Defense Research Fund Cut Looms : Bill Changes Would Cost California Campuses $11 Million

Little-noticed changes made in appropriations bills before Congress this year would reduce defense research funds paid to universities in several states, including $11 million from California.

The House Appropriations Committee recently approved the changes, including a cap which provides that no single state’s universities can get more than 14% of the money granted by the Defense Department’s University Research Initiative. The committee also cut that program’s budget from $105 million to $80 million.

In addition to California, which now receives $22.4 million--21% of the initiative’s funds--the other big loser would be Massachusetts, which gets 17%. Combined with New York’s 11%, the three states receive half the money, which is granted for 86 scientific and engineering research projects.

The program was created last year to fund university-based research into defense-related projects, such as ways to improve the designs of airplanes and submarines. While the program is funded by the Defense Department, the results of its research can have diverse commercial applications, including medicine, aerospace and computer technology.

18 California Projects

In California, 18 projects have been funded at five University of California schools and at Stanford, the University of Southern California and the California Institute of Technology. In the first year, UC San Diego received $5.7 million, Stanford $3.2 million and USC $2.7 million.

When it announced the program in June, 1986, the Defense Department said it should “smooth the transition of scientific research discoveries to their practical application in defense systems or commercial spinoffs.”

Now, however, the program is immersed in controversy amid intense battles over the new proposals, which have not yet come before the full House and the Senate. Proponents of the changes in the bills assert that the grants have been awarded unfairly in the past, and opponents say the universities that received the money earned it.

Many believe that the debate has far-reaching implications because if a “geographical cap” were allowed on this program, a precedent for distributing other grants could be set.

Allies against the proposed changes include the Assn. of American Universities, schools from California and other states and members of Congress from affected states.

Rep. Silvio O. Conte (R-Mass.) said the reductions will “diminish the quality of long-term exploration required to provide our nation with a future technological edge to meet military challenges.”

Opponents of the changes say that because most of the grants are for three- to five-year research efforts, drastic cuts would disrupt and possibly kill many valuable projects.

Sen. Pete Wilson (R-Cal.) said the proposed limit “discriminates against excellence and reduces this prestigious scientific research program to another legislative pork barrel.”

Edward Furtek, assistant director of federal relations for the Washington office of the UC system, called the proposals “prejudicial to California,” adding that they “penalize the state for its success” in producing good research institutions.

Claims Grants Skewed

But Eileen Baumgartner, legislative assistant to Rep. Martin Olav Sabo (D-Minn.), who introduced the Appropriations Committee amendment to limit the funds to 14%, said the grant distribution has been “skewed” in favor of well-known schools. Minnesota institutions receive no funding under the University Research Initiative.

In its report on the appropriations bill, the committee expressed concern about “the relatively closed nature of the review process” that governs the grants. “A good peer review system should distribute research funds more broadly than this program does,” the report said.”

In arriving at the 14% cap, the committee approved a formula based on a state’s share of the nation’s scientists and engineers holding doctorates. California’s 13.2% is the largest percentage, so the committee concluded that no state should get more than 14% of the funds.

Defense Department administrators of the grants defended the program as it is.

Helena S. Wisniewski, who administers grants for research into hydrodynamics and the theory of turbulence, said that “every one of the grants was made on merit,” adding: “We have to find those who can make the breakthroughs.” As it turns out, she said, many of those are in California schools.

At UC San Diego, Henry D. I. Abarbanel, director of the Institute for Non-Linear Science, oversees a series of research projects, ranging from air flow over aircraft wings to the dynamics of bubbles.

Fluid Dynamics

Abarbanel is especially excited about a project that involves finding ways to increase the storage capacity of computer disks by 30 times and dramatically decrease the time needed to access computer information.

“This is basic research for the country,” he said. “These are some of the best frontier pieces of research in fluid dynamics.” If the programs--which are funded for five years at an average of about $2 million a year--were disrupted, “the result would be a loss to the American public,” he said.