pennsylvania, Ohio State University, and the University of California at Berkeleyand at Los Angeles. In these matters, then, theUniversity of Chicago is not an exception. .V. How It Arose and GrewThe federal government for more than a centuryhas from time to time perceived national needs fornew knowledge, new technologies, or highlytrained or educated persons and has turned touniversities for meeting many of them. In manycases, the universities were the only agencies capable of fulfilling these needs. Universities, ontheir part, wishing to serve the public well, responded by accepting many federally financedopportunities which were compatible with theirmissions and within their capabilities.Federal funds entering universities increasedsharply during World War II, declined to half their1945 peak by 1948, and thereafter grew rapidly,the amounts doubling every three to five years.The rate of increase leveled off after 1966. Thetotal level for the current fiscal year is littlechanged from that of last year.The emphasis of federally supported work inuniversities has also shifted with time. The physical and engineering sciences were especially favored during the 1940s and early 1950s. Federalsupport for the biological and medical sciencesgrew rapidly during the 1950s. Since 1960, a shiftin emphasis toward social sciences and educational support has been noticeable.VI. Are Federal Government Missions Compatible with Those of Universities?Many of them are. The federal government andthe universities are maintained to serve the publicinterest. Universities serve the public by providing the public with knowledge and understandingof man and of nature and by training persons toserve the public. Those federal missions whichrequire new knowledge or highly trained professional people are compatible with universityfunctions. VII. Why Do Universities Accept GovernmentMoney?Universities utilize federal funds to support someof their activities because the demands the publicplaces on universities have far outstripped thetraditional sources of revenue of American universities, and acceptance of federal funds hasprovided the only means whereby universities canmeet these obligations. The utilization of federalfunds by universities has greatly increased the capacity of universities to serve the public in waysappropriate to university functions.VIII. How Do Grant Funds or Contract Fundsfrom the Federal Government Enter the University of Chicago?Federal grants and contracts to the University aremade only upon application prepared at the initiative of faculty members. After preparation, applications are reviewed by the dean, the dean offaculties, and the vice-president for programs andprojects. Those approved at the University aresent to the appropriate federal agency, where theyare reviewed and evaluated in accordance withthat agency's mission and procedures. If approved by the federal agency, and if funds areavailable, the agency may allocate funds to theUniversity to be used for the purposes specified inthe application and by the granting agency, underthe direction of the applicant faculty member.IX. In What Federal Government Missions Doesthe University of Chicago Participate?The University participates in research, training,and development missions of thirteen federal departments and agencies. Of these, the Departmentof Health, Education and Welfare provides morethan half of all the federal funds entering the University for the support of ongoing research, training, and development. Within this department thelargest contributor is the U.S. Public Health Service, and within that the National Institutes ofHealth supplies the largest fraction, which totalsnearly one third of all current federal funds ingrants and contracts at this University.There follow, in order of size of total currentongoing support in grants and contracts for research, development, and training: the NationalScience Foundation, the Atomic Energy Commission, the Department of Defense, the NationalAeronautics and Space Administration, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, theDepartment of Commerce, the Office of Economic Opportunity, the Department of the Interior, the Smithsonian Institution, the NationalFoundation on the Arts and Humanities, the Department of Agriculture, and the Department of138Labor — the last with a single grant of less than tenthousand dollars placed at this University.X. What Parts of the University of Chicago Participate in Federal Government Missions?All major parts of the University except the Divinity School utilize federal grant and contractfunds. The Division of the Biological Sciences isthe division using the largest fraction. About 45percent of all federal grants and contracts comingto the University support work in the biologicalsciences, including the Pritzker School ofMedicine. Following the Division of the BiologicalSciences, in order of totals of federal sums utilizedfor ongoing research, development, and training,are: the Division of the Physical Sciences, the Division of the Social Sciences, the Office of Admissions and Aid (which administers many studentstipends, fellowships, and scholarships), theSchool of Social Service Administration, theGraduate School of Education, the Graduate Library School, the Division of the Humanities, theGraduate School of Business, the Argonne National Laboratory (not a part of the University ofChicago but receiving federal funds for teachertraining through the University), the University ofChicago Library, the administration of the University of Chicago (for institutional support in thesciences), the Law School, the Oriental Institute,the Office of the Dean of Students (for studentscholarships and other stipends), the College, andUniversity Extension. The variation in amounts ofgovernment funds entering the University is large,ranging from nearly twenty million dollars for theDivision of the Biological Sciences to less thanfifty thousand dollars for University Extension.XL What Is Accomplished at the University ofChicago by Utilization of Funds from FederalGrants and Contracts?Federal funds from grants and contracts havebeen used extensively at the University ofChicago for construction and remodeling ofbuildings used for teaching and research, including research laboratories, libraries, classrooms,teaching laboratories, hospitals, and specialfacilities for research animals, computers, highenergy physics, etc. Federal grants and contractssupport very nearly all the research carried out byfaculty members in the Divisions of the Physicaland Biological Sciences and a substantial part ofthe research in other portions of the University.Without federal research funds, a faculty memberin the sciences is virtually unable to maintain aproductive research activity or to provide satisfactory training for his graduate students. Federalfunds benefit students at the University of Chicago by providing direct stipends,traineeships, or fellowships for many. In addition,the thesis research of most graduate students inthe sciences is supported by federal funds. Government grants and contracts make it possible forthe University to have a larger and better facultythan would otherwise be the case, so that thereare more and better teachers for students thanwould be here without grants. Moreover, an important part of the classrooms, laboratories, hospitals, libraries, and other facilities with much ofthe equipment in them, which have been paid forin part by federal funds, are utilized by studentsand hence benefit them.XII. Do Government Grants and Contracts Support Secret Research at the University ofChicago?No. There is no classified research of any kind atthis University — neither secret nor confidentialnor restricted. No research support is acceptedwhich forbids the publication of results.XIII. Is "War Research" Carried Out at the University of Chicago?No. There is no weapons development research orany other research activity at the University ofChicago directed to purposes of war. It is recognized that any human knowledge or skill can beused for peaceful benefit or for military ends. Lessthan 7 percent of government grant and contractmoney entering the University of Chicago is derived from funds with a military connotation, andthe proportion has been decreasing over the pastseveral years. These funds are used for regularacademic purposes which are indistinguishablefrom those supported by strictly civilian government resources, by private foundations, or by regular University funds.XIV. What Has Been the Influence of FederalGrants and Contracts on the Balance between theSeveral Academic Disciplines at the University ofChicago?Though federal funds have contributed to a considerable expansion of activity and improvementin quality in science and other departments wherework is supported by grants and contracts, otherscholarly fields not so supported have grown infaculty size to about the same extent and havedone as well as the science departments in maintaining their national distinction. Graduate training in fields not drawing federal grants suffersfrom lack of sufficient funds for graduate studentstipends, with a consequent prolongation of theperiod of graduate training for students in thosefields.139The committee has not found evidence that federal grants and contracts have impaired relationsbetween humanists and scientists or have led to anover-emphasis on research or to more emphasison research in sciences than in other disciplines.XV. What Influence on Academic Freedom DoGovernment Grants and Contracts Exert at theUniversity of Chicago?Federal grants and contracts appear to be administered and awarded without biases based onpolitical views of applicants. In many fields, federal funds make possible research or teaching orgraduate or postdoctoral training which could notbe performed without the funds. Hence, in thesecases the federal grant funds enhance academicfreedom. Political considerations do constrain tosome extent the usefulness of some federal fundsfor research in political science and for some research abroad in the social sciences sponsored bymission-oriented agencies. Such constraints,however, are not imposed by the National ScienceFoundation and the National Institutes of Health.XVI. Do Federal Grants and Contracts Have anAdverse or a Beneficial Effect on the Quality ofthe Teaching Performed by University FacultyMembers?Grants and contracts have clearly benefittedgraduate teaching in those scholarly areas wheregrant funds are available. The committee couldfind no evidence that federal grants and contractsentering the University had adversely affected thequality of teaching of undergraduates or ofgraduate students in fields such as English or history, which are not supported extensively by federal funds. Federal funds have benefitted theteaching of undergraduates and of high schoolstudents by supporting the training of teachersand the acquisition of new knowledge and concepts which become incorporated into materialtaught to students.The committee could find little to justifyallegations that the University diverts governmentfunds improperly by using grant or contract fundsfor the direct support of teaching.In some parts of the University of Chicago — forexample, in the College — the assignment of federal research grant funds to part of the salary of afaculty member has been interpreted as releasingthat faculty member from a certain portion of histeaching responsibilities. This interpretation leadsto certain adverse effects. The committee deems itwiser to construe teaching and research responsibilities of faculty members in a manner notcoupled closely to the sources of funds contributing to a faculty member's salary. XVII. What Influence Does the University Exerton Federal Policy as Related to Grants and Contracts?Universities, their associations, and their facultymembers exert substantial influence on the federalgovernment in matters relating to grants and contracts. In the aggregate, the influence of individualfaculty members serving the government as full-time officials or as part-time advisers and panelmembers is far greater than the influence of universities or their associations as corporatebodies. University faculty members comprise themajority of the members of the numerous advisory committees, panels, study sections, and reviewing bodies which advise the president, government agencies, and departments on policiesrelating to grants and contracts and which reviewindividual grant applications for merit and setpriorities amongst them for funding. The University of Chicago and its faculty members participate extensively in these government activitiesand thus modulate the impact of federal grants andcontracts on the University.XVIII. What Is the Effect of Federal Grants andContracts on the Levels of Faculty Compensationat the University of Chicago?Funds from federal grants and contracts can,under certain conditions, be used to providesummer or other off-quarter salaries for facultypersons on regular academic three-quarter appointment who work full time during the summeror other off quarter on research or other worksupported by a grant or contract. Federal grantand contract funds can also be used to reimbursethe University for part of a faculty member's salary during regular academic quarters to compensate for that faculty member's effort toward thework supported by the grant. At the University ofChicago, about a quarter of the sums devoted tosalaries of faculty members in the Divisions ofPhysical and Biological Sciences are derived inthis way from federal grants and contracts. Thefraction so derived is less in other portions of theUniversity and is estimated to be about 10 percentof all faculty salaries. The salaries of individualfaculty members are not dependent on approval oftheir grant applications, but the total amount ofmoney available for all faculty salaries is enhanced appreciably by sums derived from federalgrants and contracts.XIX. Does the University of Chicago Make aProfit from Government Grants and Contracts?No, nor could the committee find reason to fearthat the financial ties to the government embodiedin federal grants and contracts had involved the140University in tasks not properly part of the University' s mission, nor had these funds led to animpairment of the capacity of the University tofulfill its role as an independent judge and critic ofsociety.Rather than make a profit for the University,federal grants and contracts are insufficient tomeet the full direct and indirect costs of the worksupported by such instruments.XX. Do Federal Grants and Contracts Carry Restrictions or Conditions Which Are Impedimentsto the University Mission?All private, foundation, and government grants,contracts, gifts, and bequests to the Universitycarry some sort of restriction. Even "unrestrictedgifts" must be used for the purposes of the University. Most gifts, bequests, grants, and contracts carry additional restrictions, and federalgrants and contracts are not exceptions. All mustbe used only for the purposes for which awarded.Federal accounting and auditing practices imposecertain constraints, and many grants carry restrictions as to the way funds can be expended forcertain purposes. The preparation of an application for a grant or contract involves the settingforth of a proposal which, if approved, thereafterbecomes a constraint. The variety of federal andprivate granting agencies gives the University andits faculty members a reasonable degree of flexibility, so that good use can be made of federalgrants and contract funds in spite of the impediments and restrictions embodied in them.There are, in addition, special nonbudgetary restrictions on federally supported research inwhich people are studied. Some of these restrictions affect clinical research and research inhuman motivation and behavior in the social sciences. These regulations are designed to protectthe individual patient or subject from undue riskor exploitation or invasion of privacy and invokethe requirement of informed consent in advanceby the patient or experimental subject who is to bestudied in the research. Some social science research to be carried out abroad by American scientists with support of the Department of Defense, the Agency for International Development,or the Department of State is subject to specialprior review by the State Department and is constrained by severe restrictions with a politicalbasis. Such restrictions are not imposed on grantsfrom the National Science Foundation and National Institutes of Health.There are, in addition, restrictions written intolaw which prohibit discrimination in accordancewith race, creed, or color when hiring persons to be paid from grant funds or to be hired by contractors paid from grant funds or which pose otherrestrictions which are consistent with Universitypolicy.XXI. Are There Unsound Features of the FederalAdministration of Grants and Contracts WhichPose Special Dangers or Disadvantages to theUniversity?The greatest source of difficulty residing in federalgrants and contracts at the University of Chicagoresides in fiscal instabilities inherent in theshort-term nature of such awards, in the necessityfor frequent reapplication, in the uncertainty ofrenewal, and from time to time in the unreliabilityof approved grants amounting on some occasionsto default of payment on committed awards.Though the University of Chicago has some fluidresearch funds to cover catastrophes to grants andto applications, these resources are insufficient,and the adverse impact of fiscal uncertainty anddisappointment from federal grants and contractsat this University has been considerable.The University and the nation also suffer whenjudgments as to competitive federal grant awardsare made on bases other than those of scholarlymerit. For example, if political or geographicalconsiderations, or the wishes of influential congressmen, or a desire to strengthen weak institutions enter into the judgments as to whichcompetitive applications are to be approved andfunded, disadvantages to the country and to theUniversity result.There are special difficulties confronting grantapplications from young scholars who have notyet established reputations.Often there are strong pressures on the University to maximize contributions from Universityfunds to work supported by grants. Whereas suchcontributions increase probabilities for approvalof applications, they impose serious financialstrain on the University.XXII. Are There Pressures on Faculty Membersto Apply for Federal Grants or Contracts or toSlant Their Proposals toward Certain PracticalGoals?The University of Chicago, by policy, puts nopressure on persons to apply for grants or contracts. However, the opportunity for advancingone's professional work through federal grants orcontracts often exerts a pressure on faculty members to apply. Some federal grant and contractprograms place strong emphasis on the achievement of practical results. Although such result-oriented programs offer legitimate opportunities141for scholars in certain fields at this University,there is risk that some may be tempted to slant ordistort their scholarly objectives in order to increase their chances of getting support from suchfederal programs. Special scrutiny should begiven to applications directed toward suchresult-driented federal sources.XXIII. Should the University of Chicago Be Concerned about the Branch of Government fromWhich a Grant or Contract Might Be Awarded?In the committee's view, the conditions and thepurposes of a grant or contract are of primaryconcern. If the purposes are included in the scholarly objectives of a faculty member and are consistent with University functions, and if the conditions pose no restrictions on publication of results, conceal no hidden channeling of funds, andotherwise offer no compromise of academicfreedom, then funds from any federal or nonfederal granting agency may properly be accepted.XXIV. Some Conclusions and JudgmentsThe committee judges that, in general, the University has comported itself with integrity andwisdom in its relation to the government withgrants and contracts and has established a soundposition in most respects.The committee is concerned with an attitudediscovered in some members of the College faculty and in the Department of Sociology, andperhaps presented elsewhere, holding that theaward to a faculty member of a grant carryingprovision for partial salary of that faculty memberwarrants a reduction in the teaching responsibilities of that faculty member. The committee sees dangers in practices which suggestthat research grants might buy release fromteaching and urges that apportionment of facultymembers' time between teaching and research bedetermined by more rational criteria.The committee was also concerned that thefortunes of grant applications have too much influence on the annual compensation from the University for academic work of faculty members onthree-quarter appointments who seek summer orother off-quarter salaries from grants or contracts.This practice places in hazard a part of the incomeof the faculty member and tends to impair hisloyalties to the University. Deeming the implications of this problem to extend beyond thecharge placed before the committee, a carefulexamination of the problem and of possible remedies is recommended.XXV. Recommendations Since the committee finds the University ofChicago's policies and practices with respect tofederal grants and contracts to be sound in mostrespects, all but the first two of the recommendations listed below urge a continuation ofUniversity policies and practices now in effect. Ofthe two exceptions, one proposes modification ofcurrent practices not supported by policy and oneproposes study and evaluation of a policy now ineffect.The committee recommends that the Universityof Chicago:1 . Solidify the freedom of faculty members toapportion their efforts between teaching and research without permitting the apportionment to bedetermined by persons outside the Universitywho review grant applications. It is recommendedthat each faculty member's responsibilities inteaching and in research be set on an individualbasis on the basis of the faculty member's talentsand scholarly objectives and in accordance withUniversity needs and commitments. The apportionment of responsibilities so reached should bedefended from vulnerability or modification basedon the fortunes of research grant applications. Thedetermination of the teaching responsibilities of afaculty member on the basis of approval or disapproval of grant applications carrying provisionfor partial faculty salaries should be discouraged.2. Study, through an appropriate committee,the merits and shortcomings of offering options offour-quarter appointments to faculty membersoutside the Division of the Biological Sciences,with a view toward searching for an alternative tothe present University policy of permitting off-quarter (usually summer-quarter) salaries drawnfrom research grants and contracts for facultymembers on three-quarter appointments whohave provision for off-quarter salary in thebudgets of research grants or contracts. The studyshould have the further aims of formulating recommendations which, if adopted, would have theeffects of permitting the University to commandmore fully the loyalty of faculty members onthree-quarter appointments now drawing summersalaries from grants and contracts and of protecting faculty members from hazards of uncertainpersonal remuneration dependent on the fortunesof research grant applications. Successful implementation of such recommendations might increase the attractiveness and stability of facultypositions at the University of Chicago and permitthe University to assume full responsibility forand control over the annual recompense of facultymembers for their academic work at the University.142The committee recommends that the Universityof Chicago continue to:3. Regard federal grant and contract programofferings as opportunities which the Universityand its faculty members can examine and evaluate, so determining the suitability and relevance ofthe several programs to the functions of the University and the scholarly objectives of its individual faculty members.4. Allow faculty members full freedom to prepare applications or to refrain from applying, inaccordance with the initiative, wishes, and aims ofeach faculty member, without pressure or coercion from the University or any of its officers,deans, or chairmen.5. Submit to the federal government only thoseapplications which have originated with and beenprepared by faculty members and which havebeen examined and approved at the departmentallevel, at the level of the division, school, collegeor institute, as may be appropriate, and at thelevel of the central administration of the University.6. Accept no grants or contracts which imposeconditions of secrecy or of prohibition of publication of results, or which are classified as "secret"or "confidential" or otherwise restricted as toopenness, or which provide for consultative services involving restricted or classified information, issues, or operations, or which are otherwiseinconsistent with free inquiry.7. Exert, through its associations and individual faculty members and otherwise, as may behelpful and in the public interest, influence on thefederal government designed to promote sound,adequately financed, stable federal grant andcontract policies.8. Provide mechanisms whereby faculty members can get competent and knowledgeable advicefrom colleagues whenever the foregoing recommended policy guides appear to be insufficient orwhere questions of judgment and interpretationarise, and encourage faculty members to seeksuch advice in any doubtful case.9. Take special care in review of grant applications which may be directed toward result-oriented federal granting programs, or which mayotherwise offer danger of distorting, slanting, orcompromising the legitimate scholarly aims of theapplicant and the University.C: EXISTING PROCEDURES FORRESEARCH PROPOSALSThe policies and procedures affecting the administration of grants and contracts at the Univer sity of Chicago appear to many to be a mixture ofmyth, folklore, and needless bureaucracy. Thisappendix describes these policies and proceduresas they now function. Sponsors' rules and regulations are constantly in a state of flux, and University policies and procedures are subject to re-interpretation; therefore, this description is subject to variations. The information which followsis presented in chronological sequence: identifying possible funding sources; preparing, reviewing, and submitting a proposal; negotiating theaward; establishing an account; conducting theprogram; closing out the project. With supportcoming from almost twenty different federalagencies and an even larger number of foundations, associations, and commercial sponsors, it isobviously not possible to give details about eachfunding source. What follows, therefore, is general in nature.GeneralProposals for research or training projects originate with faculty or other academic staff, and theresponsibility for the conduct of such programslies with the principal investigator (PI). Theacademic unit in which the PI has an appointmenthas an interest in such items as space needs, timecommitments, and support-service requirements.Proposals are reviewed by departmental chairsand by deans. Although proposals originate withindividual faculty members, or groups of facultymembers, awards are made to the institution.However, the award will generally specify that thefunds are to be used for the support of a specificproject under the direction of the particular individual.Proposals are reviewed by the Office of theProvost and the Office of Sponsored Programs(OSP) to verify the University's responsibility forthe business management of the funds and generaladherence to the agency regulations. These reviews are also intended to ensure that Universitypolicies are consistently applied across allacademic units and that a consistent Universityposition is taken with each sponsor.The Development Office offers information andassistance in identifying nongovernment fundingsources and is generally responsible for proposalsseeking institutional support. Some of the professional schools also have their own development officers.The Comptroller's Office maintains the officialgrant and contract accounts and prepares financialreports. That office is also responsible for maintaining property records for equipment purchasedwith government funds.143Identifying Funding SourcesProposals are either solicited or unsolicited. Solicited proposals are prepared in response to asponsor's announcement that support is availablein a particular program area or for a very specificpiece of work of primary interest to the sponsor.Unsolicited proposals are those submitted forsupport of a program conceived by, and of primary interest to, the individual(s) making the proposal. Once the study or training to be undertakenis reasonably well defined one of the earliest stepsin developing unsolicited proposals is to identifypossible sources of support. The format of theproposal and the way in which the funding requestis couched may vary depending on the agency towhich it is to be submitted. Faculty are oftenaware of the major agencies that fund work intheir field of interest. Colleagues, the department,the division or school, the Office of SponsoredPrograms, or the Development Office can aid inidentifying other potential sponsors.Preparing the ProposalWhen the possible source(s) has been chosen it isoften helpful to contact an appropriate programofficer in the agency that is to receive the proposal. From these individuals one can usually determine whether or not the agency would be interested in receiving a proposal for the work, whatlevel of funding would be considered, whether ornot there are specific instructions and forms to beused in preparing the proposal, and whether thereare dates by which proposals should be receivedby the agency.For solicited proposals, the announcement orRequest for Proposal (RFP) will contain information concerning format, submission dates, applicable rules and regulations, funding levels, etc.Some faculty are on agencies' bidders' lists andreceive RFPs directly. Departments/deans/OSPmay also be aware of RFPs and will make distribution to faculty who may be interested.The preparation of a proposal can turn out to bea rushed and frustrating exercise. Some of the annoyances can be alleviated if there is early consultation with persons who are aware of the administrative requirements and policies. There areoften administrative matters which can be handledwhile the narrative portion of the proposal is beingprepared. Again, persons at the departmental/divisional/school level can be helpful.A typical proposal may include the following:Title page, Table of Contents (if appropriate),Abstract, Introduction, Background, Descriptionof Program (Aims, Method of Procedure,Significance, Facilities Available, Collaborative Arrangements, Plans for Evaluation of Results),References, Personnel (vitae), Budget (includingjustifications for major or unusual items), Appendixes.Proposal Review — InternalFor reasons noted above, once a proposal hasbeen prepared it is reviewed in the academic areawhere the PI has his or her major appointment, bythe Provost's Office, and by OSP. While practicesmay vary among academic units, the proposal isusually reviewed first by the department chairmanor institute director and then by the dean. Afterthe dean has approved a proposal it is forwardedto OSP, which coordinates its review with that ofthe provost, and, in the case of proposals going tonongovernment sources, with the DevelopmentOffice. After all reviews are completed and approvals obtained, the proposal is signed by thedirector of OSP on behalf of the University andtransmitted to the agency.It is not easy to give an estimate of the length oftime the internal review process will take. Theperiod will vary depending upon the work load ofthe individuals involved and whether or not thereare questions raised and these result in changes inthe proposal. It is probably a good practice to assume that at least one key person will be sick, onvacation, away at a meeting, or otherwise prevented from handling a proposal the minute it arrives in any given office. The more time allowedfor the internal reviews, the greater the likelihoodof the proposal arriving at its destination by thedue date. If pressed for time, and the offices involved are alerted, arrangements can often bemade to review drafts or to conduct concurrentreviews. However, such "emergency" measuresshould only be necessary under extraordinary circumstances.NegotiationsThe signed proposal when submitted representsan offer by the PI to undertake a research ortraining program and a commitment by the University to provide facilities and support servicesand undertake the proposed program for theamount of support requested. Communicationsbetween Pis and agency program officers areoften key to successful negotiations. Proposedchanges in the technical content of the proposal,the nature or scope of the work obviously involvethe participation of the PL Similarly, changeswhich relate to business aspects of theproposal — budgets, terms, and conditions ofawards and length of support period — are ofinterest to the University. Practices vary among144agencies and the contact for carrying out negotiations or conducting site visits may be made withthe PI or with OSP.At the conclusion of negotiations it may be necessary to submit a formal revised proposal or revised budget. Such documents are subjected tothe same procedures as the original submission.AwardsAwards are normally made to the Universityrather than to individuals. In general, the officialnotice of award will be addressed to the presidentof the University or OSP. When an award is received it will be reviewed by OSP. If the termsand conditions generally parallel those normallyapplicable to awards and the budget is unchangedfrom the one most recently submitted, the awardwill be accepted. If there is any change in thebudget or if there are any unusual terms and conditions, then the advice of the PI and those whohad reviewed the proposal is sought. Once agreement is reached the award is accepted. If there aredocuments to be signed, these are signed by thedirector of the Office of Sponsored Programs oranother officer similarly delegated authority inthese matters.Establishing an AccountThe Comptroller's Office establishes an accountand appropriates funds at the request of OSP. Ifthe budget in the award and the application areidentical, OSP normally requests that funds beappropriated in accordance with the award. Ifthere is a difference between the requested budgetand the award, OSP seeks the advice of the PIprior to establishing an account. OSP is also responsible for seeking information on cost-sharingand distribution of payroll and account ledgers.Conducting the ProgramThe PI has the responsibility for the planning andexecution of the program once an award is made.The PI is responsible for all technical and scientific reports, for maintaining expenditureswithin the approved levels, and for initiating requests for approval of changes in the budget,period, scope of work, or other items requiringUniversity or agency approval.It is the responsibility of the PI and theacademic units administering accounts to be surethat expenditures are incurred within the dollarsawarded and within the time period established.Project Close OutAt the end of the program or at a specified time,the University must usually provide the sponsor with a technical report and a fiscal report. Thetechnical report is the responsibility of the PI.Fiscal reports are prepared by the Comptroller'sOffice.D: MEMORANDUM CONCERNING REVISION IN GOVERNMENT RULES FORGRANT AND CONTRACT COSTSMemorandum to: The Faculty of the UniversityFrom: D. Gale Johnson, ProvostThe revised Office of Management and BudgetCircular A-21, "Principles for Determining CostsApplicable to Grants, Contracts, and OtherAgreements with Educational Institutions" makessignificant changes in the way charges are to becomputed on federal grants and contracts. For theUniversity of Chicago, those changes will be effective July 1, 1980. Some of the changes will beof direct concern to principal investigators anddepartmental administrators because of effects onfunding or changes in administrative requirements. Other effects will be more centralizedrequiring special studies. I write now in order todescribe the issues raised by the revisions to Circular A-21 and to give you a progress report ofhow the University is addressing them.The most significant changes are of three types:(1) The regulations require a shift in the basefor computing our indirect cost rate from a percentage of salaries and wages to a percentage ofmodified total direct cost (MTDC). This change,in and of itself, should not affect the total amountthe University recovers as reimbursement for indirect costs incurred.(2) The new regulations change how certainexpenses associated with research can beallocated in computing the indirect cost rate. Forexample, the new method of allocation of librarycosts will reduce recovery of indirect costs associated with the library operations.(3) The regulations require more detailed accounting and documentation of how academicpersonnel supported by government grantsallocate their time, particularly requiring that 100percent of effort be recorded.In making the necessary adjustments caused bythe changes in A-21, the University has two objectives:(1) To minimize the impact on research programs and to avoid inconvenience and dislocationexperienced by members of the faculty with government grants wherever possible.(2) To minimize any change in the net income145that the University receives from indirect cost recovery. (In the current year, the University willrecover about $15 million of indirect costs associated with research supported in governmentgrants and contracts. This represents 20 percentof the budgeted University unrestricted incomefor 1979^80.)There are several steps in the process and thereremains some uncertainty about how and whenthe new indirect cost rates will be approved by theDepartment of Health, Education and Welfare(which is the federal agency designated tonegotiate Chicago's indirect cost rate).(1) The University is currently completingsome of the studies necessary to develop andnegotiate the MTDC rate to be applied on July 1 ,1980. The best estimate at this time is that the ratewill be about 45 percent of Modified Total DirectCost (which, for example, does not includeequipment and subcontract costs after the first$25,000). As we do not yet have formal authorityfrom the government to use the MTDC rate, thenegotiated rate of 76 percent of salaries and wagesshould continue to be used in proposals now beingprepared. However, the Office of Sponsored Programs will include a statement with each proposalsubmitted in order to alert agencies to the change.I enclose a copy of that statement for your information.(2) In early 1980 the University will seek approval of the new rate from Region V of DHEW;we hope a decision can be reached before April 1,1980.(3) Whatever rate is decided upon this springwill be audited subsequently and an appropriatedebit or credit applied to a future rate. This kind ofadjustment has been standard practice for severalyears.The most pressing immediate problem formembers of the faculty preparing grant and contract applications has to do with the shift in thebase of indirect cost recovery. (This problem isnot experienced by those faculty who have grantsfrom the Public Health Service for which the indirect costs are awarded separately from the direct costs). The uncertainty is greatest for grantsin which other expenses are great relative to salary costs; for such proposals the shift to modifiedtotal direct will result in a higher indirect costfigure (other grant applications which have heavysalary costs compared to other expenses will experience the opposite effect— a lower indirect costfigure). If the program officers in the agencies adjust the total budgets to allow for the change in thenew indirect cost formula then perturbations willbe smoothed out. In the long run, we are hopeful that those adjustments will be made. Otherwise these agencieswill be permitting government financial managersto influence the distribution of research support inthis country. I doubt very much if this result is onethat thoughtful administrators will wish to permit.The University will be working with variousagencies to preserve for each investigator a levelof direct cost support that will be independent ofthe base used to calculate indirect costs. If thenature of the problem is not well understood at thefederal level and if problems do arise in the firstyear, a case-by-case study will be made to assisteach adversely affected program or project to theextent that University resources permit.In addition to the change in the base used forindirect cost allocation and those relating to thelibrary and effort reporting, the University willalso have to install an equipment inventory system. This will require your cooperation, especially in terms of access to and locating existingequipment. There is a significant issue related tovoluntary cost sharing* which, under the newregulations, will have to be included in the basefor determining indirect cost rate. (This would result in a decrease in the indirect cost recoveryrate.) This subject, which has both economic andacademic ramifications, affects all institutions,and therefore we are looking to a collective resolution for higher education. At this point it seemsclear that the final result will be reduced revenuefor the University.The administrative group studying the implications of A-21 for the University has been discussing the University response with the FacultyCommittee on Government Funding chaired byProfessor Robert Sachs. Representatives of theOffice of Sponsored Programs and the Comptroller's Office are prepared to meet with faculty andadministrators to answer questions on thechanges. Mr. Chernick (3-3080) or Mr. Monnier(3-3 105) may be contacted for further information.The provisions of Circular A-21 pose administrative problems for all universities, especiallythose with large numbers of research grants andcontracts. While there are bound to be some inconveniences, uncertainties, and real difficultiesassociated with the transition period, the University of Chicago, with your cooperation, is committed to handling this situation in a manner whichminimizes the disruptions.* Voluntary cost sharing is time designated in the proposal asspent on the project over and above that for which reimbursement is recovered or is included in mandatory cost sharing.146E: CALCULATING THE UNIVERSITY'SSfTOlFtEOT COST RECOVERY BATEThis appendix describes the calculation of the indirect cost rate. The categories of costs includedin the total indirect cost account are the following:1. General Administration and General Expenses (G&A): Allocated on the ratio of salariesand wages charged to each component (research,instruction, other institutional activities).2. Government Contracts Administration(GCA): Totally allocated to government grantsand contracts.3. Library Expenses (LE): Allocated to on-campus students, faculty, and professional staff inacademic departments.4. Student Services (SS): Based on ratio of student hours worked on grants and contracts to totalof these hours plus nongovernment hours workedplus classroom hours.5. Indirect Departmental Expenses (IDE):Allocated from item 1.6. Equipment Use Charge (Equip. Use): Undergovernment regulations, a use charge of 6.7 percent per year for equipment purchased with otherthan government funds is allowed based on an assumed life of fifteen years.7. Building Use Charge (Bldg. Use): Applies tobuildings constructed with nongovernment funds.Useful life is assumed to be fifty years; allowedrate is 2 percent of original acquisition cost peryear.8. Building Maintenance and OperationsCharges (Bldg. Main.): Based on actual costs.Sum of these costs is allocated on the basis of theratio of net square feet used in sponsored researchto total net square feet.The total costs at the University in 1977-78 forthese categories add up to $52 million and only a fraction of that is assigned to sponsored programs.Different categories are assigned differently to thesponsored programs. In 1977-78, the cost recovery rate was 72 percent of salaries and wages.That 72 percent was obtained in terms of indirectcost estimated category by category as shown inthe accompanying table.Determination of the Percent Charged to Sponsored Research for each category is based ongross estimates of the relative amount of that service provided to ; all (not only government) sponsored research. For example, since General Administration and Expenses (G&A) is, roughlyspeaking, shared equally by all employees directlyinvolved in academic programs, the 27.81 percentrepresents the salaries paid directly for sponsoredresearch (including mandatory cost sharing) as afraction of total salaries and wages for those programs. On the other hand, Government Contractsand Administration (GCA) is almost totally (butnot quite) limited to sponsored programs and most(80.76 percent) of that cost is charged. Thisamount is estimated on the basis of experience, asis the amount of library usage (LE) ascribed tosponsored programs.Building maintenance and usage charges areapportioned by area used for sponsored programs.It should be kept in mind that this favors the sponsored programs because these costs are muchhigher for laboratory space than for the averageoffice space on campus. For example, air conditioning is the exception rather than the rule foroffices and classrooms; people can function without air conditioning but research equipment andlaboratory animals cannot.Indirect Departmental Expenses (IDE) are assigned on the basis of the estimated time allottedby department offices to administration of sponsored programs and faculty time spent on administrative matters including proposal preparation.Total Costs Percent Chargedto SponsoredResearch Charges toSponsoredResearch$ 5,262,000480,0007,424,0004,368,00017,257,00012,837,0001,550,0002,245,0W489,000$51,912,000 27.8180.6715.9911.5635.6231.6430.7030.6814.50NA $ 1,463.,000388,0001,187,000495,0006,148,0004,062,000476,000689,00071,000$14,979,000Category Total Costs Percent Chargedto SponsoredResearch Charges toSponsoredResearchGeneral Administration and GeneralExpensesGovernment Contracts AdministrationLibrary ExpensesStudent ServicesIndirect Departmental ExpensesBuilding MaintenanceEquipment Use ChargeBuilding Use ChargeAdjustmentTOTAL $ 5,262,000480,0007,424,0004,368,00017,257,00012,837,0001,550,0002,245,0W489,000$51,912,000 27.8180.6715.9911.5635.6231.6430.7030.6814.50NA $ 1,463.,000388,0001,187,000495,0006,148,0004,062,000476,000689,00071,000$14,979,000147F: SUPPLEMENTARY TABLESOcc<UJ</>LUCCO(0<CDOCO11.(/>zg<g_jCDO 0) C5T-C !$ OS m V) so (^ Os •'t -h¦a 1 oo" ^ m" rn vo -^ so rs: r*> »h (S -. m -h M so« 6 « + i i + i + + *r« $ +o T& NNsO^WOSW-^g T* CN —wen33sBQ Tt»^CNOsOscNOsi/-sc ^^mcNmm»-<'^oocn rn e» Os^ m^ oo^ vo rnif &2 ^ r-" ri oo" *-*" r-»" t" en rne E c v-sn-s-^u-isomr-m©^ so m cn.2 oUcNoooocNoot^-cNOsft4>fc ^3 ¦* ^ »" M >h" n n" q*oosvomcNCNrnvo0\ •-« vo —i "fr — <u•3- cn ~mrnoo*— cNCNrnoo| 00CN'<1-CN'a-'<£t^'<£rnr^rn*— osoovo1 ^ tt" <* tj-" o •<*" m" oC inO i— i vo m cnU- ~HvomQt^r^oo»-Hvpt^rsoovr^cNr-0\w->rfTfp-OsvOmfc «» 00\-MIO^ON3 Tfoomt^ooom'tu » ©_ *r> v* m —*3 2 mcN^^fcNOsm"-*$ £ TJ- cn —^ mmr-»-*oo»/">Osoor-cNToot-^mooo¦^ OS « N so -^ r^ CN2? c3s C ^ ^t ri vp" h>* o" vc* -<* m*niOO^sONWNO o vo m cmU —"Osmoor-^-^oor-os^-ovomooososfc <** cn" o cn r-" cn ^f ^t w-T3u in os «rs rn — ho"S NNt^itNOsm-^ £ ¦t <N —wOOOOOs©v©lo©-*«o«o«omi^ooost^ ca£ c ^ mr-osownw^t^t^somO(N>o-Nso-^os so m cnoU_ O M t^ " t N - sOtt-<sD — Ot - ©fc ^ CNrnoosoOssp»o«rsr-«nso»or^©oscNu rn oo rf cs•S3 oomcN-*moom<—* £ m m —«,_ — <00Os-<tOS00«/"sOsc m-*vOcN«/">©Osm©»om^frooso-*r»i^ co£ 52 <** OsvO©m©CNOsCN»s0^sO»0\sO-oo r^ cn —coU«-< «n m Os cn -* -* *nc« 00 X h - 'CNOSOS^Hfc ***¦ *OCNW-iOS"$CNTrO©«/"s.Os©vO¥">«0-h5 r^ *n cn —« "^is IIILifeScie Psycholoi Physical Environn Mathema Engineeri Social Other o (fto0) =O) c< sm Real Growth %67-81 N Os ^t SC h m so1 <^ 001 1oUc3U >^ Os CN — © vO *noo m cn in r- «r> mm oo o os vo vo mOs rr m CN CN «-« —© cn m ^ m -^t —in in os oo cn cn sooc i^ os in *n in m cn ©sSi<N1Is o3eCOoU"S3u 00 00 CN CN OS VO inf«i rt M ^*Os cn © Os Os © >n«^i <o os os m s© »-»Os ^t CN CN CN — < -<oo tt m oo — os oocn « cn m m oo or^ oo in in -^j- cn cn ©verf| ^3c6cfc «»3u 1,57695438730442184642811151331113362219925715661991205 ©CNCN©1 o3ca1 ^oU"Sfc ^3u 1,27483835678446194412901248031613319210924316071901255 ©i«N| o "3$ HcC3C ^OUcfc *>3u in o cn m os so *nm cn — -«t^ OS -* « r; t vot-» m t-. os © -* -*t~- T CN CN CN — — «t- in a ^t in in in© CN OS — OS © VO« so n t N N « ©is| o«^e2cOU"S?*fc «»3u vo m vo oo in in vo© — © m oo so t-»«-» © oo -^ «/"> cn mso m m tt m <— < -*¦<r cn m m cn — < « ©sCN!Department/Agency HEW-Education/HHS NSF Energy NASA DOD Agriculture AllOther Total148F-2: TOTAL NET UNIVERSITY EXPENDITURES FOR SELECTED UNIVERSITIES*(Current dollars in thousands)1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979California Inst.of Technology 36,602 39,240 40,599 43,215 46,649 49,623 53,604 58,921 N/AColumbia University 167,866 169,059 174,608 181,026 199,502 207,060 225,003 236,975 260,320Harvard University1 N/A N/A 200,114 211,398 232,036 243,434 261,975 284,877 334,209Massachusetts Inst.of Technology 119,499 126,871 132,068 137,561 153,265 177,061 185,289 210,001 241,480Princeton University N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/AStanford University 119,991 126,192 136,179 143,930 154,425 169,111 184,559 206,396University ofCalifornia, Berkeley N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/AUniversity of Chicago 109,247 109,671 113,454 113,142 120,586 128,983 137,815 151,508 159,012*Excludes auxiliary activities, hospitals, and federally sponsored research centers.1. Excludes Food, Housing, Faculty Club, University Press, and Medical School Power House.N/A— Not AvailableF-3: TOTAL GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES FOR SELECTED UNIVERSITIES*(Current dollars in thousands)1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979California Inst.of Technology1 17,635 19,494 20,785 21,354 23,360 25,765 27,814 29,945 N/AColumbia University 70,751 73,139 79,804 78,562 84,268 85,484 90,073 92,138 101,022Harvard University N/A 61,189 65,966 62,758 66,161 67,586 72,071 79,888 85,716Massachusetts Inst.of Technology2 60,892 69,671 72,294 77,887 86,547 93,053 100,366 116,182 138,227Princeton University3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/AStanford University4 56,608 60,505 64,885 64,572 71,694 81,029 85,911 94,014 N/AUniversity ofCalifornia, Berkeley N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/AUniversity of Chicago5 41,169 41,146 44,515 45,439 50,742 53,564 57,432 63,095 63,816*Includes direct and indirect expenditures from all government sources (federal, state and local).1. Excludes the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.2. Excludes Lincoln Laboratory and Draper Laboratory.3. Excludes Plasma Physics Laboratory and Princeton Pennsylvania Accelerator.4. Excludes the Stanford Linear Accelerator.5. Excludes the Argonne National Laboratory.N/A— Not AvailableF-4: GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES AS A PERCENT OF TOTAL NET EXPENDITURES1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979California Inst.of Technology 48.2 49.7 51.2 49.4 50.1 51.9 51.9 50.8 N/AColumbia University 42.1 43.3 45.7 43.4 42.2 41.3 40.0 38.9 38.8Harvard University N/A N/A 33.0 29.7 28.5 27.8 27.5 28.0 25.6Massachusetts Inst. ^of Technology 51.0 54.9 54.7 56.6 56.5 52.6 54.2 55.3 57.3Princeton University N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/AStanford University 47.2 47.9 47.6 44.9 46.4 47.9 46.5 45.6 N/AUniversity ofCalifornia, Berkeley N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/AUniversity of Chicago 37.7 37.5 39.2 40.2 42.1 41.5 41.7 41.6 40.1N/A— Not AvailableF-5: DEFENSE DEPARTMENT OBLIGATIONS (CURRENT DOLLARS) TO SELECTED UNIVERSITIESRelative to 1971-72 Average1971-72 1972^-73 1973-74 1974-75 1975-76 1976-77 1977-78California Inst.of TechnologyColumbia UniversityHarvard UniversityMassachusetts Inst.of TechnologyPrinceton UniversityStanford UniversityUniversity ofCalifornia, BerkeleyUniversity of Chicago 100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0 103.0101.080.9136.7101.185.1104.456.7 91.982.1- 77.593.591.076.398.757.7 96.987.871.928.777.074.292.262.2 94.198.868.028.872.576.6111.438.9 109.398.683.038.976.496.6139.528.8 141.0104.9100.343.193.9109.4159.334.2United States Total 100.0 96.7 84.6 76.1 81.6 97.2 146.0Relative to The University of Chicago1971-72 1972-73 1973-74 1974-75 1975-76 1976-77 1977-78California Inst.of TechnologyColumbia UniversityHarvard UniversityMassachusetts Inst.of TechnologyPrinceton UniversityStanford UniversityUniversity ofCalifornia, Berkeley 136.8342.2220.93,090.7163.2700.4400.5 248.7609.7315.27,455.0291.11,051.3737.7i 218.1487.0296.75,011.5257.7926.5685.3 213.4483.1255.31,426.3202.2836.2594.1 331.2868.8385.92.287.6304.31,379.21,147.3 518.51,170.6636.24,174.3432.32,347.11,937.8 564.71,050.4648.23,901.1448.42,242.91,866.7University of Chicago 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0150F-6: DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY OBLIGATIONS (CURRENT DOLLARS) TO SELECTED UNIVERSITIESRelative to 1971-72 Average1971-72 1972-73 1973-74 1974-75 1975-76 1976-77 1977-78California Inst.of TechnologyColumbia UniversityHarvard UniversityMassachusetts Inst.of TechnologyPrinceton UniversityStanford UniversityUniversity ofCalifornia, BerkeleyUniversity of Chicago 100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0 96.264.094.1108.082.4112.2103.889.4 97.646.3100.7119.673.9126.1108.984.7 99.757.5101.6139.578.3172.5126.487.3 106.460.698.3172.989.0233.2160.192.2 155.470.6107.0290.9105.4411.9218.195.3 189.672.1.109.6523.7127.1649.9372.795.6United States Total 100.0 95.1 97.1 111.1 133.3 176.7 239.2Relative to The University of Chicago1971-72 1972-73 1973-74 1974-75 1975-76 1976-77 1977-78California Inst.of TechnologyColumbia UniversityHarvard UniversityMassachusetts Inst.of TechnologyPrinceton UniversityStanford UniversityUniversity ofCalifornia, Berkeley 51.194.141.8167.751.213.813.6 55.067.444.0202.547.217.415.8 58.951.549.7236.744.620.617.4 58.462.048.7267.845.927.319.7 59.061.944.6314.349.435.023.6 83.469.847.0511.856.659.931.1 101.571.048.0918.968.194.253.0University of Chicago 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0151F-7: HEALTH, EDUCATION & WELFARE OBLIGATIONS (CURRENT DOLLARS)TO SELECTED UNIVERSITIESRelative to 1971-72 Average1971-72 1972-73 1973-74 1974-75 1975-76 1976-77 1977-78California Inst.of TechnologyColumbia UniversityHarvard UniversityMassachusetts Inst.of TechnologyPrinceton UniversityStanford UniversityUniversity ofCalifornia, BerkeleyUniversity of Chicago 100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0 113.8100.0107.2119.786.6104.6102.2107.4 127.3105.6115.8132.782.9113.4108.9131.9 138.2122.8122.5138.2109.1130.4113.4147.6 130.1125.3119.1146.2118.0130.0112.7139.4 128.8128.9129.3166.9120.9140.5121.9149.4 141.5151.0151.1187.3137.4156.7126.3171.3United States Total 100.0 105.9 113.9 126.2 140.2 171.6 199.8Relative to The University of Chicago1971-72 1972-73 1975-74 1974-75 1975-76 1976-77 1977-78California Inst.of TechnologyColumbia UniversityHarvard UniversityMassachusetts Inst.of TechnologyPrinceton UniversityStanford UniversityUniversity ofCalifornia, Berkeley 23.1143.1175.259.619.5132.798.1 24.5133.2174.866.415.7129.193.3 22.3114.6153.959.912.2114.081.0 21.6119.0145.355.814.4117.275.3 21.6128.6149.762.516.5123.779.3 19.9123.5151.766.615.8124.780.1 19.1126.1154.665.115.6121.472.4University of Chicago 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0152F-8: NASA OBLIGATIONS (CURRENT DOLLARS) TO SELECTED UNIVERSITIESRelative to 1971-72 Average1971-72 1972-73 1973-74 1974^75 1975-76 1976-77 1977-78California Inst.of TechnologyColumbia UniversityHarvard UniversityMassachusetts Inst.of TechnologyPrinceton UniversityStanford UniversityUniversity ofCalifornia, BerkeleyUniversity of Chicago oooooooobobbobd>d>oooooooo 88.897.596.971.183.294.372.780.7 83.587.0103.743.565.896.078.977.5 83.776.088.929.970.3100.286.588.4 101.475.069.931.383.3110.592.4101.2 106.479.591.732.880.8120.588.3101.1 98.186.5101.336.262.7137.379.1122.7United States Total 100.0 91.0 83.1 81.7 89.6 94.8 99.2Relative to The University of Chicago1971-72 1972-73 1973-74 1974-75 1975-76 1976-77 1977-78California Inst.of TechnologyColumbia UniversityHarvard UniversityMassachusetts Inst.of TechnologyPrinceton UniversityStanford UniversityUniversity ofCalifornia, Berkeley 121.382.2150.9760.2101.1130.4181.3 133.499.2181.2669.2104.3152.3163.3 130.892.3201.9426.685.9161.5184.5 115.070.7151.8256.880.5148.0177.5 121.660.9104.3235.383.3142.5165.6 127.764.6136.9246.680.9155.5158.4 97.058.0124.6224.151.7146.0117.0University of Chicago 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0153F-9: NSF OBLIGATIONS (CURRENT DOLLARS) TO SELECTED UNIVERSITIESRelative to 1971-72 Average1971-72 1972-73 1973-74 1974-75 1975-76 1976-77 1977-78California Inst.of TechnologyColumbia UniversityHarvard UniversityMassachusetts Inst.of TechnologyPrinceton UniversityStanford UniversityUniversity ofCalifornia, BerkeleyUniversity of Chicago 100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0 93.8120.1126.5121.8122.9111.8129.7116.0 101.5117.7129.8122.8130.9110.3142.1100.1 109.9122.3137.8147.3146.6119.1139.095.8 123.1126.5136.8156.2146.9136.7135.5112.7 128.1147.7133.8146.7145.8142.4134.5125.7 147.7159.8142.3158.7148.0157.9136.4124.3United States Total 100.0 103.8 102.7 111.1 116.6 125.5 138.6Relative to The University of Chicago1971-72 1972^-73 1973-74 1974-75 1975-76 1976-77 1977-78California Inst.of TechnologyColumbia UniversityHarvard UniversityMassachusetts Inst.of TechnologyPrinceton UniversityStanford UniversityUniversity ofCalifornia, Berkeley 86.5139.797.5196.356.0168.9147.3 69.9144.7106.4206.259.4162.9164.7 87.7164.3126.5240.8 _73.3186.1209.1 99.2178.4140.3301.785.7210.0213.6 94.4156.8118.3272.173.0204.8177.0 88.2164.2103.8229.165.0191.3157.6 102.8179.6111.6250.766.7214.6161.7University of Chicago 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0F-10: NUMBERS OF FACULTY AND OF GRANTS AWARDED IN THE PERIOD 1978-79FacultyMembers FederalGrants FederalDollars NonfederalGrants NonfederalDollarsBiological Sciences DivisionClinical 336Nonclinical 86HumanitiesOriental InstitutePhysical SciencesSocial SciencesCollegeBusinessDivinityLawLibrarySSAOther (Student Aid, Library,HRC, etc.) 4221341715618656782524933 328133163471120311736 $38,174,468627,735143,17715,578,2083,114,97545,5181,799,4250152,6434,7433,728,2553,881,967 110306250231049 $4,073,1849,4350118,100996,931087,54337,735100,0000265,166515,098TOTAL 1,140 624 $67,251,114 163 $6,203,192REPORT OF THESTUDENT OMBUDSMANFOR THE WINTER QUARTER, 1980By Bruce LewensteinThree times in the past ten months, women havecome to the student ombudsman to discuss sexualharassment. Although one said that her professorhad made an improper advance overtly, the othertwo had been confused by the mannerisms of theirprofessors. They could not decide whether theirprofessors were merely gregarious and friendly orwhether they were making advances.Even the appearance of an improper advance isa serious problem to the student involved. Thesethree students, and others with whom I have discussed sexual harassment, say that it is natural toreact by thinking, "Did I do something to lead theprofessor on?" or "Am I imagining things?"If the student is certain that an improper advance has been made, is of firm resolve, and canpredict the professor's response, she can say ordo what she thinks necessary to stop the professor's actions.But a student may be too confused to act immediately. In two of the cases which came to myoffice, the professor involved was supervising thewoman's research. The women said that theywere unsure what the repercussions to their professional relationship with the professor would beif they tried to take action.A professor is the person "with the mostknowledge in a room where knowledge is the onlybusiness of the hour, a figure of authority, confidence, intellectual grace," says Joseph Epsteinin Familiar Territory. Students and professorswant to know each other better. In a universitywhere one of the goals is an intellectual community, it is both appropriate and proper for studentsand professors to seek friendships outside theclassroom. But it is inappropriate and improperfor anyone in the community to take advantage ofthat friendship for anything other than intellectualpurposes.To a student unsure about the extent of theprofessional relationship, unsure about whethershe has been approached, and unsure about howthe reaction of a "rejected" professor mightinterfere with her career, any action to prevent animproper relationship seems difficult and awkward. The student is left confused, embittered,and sometimes deeply hurt. Often students keep their suspicions to themselves. They are properly concerned aboutcharging a professor with a serious offense, especially if they are unsure that anything improperhas occurred. This is a justifiable concern, since afalse charge can seriously injure both the careerand life of a professor.But it is important that this concern not stop astudent from finding a responsible person withwhom to discuss her experience. First, withoutsomeone else's perspective, the student may beunable to decide whether she is misreading a professor's friendliness or whether she has been improperly approached. Second, if she has beenasked or pressured for sexual "favors," she needsto take action to protect her reputation andacademic future.Finally, a student has a responsibility to others,a responsibility to help change the professor's actions if they are improper. Other students shouldnot be put in the same mind-wrenching situationof having sexual pressure cloud what should be anacademic, scholarly relationship.Although the three formal complaints to myoffice involved heterosexual relationships, I alsoknow of students who believe they have been approached for homosexual relationships. In eithersituation, the people involved may be members ofthe faculty, instructors, or graduate assistants.Whether you are male or female, if you believeyou are a victim of sexual harassment, contactsomeone, if only to help you decide whether youare in fact a victim. You might feel most comfortable speaking with the student ombudsman. Anyvisit or call to my office is handled in completeconfidence. No one — advisors, professors, orparents — need know about your concern. My assistant and I are both students, and, if you wouldprefer talking with a woman, my assistant is SulaFiszman. Our office is in Reynolds Club 204. Thetelephone is 753-4206.There are other people, such as the variousdeans of students or department chairmen, withwhom you might prefer to talk. Choose the personwith whom you would feel most comfortable, theperson whom you trust and respect.In the cases with which they were involved, theappropriate academic deans treated formal complaints of sexual harassment carefully and seriously. In at least one case, quick action by thedean resolved the problem.I believe University policy should appoint theacademic dean of the College or the appropriatedivision or professional school as the officer re-155sponsible for investigating complaints of sexualharassment. This policy should be published inthe Student Information Manual.Other problems on campus are also exacerbatedwhen students do not know where to go for information or help. About one third of theseventy-eight complaints I received this quartermight have been avoided if students had knownmore about University policy, procedure, or administrative structure.The Student Information Manual and thequarterly Time Schedules both provide muchuseful information. Although the Manual also hasphone numbers and building schedules, much ofthe book contains University policies and regulations which students should know. In twocases, students wanted information about disciplinary procedures which was available from theManual.The Time Schedules contain much of the information regarding billing and payment procedures, course change deadlines, and grading andother policies which affect every student. In several cases this quarter, students ran afoul of procedures because they had not followed instructions printed in the Time Schedules. In onecase, a student tried to pay her bill in person at thebank, instead of mailing the payment, as instructed both on the bill and in the TimeSchedules. It took several days for the bank toroute the payment to the proper department. As aresult, a late payment fee was assessed. The Bursar accepted the student's excuse and waived thelate fee.Some problems involve not policy or procedure, but merely particular details of administrative operations at the University. Although theseproblems involve such seemingly unimportantmatters as conflicting information regarding registration dates or the incomplete recording of agrade, they are often the most frustrating to students. Students feel as though they must face animpersonal bureaucracy in these cases.For example, for the last two quarters aboutfive percent of the complaints brought to myoffice, including the one concerning the late fee,involved the new Student Information System(SIS), which went into operation last summer.Students, and sometimes staff members, do notyet completely understand the SIS. This leads toconfusion, and the plaintive cry "The computerwon't let me do it!"The core of the SIS is a central data base for allstudents from which various offices (such as theRegistrar and Financial Aid) receive necessaryinformation. The SIS computer performs many operations, such as billing and course registration,that were formerly done by hand. Appendix 1 discusses the system and some of the specific complaints involving it that I have received. I hopethat as more people become acquainted with theSIS and its capabilities we will hear more often thehappy cry "The computer let me do it!"There are some problems where the studentknows the policy, the procedure, and even theadministrative reason for both. But he does notknow where to go for help in interpreting the policy or to alert the University to problems with theprocedures. Many of the calls to my office askingfor information fall in this category. Five of theseven complaints regarding the Department ofAthletics were in this category.University officials respond quickly to problems of this kind. Director of Athletics Harold R."Jeff" Metcalf bemoaned the need for an intermediary each time we spoke. He asked all complainants to come directly to the responsible person at the Department of Athletics.In many situations, Metcalf s request is right.For those problems caused by rigid application ofa policy or by misunderstandings between a clerkand student, the quickest solution is to ask theofficial responsible for the policy. Whenever possible, I suggest that students do this before comingto the ombudsman. Other kinds of problems,however, and those where different perspectivesinterfere with operation of a policy or procedurewill continue to involve the ombudsman.Assistant Ombudsman Sula Fiszman prepared areport describing both the formal problems andthe informal comments we received about athleticfacilities (Appendix 2). Many of the informalcomments dealt with particular equipment problems in the locker rooms at Bartlett Gym and theHenry Crown Field House. She concluded thatthe Department of Athletics quickly attends tocomplaints about physical problems with thefacilities and that more complex problems shouldbe brought directly to Metcalf or Mary Jean Mul-vaney, chairman of the Department of PhysicalEducation and Athletics.Finally, there are problems which fall under noadministrative policy, procedure, or operation.Academic complaints, such as grade appeals orrequests to retake tests, are in this category.Almost a quarter of the complaints this quarterinvolved academics.In the nonacademic problems which fall into nospecific category, a student may discover a usefulprocedure. Few others, however, benefit from hislearning. One student recognized this difficultyand came to our office for help in notifying others156that thieves sometimes sell stolen books to theused bookstores in Hyde Park; In discussionswith two bookstores, I learned that, although thisis true, the bookstores are caught in a bind. Theyrealize that, unknowingly, they sometimes buystolen books. However, there are only a few,less-than-perfect ways by which they can tell ifbooks have been stolen. They believe that theirmost certain option — to stop buying used books atall from walk-in customers — would not serve theircustomers' s needs.After several weeks of discussion, the followingprocedures were suggested for people whosebooks have been stolen:1. Immediately report the incident to University Security.2. Take a list of the books to all neighborhoodused bookstores. The list should include, forevery book: title, author, edition, condition, andidentifying marks.3. Put the date of the report to University Security on the list. This may help the bookstoreswhen identifying a suspect.4. With the list, specify what you would like thestore to do if someone tries to sell them yourbooks: a) refuse to accept them, or b) pay as littleas possible for them, and you will reimburse themfor this amount.5. If you recover your books, notify thebookstores that they can disregard your list.There is no guarantee that stolen books will appear or be noticed at the used bookstores. But thebookstores cannot know that the books are stolenunless they have been notified. The notice to University Security protects all parties — victims,thieves, and bookstores — against inaccurate ormisleading reports.I talk to many students at study breaks andsherry hours, in the libraries and coffeeshops. Ireceive many comments beyond the formal complaints made to my office. Whenever possible, Ilearn what problems students are finding on campus and suggest ways to avoid them. In this report, I have tried to present information which Ihope will prevent some future problems. However, the most effective way to prevent problemsis for students, faculty members, and staff toknow as much about the University as possible.Students should read the Student InformationManual and Time Schedules. Turn to the appropriate official for help when necessary. The Ombudsman's Office is always ready to help.Bruce Lewenstein is the University Ombudsmanfor the 1979-80 term. Appendix 1: Student Information SystemThe Student Information System (SIS) is designedto improve the accuracy and efficiency of theUniversity's student records. It consists of a central data base which includes a student's biographical, financial, registration, and transcriptinformation and a minicomputer which operatesthe data base and performs various administrativefunctions with the information.The SIS allows offices access only to the portions of a student's central file necessary for theirown work. For example, the bursar has access tofinancial information but not grades, while the registrar has access to grades but not financial information.The SIS currently bills for the Bursar's Office;registers students, records grades, and schedulesclasses for the Registrar's Office; and providesinformation to the Deans of Students, StudentHousing, Financial Aid, Library, and CareerCounseling Offices. When all parts of the systemhave begun operation (scheduled for summer1980), the loan offices and the Alumni Associationwill also be tied into the system.Eventually, operations which now occur incentral locations will be delegated through the SISto the appropriate office. For example, financialaid information will be entered to a student's account directly at the divisional dean of students'office, where financial aid decisions are made. Inthe past, this information has had to be sent to theAdministration Building and processed there.Because the system is "interactive," changes ina student's status, when entered at a terminal, willimmediately change the student's recordsthroughout the SIS. This flexibility allows changesto be made while a student waits, if necessary. Inone case this quarter, a student's loan disbursement was restricted because of outdated University grant information in the SIS. Within ten minutes of my call to her dean of students, the student's updated information was confirmed andentered into the system, freeing her loan.Currently, the most noticeable aspect of the SISto students is the billing system. The computerprepares bills by reading a student's registration,financial aid, and other information. When thepayment is received by United States Mail at theUniversity's lockbox downtown, checks arecredited to the proper account by the bank. Onceeach day, the SIS receives a magnetic tape fromdowntown from which changes in accounts arerecorded.Most of the problems which have come to myoffice stem from the rigorous efficiency of this157system. If a student's first bill is unpaid after thedue date, the second bill automatically adds a latefee. If the second bill is unpaid, the computer automatically restricts registration. Many students,remembering a day when due dates had no meaning beyond the bursar's forlorn hopes, continue todelay their payment. The result is a penalty.Again, the system can be flexible in these cases.In a typical case, a student had delayed his payment for autumn quarter while waiting for astate-guaranteed loan to arrive. By the beginningof winter quarter, it had not arrived, and he wasrestricted. After the bursar accepted a letter fromthe bank stating that the loan had been approvedbut not yet processed, the bursar easily instructedthe computer to remove the student's restriction.Delayed transfer of information within the SIScaused at least one problem. When a student inthe College preregisters, the registrar puts the information in a "hold" file in the SIS. At the beginning of a new quarter, the information for allunrestricted students is automatically moved to an"active" file, at which time the bursar preparesthe first bill.If a student is restricted when the quarter begins, however, the transfer to "active" is not automatic. When the restriction is cleared (by thestudent paying his bill or library fine or correctingsome other problem), all indications of restrictions are automatically removed in the SIS.However, the registrar must then manually enterthe student's records in the "active" file. As thismanual entering occurs after the beginning of thequarter, a student may be liable for a late registration fee. The student who came to our office afterbeing caught by this system withdrew from schoolfor other reasons. However, the flexible systemallows a dean of students to waive the late registration fee if he believes the student has a legitimate excuse for not having cleared the restriction.Many potential problems created by the SIS(such as those caused by increased efficiency)were foreseen by the operators of the SIS, others(such as the need for manual transfer of late registration information) were not. In general, thecomments heard by the Ombudsman's Officeabout the SIS have been good. As students andadministrators become more familiar with thesystem, I expect the number of problems to continue to drop.Appendix 2: AthleticsIn the opinion of many, the reopening of theHenry Crown Field House improved the qualityof life at the University more than any other change on campus this year. It certainly sparkedmuch discussion about the University's athleticfacilities: the improvements to date and the goalsstill to be met. We see several reasons for theincreasing involvement of the Ombudsman'sOffice in these discussions.An increase in the number of problems and inconveniences naturally accompanies the initialstages of any endeavor. The opening of the fieldhouse proved no exception. More often than not,however, the Department of Athletics was awareof the complaints regarding the new facility beforewe relayed them, and solutions were already inthe works. Hence, hair dryers out of reach,benches missing, and inadequate drainage weretransitory problems.The question of who uses the facilities at whattime is more intractable. Many comments thatcame to us involved the closing of the field housetrack to recreational joggers from 4:00 to 5:30 p.m.for varsity track team practice. This is the secondwinter in which the Ombudsman's Office has received this complaint. Last year, the facultyBoard of Athletics and Recreational Sports considered a petition from 700 people to alter its policy, but the board elected to continue closing thetrack to individual runners in the late afternoon.The situation is frustrating to recreationalathletes and the Department of Athletics alike.Recreational athletes are confused by the apparent inconsistency of an institution which emphasizes academics instead of athletics but, nonetheless, gives preferential treatment to varsityathletes. The Department of Athletics is confronted with the impossible task of simultaneouslypleasing everyone with the limited resources athand. Compromise solutions are not readily apparent.The construction of a second indoor trackwould be the ideal solution to the current over-demand for track time. Until the University canafford this solution, however, the recurrence ofthe problem indicates a need to reexamine lastyear's decision.The increasing interest in sports, together withan apparently increasing ratio of serious recreational athletes to varsity athletes, requires renewed direct consideration of who uses whatwhen. Any decision should explicitly and publiclystate and explain the priorities on which it isbased.Often progress is accompanied by increaseddemands for further progress. This quarter sawthe birth of Women Organized for Locker-roomFacilities (W.O.L.F.), a group of recreationalathletes who would like to see the women's locker158room in Bartlett Gym expanded to provide moreshowers, lockers, and floor space. With limitedresources, alternative uses of these resourcesmust be carefully weighed with needs. Assessments to determine the optimum benefit froma given expenditure vary drastically depending onone's perspective. Currently, the field house hasan overcapacity of locker space for women, andthe age of Bartlett Gym (completed in 1904)suggests that any structural changes to that facility might have wide-ranging and expensive implications. On the other hand, to the women whostood in lines waiting for showers this past quarterwhen the field house track was closed to recreational runners and to the women who participatein sports which cannot be transferred to the fieldhouse, the need for expanded facilities at BartlettGym appears pressing. The problem will again beacute during future winter quarters when the trackteam moves indoors. Thus the closing of the trackand the crowded locker facilities are related.The locker-room problem is being addressed bythe Board of Athletics and Recreational Sports.The process will not be a speedy one.Alternatives, costs, and implications must beevaluated. Our office is not mandated to participate in the decision. Rather, our responsibility isto insure that problems are directed to the properchannels and that all people involved are communicating with each other. W.O.L.F. has beenresourceful and aggressive in this respect, and theDepartment of Athletics has been receptive. Theneed for our involvement has been minimal.Not all students have been as adept asW.O.L.F. at locating the proper people within theDepartment of Athletics to whom to addressproblems. Comments or complaints about thephysical condition and operation of the facilitiesshould go to Dan Tepke, Director of Facilities.Questions about larger issues or policies of theDepartment of Athletics should go to Harold R."Jeff" Metcalf, director of athletics, or to MaryJean Mulvaney, chairman of the department.mw£rw-Mm^^mm»iifmw^w%,j:^:^ wMrtritifa ,m :'.i;K ^mrraasfir •. ^^ awtiS Whenever the offices of the department areclosed, comments can be written on the complaintsheets outside the offices. Our office will be delighted to help whenever students are unsurewhere to begin.Appendix 3: DetailsThe Ombudsman's Office received seventy-eightproblems during the winter quarter. We tooksome form of action in sixty-six of those cases,providing only advice or information in the remaining twelve (breakdown of cases follows).Over thirty-two additional people called orstopped at the Ombudsman's Office to get directions, report broken telephones, or seek quickinformation. Five people sought legal aid information.Forty-four undergraduates, twenty-sixgraduates, and eight alumni or other affiliates usedthe services of the Ombudsman's Office.Information/Discussion Action TotalAcademic AffairsGrade Appeals 2 6 8Other 3 7 10Student AffairsAthletics 1 6 7Housing & Commons 0 10 10Hospitals & Clinics 1 7 8Student Employment 0 2 2Student Activities 0 4 4Administrative AffairsFinancial Aid 0 8 8Facilities & Security 0 6 6Registrar & Bursar 1 6 7Library 0 1 1Miscellaneous 4 5 9Total 12 66 78^f.&^-Mf^^ lw w*~ y:ipx.,%:s%m,,.:. .^SM%ft:^,^:^:&,^tu:^ t^:. ji159THE 376TH CONVOCATION ADDRESSSCIENTIFIC LITERACYBy Robert R. WilsonMarch 21, 1980This afternoon I wish to speak about a burgeoningof what I choose to call "scientific literacy." Bythis I do not mean that scientists have at lastlearned to read and write! Rather I am referring toan emergent literature about science that is clearenough, and simple enough, and adult enough — inshort, literate enough — for an interestednonscientist to become reasonably knowledgeableabout some of the hitherto arcane mysteries ofscience.C. P. Snow, about twenty years ago, alerted usto what he called the "two cultures." He deploredthe tendency of humanists to be deliberately ignorant of the subject matter of science and viceversa. Snow was uniquely qualified to discuss thatfracture for he himself lived two lives: one as anoutstanding author, the other as a reputable scientist. He illustrated exactly what he had in mindby the following anecdote:It seems that A. L. Smith, one of the more convivial Oxford great deans, was invited to Cambridge University to dine at Trinity College.Smith was seated next to the Master (or President, or Vice-Master, or whatever) of the College and Smith was a man who liked to includeall those around him in his lively conversation.He first addressed some cheerful chit-chatabout Oxford at the one opposite him. He gotback only a grunt. He then tried the man next tohim,— and got another grunt. This rather startled Smith, but the Master, to put him at easethen remarked, "Oh, those are mathematicians!We never talk to them."I do not want to assess to what extent Snow'stwo cultures applied beyond high table at Trinity,but there did exist then — and does exist now — abarrier in communication between scientist andnonscientist.In the past that barrier was not of criticalimportance — after all, it was a matter of personaltaste, not of survival, whether sports or politics orliterature or physics was to occupy one's attentionand interest. But in the past science did not pre sent the serious problems of technology it doestoday — problems which in some cases must bedealt with immediately if we are to live our liveseven approximately as we do now. I will contendthat scientific literacy is one of the ingredients forcoping with the problems of technology.If science presents social problems for us, it isin the nature of science not necessarily to presentsolutions. But it is "people," nonscientists, whosupport and make possible science and its applications. And it is these same people — you — whomust come to grips with and live with those problems. They — you — as well as the scientists, bearthe responsibility for the problems, and they —you — must therefore somehow learn to controlscience and the technology it spawns.Now I am not able to offer any special wisdomabout how "the people" will manage to controlscience. I will remark that nearly all of science inthe United States is financed by the federal government, and hence it is by our elected representatives in Washington that science is in fact beingcontrolled — and being controlled quite effectivelyfor they, after all, control the purse strings. Indeed they seem to do about as well with the control of science as they do with their other hardhuman problems — the control of inflation, forexample!If I am not able to recommend specific measures for the control of science, I can at leastsuggest that our representatives and the peoplewho elect them be as knowledgeable as possibleabout what it is they wish to control — in this casethat they be scientifically literate. Happily, I canreport a considerable improvement in the meansthat are available for nonscientists to deepen theirunderstanding of science.Now if the humanists of Snow's world were indeed scientific illiterates, as he maintained, it waslargely the fault of the scientists themselves in nottrying very hard to be understood. Unfortunately,there has been a time in the youth of modern science when scientists have been burned — literallyburned — when they expressed themselves tooclearly. Galileo's persecution was in large part160due to the fact that he expressed his then irreverent views strongly and clearly in the vernacular, inItalian rather than in Latin. Copernicus, you remember, did stick to Latin and managed thus topresent even more revolutionary views but without retribution. Another difficulty with the generalunderstanding of science is that part of the success of science is due to the use of a precise andspecial terminology and to the use of abstrusemathematics which make scientific articles assuch obscure to any but the initiate.However, there have been notable exceptions.Darwin's very readable books helped to make histheory of evolution widely known and understood. Einstein's warm personality and his concern with human problems led to his theory ofrelativity being taken up as a popular fad in thetwenties. James Watson, a University of Chicagostudent who must have participated in just thissame ceremony in this same chapel, broke newground in writing irreverently but interestinglyabout science in his famous book The DoubleHelix. In this account of his discovery (with Francis Crick) of the molecular structure of the geneticmaterial DNA, he manages to give us a very realinsight into the not-always-exalted human factorsthat actually go into the creative process. Let'snot forget either that Lucretius contributed in nolittle way in giving poetic voice to the atomictheory of Democritus. These and similar endeavors which have done much to make scienceunderstandable — and human — have been so generally appreciated and acclaimed, especially in recent times, that a whole new literature about science has blossomed.The New Yorker magazine, one of thetouchstones of literary taste, has played a part inestablishing the quality of this literature. Just afterthe Second World War a full issue was given overto John Hershey's compassionate account of thetragic effects of the first use of a nuclear bomb atHiroshima. The New Yorker has also given us anaccount of Enrico Fermi's life by his wife andoccasionally has come forth with delightful poetryabout science, for example, one about neutrinosby John Updike. In Jeremy Bernstein's profiles ofprominent scientists and in his literate descriptions of their work, a standard of excellence hasbeen reached that is up to the New Yorker's best.The recent series of articles entitled "Disturbingthe Universe" by Freeman Dyson has establisheda quality of humanness and literary sophisticationfor a scientist writing in this relatively new metierthat is exceptional. The pioneering and prestigious Scientific American has been dedicated to clearexpositions of scientific matters for years andyears and deserves all the many accolades theyreceive. Recently they have been joined by aflurry of somewhat more popular magazines including Omni, Science 80, and the Smithsonian,among others.Much the same can be said about the reportingof science by the press. Thirty years ago only afew newspapers had reporters specifically trainedto give the news of science. Now this has becomea respected profession, and the coverage of eventsconcerning science and technology is accurateand sophisticated. The New York Times, always aleader in this respect, has recently inaugurated aweekly "Science Section" which may eventuallymatch the level of their sections on the theater andother arts. This is no accident, considering thatthe dean of science reporters, Walter Sullivan, hastamed any number of abstruse scientific subjectsin establishing the leadership of the Times.Television has also broken new ground in contributing to the new literacy in science. Particularly outstanding has been Public Broadcasting'sseries "Nova" with the special flair and intellectual depth that BBC brings to its programs.Jacob Bronowski, in the "Ascent of Man" series,has particularly emphasized human factors in hisemotional treatment of scientific material. IndeedI am impressed, if not sometimes dismayed, at thehigh level of many of the television programs onscience. "The Key to the Universe" by NigelCalder, for example, is concerned with the intricacies of elementary particles and of blackholes. It has had a large following in spite of — orperhaps because of — the technical sophisticationthat Calder, who is not a scientist, has been ableto reach in his explanations. Any number of mynontechnical friends tell me that they managed tomaintain interest through the stiff two hours of theshow — to my amazement, for I found it prettyhard going. Perhaps what I have failed to recognize in many popular shows which seem overlydifficult to me is the degree to which we are allprepared to fail to understand much of any lectureand yet still to get a measure of satisfaction fromit. It may be that the verisimilitude of understanding science has in itself an element ofaesthetic pleasure — or should we not add "notunderstanding" to the old aesthetic principle ofthe "willing suspension of disbelief."The real heart of any literature must, of course,reside in books rather than in television programsor magazine articles. One book in particular ex-161hibits for me the best characteristics of the newscientific literature. It is The First Three Minutes:A Modern View of the Origin of the Universe bySteven Weinberg. It has become a best-sellingclassic. In nontechnical language, Weinberg describes how the knowledge of the elementary particles of incredibly small dimensions can be related to the astronomer's knowledge of the tremendous reaches of our universe to infer whathappened ten thousand million years ago duringthe first moments when the universe was formedin a gigantic explosion. You might consider it invidious to make a comparison with Milton'sParadise Lost, but I doubt that we would disagreeabout the appropriateness to both of these worksof Milton's apostrophe:Thou celestial light Shine inward,And the mind through all her powers,Irradiate . . . that I may see and tellOf things invisible to mortal sight.Literature is the business of a university, yetthere seems to be no place within the present university structure where the scientific literature Ihave been discussing should be centered. The science departments have been too professionallyoriented, and I am not sure that the English Department is quite yet ready for all these scientificgems I have been discussing — but just wait, thattoo will come. Perhaps it is time instead to returnto an old concept, Natural Philosophy, and toestablish a Department of Natural Philosophy,with the subject matter reinterpreted so as to be abridge between science and the humanities.Scientific literacy is important because scienceis accumulative by its very nature. As it growsever more powerful and ever more pervasive, thetechnology it breeds may become overwhelming.Already there has been considerable controversyabout such problems as limiting the kinds of recombinant DNA experiments that can be made orabout the use of nuclear reactors. Although I amnot always completely happy with the level of scientific literacy of many of the protagonists in thesedebates, I am pleased nevertheless that the controversies do take place in the public arena. In thedemocratic resolution of these issues — and suchissues affect the very fibre of our lives — scientificliteracy will become increasingly important. Theimprovements which have been made in the presenting of science in the newspapers, in television, in magazines and books are a welcome signthat we might indeed be able to cope with the ever-expanding science and technology, especiallyif these improvements really result in a more universal scientific literacy.Robert R. Wilson is the Peter B. Ritzma Professorin the College and Professor in the Department ofPhysics and in the Enrico Fermi Institute.SUMMARY OF THE376TH CONVOCATIONThe 376th convocation was held on Friday, March21, 1980 in Rockefeller Memorial Chapel. HannaH. Gray, President of the University, presided.A total of 324 degrees were awarded: 34Bachelor of Arts, 1 Bachelor of Science, 6 Masterof Science in the Division of the Biological Sciences and the Pritzker School of Medicine, 16Master of Arts in the Humanities, 4 Master ofScience in the Division of the Physical Sciences,30 Master of Arts in the Division of the SocialSciences, 10 Master of Arts in the DivinitySchool, 7 Master of Arts in the Graduate LibrarySchool, 1 Master of Arts in the School of SocialService Administration, 2 Master of Arts inTeaching, 143 Master of Business Administration,1 Doctor of Ministry, 15 Doctor of Philosophy inthe Division of the Biological Sciences and thePritzker School of Medicine, 5 Doctor of Philosophy in the Division of the Humanities, 7 Doctor ofPhilosophy in the Division of the Physical Sciences, 36 Doctor of Philosophy in the Division ofthe Social Sciences, 1 Doctor of Philosophy in theGraduate School of Business, 1 Doctor of Philosophy in the Divinity School, and 3 Doctor of Philosophy in the School of Social Service Administration.Robert R. Wilson, the Peter B. Ritzma Professor in the College and Professor in the Department of Physics and in the Enrico Fermi Institute,delivered the convocation address, entitled "Scientific Literacy."162THE 377TH CONVOCATION ADDRESSCLIO'S VISIONBy John Hope FranklinJune 13 and 14, 1980When Hesiod, the Greek poet, referred to Clio,the muse of history, as "the proclaimer," he didnot suggest that her proclamations were alwaysconcerned with some bygone era. Most historians, I among them, have usually regarded themselves as faithful disciples of Clio, concerned exclusively, or at least primarily, with the past.Whether this was a valid interpretation of the roleof Clio or merely an escape from responsibility tobe involved with the present and the future is, atthis time, beside the point. For more than fourdecades I have done whatever I could to focus thelight of truth on the past and, for the most part, Ihave associated myself with my colleagues in thefield of history in leaving it to others —sociologists, political scientists, soothsayers, andpalmists — to use that "truth" to chart the futurecourse. Now, as I contemplate taking leave of myformal teaching responsibilities as one of Clio'sproclaimers who has focussed on the past, I propose to shift my focus and to dare to think ofClio's having a vision of the future. Even so, Imust rely heavily on what historians, includingmyself, have said about the past as I attempt tosee its relevance for the present and the future.I was tempted to call these remarks "Clio'sSecrets." That is because man's conduct indicates that Clio has not been successful as a"proclaimer." Few, if any, have listened to andheeded her proclamations despite the fact that thethings she knows and has told us could be of greatvalue to mankind. If her proclamations about thepast have been heard they have had little effect,and man and woman have repeated again andagain the grievous mistakes of the past. She hasbeen witness to every conceivable kind of humanconflict, from fratricidal combats to nuclear wars,and she has seen little good to come from any ofthem. It appears, from the human responses tothese tragedies, that they remained unknown. Cliokept her secrets! Not that she wanted to keepthem, but no one wanted to share them.Two centuries ago we of this country fought awar for independence and freedom, but we did so while holding fast to human bondage, infinitelyworse and more despicable than any form ofpolitical subordination. We did not seem to understand that simple fact and continued to gloat aboutthe precious political freedom we had won. Wehobbled through the ensuing seventy-five yearsgetting deeper into an impossible rationalizationfor the maintenance of slavery in the most "enlightened" country of the western world. In expanding our territory in the middle of thenineteenth century we despoiled the rights of ourneighbor south of the border and created a legacyof suspicion and distrust that has clouded the relations of the two countries from that day to this.At the close of the century we joined the family ofimperial powers and began to build an unenviablereputation for creating puppet states where it wasin our interest to do so, for building relations withother countries with blatant self-interest as thehighly unattractive paramount objective, and forextorting favors wherever we pleased, paying inreturn the high price of disdain and disrespect.Two generations ago we fought a great war tomake the world safe for democracy; and in itswake there emerged some of the most undemocratic practices the world has ever seen.Italian Fascism and German Nazism were merelytwo of the worst forms of antidemocratic governments that were all too numerous in those years.A generation later we fought a world war to preserve the four freedoms; and yet at the war's endthere followed the suppression of personal andreligious freedom in many places. Want and privation abounded even in the United States; andfear strode first one benighted land and thenanother. One must never forget or fail to understand the damaging social fissures created by suchobscenities as Stalinism and McCarthyism whichhad their own special ways of terrorizing their respective societies.In referring to such depressing conditions andcircumstances, I do not wish even to imply thatthere has been no good in the world, for there hasbeen. Angels of mercy have ministered to the163underprivileged and disadvantaged. Organizationsas well as individuals have sought diligently toassist those without power to cope with the complexities of the modern social and economicorder. Some governments have attempted to meteout justice and even scarce economic resourcesmore equitably. The generosity of the people ofour own country, especially in times of distresselsewhere, has elicited praise and gratitude inmany parts of the world. At times internationalorganizations have risen above political and economic ideologies in order to make decisions andtake actions on the basis of the merits of the issuesinvolved.In proclaiming thusly, Clio is merely wringingher hands and indulging in the usual reportorialroutine. I venture to suggest a role that has foryears been urged upon her and which, through herdisciples, she has consistently declined to assume.At least that has been the case when she has spoken through me. The role that I suggest for her isto state clearly and unequivocally the implicationsfor the future of past events and of the past conduct of the people who inhabit this earth. Thedeeds that nations and peoples commit in thename of civilization are, as often as not, misdeeds,and the scars of the misdeeds are all too oftenscars that have virtual permanence. When onepeople enslaves another people for the ostensiblepurpose of civilizing them, the enslaver merelyreveals his own barbarity and invites the eternalwrath of the enslaved. When one nation assistsanother in gaining its independence and then is thefirst to exploit the fledgling nation, not only werethe older nation's motives devoid of altruism, butits future unhappy relations with the new nationhad already been predetermined by its crude andselfish conduct. When a nation's armed forces attack and bomb an innocent people in the name ofthe high principle of outflanking some formidableenemy, it invites the scorn of the victims as wellas the bystanders.In its relations with others a nation builds upcredits and debits, and what happens to that nation in the future depends in large measure onwhat happens to these items on the nation's balance sheet. If its credits are greater than itsdebits — through its generosity, its belief in decency in dealing with others, and its commitmentto the improvement of the condition of the peoplesof the world — then it can at least make an argument that it is on the right side in attempting tosolve the basic problems of the world. If its debitsare greater than its credits — through exploiting others, committing aggressions, territorial andotherwise, and being profligate with the naturaland human resources of the world — there istrouble ahead as the distinction becomes moreand more dificult to make between such a nationand one that is patently and admittedly disinterested in individual freedoms and national integrity.What is true of nations is no less true of individuals; and if one has the feeling that coping withmatters of national concern is beyond one's ken,there is always the self with which one must cope.In our country the right of every individual to pursue his or her own destiny, wherever it may lead,has been a cherished right throughout our history.Indeed, the right became so sacred that it counseled some to assert it regardless of how it affected the rights of others. We have all seen theruthless businessman who would do anything todestroy his competitors or the unprincipled politician who would sell anything he possessed, including his honor and integrity, for some advantage on election day or some small favor in highplaces. There is that special brand of American,the racist, who is determined to prevent a blackfamily from moving next door or in the next blockor wherever his fancy indicates that the line ofdemarcation should be drawn. Some of us haveeven seen that so-called scholar, rare in mostplaces and nonexistent at the University ofChicago, who would resort to any means, including forgery and plagiarism, to press ahead of hiscolleagues in his chosen field.One hopes that these types of ruthless, ruggedindividuals, selected at random from countlesspossibilities, comprise a minority of our population, but they are far too numerous if our societyis to become a healthy one. They play an important part in creating the social atmosphere inwhich we must live, and their toxicity, like that ofour air pollutants, is something that we cannotendure indefinitely. Like nations, they have left arecord that Clio's disciples have difficulty inanalyzing and interpreting. But, as has been thecase in most historical analyses and interpretations, we have left it at that. Perhaps it istime for us to go beyond that point, to share withothers our views, appraisals, even apprehensionsabout the implications and consequences of theconduct of nations and peoples. Bear in mind thatno one is exempt from making these assessmentsand taking part in the actions the assessments demand.Clio watches with interest, even distress, as she164observes the world's refusal to heed the lessons ofhistory. Over and over again she has recountedwith pain how and why the peoples of the worldhave, on occasion, acted more like animals thanlike human beings. When their territory wastransgressed — or they thought it was — they reacted as lesser creatures reacted when their territorial imperative compelled them to defend tothe death every inch of soil they could conceivably claim as their own. When they wereinjured — or thought they were — they sprang to respond with raw force, as any unreasoning beastwould respond. But this is not the world of rational human beings, whether acting at the level ofdisputes on the city block or in major internationalcrises. It is the world of the jungle where instinctand brute strength determine the outcome of thestruggle.It is about time that we took a careful look atwhat I call Clio's vision of the future, her view ofthe consequences that will inevitably flow fromour experiences and activities in the past andpresent. I hope that these two examples will indicate the nature as well as the gravity of our present predicament. One salient feature of ourforeign policy in recent years has been our judgment of what countries were and what countrieswere not adhering to the principles of humanrights as we perceived them. On the basis of thatjudgment we determined what our policy shouldbe toward one country or another. Except whereit turned out that we needed the support of acountry with a bad human rights record and excused it if it would sign on with us in our struggleagainst the Big Enemy. Clio asserts here and nowthat such judgments are worse than no judgments,that they lose the respect as well as the support ofthe country in question, and they inspire no confidence in us from other countries. Such judgments are capricious and irresponsible. They donot contribute to peace in the world. Indeed, theycontribute significantly to instability in the world.A continuation of this type of conduct, Cliowarns, will reduce the influence of the UnitedStates and create the very situations leading tograve crises that we were ostensibly trying toavoid.One would have thought that any country in theworld, and especially a superpower, would haveknown better than to believe that other countrieswould accept its classification of them as goodguys or bad guys. Not only will they reject theclassification but even the good guys might well bedeeply offended by such presumption. In any case it is clear that no good can come from such apolicy and Mr. Common Man as well as Clioshould be able to see that.The recent racial disturbances in Miami make itquite clear that the calm that had characterizedrace relations in the United States over the pastdecade was a mere surface calm, that underneaththe surface was the seething outrage born of centuries of injustice. When Martin Luther King wasassassinated in 1968, Chicago blacks on the WestSide were insulted that whites would seek propitiation and atonement by volunteering to washwindows and, ironically, to whitewash theirhomes. A week of that and all was forgotten onone side, even as discrimination in jobs andhousing and segregation in the schools continued.Through all of these years — through the slaughterof Fred Hampton, the disproportionate rise in unemployment among Chicago blacks, the unconscionable neglect of all-Negro neighborhoods, theviolence triggered when a black boy drives a bicycle through Bridgeport — the sense of powerless-ness and frustration has grown. One can assumethat the preconditions of a racial explosion exist.Thomas Jefferson's assessment was incorrectwhen he opposed the abolition of slavery in parton the ground that "deep-rooted prejudices" entertained by whites and "ten thousand recollections, by the blacks, of injuries sustained . . .will divide us into parties, and produce convulsions, which will probably never end but in theextermination of one or the other race." Clio isprobably quite correct when she observes thatanother two centuries of recollections of injusticesas well as injuries now of free black people insteadof slaves have created a situation that is as volatileas it is tragic. From where Clio sits the vision ofthe future is not bright on this important front. Sheinvites the classes of 1980 not to wring their handsin despair or to make simple gestures of apologysuch as washing windows, but to be as active as itis humanly possible to be in attacking and solvingthese problems. The volcano on Mount St. Helensis beyond our capacity to control. The time bombsof our so-called inner cities were built by man, andhe has the power and resources to dismantlethem. He only needs the will!John Hope Franklin is the John Matthews ManlyDistinguished Service Professor in the Department of History and in the College.165377TH CONVOCATIONSTUDENT ADDRESSBy Kenneth M. JacobsFour years ago I came to the University ofChicago with a set of expectations very much different from the experiences I am now leaving behind. In many ways, witnessing the collapse ofone set of goals and ideals and seeing another takeits place has been the most rewarding aspect ofthe last four years. During this period I think I'vegained some perspective about education in theCollege and how that education works its way intoour daily lives.All in all, the significance of this day and thediploma I am about to receive is far different fromwhat I would have expected four years ago. Butjust exactly what were my expectations?From the experience of my parents, I expectedsomething more than an education. For them andothers a generation ago, the bachelor's degree, itseemed, not only enabled one to go on to professional or graduate school but also helped onefind a well-paying, satisfying career. It was ameans to the better life.The diploma we receive today is not worth itsweight in gold — the costs of four years of education, not to mention the opportunities foregone bynot entering the job market after high school, areenormous. Yet most of us won't be able to find ajob that is any more interesting than one a high-school graduate could have found thirty years agoor much better paying than a high-school graduatecan find now.If one set of expectations about the character ofmy college education came from my parents andtheir generation, another set came from the University itself. From the publications I received asa senior in high school, I was given a picture of acollege which drew upon the resources of a greatuniversity. Education at the University ofChicago seemed almost osmotic.It was a university which possessed numerousNobel Prize winners, magnificent researchfacilities, and academic departments renownedthroughout the world. Admittedly these all provedtrue, but as an undergraduate they didn't matterall that much. For the most part it hasn't been thesuperstars who have taught my classes. And as astudent in the Economics Department, I quicklylearned that the quality of education here was unrelated to the prestige of the department.So if the expectations I came here with wentunfulfilled, what did I find instead? Over the past year or so I've discovered that it'squite possible to enter a trade and be financiallysuccessful without ever applying my education.I've found that many of us will spend a major partof our lives involved in a pursuit which nevertouches upon our experience at the University ofChicago.I've also discovered that much of the learningthat goes on here can be attributed to the commitment to teaching that has been so much a partof the College.The Common Core and the civilization courseswhich followed symbolize the great strengths ofeducation at Chicago. The courses sought to teachmethod rather than just refine information. Theinstructors were more often than not dedicatedteachers as well as accomplished scholars. Theemphasis was on inquiry and investigation.The most salient reward this type of educationhas to offer is an ability to write and think moreclearly. But there has been more to this education.Something much greater.Over the past four years there has been atransformation in the way I think and act. At seventeen I was a passive member of the intellectualcommunity. I came here with a set of assumptionsabout the world drawn from my parents and mychildhood. Many of these assumptions have sincechanged. It is only now that new ones are beingestablished, but on a much more critical and conscious basis.Today I would consider myself an activemember of this community. Not in the sense that Icould have an article published in a scholarlymagazine. Not even in the sense that I could writesuch an article.But if at seventeen I could read an academicjournal or argue a line from a great philosopher, Icouldn't critically assess or participate myself.My first inclination then was to follow and accept,not to question. I didn't know how to distinguishan argument that was well founded from one thatwasn't. My education here has given me the toolsto make that distinction.This change in outlook is not something thatwill disappear as I get further and further awayfrom my experiences at Chicago. As a doctor,lawyer, or construction worker or unemployed Iwill still have my education. It's something thatwill live with me day in and day out whicheverpath I choose to follow.Liberal education at the University of Chicagohas been successful when the College has donewhat it was established to do. When the Collegewas expected to be a means to a better job or166career, it failed. When its literature tried to appealto the idealism of the student by suggesting that heor she would share in the reputation of the institution, it failed. But when it taught — the task it wasestablished to do — it was a grand success. It is thiscommitment to teaching that makes this Collegesomewhat unique. It is this commitment toteaching that enables us to leave here with an education that will be with us for the rest of our lives.Kenneth M. Jacobs received a Bachelor of Artsdegree during the convocation; his major area ofstudy was Economics.377TH CONVOCATIONSTUDENT ADDRESSby Janet MackeyEvery person is born into a society which she orhe did not play a part in creating. This, however,does not exempt one from the responsibility ofworking for the improvement of that society.Rather, it is every individual's responsibility toexamine his or her society critically, to seek outits injustices, inequalities, and destructive aspects, and most importantly, to dp somethingabout them.In today's world one cannot be apolitical.Every aspect of our lives is political. From thequality of the water we drink to the imminentdanger of nuclear war which we must live with,the condition of our lives depends on decisionsmade by other people. Our social circumstancesare created by human actions, not chance. Sincepolicy decisions are made by people, they can bechanged by people. Even if one does not controlthe decision-making process itself, one still hasthe power and responsibility of protest. Silencecondones the status quo.Perhaps some people believe we live in the"best of all possible worlds," and nothing needsto be changed. Such an attitude I find incredible.Society has shown so little respect for nature, forthe cause of universal understanding, or for basichuman dignity. The world awaits destruction if wecontinue on our present paths. We each need totake an active stance on the major issues of theday.Despite the warnings of environmentalists, wecontinue to pollute our air, waters, and landswithout considering the long-term effects. By demanding immediate technological advances before we fully understand certain processes, we now face the dangerous situation of not being prepared for nuclear waste disposal or the preventionof leaks of radioactive substances into the environment. We all will suffer the consequences. Weall have the duty to prevent them.Our society deals with other countries with asimilar lack of regard for future consequences, especially in its economic policies. The Third Worldis not a playground for American and multinational corporations. Exploitation leads only to theimmediate financial gain for the elite of corporateleaders, not improvement in the social welfare ofthe people in the other countries. American corporate capitalism is not the only economic optionavailable, and alternatives deserve examination."Economic efficiency" does not necessarily servethe best interests of humankind. Similarly, thepresent militaristic stance this country is takingbenefits no one. In this nuclear age, war can nolonger be allowed to serve as an instrument ofpolicy. International understanding, not intimidation, needs to be the goal.In the area of human understanding, we havemuch which demands change. The civil rights issues for minorities and the poor cannot continueto be ignored. Nor can the role of women. Womenare discriminated against, receive lower paythan men in equivalent jobs, and even have ourrights over our bodies limited by male-orientedlegislation on issues such as abortion rights,sterilization abuse, and the prosecution of rapists.The objectification of women through pornography, sexual harassment on jobs, and the imposition of certain ideal-type sex roles all serve tominimize a woman's individuality. In our society,the male experience is the cultural norm andwomen's experiences, where they differ, are considered deviant. Our language is heavily sexuallybiased, consuming women in "generic" termssuch as "man" and "he." Women's contributionsto society are minimized or ignored, as is the history of feminism.Men certainly do not want to give up theirpower monopoly. Their attack on the women'smovement has been to trivialize it. Token womenare placed in enough positions to fill quota requirements, but not enough to provide female rolemodels of strong, independent women in positionsof power. Students at this University are lucky ifthey have even three women professors duringtheir entire undergraduate careers since womenmake up only just over ten percent of the University's faculty. Concurrently, traditional women'sroles are awarded less prestige. Feminism is frequently presented in unfavorable light as dealing167with unimportant issues, such as allowing womento open doors for themselves, rather than its actual goal of creating a new society. Even the ERAis falsely evaluated, being termed "unnecessary"and "redundant," although it is clear that womendo need to have their equality protected by lawsince they obviously are not treated equally without it.The issue of sexism is more than a matter ofmere equality. It is an issue of power. The patriarchal structure which denies equality ofpower, respect, and authority to all but the rulingelite needs to be transformed. Humanist valuesmust enter our thought. We must concern ourselves with long-term social welfare, humanunderstanding, and a respect for our ecosystems,not with selfish economic gain for the privileged.Standard ideologies, blindly accepted, will notsuffice, but rather alternative means to solve ourproblems need to be found. Neither a degree nor aprofession exempts a person from his or her socialresponsibility to remain aware of the politicalsituation, to examine it critically, and to activelyparticipate in changing it to create a more humanesociety. In the political arena of life in 1980, silence is NOT golden.Janet Mackey received a Bachelor of Arts degreeduring the convocation; her major area of studywas History.377TH CONVOCATIONSTUDENT ADDRESSBy Adam L. SchulmanWe are gathered here today to watch the class of1980 receive its college diplomas. For those of usnow completing our college education, this daymarks a turning point in our lives. Our mindsalternately invigorated and burdened by thoughtsof career, family, community, and country, weturn our backs on the carefree days of youth, andlook forward to joining the responsible world thathas hitherto been the preserve of our parents'generation. We have worked more or less assiduously for four years in anticipation of this moment; for four years we have studied to deservethe name of human being and citizen. Whether ourstudies have prepared us in mind and character forthe duties that await us will surely be brought tolight in the coming years. It seems fitting, on thisoccasion, to devote some moments of reflection tothe question of just what it is that our college edu cation has taught us. In four years, what have welearned that now entitles us to stand beside ourfathers as equals in the pursuit of the good life andas fellow guardians of the happiness and securityof this and future generations? As a scientist, Iwill offer a few such reflections on a subject thatcannot fail to concern us all, both as students inquest of liberal education and as thoughtful citizens of the United States of America in the1980s — this subject is modern science togetherwith its potent offspring modern technology andtheir proper place in our lives.Surveying the world around us, as nature gaveit to us and as we have subsequently transformedit, we are tempted to wonder whether we mightnot be better off now if the arts and sciences hadnever been discovered. Yet to entertain suchthoughts today is mere sentimentality. We dwellers in the modern world are no longer in a position, if indeed men ever were, to argue the virtuesand vices of technology as though it were withinour power simply to accept or reject it in obedience to our rational deliberation as to its value.Technology is a permanent fixture of modernAmerican life, and in many areas what is urgentlyneeded is an acceleration in the rate of technological progress. Faced with the certain prospect of aswollen world population, we are impelled to seekbetter and more efficient means of food production and distribution. Faced with dwindling fossilfuel resources and insufficient expertise in the useof other sources of power, we cannot do otherwise than push full steam ahead in the exploitationof nuclear energy. With the health of the American economy at its most debilitated level in threedecades, we must exert all our efforts to improveoverall productivity, enabling our industries tokeep pace with those of other nations. Under theshadow of the threat from external enemies, itwould be foolhardy to ignore the pressing nationalneed for weapons research and development.These are but a few of the many ways in whichmodern society, like it or not, is dependent for itsvery survival on advances in technology; thecourse of modern science and the fate of modernman are by now so hopelessly intertwined withone another that we cannot seriously divorce inour thoughts the success of the scientific projectfor the mastery of nature from the general welfareof the human race.There are those who, alarmed by the equivocalbenefits of technology and suspicious that what is"first" from the scientific perspective rhight notbe "first" from the human, have waged waragainst the project of modern science, especially168in its more salient technological manifestations,such as nuclear power, weapons research, andenvironmental exploitation. I do not suggest thatthese self-appointed protectors of nature arewrong; but if there is truth in what they say, it is ahalf-truth. Whatever ills have accompanied thefruits which science has yielded us, we cannotrelinquish our position as a technological superpower without thereby signing the death warrantof Western civilization. Were this world a different place, we might more sanguine ly entertainhopes of a simpler, less artificial and automatedway of life in our society. But a move by thiscountry in the direction of nature and simplicitywould amount to a virtual abdication from our position of influence in world affairs, thereby depriving the free world of its only plausible leaderfor the foreseeable future. I believe that not onlythe maintenance of American power but a renewalof active American leadership in world affairs willbe crucial in the coming decades, both tosafeguard the Western tradition of liberal democracy from its avowed enemies and to guide modern man on his hard journey through the dangersand diseases incident to a highly technologicalexistence. Only the United States has the self-sufficiency, independence, and decent concern forthe good of the world that this task of leadershipdemands; even so the future is at best doubtful, atworst grim; but we cannot shirk the obligationwhich so clearly beckons us. It is precisely because modern technology has magnified the dangers of political conflict to the scale of global destruction and extinction of the human race that theUnited States must actively pursue a position oftechnological and political strength from which toinstill into world affairs a spirit of moderation,sobriety, and justice. And it is precisely becausescience and technology are so pervasively influential in our lives, molding not only our habitsbut our very characters and manner of thinking aswell, that we must squarely confront the arts andsciences in our thoughts and learn to distinguishwhat aspects of our character owe their existenceto the unreflected influence of the modem scientific perspective. For unless we liberate ourselves from the sway of these tacit opinions, wewill ourselves be the slaves of the technology thatwas meant to serve us. And this enslavement ofthe understanding, I would add, is the evil to bemost feared from modern science.Adam L. Schulman received a Bachelor of Artsdegree during the convocation; his major area ofstudy was Chemistry. THE 377TH CONVOCATIONPresentation of Raymond Aron by Edward Shils,Distinguished Service Professor in the Committeeon Social Thought and in the Department ofSociology.Madam President, I have the honor to present as acandidate for the honorary degree of Doctor ofHumane Letters Raymond Aron, Professor of theSociology of Modern Civilization at the College deFrance and member of the Institut.Worthy heir of the tradition of liberal enlightenment, inspired by the spirits of Montaigne,Montesquieu, Tocqueville, and Weber, ProfessorAron has dedicated his life and prodigious energies to the continuation and enhancement of therational study of man and society and the preservation of the kind of political order which permitssuch study. With a profound knowledge of humannature and an equally profound acceptance ofmen's follies, he is the defender of modest freedom amidst millennial expectations and nihilisticdespair. Convinced that the love of justice isfulfilled by the pursuit of truth, his science hasmade him the greatest expositor of and spokesman for democracy of our age without compromising his objectivity. His defense of the integrity of the university was the expression of hisbelief that inquiry is the heart of this form of government.Philosophy was Professor Aron's first study,and he brings its perennial questions to the modern social sciences, of whose techniques he is themaster. He is uniquely learned in history, economics, political science, and sociology, whoseperspectives he combines organically, thus obtaining a global view of societies while avoidingboth the dilettante's superficiality and the specialist's distortions. He is truly a social scientist.His studies of the structures and tendencies ofindividual societies, comparisons of regimes, andanalyses of the relations among states are unrivaled in their lucidity and help to clarify thegoals of nations and guide the deliberations ofstatesmen. His writings are now classic in suchvarious but related subjects as the philosophy ofhistory, the history of sociology, social structure,the political role of the intellectuals, the method ofsocial sciences, international relations, and military strategy. He is known and respectedthroughout the world, and all lovers of liberty are169in his debt for his scholarship, his teaching, andhis commentary on public affairs.It is my great privilege, Madam President, topresent Raymond Aron for the honorary degree ofDoctor of Humane Letters.Presentation of Charles Yanofsky by Alvin Mar-kovitz, Professor in the Department of Microbiology, the Committee on Genetics, the Committeeon Virology, and the College.Madam President, I have the honor to present as acandidate for the honorary degree of Doctor ofScience Charles Yanofsky, Herzstein Professor ofBiology at Stanford University.Professor Yanofsky has been a leader in simultaneously applying genetic and biochemical procedures to study the relationship of genes andproteins and the regulation of biochemical reactions. He was the first to demonstrate that theorder of structural units in the gene, defined bybiological techniques, corresponded to the orderof the constituent units of protein, the aminoacids, in a colinear fashion. In bacteria, all of thegenie DNA from the deoxynucleotide triplet determining the first amino acid to the triplet determining the last is read sequentially into protein.This simplicity of the bacterial gene has taken onadditional significance in the light of recentfindings that the genes of higher organisms haveinserted sequences which are not read. An understanding of these more complex structures wouldhave been impossible without the detailed knowledge of the bacterial gene provided by ProfessorYanofsky' s investigations.Professor Yanofsky' s studies on colinearityprovided important evidence as to the nucleotidesequences used for the genetic code in vivo. Hisstudies on tryptophan biosynthesis have recentlyled him to elucidate an entirely new type of mechanism for the regulation of biological reactions.This new regulatory mechanism, called attenuation, provides a molecular interpretation of theconnection between transcription and translation.It is my very great pleasure, Madam President,to present Charles Yanofsky for the honorary degree of Doctor of Science.Presentation of Richard Wain Young by Frank W.Newell, M.D., James and Anna Louise RaymondProfessor and Chairman of the Department ofOphthalmology. Madam President, I have the honor to present as acandidate for the honorary degree of Doctor ofScience Richard Wain Young, Professor ofAnatomy at the University of California School ofMedicine at Los Angeles.Dr. Young has inspired an entire school of investigation, global in distribution and importance,which has revolutionized scientific views of cellular homeostasis in the retina and, by extension,in other tissues and cells. He was one of the firstto study protein flow within the nerves. This studyled to the observation that the cells of the retinawere not static but were renewed daily withphasic differences in renewal rates being influenced by light and dark. Dr. Young's discoveries have taken us from a time in which thephotoreceptor degeneration of retinitis pigmentosa was an absolute mystery to a point at whichthe disorder can be described in scientific terms.In recognition of his distinguished contributionsto these studies, Madam President, it is myprivilege to present Richard Young for the degreeof Doctor of Science.QUANTRELL AWARDSThe University's 1979-80 Llewellyn John andHarriet Manchester Quantrell Awards for Excellence in Undergraduate Teaching were presentedduring the 377th convocation on June 14, 1980.Upon the recommendation of Jonathan Z.Smith, Dean of the College, and D. Gale Johnson,Provost, Hanna H. Gray, President, designatedthe following five winners:Robert Geroch, Professor in the Departments ofPhysics and Mathematics and the Physical Sciences Collegiate Division.Edward M. Hay don, Professor of PhysicalEducation and Athletics.Amy Apfel Kass, Senior Lecturer in Humanities in the College.John J. MacAloon, Instructor in the Social Sciences Collegiate Division and Lecturer in theCommittee on Social Thought.A total of 157 Quantrell Awards have beenmade since the program was established in 1938.170SUMMARY OF THE377TH CONVOCATIONThe 377th convocation was held on Friday andSaturday, June 13 and 14, 1980 in RockefellerMemorial Chapel. Hanna H. Gray, President ofthe University, presided.A total of 1,572 degrees were awarded: 403Bachelor of Arts, 12 Bachelor of Science, 23Master of Arts in the Divinity School, 1 Master ofArts in the Graduate Library School, 127 Masterof Arts in the School of Social Service Administration, 9 Master of Arts in the Committee onPublic Policy Studies, 14 Master of Science in theDivision of the Biological Sciences and the Pritzker School of Medicine, 48 Master of Arts in theDivision of the Humanities, 3 Master of Fine Arts,20 Master of Science in the Division of the Physical Sciences, 66 Master of Arts in the Division ofthe Social Sciences, 7 Master of Arts in Teaching,8 Master of Science in Teaching, 464 Master ofBusiness Administration, 1 Master of Comparative Law, 2 Master of Laws, 7 Doctor of Philosophy in the Divinity School, 1 Doctor of Ministry inthe Divinity School, 3 Doctor of Philosophy in theSchool of Social Service Administration, 17 Doctor of Philosophy in the Division of the BiologicalSciences and the Pritzker School of Medicine, 1Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate LibrarySchool, 22 Doctor of Philosophy in the Division ofthe Humanities, 8 Doctor of Philosophy in the Division of the Physical Sciences, 31 Doctor of Phi losophy in the Division of the Social Sciences, 2Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School ofBusiness, 108 Doctor of Medicine, and 164 Doctorof Law.Three honorary degrees were conferred duringthe 377th convocation. The recipient of the Doctor of Humane Letters degree was RaymondAron, Professor of the Sociology of ModernCivilization, College de France, and member ofthe Institut. The recipients of the degree of Doctorof Science were Charles Yanofsky, Herz steinProfessor of Biology, Stanford University, andRichard Wain Young, Professor of Anatomy,University of California, Los Angeles.Five Llewellyn John and Harriet ManchesterQuantrell Awards for Excellence in Undergraduate Teaching were given to Robert Geroch,Professor in the Departments of Physics andMathematics and the Physical Sciences CollegiateDivision, Edward M. Haydon, Professor ofPhysical Education and Athletics, Amy ApfelKass, Senior Lecturer in Humanities in the College, and John J. MacAloon, Instructor in the Social Sciences Collegiate Division and Lecturer inthe Committee on Social Thought.John Hope Franklin, the John Matthews ManlyDistinguished Service Professor in the Department of History and in the College, delivered theprincipal convocation address, entitled "Clio'sVision."Bachelor of Arts candidates remarks were givenby Kenneth M. Jacobs, Janet Susan Mackey, andAdam Leon Schulman.171THE NORA AND EDWARD RYERSON LECTURETHIRTY PIECES OF SILVERBy Erica ReinerThe Nora and Edward Ryerson Lectures wereestablished by the trustees of the University inDecember 1972. They are intended to give amember of the faculty the opportunity each yearto lecture to an audience from the entire University on a significant aspect of his or her researchand study. The president of the University appoints the lecturer on the recommendation of afaculty committee which solicits individual nominations from each member of the faculty duringthe winter quarter preceding the academic yearfor which the appointment is made.1973-74 John Hope Franklin1974-75 S. Chandrasekhar1975-76 Philip B.Kurland1976-77 Robert E. Streeter1977-78 Dr. Albert Dorfman1978-79 Stephen ToulminApril 23, 1980Introductory Remarks by Hanna H. GrayAbout fifteen years ago, the visit of a Greek shipping magnate to Beverly Hills produced one of thegreat newspaper photographs of all time. The visitor was Aristotle Onassis. His mission was to explore real estate in the greater Beverly Hills area.The property he viewed was the estate of the lateBuster Keaton, and the picture which subsequently ran in the Los Angeles Times was captioned: "Aristotle contemplating the home ofBuster."Now the relevance of that event to this one maynot be immediately apparent, but I would like topause for a moment of allegorical interpretation.The ancients, as you know, were much given tocontemplating statues, and often tombs, of theirpredecessors for purposes that went beyond reverence. Among other things, they did so in order,as it were, to get themselves up for the game. Youwill recall, for example, Caesar castigating himselfat the tomb of Alexander and comparing his sluggard and laggard performance to that of a muchyounger Alexander. Above all, it was the purposeof such contemplation to translate the spirit and the substance of great accomplishment by way ofemulation, to define the standards and goals andthe means for achieving those that they would setbefore themselves — in short, away of assimilatingthe aspirations toward which they would aim.And in the setting of exemplars from which onemight learn, in the inspiration by which new accomplishment would be measured and shaped, itwas thought that an education could bederived — an education by assimilation whichwould lead to the reassertion of the values embodied in such models. Those models, then, constituted the norms by which contemplation wouldprovide the basis for a participation in a continuing tradition of thought, of action, of civilization,and of the active expression of its ethos.I'm sure that this allegorical interpretation isnow clear. We have in the University of Chicago a"house"; it's called the Oriental Institute and in itis of course "Buster," known also as the AssyrianDictionary. It is a dictionary which stands indeedas a model of scholarly enterprise, of what it isthat scholarship is really about. I speak not of thefact that this is a great dictionary which for reasons that are pleasant to contemplate began withthe letter "H." It is a great work of scholarshipwhich will allow others, through learning from itand through its use, to participate not only in thecontinuing tradition of civilization, but to aspire tonew levels of knowledge and of understanding thepast and the history of humankind. And it is also amodel that will inspire people to understand whatrigorous and committed scholarship ultimatelymeans and why it is valuable for its own sake.Now if the dictionary stands as a model ofscholarship and of its meaning, if it stands as aperpetual force of learning and of accomplishmentfor the future and for the development of newlevels of learning, we have also in charge of thiscorporate persona — to whom I refer as"Buster" — a model of scholarship in an individualperson, and that person is today's Ryerson lecturer, Erica Reiner.Professor Reiner was born in Budapest. Shewas educated there, in Paris, and at the University. She began her own work at the Oriental Institute while still a student, as a research assistantand research associate. On receiving her Ph.D.,172she became an assistant professor and then associate professor and professor. In 1973 she wasnamed the John A. Wilson Professor in theOriental Institute and in the Departments of NearEastern Languages and Civilizations and Linguistics. At the same time she became Editor-in-Charge of the Assyrian Dictionary and Director ofthe Assyrian Dictionary Project. Ms. Reiner is afellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, a past president of the Midwest Branch ofthe American Oriental Society, and a member ofthe Linguistic Society of America.She has served on most of the important committees of this University. She has been a memberof the Council of the University Senate and of theCommittee of the Council. She was the firstchairman of the standing Committee on University Women.And she has received many honors, including aJohn Simon Guggenheim Fellowship in 1974 andan award from the American Council of LearnedSocieties.In addition to the enormous work of the Assyrian Dictionary, of which she has also written agreat deal, she has been the author, editor, or coauthor of ten volumes of texts and studies in ancient languages and documents published in suchdiverse and exotic places as Chicago, the Vatican,The Hague, Leiden, Istanbul, Berlin, and LocustValley, New York. She has also published morethan fifty articles in learned journals, and thesestudies have included not only works on languageand textual sources but a great deal more as well.Professor Reiner, for example, has discoveredmore cases of morphophonemic spellings. Sheknows and writes about such extraordinary mysteries as the Babylonian planetary omens. Andshe knows everything there is to know aboutfortune-telling in Mesopotamia.Professor Reiner has a lot of interests. Amongthem — and this seems to be in the great traditionof Ryerson lecturers — is not only an interest, butan extraordinary skill in the culinary arts. Herskill and interest in the culinary arts call to mindyet another aspect of Professor Reiner's work andpersonality and that is the graceful harmony between life and teaching and scholarship. Over atthe Oriental Institute, after all, they bake tablets.And another of Professor Reiner's publications isentitled "City Bread and Bread Baked in Ashes,"again a work of fundamental research.What I'm trying to say about Professor Reineris that it would be very difficult indeed to makedistinctions among the many activities in whichshe has been engaged, for they are all at onceworks of scholarship, of teaching, and of partici pation and leadership in a university community,of dedication to that community and the values itseeks to incorporate. And it is fitting, I think, thatthis lectureship should be today held by EricaReiner. It is a lectureship which celebrates thememory of Nora and Edward Ryerson — their relationship to our University and their understanding of its role in our society.Edward Ryerson, who served as a Trustee fornearly half a century, wrote as follows of that relationship: "The experience of serving on a boardof a great University offers a marvelous opportunity to understand how important our whole educational process is and what it means in so far asthe future welfare of our country is concerned."He called it one of the most stimulating andgratifying associations of his life, and he was aman who had many.Mrs. Ryerson was one of the founding membersof the Women's Board.Together they shared a deep conviction aboutthe responsibilities and opportunities ofcitizenship — convictions Mr. Ryerson expressed,for example, in a Rockefeller Chapel talk in 1935.And they did more than express convictions: theyacted on them.Their children and their children's childrenhave continued this active concern for our University and our city. Indeed those concerns havebeen expressed and acted on also in state government and national affairs. At the foundation of allthat they have done and are doing through thegenerations of Ryersons and Ranneys, there lies acommitment to humanistic values and to the active inquiry into how those values should be conceived and expressed in the larger society.And so it is a pleasure to introduce to you asthis year's Ryerson Lecturer, Erica Reiner.Hanna H. Gray is President of the University.The 1980 LectureIThe Thirty Pieces of Silver of my title indeedmean the thirty shekels, or thirty denarii, thatJudas Iscariot was paid for his betrayal of Jesus.What do they have to do with the Assyrian Dictionary or, for that matter, with those reconditestudies in Assyriology that I have been pursuingfor over twenty-five years now?As it happens, the thirty pieces of silver havebeen part of Assyriology for quite a while, andtheir origin can be traced back much further than173Judas. The phrase "thirty shekels' worth" is firstattested about 1800 B.C. in a Sumerian poem aboutGilgamesh and in other literary texts. And whileNew Testament scholars took the thirty pieces ofsilver to represent the market price of a slave — arespectable socioeconomic interpretation of thetransaction between Judas and the high priests —Sumerologists recognized as early as 1938 thattheir "thirty pieces of silver's worth" is usedidiomatically with some such meaning as "to holdin light esteem." If we choose a comparable,though slangy, American idiom, we might renderthe Sumerian phrase "not worth thirty shekels"simply as "not worth a plugged nickel."It can be shown that the same idiomatic usagefits the New Testament passage, and its Old Testament parallels, as well as and better than theinterpretation of thirty pieces of silver as the valueput on a slave. As a matter of fact, the earlyChurch Fathers and the medieval apocryphashunned such materialistic explanations andfound fanciful and poetic origins for the thirtypieces of silver. For instance, according to theGolden Legend, Judas meant to compensate himself for the monies he would have kept had thecostly perfume that Mary, sister of Martha,poured over Jesus' feet in Bethany been sold instead for three hundred pieces of silver — Judas, towit, being the keeper of the purse, used to keepfor himself a "tithe" from such monies, and hewas anxious to recoup his ten percent.Other legends trace the origin of these verysilver pieces to Abraham, who bought a field withthem from the people of Jericho. Later, theIshmaelites purchased Joseph with them; thenthey came into Pharaoh's treasury, and from thereinto the treasury of the Queen of Sheba, who gavethem to Solomon. When Nebuchadnezzar pillagedthe Temple, he took them along to Babylon,where they were given as pay to the soldiers of thekingdom of Saba; the kings of Saba sent them withthe three Magi as a gift to the infant Jesus. Duringthe Flight into Egypt, they were hidden in a cavealong with the frankincense and myrrh and removed and kept safe for thirty years by an Armenian astrologer who foresaw the future in thestars. Upon the bidding of ah angel, he returnedthe treasures to Jesus, who commanded the thirtypieces of silver be given to the Temple. It is fromthere that they were paid out to Judas by the highpriests. Abraham himself had obtained the coinsfrom his father Terah, who had made them forNinus, king of Assyria— Godfrey of Viterbo,whose Pantheon contains the earliest known version of this legend, indeed anticipated in the twelfth century the twentieth-century discoveryby tracing the thirty pieces of silver right back toMesopotamia, where we too found the poetic origin of this idiomatic expression.And lest some business-minded persons insistthat, after all, thirty shekels is thirty shekels (orseventy -five cents at today's Israeli exchangerate), let me remind you that, in the sexagesimalsystem that we took over from precisely theBabylonians for such things as geometry andtimekeeping, thirty is notationally equivalent toone half; thus the expression "not worth thirtyshekels" might be even more literally translated,instead of the admittedly more colorful andchauvinistic "not worth a plugged nickel," withthe transatlantic "not a ha' penny- worth."I wrote up this parallel, in greater detail andwith the proper philological apparatus, in an article1 which is the only thing I ever wrote that madethe newspapers, even though only Die Presse ofVienna,2 not the Wall Street Journal.There is an obvious, but not entirely trivial,conclusion to be drawn from this story; and this isthat these very ancient, very alien, and oftenrather obscure cuneiform texts can throw light onsome aspects of our western civilization, a civilization which today traces its origins not only tothe Old Testament and the New, not only to theGreeks, but to Ancient Mesopotamia as well.More importantly, there is a lesson that we canlearn from the early Church Fathers and the authors of medieval apocrypha who sought a poeticand legendary origin for the thirty pieces of silver;and I would like to dwell on it a bit longer today.The true explanation for an apparently economically motivated monetary figure was given usby Sumerian poems dealing with the legendaryking Gilgamesh and other highly fictionalizedevents of their past. Today, when economic historians and cultural anthropologists have, with nolittle scorn for the old-fashioned philologist, annexed the ancient Near East to construct theirmodels of marketless versus market economies,subsistence systems, and urbanization patterns,the time may have come for the philologist to reclaim his territory and turn a humanistic eye onthe literature of the ancients.III couldn't think of a better way to illustrate mypoint than to share with you a piece of Babylonianpoetry. It is not famous like the Epic of Gilgamesh; it does not evoke, as would a religiouspoem, the imagery and language of the Psalms. In174Obv.10 7§MaFigure 1 k^H^M^-^^l^W<^^<<<f^tr4R^r ^rfact, it is hardly known even among Assy riologists.The most complete exemplar of this short poemis found on a largish clay tablet of medical prescriptions (you see it to the left in Figure l);3 it is,however, set off from what precedes and followsby sectional rulings so that its being self-containedis, so to speak, underlined. This is also apparentfrom the fact that there exist other versions (suchas the one to the right in Figure l),4 embeddedin other texts.The poem itself occupies thirteen lines on thetablet. The end of each line coincides with the endof a sentence. This feature alone shows that wehave here no ordinary prose. Let me read it toyou:The heart grass grows in the mountains; I pulled itup and it seized my heart.I spoke to Samas — it seized the heart of Samas.I spoke to the beasts — it seized the hearts of thebeasts.I spoke to the fields and plains — it seized thehearts of the fields and plains .I spoke to the hills and vales — it seized the heartsof the hills and vales.I spoke to my lord Asalluhi, the lord of exorcism:Let my heart be soothed.v vAs my heart is soothed, so may the heart of Samasbe soothed.v vAs the heart of Samas is soothed, so may thehearts of the beasts be soothed.As the hearts of the beasts are soothed, so maythe hearts of the fields and plains be soothed.As the hearts of the fields and plains are soothed,so may the hearts of the hills and vales besoothed.v vO Samas, this grass is your grass: he who drinks itshall revive , He who drinks it shall recover, he who drinks itshall be rid of his illness, he who drinks itshall regain health,He who drinks it shall attain his desires.The beginnings of the lines are marked by soundrepetition: the first line and the last three linesbegin with sa, a sound sequence that here marksthe beginnings of three different words: sammu,Samas, satisu; the second through the sixth linesbegin with ana, a preposition meaning 'to'; andthe seventh through the tenth with kima libbi 'asthe heart', a syntagm — the recurring words andthe corresponding English words in the translationare shaded in Figure 2. Thus lines two through tenconstitute the figure called, in classical rhetoric,anaphora, that is, a figure where words are repeated at the beginnings of successive lines. Linessix through ten are marked at the ends of the linesby the repetition of the same word: lippasir 'besoothed', the rhetorical figure known as epiphora.Line six, beginning with ana and ending with lippasir, forms the bridge between the sequences ofanaphoric and epiphoric lines and has the doublefunction of closing the first sequence and openingthe next.The word repetitions in lines two to ten are atthe same time repeated occurrences of the samesyntactic frames, to which I shall return. Up to themiddle of line six all lines are narrative; from thesecond half of line six on they contain a wish.Thus line six, which contains the first half of thefirst syntactic frame and the second half of thesecond syntactic frame, constitutes the midpointof the poetic structure as it both divides and unitesthe two halves of the text on the sound level, thesyntactic level, and the content level. It is also theonly line in which the words "Asalluhi, the lord ofexorcism" occur and thus is thematically pivotal175sammu sa libbi ina sadi asima9101112 assufosuma issabat libbianaanaanaanaana samasumamiseri u bamatisadi u Jjarriasalluhi hpliiabel asipiitikima libbiMma libbi samaskima libbi umamikima libbi seri u bamati aqbima issabat libbiaqblma issabat libbiaqbima issabat libbiaqbima issabat libbiaqbimall umma libbi samasumamiseri u bamatisadi u harrilppasirippasirippasirmaippasirmasamas sammu annii sammakasatisu Hsir satisu mursasu limtassir13 satisu emausammaru libbilibbilibbilibbi samasumamiseri u bamatisadi u harrisatisu liblutsatisu lislimliksud1 The heart grass grows in the mountains; I pulled it up and it seized my heart.2 ' " ~~~ ""^I spoke toI spoke toI spoke toI spoke toI spoke to Samasthe beaststhe fields and plainsthe hills and valesmvlorfl Asalluhi. the lord of exorcism: — it seized the heart of Samas.— it seized the hearts of the beasts.— it seized the hearts of the fields and plains.— t seized the hearts of the hills and valesAs my heartAs the heart of SamasAs the hearts of the beastsAs the hearts of the fields and plains are soothed,is soothed,is soothed,are soothed,3456789101 1 O Samas, this grass is your grass : he who drinks it shall revive,12 He who drinks it shall recover, he who drinks it shall be rid of his illness, he who drinks it shall regain health,13 He who drinks it shall attain his desires.Figure 2 | Let my heart ~so may the heart of Samasso may the hearts of the beastsso may the hearts of the fields and plainsso may the hearts of the hills and valesin this poem— which, as we shall see, is called anincantation.The first half of the text is narrated in the firstperson, with the exception of the first hemistich,whose subject is the heart grass. The second halfsimilarly has a breaking point at line eleven^whichbegins with a direct address to the god Samas.Thus the first line (the introduction) and the lastthree lines (the coda)— the same lines that, as wehave seen, all begin with the alliterative sa— formthe frame of the poem, which goes from narrationto prayer.While the frame is asymmetrical— one line atthe beginning but three lines at the end— the twoconstituent sequences of the central section arecompletely symmetrical, divided as they are intwo equal parts— two through five and seventhrough ten— by the transitional line six.This central section exhibits the poem's specialfeature: it contains two compositional devices:syntactic parallelism in the first half , and a concatenation in the second half. (See Figure 3.) Theparallelism consists of a constant frame, whichmay be represented as a x b x, a y b y, etc., andfour variable items x, y, z, w, namely, Samas,umamu, seri u bamati, sadi u foarri; the same items are taken up in the concatenation, where,instead of being repeated in both hemistichs of thesame line, they are linked from one hemistich tothe next in the pattern xy, yz, zw as in a chain, inthe frame a x b y, a y b z, etc.While examples of concatenation — in StithThompson's classification, chains with interdependent members — occur elsewhere in Babylonian poetry, I do not know of any other exampleof the first device — Stith Thompson's chain without interrelation of members. It is especiallynoteworthy that this poem combines the twotypes of chains in such a way that the first chainintroduces the elements of the second.The first frame, "I spoke to x — it seized theheart of x," is successively filled by the fournouns or phrases Samas the sun god, umamu thebeasts, seri u bamati fields and plains, sadi u harrihills and vales, in such a way that both slots of theline are filled by the same noun or phrase. In thesecond, the frame "As the heart of x is soothed,so may the heart of y be soothed" is filled successively by the same list of items but in such a waythat the second item of the first line appears as thefirst item of the next line, and so forth, conformingwith the rhetorical figure called anadiplosis. The1761 sammu sa libbi ina sadi asima assu{jsuma issabat libbi2 ana samas ^\ aqbima issabat libbi samasN.3 ana umami ^ aqbima issabat libbi umami ^>4 ana seri u bamati aqbima issabat libbi seri u bamati5 ana sadi u harri aqbima issabat libbi sadi u karri6 analibbi asalluhi belij a bel asipiiti aqbima umma libbi [ippasirlippasir7 kima ippasir libbiippasir libbi samas \.8 kima libbi samas ^\ umami lippasir9 kima libbi umami ^ ippasirma libbi seri u bamati lippasir10 kima libbi seri u bamati ippasirma libbi sadiuj}arri lippasir1 1 samas sammu annu sammaks i satisu liblut12 satisu isir satisu mursasu limtassir satisu lislim13 satisu emausammam liksud1 The heart grass grows in the mountains ; I pulled it up and it seized my heart.2 I spoke to3 I spoke to4 I spoke to5 I spoke to6 I spoke to7 As my heart8 As the heart of Samas9 As the hearts of the beastsSamasthe beaststhe fields and plains]the hills and valesmy lord Asalluhi, the lord of exorcism:is soothed,is soothed,are soothed, — it seized the heart of Samas,— it seized the hearts of the beasts,— it seized the hearts of the fields— it seized the hearts of pie hills anLet my heartso may the heart of Samasso may the hearts of the beastsso may the hearts of the fields and plainsso may the hearts of pie hills and vales be soothed,be soothed,be soothed,be soothed,be soothed.10 As the hearts ofjthe fields and plainsjare soothed,11 O Samas, this grass is your grass: he who drinks it shall revive,12 He who drinks it shall recover, he who drinks it shall be rid of his illness, he who drinks it shall regain health,13 He who drinks it shall attain his desires.Figure 3closest comparable example to this type of chainis the well-known verse about the horseshoe nail:For want of a nail the shoe was lost,For want of a shoe the horse was lost,For want of a horse the rider was lost,For want of a rider the battle was lost.In a variant recension of our poem, only threeitems fill the slots of the frame, indicating that thenature of such lists of items is that they can beexpanded or reduced at will. In yet other instances, the chain appears in a less elaborateform. The frame — the constant item — consists ofa single word, and even this single word may beomitted in the repetition so that only the variableitems appear in the pattern xy, yz, zw, etc. Thus,of two variant versions of a little charm, one contains the one- word frame "bore": "The earthbore the soil, the soil bore the stalk, the stalk borethe ear, the ear bore the ergot." The other versionomits the word "bore" once its function of connecting the successive items has been establishedboth syntactically and semantically: "The plowbore the furrow, the furrow the germ, the germ thestalk, the stalk the ear, the ear the ergot."The end of the poem is three lines long and fallsinto one half-line and one two-and-a-half-line sec tion. The first half line contains the invocation tothe god, an address typical of incantations andprayers. The second section contains five wishesfor the speaker's welfare. This ending itself placesthe poem in the religious or magic genre; indeed, itwas so classified by the ancients and given the title"incantation." The final section's five wishes areconnected by three devices: by the identical word"satisu, repeated at the beginning of each; by theirsyntactic parallelism; and by their sound pattern.Of their variable elements — the five verb phrasesin the optative that conclude them — the last is thelongest, an expected feature of Akkadian syntaxsince coordinate members of a sequence are typically so enumerated that the longest one stands inthe last place. The first, liblut 'shall revive', isstandard in prayers and is often paired with lislim'shall regain health', which here stands in fourthplace. These two standard phrases are here separated by a phrase which, as an exception to thejust-mentioned syntactical feature, is longer thanthe following one: mursasu limtassir 'shall be ridof his illness', which still asks for physical well-being; the final and longest, ema usammaru liksud'shall attain his desires', is the most general andabstract.I have analyzed the formal properties of this177poem in detail in order to lay the foundation forshowing how this tightly-knit structure is correlated with the manifestation of the main thrust ofthe poem on all linguistic levels.To the two main themes — the attack of the disease arid the deliverance from it — correspond thetwo main divisions of the poem. In the first part,the description of the attack is reinforced by thefive-times-repeated verb "seized"; in the second,the deliverance is underlined by the repetition, notonce but twice in each line — nine timesaltogether — of the key word "soothe." The firstwords of the poem, sammu sa libbi, contain thekey v/ordsammu 'grass' reinforced by the particlesa which repeats its first consonant and vowel;this key word does not recur again until the conclusion. Instead, it is the following word libbu'heart' that will be repeated throughout the centralsection — fourteen times altogether. At the pointwhere the litany-like repetition of libbu ceases,the word sammu is reintroduced, this time notwith alliteration alone, but with complete soundparallelism in samaslsammu annu sammaka.The two main parts, with their parallel or concatenated sequences of four items, depict, step bystep, the continually expanding reach of the eviland likewise the deliverance expected — firstthrough the parallelism in the syntactic frame oflines two through five and secondly in the chain oflines seven through ten. This expansion begins atthe speaker and progressively encompasses theworld around him, from his god — close to him, aswe see from the place accorded to the nameSamas next to the words "my heart" — to fartherand farther ranges of the inhabited world aroundhim: the animals of the pasture surrounding thecity; the outlying fields and plains; and finally themountains, wild mountains as their paired association with the word harri 'mountain torrent'suggests. The translation "hills and vales," whichwe chose for the pair in English, lacks some of theconnotations of the original, which evoked for theMesopotamian plain dweller a remote anddangerous terrain associated with foreign invasions or costly military and commercial ventures. As we reach this outer boundary of thespeaker's world, we find ourselves back in thehabitat of the grass which was said, in the firstline, to grow in the mountains. The sequence hasthus successfully presented the grass's habitat asthe remote mountains, fraught with danger. Tojourney that far to pluck the grass cannot butsuggest that it must be endowed with special powers. Indeed, as we reach the conclusion of the poem, we learn that it is endowed with such special powers by the god Samas and that it will bringhealing and success to him who drinks the potion.The divisions of the poem are also apparentfrom its sound structure. (See Figure 4.) Thesound sa that is repeated three times in the firstline and marks one of the key words, sammu,suddenly is thrust upon us with an unparalleledfrequency in the last three lines — beginning in lineeleven with a half line that hardly contains anyother sound but those that make up the wordsammu: Samas sammu annu sammaka. The second key word, libbu 'heart', also introduced in thefirst line, is not only repeated in the two mainsections — once in each line of the first, and twicein each line of the second — but is also reinforcedby the repetition of the syllable lip at the end ofeach line of the second section, which, again, isanticipated in the transitional line six, with its ending libbi lippasir. The same syllable lib begins thefirst wish of the conclusion, liblut . Note that thisword is the only one of the five cola that does notcontain the most-insisted-upon sounds s and m.The remaining four cola again take up the soundparallelism not only with the repeated satisu butalso in the variable parts of the phrases. The colonthat contains these sounds in the greatest profusion, mursasu limtassir, is thus marked as as exceptional on the sound level as it is on the syntactic and semantic levels — not just as the only one ofthe five that is not formulaic and as the only onelonger than the following one, but also as the onethat contains the word mursu 'sickness', obviously denoting a key semantic notion of the poem,but a word that appears here for the first and onlytime.The perception of the linguistic structure is anecessary prerequisite for reading a poem on different levels. In a modern poem the reader is expected to perceive, moreover, the metaphoricaldimensions and literary allusions and to be able toshift from the literal to one or several possiblemetaphorical readings. The literary critic is oftenin a position to point out levels of understandingthat are not always directly perceptible. For apoem in a dead language, and echoing an alienthought, it devolves upon the philologist tosuggest, on the basis of the knowledge available tohim, some readings that go beneath the surface ofthe literal expression.When the poem begins with sammu sa libbi 'theheart grass' — words and sounds that, as we haveseen, echo throughout the poem — this expressiondenotes simply an herb with the kind of descrip-178sammu safJUbi |ina sadi asimasamasumamiseri u bamatisadi u |}arriasalluhi belijabel asipiiti1anaanaanaanaanakima8 kima9 kima10 kima assuj}suma issabatlaqbima issabatlaqbima issabatlaqbima issabatlaqbima issabatlaqbima ummajippasirsamas ippasirumami ippasirma i seri u bamati ippasirma11 samas[sammulannii E?amma|ca12 satisu lisir satisu mursasu limtassir13 satisu emausammaru samasumamiseri u bamatisadi u barrisamasumamiseri u bamatisadi u |}arrisatisujsatisuI grass grows in the mountains; I pulled it up and it seizeI spoke toI spoke toI spoke toI spoke toI spoke^tq^Asf Asi Samasthe beaststhe fields and plainsthe hills and valesmy lord Asalluhi, the lord of exorcism:is soothed,of Samas is soothed,of the beasts are soothed,of the fields and plains are soothed,HO Samas, this grass is your grass:12 He who drinks it shall recover, he who drinks it shall be rid of his illness13 He who drinks it shall attain his desires.Figure 49 As|10 Asj -it seized— it seized— it seized— it seizedLetso mayso mayso mayso may of Samas.of the beasts.of the fields and plains.of the hills and vales.be soothed.of Samas be soothed.of the beasts be soothed.of the fields and plains be soothed.of the hills and vales be soothed.he who drinks it shall revive,he who drinks it shall regain health,tive name common in technical texts such as theplant lists compiled for pharmaceutical purposes.The compound term may be parsed in the Akkadian language as either "the herb against theheart," that is, affecting the heart, or as "the herbfor the heart," that is, soothing the heart. As thefirst line of our poem ends, we have been directedtoward the first interpretation because of the twowords issabat libbi 'it seized my heart'; one, issabat, often denotes the act of seizing as amalevolent act, something that diseases and demons do, and thus steers our imagination to theaffliction; and the other, libbi, with the element"my" appended to "heart," points to a personalinvolvement. This reading is reinforced in the nextfour lines, in which the words issabat libbi arerepeated throughout. The equally possible interpretation "herb for the heart" that we dismissedupon reaching the end of the first line has, however, not yet had time to fade before it reemerges,prompted by the word lippasir, as the appropriatereading to be selected for line six. I have translated this verb as "soothe"; it literally means"undo." Thus, the herb that gripped my heart willalso undo the effects of the seizure; that which grieved my heart is also the herb that is to soothemy heart. By the time the chain ends and we cometo the address Samas sammu annu "sammaka 'OSamas, this grass is your grass', there is no doubtleft that the herb, the god's herb, is beneficial, andso the "heart grass," ambiguous at the beginningof the poem, has indeed been identified as thebalm for the heart. We might even call it moreprecisely "heart' s-ease," which is, as you know,a name for the wild pansy — in French, of course,la pensee sauvage.It has been obvious throughout my presentationof this poem that I have used the procedure andtechniques which Roman Jakobson has applied toShakespeare sonnets and other pieces of European poetry, the most famous of them being,perhaps, his analysis—jointly with Claude Levi-Strauss — of Baudelaire's "Les Chats."5 If I havedwelled less than Jakobson, or other students ofpoetic texts, on the poem's sound pattern, it islargely because we are unsure about how thesetexts were actually pronounced. The As-syriologist's conventional transcription of acuneiform text has evolved from comparisonswith transcriptions of proper names or loanwords179into Greek or Hebrew letters; the rest is mostlyintralinguistic or comparative combinatorics. Fora study of poetic effect much more precise knowledge of the pronunciation would be necessary;after all, as G. K. Chesterton observed6 in discoursing about what he, of course, called a to-mahto, only in America could Edgar Allan Poehave written:With a heart as cold as Cato's, or the pallid bust ofPlato'sThat I keep with canned tomatoes just above mychamber door.IllIf I have been at all able to treat a poem written ina dead language some three thousand years ago asone would a poem from our own literary tradition,it is not because I am a specialist in Babylonianliterature or claim to be a literary critic; it is because of my work on the Assyrian Dictionary.A lot of nice things have been said about theDictionary — today by President Gray, and manytimes before by previous presidents of theUniversity — mostly at Trustees' Dinners. Thecredit, of course, is not due to me, who merely tryto bring it to completion in its third generation; itis due to the community of scholars who nurturedit before me, including directors and deans whogave it their support, and presidents who stood byit.Today I want to argue the role of the Dictionaryin shaping my own research and in shaping thequestions that those who interpret the records ofMesopotamian civilization have to ask.I suppose I ought to start with the history of theChicago Assyrian Dictionary — CAD for short.However, histories of such projects are bestwritten after they are completed. Until then, for apeek into the workshop of the lexicographer, youmight as well read the recent biography of JamesA. H. Murray, the editor of the Oxford EnglishDictionary.7 I would not dare to invoke a comparison with this monumental work were it not forthe fact that so many details in the OED's day-to-day task of collecting the material and preparing the manuscript that I read about in this bookcan be so perfectly matched from the CAD's experience. To be sure, I do not have to sit with myfeet in a box, as Murray did, to keep them warm;but then of course this may not be true next winterany more. Like the OED's, the CAD's first decades, too,were spent in preparatory work; again as with theOED, the magnitude of the project and the timenecessary to complete it were enormously underestimated.When I came to Chicago in 1952, Mrs. GeorgeCameron, then Margaret Bell and executive secretary to Carl Kraeling, Director of the OrientalInstitute, in a fit of housecleaning had just discovered a letter written by a former editor of theDictionary, Edward Chiera. "The scientificworld," Chiera wrote, "is waiting for this dictionary and, while I was in Europe last summer, Ihad many inquiries about it. The Institute will losein prestige if this work, which has already beenannounced, delays too long its appearance." Theletter was dated July 1929.Yet, from our vantage point today, it is easy tosee that the 1920s were much too early for anundertaking of this scope. Akkadian had been deciphered less than a hundred years earlier, and theinterpreters of the records of Mesopotamia's past,starting as they did in the middle of the nineteenthcentury after a two-thousand-year break in thetradition, had nothing comparable to the medievaland Renaissance scholia and translations thatbenefitted classical scholarship. The few dictionaries published by the end of the century hadlimited coverage. The best of these, the As-syrisches Handworterbuch by Friedrich De-litzsch, replaced his much more ambitious project, a thesaurus of the Assyrian language — thoughI like to think not because of a review of the firstfascicle entitled "Why That Assyrian DictionaryOught Never to Have Been Published."8 That,however, was in 1888.The first task of the Chicago Assyrian Dictionary Project was not even to collect words but toestablish the text from which the words could becollected. Philology here too had to precedelexicography. And texts often had to be put together from many fragments, with the cuneiformmarks in clay or stone transferred to the two-dimensional pages of books either by reproducingtheir original shape in pen and ink or by transcribing them into the Latin alphabet. Only oncethus transcribed could the words of the text beparsed and filed under convenient alphabeticheadings.Moreover, in the early days of the CAD littlewas known about Sumerian, a non-Semitic language which was used beside Akkadian throughout the lifetime of cuneiform literature — over twothousand years — by itself or side by side with an180Akkadian version, for a great variety of learnedand religious literature. Only in the past thirtyyears or so have Sumerologists been able to offerus substantial help with Akkadian lexicography,first, by interpreting the Sumerian versions ofbilingual texts and dictionary-like word lists,whose role is not unlike that of medieval glossaries for English lexicography, and, more importantly, by providing cultural contexts fromwhich Akkadian texts may gain further elucidation.The preliminary work on the project was carried out by collaborators in Chicago as well as byoutside scholars contracted for individualprojects — again, much like the OED's volunteerreaders and generating problems similar to theirs.You may remember the OED story about howJames Murray, puzzled by a strange quotationfrom the essays of James Russell Lowell — thequote read "those fortunate alliterates"9 — wroteto Lowell to ask the meaning of "alliterates."Lowell replied that the unknown word was certainly a misprint for illitera tes.10We, of course, cannot turn to the Babyloniansto check on possible errors. And even if there isno error in the written text, the nature ofcuneiform writing is such that it leaves great roomfor ambiguities — and not just about fine points ofphonetics such as the length or shortness of avowel or the voicing of a consonant, variables thataffect to some degree our transcriptions and consequently the placement of a word under one oranother heading, in one or another part of speech.More often than not, a particular cuneiform signmay stand for several different syllables, and thispolyvalence sometimes permits several differentreadings of an entire word. The ambiguity is oftencompounded by the possibility of reading a sign ora group of signs, even in a good Akkadian context,in Sumerian as well as in Akkadian. For example,to cite a problem from volume S that we are nowreadying for press, two signs that often qualify atextile would describe the textile, by applying theSumerian reading KUR.RA to them, as a "foreigntextile" and by applying to them the Akkadianreading sad-ra as an " ordinary textileIn a skit that we performed during my studentdays at the College de France, the plot turnedaround a tablet stolen from an excavation andfollowed around the world to various great universities, where such illustrious professors asWoodrow G. Sumeron and Bill Liicke each hailedthe tablet as a document important in their respective specialties, one reading it as a Sumerian economic text, the other as an Akkadian myth, athird as the description of a battle. Thanks to thepolyvalence of the cuneiform signs, the task ofcomposing the text of that fictitious tablet, thoughadmittedly difficult, was not impossible.The philological difficulties satirized in our skitand the steady flow of texts, newly excavated ornewly discovered in some museum's collectionsor simply better editions of texts known previously, continued to occupy the CAD staff evenin the post-war years, when the project, interrupted by the military service of the staff — oftenin the cipher section of the War Department — wasreorganized by Jay Gelb.As is so often true in the life-span of a majorproject, it is difficult to pinpoint what the catalystwas that made of the Assyrian Dictionary Projectthe Chicago Assyrian Dictionary.Did it have to do, I wonder, with the fact thatthe early fifties found at the Oriental Institute,along with an understanding director, three descendants from the Austro-Hungarian Empire?Benno Landsberger, the acknowledged grand oldman of the discipline, and its last polyhistor, arrived in 1948; Leo Oppenheim, twenty years hisjunior, in 1947; and myself, again twenty yearsyounger, in 1952. And when Oppenheim arguedfor moving from the collecting stage to publication, he had the support of the Austro-Hungarianmafia, both of the senior scholar whom he so admired and of the youngest research assistant,whom he had, first, to teach, encourage, and bullyto make her into a real Assyriologist.From 1955, when Oppenheim was appointededitor-in-charge, the publication of the dictionaryvolumes has maintained a steady pace, their timing depending on the size of the volume since eachvolume treats one letter of the alphabet. Today wecount fourteen letters of the alphabet out of a totalof twenty-three, in sixteen volumes out of a projected twenty-six, with a total of 5,497 pages, anaverage of 772 entries per letter, ranging from 346entries in Volume Z to 1,662 in the two parts ofVolume M, and an average number of quotationsof about ten thousand per volume or 44.6 perpage. These figures do not include the volumepresently in proof stage or the three in progress ornearing completion.Yet the project's twenty-five-year achievements are measured not only by this output butalso by the fourteen companion volumes of theMaterials for the Sumerian Lexicon,11 containingeditions of the Sumero-Akkadian bilingual dictionaries I referred to, and equally significantly,181by a number of books that cover the spectrum ofMesopotamian civilization, such as Landsberger'sThe Date Palm and Its By-Products,12 Oppenheim' s Interpretation of Dreams in the Ancient Near East13 and Glass and Glass making inAncient Mesopotamia,14 my own LinguisticAnalysis of Akkadian,15 and above all Oppenheim' s Portrait of a Dead Civilization, as hesubtitled his book Ancient Mesopotamia. 16 Thesebooks — and I am quoting from Leo Oppenheim' sforeword — "could hardly have been written anywhere but in the stimulating atmosphere of theAssyrian Dictionary Project of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, in that constant give and take of ideas and information, inthat sustained drive for the understanding of theentire gamut of the Mesopotamian text materialwhich determines our work. . . ,"17 Similarly, thedozens of articles published by the scholars, oldand young, past and present, who have been associated with the Dictionary are, in a sense, aspin-off of their intimate preoccupation with thetexts as, day after day, they come under thedictionary- writer ' s hand .Any lexicographer would delight in followingthe history of a word and tracing the complexitiesof its meanings. But it would be a HarmlessDrudge indeed who would stop there and notventure beyond to assess what the informationcollected can tell him about the culture he dealswith.I would like to give you a couple of examples ofhow the information collected in the CAD canserve this function: first, how even one word candisclose the complex features of the culture; andsecond, how such widely differing sources as aliterary text and a letter mutually illuminate eachother and how such mutually illuminating contexts can then help us to assess the place of literature in Mesopotamian culture.Finding a good word to illustrate the first pointwas not easy. Not because of a lack of complexwords; on the contrary. During this past year, Ihave been paying special attention to the wordsthat came across my desk in the hope of chancingupon a good one. The trouble was that whateverthe word happened to be, it presented itself as theperfect example: it had a broad range, semanti-cally, chronologically, and geographically; itsanalysis involved an important area ofMesopotamian civilization; a closer look at itscontext led to an emendation or better understanding of some hitherto obscure passage; I hadto consult with at least three co-workers to clarify my own understanding of it. Despairing of findinga representative sample, I have decided to staywith the poem I presented to you.There, after the setting of the stage in the firsthalf line, "The heart grass grows in the mountains," the first word that impels the action forward is the verb assuhsuma T pulled it up' . This isthe regular past tense form of the verb that ourdictionary too cites in the infinitive, nasahu.Now, volume eleven of the Assyrian Dictionary, covering the letter N, and thus this word,too, has just hit the streets. I have been seeing itthrough manuscript and three sets of proof forthree years now, and consequently I am nowrather less certain about the meaning of nasahuthan when we started. To be sure, many of itsmeanings have been known for a long time — suchas the meaning here exemplified, 'to pull out', 'topull up by the root', 'to uproot', in all its concreteand figurative senses similar to those that "uproot" or "extirpate" have in English. And- in particular, of course, one extirpates enemies and evil.Recalling the poem about the heart grass, we realize how the use of this verb nasahu hassuggested, from the very first line, the presence ofsome evil that had to be extirpated.In some other context the use of this wordwould perhaps have evoked the deportation ofentire conquered populations, a policy, as is wellknown from the Bible, used effectively by Assyrian kings in the first millennium B.C., since theyexpressed with the same verb nasahu their uprooting and resettling the populations of conquered lands. The legal and economic connotations of this word are much harder to apprehend. Thus, only a few years ago, when twobooks18 appeared dealing with the Assyrian traders in Anatolia about 1850 B.C., was it clarifiedwhat were the nature and the amount of the taxesexacted — extracted, if you wish — that the Old Assyrian records denote with this word. These taxeswere imposed on the caravans that traveled overlong and often dangerous overland routes from thecity of Assur to Anatolia, taking along the tinneeded for the production of bronze and also taking textiles that Assur itself imported from itssouthern neighbor, Babylonia. We now know withprecision that the Anatolian rulers exacted —nasahu is the verb used — one twentieth of thetextiles and two sixty-fifths of the tin imported.And it was from a paper published just a yearago,19 dealing with a group of Old Babyloniancontractual agreements which specify that someone not party to the contract "pulls out his hand,"182that the legal import of this idiom with nasahuemerged as the relinquishing or transfer of claims.At this juncture, it should not surprise you that thearithmetical operation that we call "subtraction"is also denoted by the verb nasahu. And should ananthropological linguist choose to devote someattention to Akkadian, he might classify it withWhorf's Standard Average European, sincetime — which in such a culture as the Hopi Whorfdescribed stands still — in Akkadian moves just asin ours, and its passage is described with this sameverb nasahu.And nasahu is not an atypical word. There aremore complex ones; there are simpler. But theonly really simple words are those we do notunderstand: words attested only once or twice, inan unilluminating context; words in technicaltexts that refer to materials and technologicalprocesses — such as the glassmaking mentionedearlier — which can be identified only through thecollaboration of an Assyriologist and outside experts; and of course words for realia, such asstones, plants, textiles, animals, pots, tools, andthe like. It is rare that we can be so specific as toidentify a plant as mangelwurzel or recognize thatthe workman innocently called a "water-sprinkler" is none other than the lime slaker.The ethnologist can turn to a native informantto elicit native cultural categories; we cannot askfor the name of an object or for a description ofthe thing that a word denotes — although many anethnologist has been driven to despair in this pursuit, as is so vividly described by Laughlin in theintroduction to the Smithsonian's Great TzotzilDictionary.20Archaeology is also rarely of help, since it is notto be expected that an artifact, or its representation in the round or even in those marvelouslydetailed Assyrian reliefs, can be matched with thenames listed in the texts; nor is it customary for avotive object to proclaim its name in the inscription on it, saying, for instance, "I am the drinkinghorn of Gilgamesh" — the Cup of Nestor21 being anotable exception, as Professor Momigliano tellsme.Still, giving definitions is perhaps the least important part of the Dictionary. Rather, it plays asignificant role in drawing together, by extensivequotations incorporating a meaningful segment ofa word's context, such diverse materials as todayno single scholar can overview. I will illustratethis with my second and last example from theworkshop of the Assyrian Dictionary. This is apreview of a recent discovery which shows, con vincingly I believe, how the recourse to mutuallyilluminating contexts, which some literary criticspractice under the name "intertextuality," is, forthe Assyriologist, a basic necessity.There exists a Babylonian counterpart to themedieval Speculum Principis, that is, Admonitions to the Prince on how to rale wisely andjustly.22 This obviously tendentious piece of literature has been much discussed by Assyriologists,who have sought to pinpoint its date or relevanceto a particular historical situation. Yet it is a piecethat was found among the literary and scholarlytexts that formed the library of Assurbanipal inNineveh, and thus its character as a poetic vehiclefor Mesopotamian political thought ought to havebeen clear.At one of our weekly staff reading sessions, wewere reading a recently published letter to KingEsarhaddon,23 trying to puzzle out a practicallyillegible, broken section. The rare word iggaguwhich was clear in the text sent us to the verbagagu 'angry' in Volume A of the CAD. There wefound it in a quotation from the BabylonianSpeculum Principis. With its help, we now couldread the damaged sentence in the letter, whichturned out to be an exact quotation from theseAdmonitions to the Prince. It said: "If a royalofficial imposes corvee work on the temples of thefree cities of Sippar, Nippur, and Babylon, thegreat gods will become angry, will leave theirdaises, and will not enter their sanctuaries again."By quoting the Admonitions, the writer of theletter wanted to impress on the king the necessity,nay, the wisdom, of granting exemptions to- thetemple of Nippur.This instance, coupled with others discussed inthe recently published Propaganda and Communication in World History,24 allows us aglimpse into the ways in which the intellectuals ofMesopotamian society used their learning andtheir familiarity with the literary heritage to influence national and even international politics.But especially in the context of what I wantedto say today about the relevance of the AssyrianDictionary to the study of Babylonian literature,the unexpected connection found by the juxtaposition of a letter and a literary text shouldmake clear the measure of my indebtedness to theCAD project which compels me to deal with sucha wide range of sources — sources, and not someinterpretation of them. For, as Jakob Burckhardtso succinctly put it, "A source, as compared to atreatise, has its eternal advantages."25Among these sources, literary texts play their183part in elucidating the past; they can teach us asmuch as texts thought to be more immediatelyrelevant to social and political history; we havelearned this lesson from the thirty pieces of silver.So let me close with a quotation from anotherpoem of the Babylonians, an ode which celebrateswhat we value most at the University ofChicago:26Scholarship is an exacting mother who keeps aclose check on her disciples .Scholarship is a beguiling woman, her bountiesare boundless.Scholarship is unfathomable, but espouse her andyou have nothing to fear.Cultivate her and she will bring you profit,Notes1. Erica Reiner, "Thirty Pieces of Silver," in Essays in Memory ofE. A. Speiser, edited by William W. Hallo, Journal of theAmerican Oriental Society 88 (= American Oriental Series 53,1968), pp. 186-190.2. Hartmut Schmokel, "Das sagenhafte Eigenleben desJudaslohns," Die Presse (Vienna), early 1968, p. 10.3. O. R. Gurney and P. Hulin, The Sultantepe Tablets II(London: The British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, 1964[its Occasional Publications, 7]), No. 252:1-13.4. Jean Nougayrol, "Tablettes diverses du Musee duLouvre," Revue d'Assyriologie 73 (1979) 69 AO 7765 r. 8'-14\5. Roman Jakobson and Claude Levi-Strauss, " 'Les Chats'de Charles Baudelaire," L' Homme 2 (1962): 5-21, reprinted inR. Jakobson, Questions de poetique (Paris: Editions du Seuil,1973).6. G. K. Chesterton, "The Tomato," in Essays and Poems,edited by Wilfrid Sheed (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1958), pp.39-41.7. K. M. Elisabeth Murray, Caught in the Web of Words:James A. H. Murray and the Oxford English Dictionary (NewHaven: Yale University Press, 1977).8. S. Alden Smith, Why That "Assyrisches Worterbuch"Ought Never to Have Been Published (Leipzig: Edward Pfeiffer,1888).9. James Russell Lowell, My Study Windows (Boston: JamesR. Osgood and Co., 1871), p. 257.10. Letter of 5 January 1881, in New Letters of James RussellLowell, edited by M. A. De Wolfe Howe (New York and London: Harper and Brothers, 1932), p. 253. The error had beencorrected by the 1878 edition. The exchange is reported in Murray, op. cit.,p. 235.11. (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1937 — ). BennoLandsberger saw the first nine volumes through the press, andthe last nine volumes incorporate his editions of the rest of theword lists.12. Benno Landsberger, The Date Palm and Its By-productsaccording to the Cuneiform Sources (Graz: Ernst Weidner, 1967[Archiv fur Orientforschung, Beiheft 17]).13. A. Leo Oppenheim, The Interpretation of Dreams in the Be assiduous with her and she will make you rich.If you spend your nights with her, she will revealher secrets;If you neglect her, you will be called a cad.Scholarship is a career that leads to good fortuneand immeasurable rewards.Erica Reiner is the John A. Wilson Professor inthe Oriental Institute and in the Departments ofNear Eastern Languages and Civilizations andLinguistics and Editor-in-Charge of the AssyrianDictionary . The Ryerson Lecture was given in theGlen A. Lloyd Auditorium of the Laird Bell LawQuadrangle .Ancient Near East with a Translation of an Assyrian Dream-Book (Philadelphia: The American Philosophical Society, 1956[its Transactions, NS 46/3]) .14. A. Leo Oppenheim, Robert H. Brill, Dan Barag, and Axelvon Saldern, Glass and Glassmaking in Ancient Mesopotamia(Corning, N.Y.: The Corning Museum of Glass, 1970).15. Erica Reiner, A Linguistic Analysis of Akkadian (TheHague: Mouton, 1966 [Janua Linguarum Series Practica, 21]).16. A. Leo Oppenheim, Ancient Mesopotamia: Portrait of aDead Civilization (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964).17. Ancient Mesopotamia, p. xi.18. Mogens Trolle Larsen, The Old Assyrian City-State andIts Colonies (Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1976[Mesopotamia, Copenhagen Studies in Assyriology, 4]); KlaasR. Veenhof , Aspects of Old Assyrian Trade and Its Terminology(Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1972 [Studia et documenta ad jura orientisantiqui pertinentia, 10]).19. Hans M. Kiimmel, "Ein Fall von Sklavenhehlerei," Archiv fur Orientforschung 25 (1974/7) 72-83.20. Robert M. Laughlin, The Great Tzotzil Dictionary of SanLorenzo Zinacantdn (Washington: Smithsonian InstitutionPress, 1975 [its Contributions to Anthropology, 19]).21. See Lillian H. Jeffrey, The Local Scripts of ArchaicGreece (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1961), pp. 235f. and pi.47, no. 1.22. W. G. Lambert, Babylonian Wisdom Literature (Oxford:The Clarendon Press, 1960), pp. 1 10-1 15.23. M. Dietrich, Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets inthe British Museum, Part 54: Neo-Baby Ionian Letters from theKuyunjik Collection (London: British Museum PublicationsLtd., 1979), No. 212.24. Harold D. Lasswell, Daniel Lerner, and Hans Speier,editors, Propaganda and Communication in World History,Volume I: The Symbolic Instrument in Early Times (Honolulu:The University Press of Hawaii, 1979), pp. 1 1 1-115.25. Jakob Burckhardt, Force and Freedom (New York: Pantheon Books, 1943), p. 98; translation of WeltgeschichtlicheBetrachtungen, in Gesamtausgabe (Basel: B. Schwabe, 1929),vol. 7, p. 15.26. A. W. Sjoberg, "In Praise of the Scribal Art," Journal ofCuneiform Studies 24 (1972) pp. 126-131.184THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO RECORDVICE-PRESIDENT FOR PUBLIC AFFAIRSRoom 200, Administration Building«€ ~__ o zTJ X 0m S c 33D P TJ*£ v* 2.1*> >3pf5§ 0coCD3,2z Q go-«. O rn «"*i;•*• r* OCO 3