UNCLASSIFIED
replace the former Camp Upton structures with new and permanent
buildings. The decision to build permanent structures would
admit of a somewhat longer productive life of the laboratory
than would rehabilitation. Since either alternative would
involve a sizeable capital outlay, which could be
justified
ouly if Brookhaven were meeting the needs of the northeastern
universities and of the AEC, we invited Dr. Lloyd V. Berkner,
?resident of the Assoctated Universities, Inc., to speak to
18 on that point at the December meeting.
He reported that
‘uring 1952 he had visited all the Presidents and administrative
officers of the universities represented on the Board of Trustees
of AUI.
A universal sense of permanence was found, he said,
which would justify thinking of a long range plan for the
replacement of the present temporary structures.
A clue as to
the degree to which Brookhaven has insinuated itself into the
scientific life of the northeastern universities is to be
found in the fact that scientists no longer have to be urged to
take advantage of the laboratory's facilities during the summer,
but because of the physical limitations of the laboratory the
staff must now pick and choose among those eligible to be
invited.
We understand that the Board of Trustees of AUI has
instructed Dr, Berkner to obtain from each participating
university a statement, signed by the President of each, as to
the usefulness and value of Brookhaven in their academic
patterns.
Copies of these statements are to be provided
Dr, Bugher.
The other matter discussed at the December meeting had to
do with research grants.
As you know, we have been debating for
over a year now the pros and cons of increasing overhead allowance
on grant-like research contracts, and whether or not
ment of joint participation should be continued.
reluctantly we have come to the conclusion that
Question.
the require-
Somewhat
it is a moot
First of all, any increase in overhead allowance, or
decrease in the requirement of joint participation, would simply
mean diverting to university administration funds now going
directly into research. Within the present and forecast budget
ceilings such a result would not only be of questionable
desirability, but might be rather awkward to defend.
The argument
that unless some relief is
forthcoming to hard-pressed
universities research will suffer, is not without some validity.
We wonder, however, whether the broad problem of financial aid
to higher education might more properly be a matter for the
consideration of the Congress,
For still another reason we have been reluctant
to advise
the Division of Biology and Medicine to consider in thelr
grant
program the social and economic aspects of higher
education:
we
are told that over 90% of the institutions holding
biology and
medicine researen contracts have voiced no object
ion to the
distinction made between research grants--where
participation
is expected of the institution and a fixed overhead allowa
nce
of 8% is contributed by the AEC--and the purchase of
research by