Presents the scientific views of Representative James W. Symington, Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Science, Research, and Technology. Includes discussion of (1) federal role in support of science and technology; (2) allocations for research and development; (3) support of basic research; and (4) public attitudes. (SL)

Discusses criticism made during hearings before a House Committee on Science and Technology subcommittee of the National Science Foundation's (NSF) peer review system and the funding of the NSF science education program. (MLH)

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) wants universities to convert to low-grade fuel in their research reactions. Researchers claim the conversion, which will bring U.S. reactors in line with a policy the NRC is trying to impress on foreigners, could be financially and scientifically costly. Impact of the policy is considered. (JN)

Presents the pressures within the University of Michigan that lead to the separation of a research center that had been conducting classified military research, (see SE 506 558). Examines the consequences for the university, including likely future relationships with the federal government. (AL)

Cites examples of use of the leverage of the government dollar to manipulate for vindictive or political purposes. Examples include the proposed health manpower legislation and the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act. (GS)

Examines in retrospect how federal support through different agencies has influenced scientific research on university campuses. As funding becomes more of a problem for universities, research funds should be used to solve local and national problems. (PS)

Data gathered from 24 federally funded "demonstrations" of new project technologies provide information for this discussion which includes rationale for government involvement, scope of federal demonstration activities, and framework for analyzing outcomes in terms of project goals. (CS)

The House of Representatives voted that the National Science Foundation (NSF) must submit a list of all proposed grant awards to Congress every 30 days as well as justifications for them. The award of any grant can be vetoed by either house within 30 days. This supplants the current method of peer reviews of grant applications. (MLH)

Describes a National Science Foundation (NSF) initiative designed to broaden access to advanced computing facilities for university researchers not eligible to tap into federally subsidized networks. Rationale for and issues related to the initiative are also considered. (JN)

Federal aids provided for training in biomedical research may be stopped. Scientists are pressing for continuation by persuading the administration and possibly winning legislators' support. (PS)

Provides a summary assessment report of the future implications of reduced federal funding for research and development in universities. Current research is still of high quality but is deteriorating; reduced research poses a decline in graduate enrollment; and no future surge in federal funding is projected. (SL)

Discusses the fact that despite remedial legislation, inadequate and uncertain funds still limit the employment of U.S. scientists in international technical assistance programs aimed at helping developing nations in their food crises. (MLH)

Addresses questions regarding the possible control of universities by the government through rules requiring reporting for 100 percent of the work of scientists supported by the government. Reviews the project grant system and discusses accounting mistakes and abuses within the system, the agency role, indirect costs, and alternatives. (CS)