Document created: 17 June 04
Air University Review, January-February 1970

Some Aspects of Air Force—University Relations

Dr. William J. Price

From the inception of universities as we know them today, they have been the centers of the search for new knowledge and understanding. The Department of Defense is charged with an even older function, national security. These two functions overlap in a complex blend of mutual needs and dedication to service. Social and political trends indicate that this time-honored partnership must survive, but it is being strained in very significant ways. Faculties are examining and weighing university social roles, students are exerting pressures to force university restructuring, and the DOD, faced with severe budget problems as well as a complex set of other pressures, is also being required to make some changes. Understanding these forces for change and their possible consequences is essential for decision-makers in both the academic and the military communities.

The importance of the Air Force relationship to colleges and universities through the research support activities can be appreciated if one considers the contributions of this program to the scientific base provided by the Office of Aerospace Research (OAR). In FY 69, $43 million (nearly one-half) of the research funds managed by OAR were spent in U.S. universities through contracts and grants. In addition, the Air Force Systems Command, along with OAR, expended an additional $37 million of exploratory development and other funds for science and technology activities in scores of U.S. universities. Further, Federal Contract Research Centers (FCRC) associated with universities did $25 million of research and development for the Air Force. Thus this relationship between the Air Force and the universities is significant in terms of its size. But, more important, there is a unique contribution which makes this relationship vital to the strength of the country.

For reasons inherent in the nature of scientists and scientific research, a large fraction of the outstanding leaders on the frontiers of science and technology are in the universities. The Air Force university program taps an invaluable resource: the thinking of many of the key investigators in fields critical to progress in science and engineering. The unique contribution of this program is bringing this thinking to bear on problems at the forefront of Air Force technology, operations, and strategic concepts in many direct and indirect ways.

Most major graduate departments in science or engineering receive some Air Force support. Faculty members, often senior and prestigious, direct and conduct research and development. Their graduate students assist in carrying out the complex, time-consuming aspects of such projects. Many levels of university administration are also involved in this major activity. This involvement, in short, is what DOD gets for its money—high-quality scientific expertise focused on defense-related concerns. This expertise extends beyond individual projects in science and engineering to include the operations of contract research centers, often recognized worldwide in sharply defined specialties, such as the Lincoln Laboratories (electronics) at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Colleges and universities also are a reservoir of ability on technical questions, with faculty members consulting. Further, they are training new people and sending graduates not only to the DOD but also to the many business concerns that sell products and services to the DOD.

Growing campus unhappiness seizes upon such issues as the draft, ROTC, classified research, and FCRC’s. However, the unclassified research being performed in university science and engineering departments, even though supported by Defense agencies, has been relatively free of trouble to date. In this article I shall discuss (a) the nature and importance of this Air Force—university relationship through the unclassified research program and (b) the steps required to maintain this relationship.

In this discussion I draw heavily on the experience of the Air Force Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR) for perspective and examples. As the extramural component of OAR, AFOSR manages a large part of the Air Force university program ($33 million in FY 69). Further, it has nearly two decades of expe­rience in successful support of university research.

the Air Force and university scholarly research

The history of the Air Force, which is so intimately intertwined with the evolution of several science-based technologies, provides a highly relevant background against which to examine the Air Force—university interface. It is even anticipated that science-based innovations will grow in importance during the coming decades. The question is, How will university-based scientists and scientific research fit into this picture?

The mission of AFOSR is to work continually to help strengthen the future operational Air Force through scientific research activities external to the DOD. Studies of the role of scientific research and innovation have demonstrated that a large part of the fundamental scientific research important to the Air Force, or any other organization dependent on science-based technology, is generated outside the particular research and development activities charged with the specific responsibilities to bring about the innovations.¹ Since the universities are the principal centers for fundamental scientific research, it is natural and proper that the bulk of the AFOSR research support activities over the years has been with the university scientific community.

The fact that the U.S. today has world leadership in most aspects of science and technology is in a real sense a tribute to the wisdom and success of the pioneering activities of the Office of Naval Research and AFOSR in the support of university research and the continuation of these and other DOD programs through the last two decades. The contributions of AFOSR to this development have been documented extensively elsewhere.² We have helped develop many scientific areas which over the years have proved to be vital to the Air Force. Examples of specific spin-offs or innovations arising from our sponsored research are also manifold. In addition, the value of research in educating and upgrading the persons needed to support the science-based DOD programs is extremely important but often overlooked. Finally, there is the very important role which the programs serve as windows to the science supported by others and in promoting access to the independent advisers and consultants.

During recent years the DOD science-support structure has been re-examined in view of the activities of the National Science Foundation (NSF) and other research-supporting agencies. The review of the current and continuing roles of AFOSR and other basic research activities supporting mission-oriented organizations stressed the importance of an organization having the capability to ensure that the scientific fields with greatest potential for improving Air Force capabilities are developed as rapidly as possible.³ These activities are also found to be important in providing communication between scientific and technological communities, thus helping to reduce the lag time between the creation of new understanding and its use.⁴

A careful and critical look at the federal science-support structure as a whole, and at the present and future role of the DOD in it, makes it clear that even though the DOD funds to universities have dropped to 15 percent of the basic research total, they are still a crucial part, for both the DOD and the universities. Approximately half of the $2 billion total is from the National Institutes of Health for support of their health mission. In the rest of the program, the DOD supports large parts of the university research in the sciences of central importance to the DOD mission. For example, this support accounts for almost half of the work in mathematical sciences and over half in the engineering sciences. In FY 69 the DOD supported $250 million of university research while the National Science Foundation supported hardly $200 million of scholarly research, the remainder of its funds going to other types of science development. Further, NSF funds for supporting research have leveled off, in FY 69 being less than in FY 68, and apparently will be no better in FY 70.

University scientific research traditionally is an undirected effort to elicit new knowledge from nature. The creative impetus is the investigator’s curiosity. What he learns is another step in understanding man and his world. What he finds may not only advance science but lead to scientific and technological developments that profoundly alter the lives of many people. Such developments are essentially unpredictable in the empirical sense, and the researcher is usually unable to foresee the direct application of his work.

In the mission-oriented agency, however, research can be selected which fits into an overall program directed at any one of a number of long-standing and carefully defined “problem areas” related to technological capabilities for military requirements. For the Air Force these are related to the need for knowledge to enable us to “fly higher and faster,”a euphemism for progress in such fields as thermodynamics of combustion, efficiency of electronic circuitry, aerodynamics, materials chemistry, and other fields across the spectrum of the sciences that are important to a mission as diverse as the Air Force’s.

AFOSR may be thought of as the Air Force’s window on world science. The key to this process is the AFOSR project scientist who receives unsolicited proposals from the scientific community, evaluates them, sees how they might fit into the program he manages, and selects the best of these proposals for support. His managerial skill, in adapting his program to Air Force needs, is the critical ability within AFOSR.

The AFOSR project scientist must be knowledgeable about the Air Force, its technology, and its operating problems. He must also know what is going on in the many development laboratories within the Air Force Systems Command and the Office of Aerospace Research in-house research labs. He must also know that portion of the scientific and university community that corresponds to his scientific specialty and program. He must sense how it is developing and which of its developments and trends are of most interest to the Air Force. Thus, through rigorous selectivity, he chooses research for support which is most likely to yield results with high potential for Air Force applicability. He also has a further responsibility, namely, to couple the results of scientific research directly to the Air Force. He does this by bringing researchers into direct touch with AF problems by arranging visits to labs and bases or establishing special workshops and by selectively distributing reports and other material.

Clearly the Air Force relationship with the universities through the basic research program continues to be important to the future of the Air Force and the nation. It is important, therefore, that current campus attitudes bearing on this relationship be examined, so that the relationship may be continued at a high level of effectiveness.

current campus attitudes about
DOD support of unclassified research

We at AFOSR have carefully studied Air Force—university relations in three different areas of our experience. We have been alert to this matter as we carried out regular relations with universities, in our visits, proposal evaluations, etc. We have conducted three seminars, to each of which we invited six to eight university professors and administrators, to sit down with a dozen DOD science managers and deal with this matter in depth. We have also worked with the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board's panel on Air Force—university relations.

We do in fact find that there is serious discontent on the campus about the DOD but that this discontent stems largely from non-research issues. The recent McClellan Committee report also underlines this point.⁵  DOD—university issues encompass not only Vietnam, the draft, and the ABM but also the view that the large DOD budget detracts from the major problems facing the country: poverty, pollution, and even, in the minds of some, peace. Further, a growing number of university people say they want to be accountable for their actions, and to some this presents a conflict between doing science, particularly for application by the DOD, and their own concepts of public responsibility.

Any relationship between the Air Force and the universities is a potential target. There does not necessarily have to be anything wrong with how the activity is being pursued from the standpoint of either the university or DOD for it to be singled out for attack by the leaders of the dissidents. Before an activity can cause either a university or DOD significant difficulty, however, it must have the potential of being able to arouse a significant number of the total student body and faculty. Activities in trouble are those which go counter to the sensitivities of a significant portion of the academic community. ROTC in some places is part of the academic curriculum, without course content or qualifications of the instructors being subject to as much control as some faculties would like. Weapons research in university-associated contract research centers is attacked because the DOD is said to be “using” the university to do something alien to the central purposes of the university. Classified research (even when it is part of the academic program in that it is used for theses and for faculty research) is vulnerable because it is not open to free discussion and criticism. The draft greatly disturbs many persons in both the faculty and student body for a complex set of reasons.

Fortunately, basic research does not seem to go counter to the sensitivity of the academic community. So even though we hear predictions from time to time that the DOD-university problem will spread to basic research programs, there is reason to expect that DOD can succeed in maintaining good relations with the universities in this area of activity. The justification rests on the extent and nature of the area that is of mutual interest to DOD and the universities. It is characterized by the body of common interest which is at the same time consistent with the central self-interest of each institution.

None of the OAR projects has, as yet, been the subject of a demonstration, despite their generally high visibility on the campus. We continue to have many more excellent proposals than we can fund. It is becoming clear that, because of their inherent acceptability to the academic community, the basic research programs offer us our best opportunity to continue to work on campus and hopefully even to counter anti-DOD criticism. Through them, if we keep them strong and responsive to needs which DOD and the universities have in common, we have an opportunity to demonstrate clearly our concern with the strength and well-being of the universities at the same time we continue to get the vital help which they provide for DOD.

Dr. John S. Foster, Jr., Director of Defense Research and Engineering, recently summed up DOD-university areas of mutual interest:

These three needs [of DOD]—for research, for consultation, and for trained manpower—form the framework for our outlook today. From the university’s point of view, there were also three central needs. First, the academic community’s top priority—teaching and learning. Second, at the graduate level [research is] an indispensable component of the student’s educational experience and the faculty’s competence—[and a] third goal: public service. National security work represents a satisfactory way for the universities to combine research, education, and public service responsibilities, especially in the physical and engineering sciences.⁶

We find a very active and effective program taking place on the campus to help ensure that the nature of these mutual interests will be more widely understood on the campuses. This is an important activity not only because it demonstrates the large extent of this common interest but also because it provides communication that can be crucial in maintaining the viability of DOD-university relations, inasmuch as it helps dispel the dissidence. This communication helps change students and faculty from uninformed individuals, who tend to be passive and permissive concerning the issues raised by the dissidents, to informed and responsible persons who exercise positive influence. University personnel deeply involved in the DOD research program often play an effective role in this informal communication-information activity. It is helping to provide the understanding and concern on which intelligent actions are being taken, including both resistance to dissidents raising irrational issues and changes where changes are needed.

With some in the scientific community it is a matter of conscience that their work not be related to the DOD. But in far larger numbers, if less vocal, are groups of researchers whose DOD interest and involvement date back across their professional careers, some of which began in the thirties and forties. These men make up a committed and dedicated leadership both in science and in university life. Among many favorable expressions, a particularly cogent one appeared in the 4 March 1969 issue of Science in describing the activity at MIT: “Even some of the Faculty supporters of the MIT research halt singled out some sections of the military, such as ONR and AFOSR, for wise and benevolent support of basic science.”

A significant number of AFOSR research investigators have been eloquent spokesmen for DOD on their own and other campuses. A professor at a New York university was one of the authors of a comprehensive report investigating the role of ROTC in relation to that university’s purposes. This examination found little basis for many allegations being made about ROTC by campus activists and no basic incompatibilities with university objectives. It found ROTC to be clearly within the realm of university dedication to public service.

The head of a western university electronics laboratory has conducted a series of informal get-togethers for undergraduates in his home to discuss current issues, including DOD on-campus research, and has conducted tours of the labs to demonstrate his research. Another professor took some of his undergraduate classes to the research presentations held by AFOSR’S propulsion division. One principal investigator (PI) has a standing offer to speak anywhere on DOD research and has been called numerous times to address troubled campus groups. A Nobel laureate at an eastern university with more than its share of unrest has conducted a series of forums on university involvement with DOD. At a southern university an AFOSR PI serves on a state legislature’s committee to advise on ROTC policy

These are just a few of the examples of the response of campuses to strains in DOD—university relations. This class of activity has great potential both for keeping the relationship in the unclassified research program in excellent shape and for tempering the types of changes forced on the universities and DOD in the ROTC, classified research, and other valuable programs.

actions required  within the Air Force

It is clear that the Air Force has a big stake in maintaining good relations with the universities of this country, both in the immediate future and for the long term. Further, it is believed that the unclassified research program can be continued very much as at present, particularly if we focus on this objective and take straightforward steps toward this end. By maintaining this relationship on a good footing, we shall further promote our rapport with the university intellectual community, which is invaluable both because of the important benefits accruing from basic research and because of that community’s support of other DOD objectives on the campuses, such as ROTC, specific problem-oriented research, and tapping of expert consultation and advice.

Maintaining good relations with the universities in basic research requires the following steps:

·   Periodic re-examination and restatement of this commitment, including the articulation to ourselves, Congress, and the universities of the role of this program. This statement of the role must make clear its importance to the Air Force, the universities, and the nation. Furthermore, it must clarify the manner in which the Air Force—university program fits in context with the overall federal science-support policy. It must also underline the extent and nature of the interests which the Air Force and the universities have in common, interests which are at the same time central to the goals of each organization.

·   The Air Force must examine its financial commitment to the university program and give high priority to obtaining funds to ensure the continuing viability of this area in which the common interests are patently clear to both parties. Over the last three years the total of Air Force funds going to university R&D has dropped 16 percent. Now there is deep concern that Congressional action may trigger further large reduction in parts of this program. This would be very unfortunate because it is important and expedient for the Air Force to put at least as much money into funding research in universities in FY 70 as it did in FY 69. First, unless we do so, a large block of important and relevant research will not be accomplished in this country inasmuch as the budgets of other agencies are not adequate to pick up the research we would be dropping or the new work we should be supporting. For example, NASA and NSF, as well as other agencies, actually have decreasing programs again this year. Second, funding university research at no less than the current level will help give credence to our desire to continue important relationships with the universities. Not to do so, in this area where our mutual interests come together to such a great extent, could seriously compromise our credibility in this matter. If we have to cut during FY 70, this could contribute significantly to degrading the research interface in Air Force—university relations.

·   We must carefully examine our way of doing business with universities in order not to strain the relationship by following procedures not essential to the program. The recent move by DOD to decrease the amount of classified research on the campuses in view of its incompatibility with education and free exchange of information is an example. At the time, less than a dozen AFOSR—university projects were classified, and in every case they were classified to give the investigators access to classified data, although their own work and their reports were unclassified and freely available. We are now working to ensure that a few key university investigators have access to classified information without requiring that the research project itself be classified. This is expected to be accomplished in the near future.

·   We need continually to improve understanding within the Air Force of the universities’ problems, not with a view toward solving them but so that through our increased sensitivity we will be more effective in carrying out mutually supportive relations. It is very important that the universities have both the necessary time and the environment in which to work out their problems. For example, it is quite important that there not be repressive action by Congress or others, such as cutting off financial aid to institutions experiencing disorders, inasmuch as this would penalize innocent and guilty alike and serve to confirm the cry of the revolutionaries and compound problems for the universities.  

In a recent series of seminars with university scientists and administrators, we were given interesting advice. They advised us that we should not expect to be loved but seek to be understood, believed, and respected. The following suggestions were included:

(a) Take steps to improve DOD’S image through such positive actions as coming out against the draft of graduate students, instituting the “Secretary Clifford program” of DOD social concern, demonstrating that DOD is working on long-range problems of international affairs in its university program and making it better known, and making the fact better known that technology itself is part of the solution to the problems caused by technology.

(b) Avoid administrative irritations as much possible. For example, require that work be classified only for real reasons. Do not require university researchers to demonstrate relevance (this is the responsibility of the DOD monitor). Do not include consulting as a contract requirement but rather as a service the contractor provides on request. A positive factor was said to be the fad that DOD university support came largely from separate science support agencies (i.e., OAR, ONR, and ARO), which have demonstrated their sensitivity to these and similar issues.

(c) Begin positive programs, such as working with young people and exposing them to scientific laboratory programs, offering younger faculty members research opportunities, and articulating better the nature of DOD support.

Certainly this is an interesting list of suggestions, some practical and some not. In any event, one is humbled by the complexity of factors that affect our university relationship and at the same time encouraged by the fact that responsible people are wrestling with important albeit difficult questions.

President Kennedy, in awarding Dr. Theodore von Kármán the first National Medal of Science in February 1963, stated, “I know of no one else who so completely represents all of the areas involved in this medal—science, engineering, and education.” Von Kármán replied, “I hope that my work has shown that the college professor is of use.” Certainly Von Kármán’s hope is well founded. It is, however, a lesson that has to be reconsidered periodically, and the present university unrest with its associated backlash makes it less likely that this truth will stay in focus automatically. The Air Force-university basic research program is still in good shape, and we find many members of university faculties and administrations working effectively to make sure that this re­lationship is maintained. We in the Air Force can do no less to ensure the continuous viability of this very important link with the academic community.

Air Force Office of Scientific Research, OAR

Notes

1. William J. Price and Lawrence W. Bass, “Scientific Research and the Innovation Process,” Science, Vol, 164, No. 3881 (16 May 1969), p. 802.

2. Air Force Scientific Research Bibliography, Vols. I-VI, 1950-62, AFOSR, available from Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office.

William J. Price, William G. Ashley, and Joseph P. Martino, “Science-Technology Coupling: Experience of the Air Force Office of Scientific Research,” Factors in the Transfer of Technology, ed. William H. Gruber and Donald G. Marquis (Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, 1969).

AFOSH Research, AFOSH, July 1967, available through Defense Documentation Center, AD 659 366.

A bibliography of the numerous publications documenting AFOSR accomplishments is available from Public Information Office, AFOSR (SRGC), 1400 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia, 22209.

3. Harvey Brooks, “Basic Science and Agency Missions,” Research in the Service of National Purpose (Washington: Office of Naval Research, 1966).

William J. Price, “Formulation of Research Policies in a Mission-Oriented Agency,” Formulation of Research Policies, ed. Lawrence W. Bass and Bruce S. Old, Pub. 87, AAAS, Washington, D.C., 1967.

The Fundamental Research Activity in a Technology-Dependent Organization, The American University, AFOSR, 1965 (AFOSR 65-2691), available through Defense Documentation Center, AD 628 747.

John S. Foster, Jr., “The Universities: Should They Do Classified Research for the Pentagon?” Scientific Research, Vol. 2, No. 12, December 1967; also, William J. Price, “A Military Role in Basic Research,” Scientific Research, 4 March 1968, and “A Case for Agency Research,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, April 1969.

4. Proceedings of Symposium on Interaction of Science and Technology, 17-18 October 1987, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois.

5. Staff Study of Campus Riots and Disorders-October 1967-May 1969, Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Committee on Government Operations, U.S. Senate, June 1969 (Committee Print, 91st Congress, 1st Session).

6. John S. Foster, Jr., remarks before American Nuclear Society, Pacific Science Center, Seattle, Washington, 18 June 1969.

The foregoing articles, “On the Leverage of Multiple Purpose Weapons” by Richard H. Anderson and Dr. Bruno J. Manz and “Some Aspects of Air Force-University Relations” by Dr. William J. Price, continue a series of articles from organizations within the Office of Aerospace Research which began in our November-December 1969 issue, The following article, “The Time Barrier: Psychological Frontier of Student Activism” by Lt. Charles M. Plummer, casts light on yet another aspect of “Air Force–university’ relations” that has been of wide concern in recent months. The photographs in Lieutenant Plummer's article were provided by the Los Angeles Police Department and the Campus Security Office of San Francisco State University. 

Contributor

Dr. William J. Price (Ph.D., Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute) is Executive Director, Air Force Office of Scientific Research. He came to this position in 1963 after 20 years in scientific research and teaching, including graduate courses in acoustics and nuclear reactor technology at the Air Force Institute of Technology and Ohio State Graduate Center. His experience includes applied research at Rensselaer, Bendix Aviation Corporation, Battelle Memorial Institute, AFIT, and the Aerospace Research Laboratories. In 1967 he became the first Air Force recipient of the Federal Executive Fellowship awarded by the Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C. Dr. Price is author of Nuclear Radiation Detection and of numerous publications in physics and research management.