LLJdd

GUEST EDITORIAL

The quality of federal environmental engineering

U

research funvding A decade ago, two changes occurred in federal

funding practices that were to affect environmental engineering academic programs. One was the reduc- tion in federal support of training programs. This caused an immediate decline in enrollments, which has been widely reported. The second change concerned the type of research funded at academic institutions. This change has had insidious long-term effects on the quality of environmental engineering research and education, and is the subject of this editorial. The observations on which I base the views expressed here are restricted to environmental engineering, but they may apply to environmental science as well.

Early in the 1970s. the criteria used in prominent federal agencies (especially in the “mission” agencies) to judge the merit of proposed environmental research changed. Relevant (and fundable) research came to be characterized as short-term and nonfundamental. Regrettably, the change in federal funding practices coincided with the onset of widespread university f i - nancial problems. These funding pressures triggered entrepreneurial and survival instincts in many envi- ronmental engineering academicians, who then di- verted their attention from scholarly inquiry. This proved detrimental to education and research.

Under these circumstances, the appropriateness of research to be accomplished with outside funds sometimes became secondary to the basic goal of se- curing the funds. The quest for money led some promising researchers from areas in which they pos- sessed unique competence to areas in which funding was available.

Routine projects were sought to obtain the outside funds needed to sustain educational programs and pacify university administrators. Energy, talent, and resources were expended on “research” that might more appropriately have been accomplished outside of universities.

Because some basic research could be “bootlegged” on routine contracts, there was a tendency to take on greater contractual commitments than could rea- sonably be executed in order to satiate academicians’

dcsires to conduct some appropriate research. While the motive may have been laudable, responsibilities for fulfilling extensive contracts detracted from scholarly responsibilities.

Compounding these problems was the academic urge and cajolery to publish. Although some very important contributions were made during the past decade, they were accompanied by a flood of routine reports about routine projects. Of greater concern is the possibility that a new crop of academicians who lack exposure to rigorous research were produced.

The recent development of the Environmental Protection Agency’s competitive program for long- term research and the emergence of the Engineering Directorate in the National Science Foundation offer signs of improved quality in research funding. How- ever, the possible demise of the Office of Water Re- search and Technology is a setback.

It would seem prudent for an administration that is committed to close scrutiny of federal funding to upgrade the quality of environmental research ex- penditures. Greater environmental engineering edu- cation and research productivity could be achieved if research more appropriate to universities was sup- ported. This research would be. rigorous, but relevant, and would offer prospects for substantial payoff in the long term. The private sector would benefit from spillover of work now conducted under the guise of university research, and the profession would benefit from a smaller quantity of academic research of higher quality.

Richard 1. Dick is rhe Joseph P. Ripley Professor of Engineering 01 Cornell Uni- uersiry. Ithaca. N.Y. Thir editorial was admted in Dart from an article hv the author, “0b.ver~ation.v from rhe ./980 AEEP Distinguished Leclurer Tour” (Newsletter of the Association of Envi- ronmental Engineering Professors, Voi. IS, No. 3 , i 9 8 O . p ~ . 3-4).

0013-936X/81/0915-0851$01.25/0 @ 1981 American Chemical Society Volume 15. Number 8. August 1981 851