Federal Support for Academic Research
Christine M. Matthews
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
June 17, 2011
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R41895
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress
Federal Support for Academic Research
Summary
From the time of Vannevar Bush and his 1945 report on U.S. science policy, academic research
has played a role in the nation’s economy. Vannevar Bush’s report, Science the Endless Frontier,
maintained that major investments in research should be made to the nation’s universities. He
stated that the research capacity of the colleges and universities was significantly important to
long-term national interests. Currently, some Members of Congress have expressed concern about
the health and competitiveness of the nation’s colleges and universities. There are those who
continue to maintain that the long-term competitiveness of the nation is linked to the strength of
the academic research infrastructure. It has been shown that academic research is integrated into
the economy and impacts at both the local and national level. By one estimate, approximately
80% of leading industries have resulted from research conducted at colleges and universities.
Colleges and universities are the primary performers of basic research, with the federal
government being the largest funding source. In FY2008, the federal government provided
approximately 60% of an estimated $51.9 billion of research and development funds expended by
academic institutions. When measured in current dollars, federal academic support increased by
2.5% between FY2007 and FY2008. When inflation is taken into account, it equates to an
increase of 0.2% from FY2007 to FY2008 following two years of decline in constant dollars
since FY2005. An issue before the 112th Congress is that with further budget reductions expected,
how does the nation best reduce the budget while adjusting the support for research conducted at
colleges and universities?
Congressional Research Service
Federal Support for Academic Research
Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
Higher Education and the Research Mission................................................................................ 2
University Research-Industry Partnerships .................................................................................. 4
The Changing Institutional Context of Research.......................................................................... 7
Sources and Composition of Research Funds for Universities................................................ 7
Federal Financing of Academic Research .............................................................................. 9
Distribution of Funding for Academic Research and Development ............................................ 10
Research and Development Support to the Top 100 Institutions ........................................... 10
Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Other Minority-Serving Institutions ......... 11
Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) ................................. 12
The National Academies’ Committee on Research Universities ................................................. 13
Policy Considerations ............................................................................................................... 13
Figures
Figure 1. Basic Research by Performing Sector, FY2008............................................................. 7
Figure 2. Science and Engineering R&D at Colleges and Universities,
by Source of Funding, FY1956-FY2008................................................................................. 10
Tables
Table 1. Scientific Publication Output ......................................................................................... 6
Table 2. Science and Engineering R&D Expenditures at Universities and Colleges:
FY2004-FY2009...................................................................................................................... 9
Table 3. HBCUs and Other Minority-Serving Institutions— Federal Support for Science
and Engineering, FY2001-FY2007......................................................................................... 12
Appendixes
Appendix A. Federal Obligations for Science and Engineering R&D to the 100
Universities and Colleges Receiving the Largest Amounts, Ranked by the Total Amount
Received in FY2007............................................................................................................... 16
Appendix B. Federal Obligations for Science and Engineering R&D to the 100
Universities and Colleges Receiving the Largest Amounts, Ranked by the Total Amount
Received in FY1997............................................................................................................... 19
Congressional Research Service
Federal Support for Academic Research
Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 22
Congressional Research Service
Federal Support for Academic Research
Introduction
From the time of Vannevar Bush and World War II, academic research has played a role in the
nation’s economy.1 Vannevar Bush, national science advisor to both Presidents Franklin
Roosevelt and Harry Truman, stated that major investments in research should be made to the
nation’s universities.2 His position was that the research capacity of colleges and universities was
significantly important to long-term national interests.3 Currently, some Members of Congress
have expressed concern about the health and competitiveness of U.S. colleges and universities,
specifically research institutions. The federal government provides more than half of the funding
for U.S. academic research. The nation’s current economic situation, debt, and budget deficit are
placing increased focus on cutting discretionary spending, the source of funding for U.S.
academic research. Congress is faced with difficult spending decisions that may affect the health
and competitiveness of the research capabilities of U.S. colleges and universities.
There are those who contend that the long-term competitiveness of the nation is linked to the
strength of the academic research infrastructure. It has been reported that academic research is
integrated in the local economy, contributes to industrial applications, and provides benefits at
both a local and national level.4 In addition, academic researchers have contributed to developing
various technologies, becoming a “strong catalyst for U.S. economic growth.”5 This challenge
comes at a time when the nation is facing low economic growth, high unemployment, and
increased global competition. While investments in academic research may address these
concerns in the long-term, short-term budget considerations may constrict such an investment.
Other sources of funding for U.S. academic research are also constrained. In FY2009, self-
funding by colleges and universities provided approximately 20.4% of the support for academic
research funding, but many institutions are struggling financially.6 States and local government
provided approximately 6.6%,7 but, like the federal government, most state budgets are under
severe constraints.
According to a 2010 report of the National Academy of Sciences, the nation enjoys a
disproportionate share of the world’s highly ranked research universities.8 In addition, a report of
1 “Federal Funding for Academic Research – A Brief History of Federal Involvement in University-Based Research,
Key Federal Agencies”, http://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/1987/Federal-Funding-Academic-Research.html.
2 A report to the President by Vannevar Bush, Director, Office of Research and Development, July 1945,
http:///.nsf.gov/od/pa/nsf50/vbush1945.htm. See also Cole, Jonathan R., The Great American University – Its Rise to
Preeminence, Its Indispensable National Role, Why It Must Be Protected, 2009, Columbia University, New York, pp.
86-106.
3 Ibid.
4 See for example ibid.; Cole, Jonathan R., The Great American University, pp. 193-298; Berdahl, Robert M.,
“Research Universities: Their Value to Society Extends Well Beyond Research,” April 2009, 9 pp.; and Mendez,
Michael, “University Social Responsibility: Balancing Economic and Societal Benefits of University Research, The
Journal of Science Policy and Governance, 25 pp, http://www.sciencepolicyjournal.org/uploads/5/4/3/4/5434385/
university_social_responsibility_pdf.
5 Litan, Robert E., Lesa Mitchell, and E.J. Reedy, “The University as Innovator: Bumps in the Road,” Issues in Science
and Technology, Summer 2007, http://www.issues.org/23.4/litan.html.
6 National Science Foundation, “Universities Report $55 Billion in Science and Engineering R&D Spending for
FY2009: Redesigned Survey to Launch in 2010,” InfoBrief, NSF10-329, September 2010, Arlington, VA, p.1.
7 Ibid.
8 The National Academies, Rising Above the Gathering Storm, Revisited. Rapidly Approaching Category 5, Members
of the 2005 “Rising Above the Gathering Storm,” Committee, Washington, 2010, p .38.
Congressional Research Service
1
Federal Support for Academic Research
the Times Higher Education revealed that six U.S. universities are ranked among the top ten in
the world.9 However, some analysts assert that U.S. colleges and universities’ position has
“slipped” over the past decade.10
While basic research is considered by many to be important to long-term national interests,
through stimulating technological advancements and contributing to the growth of new industries,
it has not been heavily supported by the private sector because it is not always viewed as being
cost-effective.11 As more countries are doing cutting-edge research, there is discussion that the
technological strength of the United States could be improved and enhanced by increasing the
support for basic research at these institutions.12
The following sections will discuss a number of factors that are considered to be important
contributors to the nation’s economic development and health of the nation’s science and
technology enterprise. They include the research mission in academia, university-industry
partnerships, and the distribution of funding for academic research.
Higher Education and the Research Mission
Colleges and universities, in addition to their research missions, train and educate future scientific
researchers. In general, professors must allocate their time between their role as educator and as
researcher. Some assert that many professors short-change their teaching duties to focus more on
research. It has been found that at some institutions, those in academia who are more focused on
research and who have a record of publications and citations, are rewarded more (in terms of
advancements and promotions) than those whose primary activities are teaching.13
There are those in the academic community who contend that a culture should be created that
values both research and teaching.14 However, in many institutions, research is rewarded
disproportionately. This research is more highly rewarded and valued because it brings additional
revenue to the institution. Therefore, generating research and obtaining grants is a measure of
researchers’ productivity. Teaching excellence, as opposed to obtaining external grants, is not as
highly rewarded. Stakeholders ask how does an institution sustain a research program while
9 Top 200 World Universities, Times Higher Education, http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/Rankings2009-
Top200.html; Academic Ranking of World Universities, http://www.arwu.org/ARWU2009.jsp. See also Berdahl,
Robert M., President, Association of American Universities, “Research Universities: Their Value to Society Extends
Well Beyond Research,” April 2009, p. 1.
10 Berdahl, Robert M., President, Association of American Universities, Meeting of the President’s Council of Advisors
on Science and Technology, January 7, 2010, p. 2. See also Atkinson, Robert D. and Luke A. Stewart, “University
Research Funding: The United States is Behind and Falling,” The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation,
May 2011, 18 pp., and Carlson, Toby N., “Current Funding Practices in Academic Science Stifle Creativity,” Dupont
Summit 2008, pp. 631-642.
11 Ibid., Atkinson, Richard C. and Patricia A. Pelfrey, “Science and the Entrepreneurial University.”
12 Jaffe, Adam B., “Real Effects of Academic Research,” The American Economic Review, v. 79, December 1989, p. 6.
13 See for example Marsh, Herbert W. and John Hattie, “The Relation Between Research Productivity and Teaching
Effectiveness: Complementary, Antagonistic, or Independent Constructs?”, The Journal of Higher Education, v. 73,
September/October 2002, pp. 603-641, and Anderson, W.A., U. Banerjee, C.L. Drennan, S.C.R. Elgin, I.R. Epstein,
J.Handelsman, G.F. Hatfull, R. Losick, D.K. O’Dowd, B.M. Olivera, S.A. Strobel, G.C. Walker, I.M. Warner,
“Changing the Culture of Science Education at Research Universities,” Science, v. 331, January 14, 2011, pp. 152-153.
14 Ibid., Marsh, Herbert W. and John Hattie, “The Relation Between Research Productivity and Teaching Effectiveness:
Complementary, Antagonistic, or Independent Constructs?”
Congressional Research Service
2
Federal Support for Academic Research
simultaneously contributing to teaching excellence? Could there be a requirement for excellence
in teaching for promotion as there is for obtaining outside funds for research? How can research
and teaching be made to be complementary activities? Does the role of federal R&D funding
distort priorities?
As one example, a group of research scientists at Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI)
maintain that
[R]esearch and teaching need not be mutually exclusive but are instead intertwined and can
interact synergistically to increase the effectiveness of both. The distinction between research
and teaching is somewhat artificial; professors teach students how to learn from sources in
the classroom, but also how to create new knowledge in their research laboratories.15
These professors and biomedical research scientists who receive support from HHMI, represent a
range of institutional types,16 and have argued that research and teaching should be viewed as
“equally valuable and mutually reinforcing.”17 These academicians contend that the culture of
universities does not put an equal emphasis on valuing and rewarding effective teaching—while
outstanding research conducted at an institution is recognized both locally and nationally with
salary increases and promotions, it is rare for teaching to be recognized outside the walls of the
institution. The professors and researchers maintain that
The continued vitality of research universities requires that we foster a culture in which
teaching and research are no longer seen as being in competition, but as mutually beneficial
activities that support two equally important research achievements and ability to obtain
successive grants.18
Some in the academic community maintain that the value of higher education is primarily based
on the research being conducted, and to not focus on research would equate to “diluting” or
“diminishing” the value of a degree.19 But that position is countered by those who contend that at
some institutions that focus on research, many of the academic researchers are not actually doing
the bulk of the teaching or instructing the class—their teaching assistants instead perform these
duties. These same individuals advocating for more of a balance between research and teaching
assert that if academia put a higher value on teaching, it would result in a more well-rounded
student.20
15 Ibid., Anderson, W.A., U. Banerjee, C.L. Drennan et al.
16 The researchers represent a diversity of institutions – characterized as ranging from major private institutions to
underfunded state universities.
17 Ibid., p. 152.
18 Ibid.
19 Mangan, Katherine, “In Texas Debate Over Research vs. Teaching, Students Champion Value of Research”, The
Chronicle of Higher Education, April 25, 2011, http://chronicle.com/article/In-Texas-Debate-Over-Research/127260/.
20 See for example Marsh, Herbert W. and John Hattie, “The Relationship Between Research Productivity and
Teaching Effectiveness: Complementary, Antagonistic, or Independent Constructs?,” The Journal of Higher Education,
v. 73, September/October 2002, pp. 603-641.
Congressional Research Service
3
Federal Support for Academic Research
University Research-Industry Partnerships
University research-industry partnerships allow for interaction between the two, sharing both
intellectual capital and access to emerging technologies.21 Collaborations between various
industries and academic institutions have resulted in the pooling of resources. Potential benefits to
industry include more research-intensive activities and increased involvement in high-risk
research activities. Linkages with industries have enabled those institutions with limited research
infrastructure to extend their research capabilities.22
Several National Science Foundation (NSF) programs promote both university-industry relations
and knowledge transfer, including the Engineering Research Centers (ERCs), the Science and
Technology Centers (STCs), and the Industry/University Cooperative Research Centers (I/UCRs).
They provide funding for up to 10 years for research in areas of industrial interest. These centers
are usually multidisciplinary in character. A common requirement of the programs is that both
undergraduates and graduates be involved in research. Reviews of these programs found
sustained, uninterrupted funding was important for conducting high quality research.
Universities are collaborating and competing in a global environment, with U.S. academic
researchers conducting more research with scientists from other countries. An analysis of
internationally co-authored journal articles shows that in 2008, approximately 30% of U.S.
articles were internationally coauthored, up from 20% in 1998. U.S.-based researchers authored
43% of the world’s total international coauthored journal articles in 2008, a slight decline from
the 44% in 1998.23
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) examined the
transformation of university research and its role in national R&D efforts and global economic
competition. The report noted that university research has become internationalized, primarily
due to the “globalization process and progress in electronic communications and related
technologies, which multiply opportunities for co-operation but also intensify the competitive
climate at world level.”24 The OECD report further states that
[I]n many countries, industry-university research partnerships are increasingly attractive. In
short, knowledge transfer is now regarded as an important and legitimate function of
universities, in addition to their more traditional roles of producing knowledge (research) and
transmitting it (teaching and training).25
There has been an increase in the patenting and licensing by the academic sector as a result of
their research. According to the NSF, one factor in this increase was the enactment of the Bayh-
Dole Act, 1980, which allowed institutions to retain title to inventions as a result of federal
21 See for example Hall, Bronwyn H., “University-Industry Research Partnerships and Intellectual Property”, National
Science Foundation Workshop, October 2001, pp. 1-7.
22 For expanded discussion of university-industry partnerships, see for example Taylor, E. Jennings and Cherri M.
Pancake, Co-Chairs, Report from the Engineering Advisory Committee Subcommittee on Industry-University
Partnerships, “Encouraging Industry-University Partnerships,” April 10, 2008, 15 pp.
23 Science and Engineering Indicators 2010, pp. 5-35 to 5-38.
24 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, University Research in Transition, 1998, p. 10.
25 University Research in Transition, p. 71.
Congressional Research Service
4
Federal Support for Academic Research
research support.26 Patenting by academic institutions is highly concentrated among a select
number of colleges and universities. NSF reports that the number of patents received by academic
institutions ranged from 2,950 to 3,700 for the period 1998-2008.27 Two hundred academic
research institutions, less than 10% of the total number of institutions that received patents from
1998-2008, accounted for 96% of all patents awarded to academic institutions. Nineteen
institutions alone received more than half of all patents awarded. NSF reports that patent activity
differed by field of science. Of those patents awarded, approximately half were granted in the
areas of biotechnology, chemicals, and pharmaceuticals.28
The share of scientific papers authored by academic researchers at institutions is another measure
of the concentration and level of research being conducted at that institution. Approximately 42%
of the publication output for the period 2005 to 2009 was concentrated at two dozen universities.
This represents an increase from the 31% for these institutions during the period 1981 to 1985.
Two examples may be illustrative. Harvard University maintained the top spot in both time
periods. Texas A&M University System which had a 0.72% share of scientific publication in the
period 1981 to 1985, had a 1.2% share in the period 2005 to 2009. The following table provides a
listing of institutions and their publication output.
26 See for example CRS Report RL32076, The Bayh-Dole Act: Selected Issues in Patent Policy and the
Commercialization of Technology, by Wendy H. Schacht. NOTE: In 1985, approximately 500 patents were awarded to
U.S. research institutions by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Since the passage of the Bayh-Dole Act, in 2008,
3,280 U.S. patents were awarded to U.S. institutions, and 648 new products were introduced, and 595 new companies
were created as a result of university inventions. Berdahl, Robert M., President, Association of American Universities,
Remarks to American Academy of Arts and Sciences, November 16, 2010, p. 7.
27 Science and Engineering Indicators 2010, p. 5-42.
28 National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators 2010, p. 5-43.
Congressional Research Service
5
Federal Support for Academic Research
Table 1. Scientific Publication Output
Total papers
Share U.S. (%)
Institution
Total papers
Share U.S. (%)
1981-1985 2005-2009
25,630 2.65
Harvard
University
68,146 4.22
13,071
1.35
University of Michigan system
33,084
2.05
10,567 1.09
Johns
Hopkins
University
31,503 1.95
16,941
1.75
University of California, Los Angeles
31,108
1.93
12,841
1.33
University of Washington System
30,320
1.88
13,366 1.38
Stanford
University
28,318 1.75
10,248
1.06
University of California, San Diego
27,265
1.69
15,176
1.57
University of California, Berkeley
27,021
1.67
11,656 1.20
University
of
Pennsylvania
26,579 1.65
10,691 1.10
Columbia
University
26,427 1.64
10,219
1.06
University of Maryland System
25,844
1.60
14,419
1.49
University of Minnesota System
25,497
1.58
13,919
1.44
University of Wisconsin, Madison
24553
1.52
14,222 1.47
Cornel
University
23,483 1.45
10,166 1.05
University
of
Florida
23,226 1.44
7,483 0.77
University
of
Pittsburgh
22,457 1.39
9,490
0.98
University of California, Davis
22,362
1.38
7,880 0.81
Duke
University
21,954 1.36
8,715
0.90
Penn State University System
21,689
1.34
11,150 1.15
Yale
University
21,676 1.34
8,792
0.91
Ohio State University
21,380
1.32
8,889
0.92
University of Colorado System
21,066
1.30
10,027
1.04
University of California, San Francisco
20,691
1.28
11,651
1.20
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
20,609
1.28
6,975
0.72
Texas A&M University System
19,432
1.20
Source: Mervis, Jeffrey, “Handful of U.S. Schools Claim Larger Share of Output,” Science, v. 330, November 19,
2010, p. 1032.
A November 2010 report that examined the changing landscape of the global research base and
the geography of who published in internationally influential journals determined that
[T]he US is no longer the Colossus of Science, dominating the research landscape in its
production of scientific papers, that it was 30 years ago. It now shares this realm, on an
increasingly equal basis, with the [European Union nations, EU27] and Asia-Pacific. In
terms of relative citation impact—an indicator of utility, influence, significance and similar
concepts—the US still holds a commanding but eroding peak position. Europe is beginning
Congressional Research Service
6
Federal Support for Academic Research
to match US performance in citation impact, and analysts are likely to be tempted to predict
that, in a decade or two, Asian nations will do so as well.29
The Changing Institutional Context of Research
Sources and Composition of Research Funds for Universities
Historically, the federal government has been the primary source of funding for basic research at
colleges and universities. In FY2008, the federal government provided approximately 60% of an
estimated $51.9 billion of R&D funds expended by academic institutions.30 In current dollars,
federal support for academic research increased by 2.5% between FY2007 and FY2008. When
inflation is taken into account, federal funding increased 0.2% from FY2007 to FY2008
following two years of decline in constant dollars since FY2005.31
Data from the NSF reveal that federal funding of research and development has focused more on
basic than applied research, while private sector funding support has focused on development.32
NSF found that in FY2008, institutions of higher education performed approximately 56% of the
nation’s basic research.33 See Figure 1.
Figure 1. Basic Research by Performing Sector, FY2008
Business 17.2%
Federal Government 14.7%
Universities and Colleges
56.1%
Other nonprofit organizations
11.9%
Source: Science and Engineering Indicators 2010, p. 4-15.
Note: NSF and the National Institutes of Health funded the majority of basic research.
29 Adams, Jonathan and David Pendlebury, Global Research Report-United States, Thomson Reuters, November 2010,
p. 5.
30 National Science Foundation, “Universities Report $55 Billion in Science and Engineering R&D Spending for
FY2009: Redesigned Survey to Launch in 2010,” InfoBrief, NSF10-329, September 2010, p.1.
31 Science and Engineering Indicators 2010, pp. 5-9 to 5-10.
32 While universities are the primary supporters of basic research, as they enter into partnerships or relationships with
the private sector and business, they have become more involved in applied research and technology.
33 Science and Engineering Indicators 2010, p. 4-13.
Congressional Research Service
7
Federal Support for Academic Research
Many colleges and universities, especially state schools, are experiencing declining revenues, due
to reductions in state support, endowments, and in some instances, tuition.34 According to one
source, it is estimated that approximately 35 states have experienced a decline in revenue for
FY2012, with many states operating in a deficit.35 As a result, state funding for universities has
fallen in many states. Some colleges are considering deferring maintenance projects and
proposing increases in tuition. While states are cutting funding to address revenue declines and
decreases in their operating budgets, these same institutions are simultaneously viewed as
partners in further developing the economy of their respective states.
Federal stimulus spending provided additional revenues for some institutions for the past few
years. Several institutions have reported that they used stimulus monies36 provided under
American Recovery and Reinvestment to improve their operational efficiencies.37 Stimulus
funding, however, is now coming to an end. 38 The end of stimulus funding for many academic
institutions equates to a loss of operating support.
Moody’s Investors Service has portrayed a bleak picture for colleges and universities. In a
January 2011 report it noted that many colleges and universities are far too dependent on state
support, tuition and other income.39 The report notes that
Although the infusion of ARRA funding for research created a temporary increase in
available federal research funding, overall federal research funding has leveled off and
become increasingly competitive to secure. We expect that the largest, nationally prominent
research universities and independent research organizations will be best positioned to
increase grant submission volume and win rate and secure multi-year funding. These
organization’s strong market positions attract top faculty and typically more diversity of
research funding sources. Further, these top-tier research institutions may benefit from
further revenue diversification, as they invest in research commercialization and growth of
technology transfer revenue. We expect that smaller organizations hoping to expand their
research enterprises will be much more challenged in this environment to attract and retain
top researchers and grow their research enterprises.40
34 Kelderman, Eric, “Recession Pushed State and Local Higher-Ed Spending to 25-Year Low in 2010,” The Chronicle
of Higher Education, March 8, 2011, http://chronicle.com/article/Recession-Pushed-State-and/126647, and Padilla, Art,
“States Can Reap Rewards by Supporting Research,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, January 30, 2011,
http://chronicle.com/article/States-Can-Reap-Rewards-by/126076.
35 Kelderman, Eric, “Colleges to Confront Deep Cutbacks,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, January 2, 2011,
http://chronicle.com/article/Higher-Education-Faces-Deep/125782, p.2.
36 The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, 2009 (P.L. 111-5) was an economic stimulus package enacted in
February 2009.
37See for example “Pennsylvania Governor Proposes 50% Budget Cut for State Colleges, The Chronicle of Higher
Education, March 8, 2011, http://chronicle.com/blogs/ticker/pennsylvania-governor-proposes-50-budget-cut-for-state-
colleges/31143, and Kelderman, Eric, “In Colorado, Public Colleges Peer Over a $600-Million Stimulus ‘Cliff’,” The
Chronicle of Higher Education, April 10, 2011, http://chronicle.com/article/Colorado-Public-Colleges-Peer/127049/.
38 Stimulus funding—American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), FY2009 provided funding for the period
FY2009-FY2011. For expanded discussion of the ARRA see for example CRS Report R40537, American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5): Summary and Legislative History, by Clinton T. Brass et al.
39 Moody’s Investors Service, U.S. Public Finance, Industry Outlook, “2011 Outlook for U.S. Higher Education,”
January 14, 2011, 18 pp.
40 Ibid., p. 12. See also Carlson, Scott, “Financial Outlook is Brighter for Some Colleges, but Still Negative for Most,”
The Chronicle of Higher Education, January 16, 2011, http://chronicle.com/article/Financial-Outlook-Is-Brighter/
125973.
Congressional Research Service
8
Federal Support for Academic Research
Federal Financing of Academic Research
Academic research is dependent on federal funding even with the receipt of support from other
sources. Institutions obtain support not only from their own institutions, but from industry and the
private sector (foundations, trustees, alumni), and state and local government. In FY2009, the
federal government accounted for 59.3% of all R&D funding at colleges and universities; this is a
decrease from the 63.9% received in FY2004 and the 63.1% in FY2006. Institutional support
received by colleges and universities was 20.4% in FY2009, compared to 17.9% in FY2004 and
19.0% in FY2006. And industry, which provided 5.8% support for academic research in FY2009,
had provided 4.9% in FY2004 and 5.0% in FY2006. (See Table 2 and Figure 2.)
Table 2. Science and Engineering R&D Expenditures at Universities and Colleges:
FY2004-FY2009
(dollars in millions)
Source of Funds and
% change
Character of Work
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
2008-2009
Al
R&D
expenditures
$43,258 $45,799 $47,751 $49,493 $51,934 $54,935
5.8
Source of funds
Federal Government
27,644
29,209
30,128
30,443
31,281
32,588
4.2
State and Local Government
2,879
2,940
2,962
3,143
3,452
3,647
5.7
Industry
2,129
2,291
2,402
2,670
2,865
3,197
11.6
Institutional Funds
7,753
8,266
9,062
9,705
10,408
11,198
7.6
Other
2,852
3,093
3,196
3,533
3,928
4,305
9.6
Source: National Science Foundation, “Universities Report $55 Billion in Science and Engineering R&D Spending
for FY2009: Redesigned Survey to Launch in 2010,” InfoBrief, NSF 10-329, September 2010, Arlington, VA, p. 1.
Congressional Research Service
9
Federal Support for Academic Research
Figure 2. Science and Engineering R&D at Colleges and Universities,
by Source of Funding, FY1956-FY2008
9.14
8.05
6.51
6.14
7.11
7.64
6.65
7.11
6.94
7.49
7.02
7.50
6.59
7.62
8.08
10.14
9.91
11.60
11.96
13.77
11.56
3.14
16.37
17.50
17.92
2.56
18.85
18.10
19.69
20.10
6.19
2.81
3.30
10.35
8.00
3.89
7.80
10.23
5.51
9.76
4.92
8.10
6.48
Other
13.16
6.80
6.97
7.17
5.53
8.00
6.66
14.25
8.22
7.92
7.86
6.58
7.31
Institutional
Funds
Industry
State & Local
Government
71.92
73.15
68.25
67.36
67.59
62.69
63.00
63.90
Federal
60.86
60.16
57.62
58.95
60.06
58.33
Government
1956
1960
1964
1968
1972
1976
1980
1984
1988
1992
1996
2000
2004
2008
Source: Berdahl, Robert M. , President, Association of American Universities, “Renewing the Partnership,” A
presentation to the National Academy’s Board on Higher Education and Work Force, November 16, 2009, p. 11.
Distribution of Funding for Academic Research
and Development
Research and Development Support to the Top 100 Institutions
Congress has expressed concern about the funding patterns of federal academic support to
academic institutions. This extends beyond examining support for public or private or the top
research institutions to include support at a more disaggregated level—including minority-serving
institutions—Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), Hispanic-Serving
Institutions, and tribal colleges and universities. Minority-serving institutions, which compete
with other institutions to improve their research infrastructure, are seeking a broader distribution
and greater allocation of federal funding. In addition to minority-serving institutions, those states
that historically have received limited federal R&D funds are seeking ways to strengthen and
improve the quality of research conducted at their colleges and universities through the
Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) program. This section
provides an overview of funding by top institutions, HBCUs, other minority-serving institutions,
and the EPSCoR program.
The top 100 academic institutions (in terms of receipt of federal R&D funds) accounted for
82.6% of total federal R&D support for science and engineering to colleges and universities in
Congressional Research Service
10
Federal Support for Academic Research
FY2007.41 There has been no measurable change in the concentration of federal R&D support to
these top 100 institutions in the past decade. The majority of the institutions in the top positions in
FY1997 remained in the top 100 recipients for FY2007, but in different ordinal positions. In
FY1997, the top 100 institutions garnered 82.5% of federal support.42 Johns Hopkins University
had the ranking of number one in both FY1997 and FY2007. The University of Pittsburgh ranked
number 10 in FY2007 after ranking number 17 in FY1997.43 The University of Michigan ranked
number 3 in FY2007 following a ranking of number 6 in FY1997. And the University of South
Florida enjoyed the ranking of 70 in FY2007 after having ranked 95 in FY1997. The University
of Oklahoma and Iowa State University, in positions 98 and 99 respectively in FY2007, did not
appear in the top 100 listing of institutions in FY1997. (See Appendix A and Appendix B for
federal support to the top 100 institutions for FY2007 and FY1997, respectively.
Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Other
Minority-Serving Institutions
HBCUs44 and other minority-serving institutions45 have faced and continue to face substantial
challenges in attempting to enhance their academic and research capabilities and develop
programs to compete with other institutions of higher education. Some of these minority
institutions have a myriad of problems—aging infrastructures, limited access to computer
resources and digital network technology, absence of state of the art equipment, small
endowments, and limited funds for faculty development and new academic programs for students.
There has been considerable variability in institutional ranking among HBCUs and other
minority-serving institutions over the years. For these institutions, HBCUs and other minority-
serving institutions, the funding level is provided for all levels of science and engineering
obligations.46 See Table 3.
41 National Science Foundation, Federal Science and Engineering Support to Universities, Colleges, and Nonprofit
Institutions: FY2007, Detailed Statistical Tables, NSF09-315, September 2009, Arlington, VA, Table 7. Note: For a
narrowed view discussing the top 10 research performing institutions, please see National Science Foundation,
42 National Science Foundation, Federal Science and Engineering Support to Universities, Colleges, and Nonprofit
Institutions: FY2000, Detailed Statistical Tables, NSF02-319, April 2002, Arlington, VA, Table B-6.
43 Ibid., Table B-6.
44 For expanded discussion of HBCUs see for example CRS Report RL34435, Federal Research and Development
Funding at Historically Black Colleges and Universities, by Christine M. Matthews.
45 These minority-serving institutions include Hispanic-serving institutions and tribal colleges and universities (TCU),
and those institutions that have a minority enrollment of at least 50% of the total student body.
46 There are six funding categories of federal science and engineering support: R&D; R&D plant; facilities and
equipment for science and engineering instruction; fellowships, traineeships, and training grants; general support for
science and engineering; and other science and engineering activities.
Congressional Research Service
11
Federal Support for Academic Research
Table 3. HBCUs and Other Minority-Serving Institutions—
Federal Support for Science and Engineering, FY2001-FY2007
(dollars in thousands)
All Colleges and
Hispanic-Serving
Universities
HBCUsa
Institutionsb
Tribal Collegesc
FY2001
$22,491,561 $404,252 $509,234
$30,389
FY2005
28,381,213 479,205 590,098
36,125
FY2006
28,634,346 444,193 603,308
28,744
FY2007
28,519,932 406,116 593,733
24,959
Source: National Science Foundation, “Federal S&E Obligations to Three Types of Minority-Serving Institutions
Decline in FY2007,” InfoBrief, NSF09-319, September 2009, Arlington, VA, p. 2; and National Science
Foundation, “FY2005 Federal S&E Obligations Reach Over 2,400 Academic and Non-Profit Institutions; Data
Presented on Minority-Serving Institutions,” NSF-07-326 (revised) October 2007, Arlington, VA, 8 pp.
a. HBCUs are those degree-granting institutions established prior to 1964 and have as their principal mission
the education of black students.
b. High-Hispanic enrollment institutions are those whose full-time equivalent enrollment of undergraduate
students is at least 25% Hispanic, according to fall 2006 enrollment data self-reported by institutions in the
Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System, ED. It should be noted that the exact number of high-
Hispanic enrollment institutions can differ from year to year.
c. Tribal colleges and universities are those from the White House Initiative on Tribal Colleges and
Universities. Tribal college and universities are designated in section 2 of the Tribally Controlled College
University Assistance Act of 1978. See for example http://www.2.ed.gov/about/inits/list/whtc/edlite-
telist.html.
Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive
Research (EPSCoR)
EPSCoR is designed to help achieve broader geographical distribution of federal R&D support by
improving the research infrastructure of those states that historically have received limited federal
R&D funds.47 It is a joint program of NSF and selected states and territories. EPSCoR’s goal is to
build competitive science by developing science and technology (S&T) resources through
partnerships involving state universities, industry, government, and the federal R&D enterprise.
The program is a partnership between the NSF and a state to improve the R&D competitiveness
through the state’s academic S&T infrastructure. The mission of EPSCoR is to raise the capability
of a research institution or to assist in making a less-competitive institution more research
intensive.48 Eventually, EPSCoR supporters hope those states receiving limited federal support
would gain some level of equity in competing for federal and private sector funds through the
regular grant system. Currently, EPSCoR operates in 29 jurisdictions, including 27 states,49 the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
47 For an expanded discussion of EPSCoR see for example CRS Report RL30930, U.S. National Science Foundation:
Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR), by Christine M. Matthews.
48 Approximately 30% of minority-serving colleges institutions are in EPSCoR jurisdictions. This includes 50% of
historically black colleges and universities, 60% of tribal colleges and universities, and 30% of Hispanic serving
institutions.
49 The participating states are: Arkansas, Maine, Montana, South Carolina, West Virginia, Alabama, Nevada,
Oklahoma, Vermont, Kentucky, North Dakota, Wyoming, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Dakota, Kansas,
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
12
Federal Support for Academic Research
The National Academies’ Committee on
Research Universities
As previously stated, U.S. colleges and universities are experiencing a decline in their financial
support at the federal, state, and private sector levels. All of this is occurring in a climate when
the operating costs are increasing and, in many cases, student tuition and fees are increasing. At
the request of Congress,50 the National Academies, Board on Higher Education and Workforce
Committee, has been tasked with examining the state of the U.S. research institutions and
reporting on how to maintain the health of these institutions. The panel that will examine the
institutions will explore a myriad of topics, such as commercialization of research with industry,
time to degree, and the employment of additional technology. Congress has asked the Academies
to offer 10 actions that could be undertaken by institutions, state governments, and Congress itself
to enable colleges and universities to “compete, prosper, and achieve national goals in health,
energy, the environment, and global security.”51 The questions before the Board include What are
the ways to sustain the strength of research universities? What needs to be done, or done
differently to make certain that universities have the regulatory framework and resources to fulfill
their missions? The charge to the Board includes review and analysis of
• Research and doctoral programs carried out by research universities and
associated medical centers;
• Basic and applied research in research universities, along with collaborative
research programs with other components of the research enterprise (e.g.,
national and federal laboratories, federally funded research and development
centers, and corporate research laboratories);
• Doctoral education and, to the extent necessary, the pathways to graduate
education and research careers; and
• Fields of study and research that are critical to helping the United States compete,
prosper, and achieve national goals for health, energy, the environment, and
security, with a focus on science, engineering, and medicine.52
It is anticipated that the report from the Board will be completed in summer 2011.
Policy Considerations
Colleges and universities are recognized by most as essential to the knowledge-based economy.
As previously stated, some research indicates that approximately 80% of leading industries result
(...continued)
Nebraska, Alaska, Hawaii, New Mexico, Delaware, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Iowa, and Utah.
50 The requesting Members were Senator Lamar Alexander, Senator Barbara Mikulski, Representative Bart Gordon,
and Representative Ralph Hall.
51 Mervis, Jeffrey, “Panel Explores What It’ll Take to Keep Universities Strong,” Science, v. 329, July 9, 2010, p. 126.
52 The National Academies, Board on Higher Education and the Workforce, “Research Universities,” Project
Information, May 3, 2010, http://www8.nationalacademies.org/cp/projectview.aspx?key=49219.
Congressional Research Service
13
Federal Support for Academic Research
from research conducted at academic institutions.53 While most in higher education call for
increased support for research at the federal level, there are those in the academic community
who contend that academia does not necessarily need increased funding, instead declaring that
there are benefits in having researchers in institutions compete for limited funding.54 Those who
hold such a position suggest that what is actually needed is “fewer but better” research
institutions.55
President Obama has placed a priority on academic research in the FY2012 budget request,
proposing increases for those agencies that are the leading funding sources for academic
research.56 The President stated that “[T]he nations’ current economic troubles only reinforce the
need to emphasize research so Americans can out-innovate, out-educate, and out-build the rest of
the world.”57 President Obama’s Plan for Science and Innovation contained a proposal to double
the budget of three federal agencies—the NSF, the Department of Energy’s Office of Science, and
the National Institute of Standards and Technology.58 This position counters that of the chairman
of the House Budget Committee who maintains funding for scientific research should “join
austerity measures and undertake severe cuts.”59
Many collaborative research projects or research efforts on college campuses may be delayed or
cancelled if federal funding is reduced in response to the nation’s current deficit.60 Will some
universities have to have a concentrated research program in a particular set of disciplines and
eliminate others because of budget constraints? Are there, as some in academia have advocated,
benefits to forcing academic researchers to compete for fewer dollars?61 Would the nation be
better served to have fewer but better research universities? Can colleges and universities make
do with less funding? Can a national strategy be developed to ensure the strength of the nation’s
research universities?
Additional questions are being asked that are specific to minority-serving institutions—HBCUs,
Hispanic-serving institutions, and tribal colleges. Will minority-serving institutions have to
leverage their funding through partnerships and collaborative approaches with nonminority
53 Atkinson, Richard C. and Patricia A. Pelfrey, “Science and the Entrepreneurial University,” Issues in Science and
Technology, Summer 2010, p. 1, http://www.issues.org/26.4/atkinson.html.
54 Basken, Paul, “As Universities Fend Off Budget Cuts, Some Researchers See Possible Benefits,” The Chronicle of
Higher Education, April 3, 2011, http://chronicle.com/article/As-Univerisites-Fend-Off/127000/, and Sarewitz, Daniel,
“Double Trouble? To Throw Cash At Science Is a Mistake,” Nature, v. 468, November 11, 2010, p. 135.
55 Ibid, Basken, p. 3.
56 See for example Basken, Paul, “Obama Holds Out Research as Rare Exception From Budget Cuts,” The Chronicle of
Higher Education, February 14, 2011, http://chronicle.com/article/Obama-Holds-Out-Research-as/126361, and Basken,
Paul, “Obama’s Budget, Though Generous, Still Signals Austerity for Colleges,” The Chronicle of Higher Education,
February 20, 2011, http://chronicle.com/article/Obamas-Budget-Though/126439.
57 The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, Remarks by the President in State of Union Address, January 25,
2011, p. 2.
58 http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/doubling%2011%20final.pdf.
59 Editorial, “Budgeting for the Long Run,” Nature Materials, v. 10, June 2011, p. 407. See also House Committee on
the Budget, The Path to Prosperity-Restoring America’s Promise, Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Resolution, pp. 28-31 and
Sarewitz, Daniel, “Science Agencies Must Bite Innovation Bullet,” Nature, v, 471, March 10, 2011, p. 137.
60 See for example Chang, Kenneth, “Money for Scientific Research May Be Scarce with a Republican-Led House,”
The New York Times, November 4, 2010, p. B5. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/04/business/04research.html, and
Mervis, Jeffrey, “How Science Eluded the Budget Ax-For Now,” Science, v. 332, April 22, 201, pp. 407-408.
61 Basken, Paul, “As Universities Fend Off Budget Cuts, Some Researchers See Possible Benefits,” The Chronicle of
Higher Education, April 3, 2011, http://chronicle.com/article/As-Univerisites-Fend-Off/127000/.
Congressional Research Service
14
Federal Support for Academic Research
institutions in order to survive due to fiscal constraints? Will there be more proposals for
institutional mergers—combining minority institutions with non-minority institutions—because
of the existing funding patterns for minority institutions?62 How best can minority-serving
institutions produce more competitive proposals with the regulatory requirements in order to
obtain funding for academic research? While many in academia contend that minority-serving
institutions are undersourced, will they be able to continue to contribute to the community
development efforts and research demands of their respective states?63
These are some of the questions being asked by many inside and outside of academia. A primary
question before the 112th Congress is that with further budget reductions expected, how does the
nation best reduce the deficit, balance the budget, strengthen the economy, and create jobs, while
maintaining a strong national science and technology enterprise that promotes economic growth
and job creation?
62 See, for example, Stewart, Pearl, “HBCU Merger Proposals Persist Despite Fervent Opposition,” Diverse Education,
March 11, 2011, http://diverseeducation.com/cache/print.php?articleId=14884; Desmond Harris, Jenee, “Another
HBCU Down the Drain?” The Root, May 5, 2011, http://www.theroot.com/print/52162; and Minor, James T., Southern
Education Foundation, “Merger Debates Waste Time,” Inside Higher Education, http://www.insidehighered.com/
views/2011/05/24/essay_arguing_that_black_colleges_are_best_helped_by_moving_beyond_merger_debates.
63 Coleman, Toni and Joan Matthews, “Black Colleges Step Up Pursuit of Sponsored Research,” Diverse Education,
http://diverseeducation.com/cache/print.php?articleId=14582.
Congressional Research Service
15
Federal Support for Academic Research
Appendix A. Federal Obligations for Science and
Engineering R&D to the 100 Universities and
Colleges Receiving the Largest Amounts, Ranked by
the Total Amount Received in FY2007
(dollars in thousands)
Rank Institution
All
agencies
Al
institutions
$25,335,978
1 Johns
Hopkins
University
1,186,768
2
University of Washington
612,498
3
University of Michigan
501,837
4 University
of
Pennsylvania
498,549
5
University of California, Los Angeles
480,679
6 Duke
University
470,842
7
University of California, San Diego
433,801
8
University of California, San Francisco
433,388
9 Harvard
University
429,693
10
University of Pittsburgh al campuses
426,764
11
Columbia University, City of New York
426,399
12 Stanford
University
425,931
13
Washington University, St Louis
407,809
14 Yale
University
387,298
15
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
381,753
16
University of Minnesota
371,293
17
University of Wisconsin, Madison
369,310
18
Pennsylvania State University
355,300
19
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
353,478
20 Vanderbilt
University
331,244
21 University
of
Colorado
330,323
22 Cornel
University
326,385
23
Case Western Reserve University
278,897
24
University of Southern California
262,180
25 University
of
Rochester
255,201
26 Northwestern
University
254,969
27 University
of
Chicago
248,571
28 Emory
University
247,941
29
University of California, Davis
243,149
Congressional Research Service
16
Federal Support for Academic Research
Rank Institution
All
agencies
30
University of Alabama, Birmingham
235,077
31
Baylor College of Medicine
227,876
32
University of California, Irvine
219,585
33
Ohio State University
217,570
34
University of California, Berkeley
214,549
35 University
of
Arizona
212,504
36
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
210,499
37 Boston
University
208,680
38 University
of
Iowa
208,394
39
Scripps Research Institute
199,031
40 University
of
Virginia
198,978
41
University of Texas, Southwestern Medical Center, Dal as
191,047
42
Oregon Health and Science University
189,660
43
Mt Sinai School of Medicine
187,319
44 University
of
Florida
183,795
45 New
York
University
178,245
46
Georgia Institute of Technology
174,486
47
University of Illinois, Chicago
172,492
48
University of Texas, Anderson Cancer Center
168,188
49 Indiana
University
166,980
50 University
of
Utah
164,684
51
California Institute of Technology
155,763
52
University of Maryland, Baltimore
154,340
53
University of Texas, Austin
153,631
54
University of Miami
141,255
55
University of Maryland, College Park
137,420
56 Michigan
State
University
135,080
57
Rutgers State University
131,147
58 Yeshiva
University
128,547
59
Purdue University, al campuses
125,622
60
University of Massachusetts, Worcester
121,898
61
University of Kentucky
119,892
62 University
of
Cincinnati
117,316
63 Carnegie
Mel on
University
114,737
64 Wake
Forest
University
113,251
65
University of New Mexico
110,620
66 Princeton
University
108,522
Congressional Research Service
17
Federal Support for Academic Research
Rank Institution
All
agencies
67
University of Kansas, al campuses
107,621
68
University of Connecticut, al campuses
102,501
69
University of Texas, Health Science Center, San Antonio
102,042
70
University of South Florida
101,953
71
University of Texas, Medical Branch
100,440
72 Dartmouth
College
99,116
73
University of Texas, Health Science Center, Houston
98,144
74
University of California, Santa Barbara
97,962
75 Colorado
State
University
97,690
76
Medical College of Wisconsin
96,972
77
University of Hawaii, Manoa
93,157
78 Georgetown
University
93,127
79 Brown
University
92,839
80
Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University
91,626
81
Arizona State University
91,094
82
Wayne State University
90,738
83
Medical University, South Carolina
89,358
84
Louisiana State University, al campuses
89,300
85
State University of New York, Stony Brook
89,070
86 Utah
State
University
84,997
87
North Carolina State University
83,400
88
University of Missouri, Columbia
81,760
89 Florida
State
University
79,677
90 Tufts
University
79,336
91 University
of
Georgia
78,866
92 George
Washington
University
77,659
93 Virginia
Commonwealth
University
77,446
94 University
of
Vermont
77,296
95
Oregon State University
75,229
96
University of Massachusetts, Amherst
75,039
97
University of Hawaii, system office
74,914
98
University of Oklahoma, al campuses
74,845
99
Iowa State University
74,088
100 Rockefel er
University
73,667
Al other institutions
4,412,079
Source: National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics, Survey of Federal Science and
Engineering Support to Universities, Colleges, and Nonprofit Institutions, FY2007, Table 7.
Congressional Research Service
18
Federal Support for Academic Research
Appendix B. Federal Obligations for Science and
Engineering R&D to the 100 Universities and
Colleges Receiving the Largest Amounts, Ranked by
the Total Amount Received in FY1997
(dollars in thousands)
Institution and Ranking
1997
Total, al institutions
$13,019,428
1 Johns Hopkins University
587,484
2 University of Washington
314,938
3 University of California, Los Angeles
216,958
4 Stanford University
315,686
5 University of Pennsylvania
242,011
6 University of Michigan
270,858
7 University of California, San Diego
246,181
8 Harvard University
215,939
9 University of California, San Francisco
222,045
10 Washington University, St. Louis
194,615
Total 1st 10 institutions
2,826,715
11 University of Minnesota
225,460
12 Columbia University City New York
209,604
13 University of Colorado
203,721
14 University of Wisconsin, Madison
195,287
15 Yale University
205,272
16 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
228,287
17 University of Pittsburgh, al campuses
176,721
18 Cornel University
204,466
19 University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
165,365
20 Duke University
186,892
Total 1st 20 institutions
4,827,790
21 Pennsylvania State University
176,872
22 University of Southern California
156,099
23 University of California, Berkeley
150,140
24 University of Alabama, Birmingham
151,204
25 Case Western Reserve University
143,194
26 Baylor College of Medicine
94,634
27 University of Arizona
117,055
Congressional Research Service
19
Federal Support for Academic Research
Institution and Ranking
1997
28 University of California, Davis
105,924
29 University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
125,787
30 University of Rochester
119,407
Total 1st 30 institutions
6,168,106
31 Northwestern University
108,238
32 Emory University
92,272
33 University of Chicago
119,411
34 California Institute of Technology
107,597
35 Scripps Research Institute
103,387
36 Ohio State University
107,261
37 Boston University
97,015
38 Vanderbilt University
106,732
39 University of Iowa
100,489
40 University of Texas, Austin
94,607
Total 1st 40 institutions
7,205,115
41 University of Florida
89,709
42 Indiana University
99,164
43 New York University
95,235
44 University of Utah
93,190
45 University of Virginia
90,292
46 University of Maryland, Col ege Park
90,461
47 University of Texas, Southwestern Medical Center, Dal as
92,547
48 Mt Sinai School of Medicine
68,789
49 University of Miami
82,435
50 Oregon Health Sciences University
67,210
Total 1st 50 institutions
8,074,147
51 Yeshiva University
80,171
52 University of Illinois, Chicago
58,852
53 University of California, Irvine
67,327
54 Michigan State University
67,060
55 Rutgers State University
72,763
56 University of Maryland, Baltimore
68,574
57 University of Texas, Anderson Cancer Center
59,250
58 University of Medicine & Dentistry of New Jersey
57,085
59 Princeton University
71,162
60 Carnegie Mel on University
98,277
Total 1st 60 institutions
8,774,668
Congressional Research Service
20
Federal Support for Academic Research
Institution and Ranking
1997
61 University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
16,361
62 University of New Mexico
46,507
63 Georgetown University
59,782
64 Purdue University, al campuses
79,279
65 University of Kentucky
61,450
66 Louisiana State University, al campuses
66,507
67 State University of New York, Stony Brook
75,920
68 University of Texas, Health Science Center, Houston
66,250
69 University of Cincinnati
52,942
70 University of Massachusetts, Worcester
49,424
Total 1st 70 institutions
9,349,090
71 Wake Forest University
52,927
72 Wayne State University
61,571
73 University of California, Santa Barbara
60,257
74 University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio
43,333
75 University of Hawaii, Manoa
55,043
76 Thomas Jefferson University
50,263
77 Medical College of Wisconsin
37,341
78 Oregon State University
58,050
79 University of Connecticut
48,255
80 University of Missouri, Columbia
38,486
Total 1st 80 institutions
9,854,616
81 Dartmouth Col ege
45,771
82 University of Georgia
39,237
83 Colorado State University
57,472
84 North Carolina State University
55,216
85 Texas A&M University
59,691
86 University of Texas Medical Branch Galveston
46,227
87 University of Kansas
42,817
88 Virginia Commonwealth University
41,296
89 Brown University
44,119
90 Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
55,476
Total 1st 90 institutions
10,341,938
91 Rockefel er University
43,820
92 University of Vermont
33,417
93 Georgia Institute of Technology
61,004
94 Medical University, South Carolina
39,060
Congressional Research Service
21
Federal Support for Academic Research
Institution and Ranking
1997
95 University of South Florida
23,796
96 Utah State University
34,676
97 Florida State University
45,808
98 Mississippi State University
25,997
99 Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University
53,227
100 Tufts University
43,300
Total 1st 100 institutions
10,746,043
Source: National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics, Survey of Federal Science and
Engineering Support to Universities, Col eges, and Nonprofit Institutions, Fiscal Year 2000, Table B-6.
Author Contact Information
Christine M. Matthews
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
cmatthews@crs.loc.gov, 7-7055
Congressional Research Service
22