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