The Research Funding Service: a model for expanded library services

Traditionally, libraries have provided a modest amount of information about grants and funding opportunities to researchers in need of research funding. Ten years ago, the University of Washington (UW) Health Sciences Libraries and Information Center joined in a cooperative effort with the School of Medicine to develop a complete, library-based grant and funding service for health sciences researchers called the Research Funding Service. The library provided space, access to the library collection, equipment, and electronic resources, and the School of Medicine funded staff and operations. The range of services now includes individual consultation appointments, an extensive Web site, classes on funding database searching and writing grant applications, a discussion series that frequently hosts guest speakers, a monthly newsletter with funding opportunities of interest to the six health sciences schools, extensive files on funding sources, and referral services.

Greetings: 50 years of Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission–Radiation Effects Research Foundation studies

The Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission was established in Hiroshima in 1947 and in Nagasaki in 1948 under the auspices of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences to initiate a long-term and comprehensive epidemiological and genetic study of the atomic bomb survivors. It was replaced in 1975 by the Radiation Effects Research Foundation which is a nonprofit Japanese foundation binationally managed and supported with equal funding by the governments of Japan and the United States. Thanks to the cooperation of the survivors and the contributions of a multitude of scientists, these studies flourish to this day in what must be the most successful long-term research collaboration between the two countries. Although these studies are necessarily limited to the effects of acute, whole-body, mixed gamma-neutron radiation from the atom bombs, their comprehensiveness and duration make them the most definitive descriptions of the late effects of radiation in humans. For this reason, the entire world relies heavily on these data to set radiation standards. As vital as the study results are, they still represent primarily the effects of radiation on older survivors. Another decade or two should correct this deficiency and allow us to measure definitively the human risk of heritable mutation from radiation. We look to the worldwide radiation and risk community as well as to the survivors who have contributed so much to what has been done already to accomplish this goal.

Trends and patterns in research and development expenditures in the United States

This paper is a review of recent trends in United States expenditures on research and development (R&D). Real expenditures by both the government and the private sector increased rapidly between the mid-1970s and the mid-1980s, and have since leveled off. This is true of both overall expenditures and expenditures on basic research, as well as funding of academic research. Preliminary estimates indicate that about $170 billion was spent on R&D in the United States in 1995, with ≈60% of that funding coming from the private sector and about 35% from the federal government. In comparison to other countries, we have historically spent more on R&D relative to our economy than other advanced economies, but this advantage appears to be disappearing. If defense-related R&D is excluded, our expenditures relative to the size of the economy are considerably smaller than those of other similar economies.

National policies for technical change: Where are the increasing returns to economic research?

Improvements over the past 30 years in statistical data, analysis, and related theory have strengthened the basis for science and technology policy by confirming the importance of technical change in national economic performance. But two important features of scientific and technological activities in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development countries are still not addressed adequately in mainstream economics: (i) the justification of public funding for basic research and (ii) persistent international differences in investment in research and development and related activities. In addition, one major gap is now emerging in our systems of empirical measurement—the development of software technology, especially in the service sector. There are therefore dangers of diminishing returns to the usefulness of economic research, which continues to rely completely on established theory and established statistical sources. Alternative propositions that deserve serious consideration are: (i) the economic usefulness of basic research is in the provision of (mainly tacit) skills rather than codified and applicable information; (ii) in developing and exploiting technological opportunities, institutional competencies are just as important as the incentive structures that they face; and (iii) software technology developed in traditional service sectors may now be a more important locus of technical change than software technology developed in “high-tech” manufacturing.