Harvard Gains Ground Against Reagan Administration

For the last seven years scientists have had to worry as much about finding federal support for their research as about predicting what the results of their tests will be.

But due to Capitol Hill's resurgent concern about U.S. competitiveness and the hard work of University lobbyists, Harvard scientists can continue their experiments confidentally. After months of budgetary debate, the Reagan Administration and Congress plan to boost funding for such work by an unprecedented amount this year.

"It's been a pretty successful year for us," says Vice President for Government, Community, and Public Affairs John Shattuck, who heads Harvard's relations with the government. "There's been a sharp change this year in federal funding for research and student aid."

Shattuck and Harvard's federal lobbyists were instrumental in winning major increases in scientific funding, as well defeating the attempts by Secretary of Education William J. Bennett to cripple student financial aid programs.

Federal funded research is big business at Harvard, footing almost 18 percent of the University's $715 million operating expenses last year. A collection of executive agencies funnel out more than $132 million to Harvard researchers, while more than 2000 Harvard undergraduates receive some form of federal financial aid.

In the recent past, efforts to cut burdgeoning federal budget deficits led the Reagan Administration and many congressmen to make ends meet by reducing funds for scientific research.

"These have been some tough years for us," Shattuck says about the Reagan years, which have not seen any increase in scientific funding. Indeed, money distributed by the National Science Foundation, the federal agency responsible for sponsoring basic scientific research, has not increased for the last 15 years.

But a revolution in the congressional attitude toward science has inspired a turnaround in scientific research funding. In a time of fiscal austerity when Congress is cutting spending for many social and even some defense programs, programs benefitting higher education have received unprecedented increases on Capitol Hill.

Although Congress' trillon dollar 1988 budget is still being thrashed out, a majority of legislators from both the House and Senate have called for significant increases in both research and financial aid funding.

After heavy lobbying by higher education groups and institutions, the Senate passed a budget last month calling for a $200 million increase in basic scientific research and a $900 million boost in biomedical research. The House approved an increase of 12 percent for such work.

Harvard officials link these boosts to public anxiety about American economic competitiveness and renewed vigor by the higher education community in protecting its interests on Capitol Hill.

Worried about a sagging economy and a dangerous international trade deficit, today's congressmen have been frantically seeking ways to improve America's economic competitiveness. Due to the efforts of Harvard and other universities' lobbyists, a consensus has arisen on Capitol Hill that higher education is the most efficient tool for improving the nation's long-term economic health. Many congressmen believe that financial support is essential for basic scientific research and student financial aid to produce the technology and the highly-trained work force America needs to improve its economy.

"With the prevailing philosophy of this Administration that the federal government has a decreasing role in education, either our leading universities are going to have to substitute with funding, imagination and effort in research, or this country is simply not going to make a response to the competitive threat," says Congressman Robert Torricelli (D-N.J.)

"The public, the Congress and the Administration have realized that support for America's colleges and universities is absolutely critical for our improving economic competitiveness, and indeed America's overall health and security," Shattuck says.

Capitalizing on this belief, the higher education community "redoubled its efforts" to win congressional approval of Administration plans for a 17 percent increase in scientific funds and to defeat Reagan's deep cuts in financial aid.

Labelled the most radical threat to higher education in years, the cuts Bennett introduced proposed slashing federal funds for college scholarships, grants and loans by 48 percent and would have struck more than a million students from the eligibility rolls.

But due to fierce lobbying by colleges and universities, both houses of Congress approved budget resolutions calling for approximately $2.2 billion more in education programs, especially those for student financial aid.

Harvard officials still have a lot of work in store for them. They say that although the most recent budgetary battles have been won, dangerous problems exist in federal funding for scientific research and student financial aid.

Of particular concern to Harvard and other higher education officials is the trend of scientific research funding under the Reagan Administration. In the last seven years the Department of Defense has garnered 90 percent of all new research programs, while the military accounts for more than half of all research and development work in the nation. This trend has diverted funds from the basic scientific research conducted at America's research universities.

"The Reagan Administration argues that there is an increasing research budget in the U.S. and they are correct," says Torricelli. "The problem is that military research is substituting for the important basic civilian research and military research is not always transferable to the civilian economy and industry anymore."

Moreover, Harvard officials see dangers in the increasing trend toward "Big Science" projects such as the billion dollar supercollider. They warn that neglecting smaller scientific projects will stifle a large amount of invaluable scientific innovation.

"The recent discoveries in superconductors show that many times the most important advances come from small science, and this must be saved," Shattuck says. He also predicts a crisis in the lack of funds for campus research facilities, which have not seen substantial improvement in almost 20 years. technology and many of the sciences because ofofficial restrictions on communications.

And the National Academy of Sciences has warnedin recent reports that American science and theAmerican economy crucially depend on opennessand communication. "If we continue to developpolicies along their [the Soviets'] lines, theywon't need to steal our information anymore," Parksays