Science in the Twilight Zone; Or, Are Science Libraries Related to Science?

Abstract

In late 1997, House Speaker Newt Gingrich acknowledged that science and technology, "is now so inundated with its own technical knowledge, that it's almost impossible for it to become coherent." [Online] [October 23, 1997] He requested a "vision statement." I responded with an articulation that is embellished and expanded in the first part of this article. Two letters to Congress follow, expanding on goals and strategies, including an annotated list of references and a graphic analysis of the relationship of science and research libraries.

Part I

To approach this vision - to accomplish these goals - research findings must be gathered, evaluated, synthesized into knowledge, then organized and propagated via libraries, publication, instruction, and informal communications. These are processes that depend heavily on human thought and interaction.

I see the library as a decisive factor in an economic system that uses knowledge to generate knowledge. The path from research notes to useful knowledge hinges on whether libraries, librarians, publishers, authors, editors, and other information disseminators are valued as members of the science and technology team. Why are libraries important? They are the conservators and disseminators of the research archive. They serve the future as well as the present. They actively collect and classify knowledge. They invite the discovery of discoveries and support the preparation and review of new research. Librarians guide researchers and answer questions as well as supply specified documents. Libraries also provide an economic core marketplace for publishers and innovators of information technology.

Libraries are incredibly economical, acquiring and supplying the results of research far below its cost of production. The aggregate cost of 750 major academic libraries in the U.S. nears the annual R&D expenditure of a single company like Hewlett-Packard or Microsoft. Through their libraries U.S. universities, which on average contribute less than 0.25 per cent of world research, can obtain the results of it all - organized by topic, certified by peer review, and extensively indexed - at a minimal expense. Libraries are the major importers of foreign research. They are the source of millions of photocopies. They also provide a unique, unofficial national resource located strategically across the country, serving industrial, government, and academic researchers at little or no charge.

The doctoral institutions that manage eight per cent of all academic libraries have a near monopoly on basic research in the United States. They consume most research grants and are associated with most academically authored publications in the United States (Science & Engineering Indicators 1996). They control 50% of library spending in the U.S., according to the National Center for Education Statistics [NCES] (Status of Academic Libraries 1997). The size and quality of their libraries is an essential factor in attracting distinguished faculty, researchers, travelers, students, and ultimately the sponsors of research.

One of the fundamental tenets of Vannevar Bush's architecture for postwar science policy was that such universities, "... are charged with the responsibility of conserving the knowledge accumulated by the past, imparting that knowledge to students, and contributing new knowledge of all kinds" (Bush 1945). He emphasized, "If the colleges, universities, and research institutes are to meet the rapidly increasing demands of industry and Government for new scientific knowledge, their basic research should be strengthened by use of public funds." (ibid.)

"What is the dogma that the university is built on? Knowledge is important. Just that," according to the late sociologist Robert A. Nisbet (Nisbet 1971).

Yet for all this - pivotal economic role, concentration of resources, public service, public responsibility, vow of Federal financial support, and doctrine - libraries have been crippled by many universities. On average, they have shared smaller allocations of university spending every year since 1968 (Fry and White 1975; Talbot 1984; Status of Academic Libraries 1997). They have far less support than they need to keep up with and disseminate the exponential growth of peer-reviewed, published research. [See fig. 1 in Part 3 below] Unless they continually narrow their scope of competency, these universities must fall further and further behind the published record of research. Many of their libraries are now considered second-rate by their own researchers and faculty. (For example, Professor James Shapiro writes about Columbia in "University libraries: the 7-per-cent solution" Chronicle of Higher Education, XLIV(16), Dec. 12, 1997:B4-5). Their desolation has profoundly affected research. An analysis of citations suggests, for instance, that U.S. authors are uniquely insulated from knowledge of foreign science. (Science and Engineering Indicators 1996. Appendix table 5-41). The U.S. contribution to the world literature also fell from 38% in 1973 to 33.6% in 1993 (ibid. 1987 Appendix table 5-26; 1996. Appendix table 5-32). At some point I feel some of these universities must lose preeminence and eventually be discredited as doctoral research institutions.

Once embraced by a science bureaucracy that had been shamed by Soviet achievements in space, libraries and the study of science communications are now excluded and neglected. The National Science Foundation absorbed its Division of Science Information and canceled Statistical Indicators of Scientific & Technical Communication which had started to provide data on the decline of dissemination, data important for assessing a key resource for R&D. (1976-77. See NTIS PB-278279) Libraries are impoverished and undermanned. Their collections are so inadequate that "standards" - which should epitomize ethics and integrity - must be lowered to accommodate Babbittry. ACRL's 1989 revision of its standards for university libraries, for instance, eliminated assertions that weak collections can hamper research.

The stunted growth of libraries forced publishers to reduce dissemination [i.e. cut printings, raise prices, and narrow coverage] beginning in the late 1960s when larger printings and increased editorial coverage were more desirable. Library impoverishment also discourages publishers from investing in technology that would speed communications.

Universities effectively eschew excellent information resources, forcing greater government investments in labor, materials, and overhead to realize each advance. This obstructs library-based studies that might concentrate on assessing local research in the context of world science. Ill-informed duplicative and erroneous research extends the volume and dilutes the productivity of science like crushed bone and fecal matter in fast food. I am reminded of cost overruns due to "mistakes" in construction. I am reminded of Detroit's postwar strategy of planned obsolescence, which designs defects into cars and trucks in order to encourage their early replacement. In short, I believe that our vision for science information is blocked intentionally.

Recognition of libraries and the library crisis is also taboo outside the library literature, in spite of the decades of intense discussions that accompany journal cancellation projects. One can look in vain for any mention of libraries in publications like Technology, R&D, and the Economy (Smith and Barfield 1996). Allocating Federal Funds for Science and Technology, produced by an 18-member Committee on Criteria for Federal Support of Research and Development ignored libraries (National Research Council 1995). The biennial Science & Engineering Indicators ignores libraries completely. The last major report of the Bush administration's President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, Renewing the Promise: Research-Intensive Universities and the Nation, makes no mention of libraries (President's Council 1992). Nor does President Clinton's policy document, Science in the National Interest (Clinton 1994).

I can think of only one exception to the taboo, the ongoing and unfair attack on publishers' prices (that are pressed upward largely by the growth of research and the cancellation of subscriptions), as if publishers controlled research expansion. An editorial on the subject in Science, by Philip H. Abelson, is one of the most flawed and historically ignorant essays to ever appear in its pages (Abelson 1989). Such cowardly antics also endangered the nonprofit status of the American Chemical Society with claims of inurement against the heavily discounted member subscription rates. (Chemical & Engineering News. 58, 44. Nov. 3, 1980. p. 8).

Economist David J. Brown suggests electronic publishing of research may not survive (Brown 1996). The negative findings of experiments like Red Sage, Tulip, Project Elvyn and others demonstrated the quixotic nature of such schemes under present hostile market conditions. User disinterest, lack of standards, and the unexpected high cost of infrastructure and maintenance repudiate the promises of low cost and ease. So much electronic publishing of research communications is based on the ephemeral largess of grants, rather than the realities of economic markets, that I must agree.

Orwellian double-talk suggests science policy is adventuring in the twilight zone, not the information age. The National Science Foundation is marketing part of its program in computer science as "knowledge and distributed intelligence." Even high school students know that computers process data, not "knowledge" or "intelligence," with artificial logic. I would take this program seriously if it were rooted in the work of Machlup, Merton, Garfield, Price, Fry, White, Garvey, Griffith, and King, among others.

Thus it is surprising to read sane and sensible determinations of science policy in Federal law. The U.S. Code indicates, for instance, that the President's Committee on Science and Technology "shall consider needs improvements in existing systems for handling scientific and technical information ... including consideration of the appropriate role to be played by the private sector ... ; for improved methods for effecting technology innovation, transfer and use; ways of strengthening the Nations academic institutions' capabilities for research and education ..." (42 U.S.C. 6633 (2) (4) (8)) The law also says that its members, "shall be qualified and distinguished in one or more of the following areas: ... information dissemination." (42 U.S.C. 6631 (b) (1))

Unfortunately, the twilight zone overrides the law. Presidents Bush, Clinton, and their predecessors replaced this organization with a less defined but equally potent President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology. (Most recently Executive Order 12882. Nov. 23, 1993) Its members include not one recognizable expert in information dissemination, although the committee has been chaired by an expert in [and probably a powerful advocate for] information technology, John A. Young of Hewlett-Packard. Regrettably, electronic hardware and software, while unquestionably useful, has little in common with "knowledge." The lesson here seems to be that, where science policy and special interest lobbies are concerned, the power of Congress is easily rendered moot. [More about the National Science and Technology Policy, Organization and Priorities Act in 1976 below in Part 3]

The law on science policy can also be puzzling. For instance, "the responsibility for fostering any policies to facilitate the transfer and utilization of research and development results is delegated to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget." (Executive Order 12039 Feb. 24, 1978) Thus, the sole mention of libraries within science policy documents of recent decades appears miraculously in the often revised, scandal-ridden regulations covering indirect costs, the overhead charged by universities for handling Federal research projects (Office of Management & Budget Circular A-21. 1979-1995). There one finds an arcane formula called "library expenses." It reimburses about ten percent of the top research universities' library expenditures - an average of 2 points of overhead - unencumbered by the rules of accountability that apply to "facilities."

Take a moment to understand the allocation of money under OMB A-21. Two points of overhead will yield about $200 million justified as "library expenses," based on direct research expenditures of $10 billion. $200 million is a mere 1.3 per cent of next year's $15 billion Federal spending on academic research, including overhead. As a percentage, it is a nearly insignificant burden on nearly $80 billion Federal spending on science. Federal projects account for 60 per cent of sponsored research at major universities. Something, to my mind, is out of balance.

If the episode of Stanford and several other universities in the late 1980s is any indication, OMB A-21 means little of practical value to librarians. The sudden devaluation of the U.S. dollar forced libraries to cancel many science journals (and other purchases) while universities posted non-research spending inappropriately to indirect costs. The Resources and Technical Services Division of the American Library Association issued a resolution on the impact of dollar devaluation with little effect (June 29, 1987). Universities and Federal auditors snubbed the RTSD resolution rather than shift the money to science libraries that needed to restore subscriptions. They sent the money back to the Treasury. [Twilight zone music]

As far as I can tell, the performance of OMB in fostering policies to facilitate dissemination has never been evaluated. I believe it should be assessed on the basis of the adequacy of libraries and library collections, the encouragement of investment by publishers, and the reduction of duplicative and erroneous research.

Like most evils, the dilapidation of academic libraries is clearly rooted in money. A clue to special interests that foster neglect may be found in an unsigned article titled "Publish and perish" (Policy Perspectives 1998). It was based on a national meeting of university presidents, academic officers, publishers, and librarians including representatives of the Association of Research Libraries and Association of American Universities. It confesses to the flight from excellence with shocking candor: "For two decades the leaders of America's universities and colleges have sought relief from the growing costs of providing access to an ever-expanding volume of scholarly output."

"Relief!?" Yes. The evidence speaks for itself; the time frame should be acknowledged as three decades, not two. [See fig. 1 below] Contrast this disclosure with the notions of Vannevar Bush and Robert A. Nisbet quoted above.

Libraries have been pushed aside by universities seeking, by their own admission, relief from the cost of knowledge. Universities have cannibalized library resources to build massive electronic conduits at the expense of content - content that is still best communicated on paper or person to person (Crawford and Gorman 1995). It is no wonder that photocopying activity has skyrocketed and that foreign sources have assumed leadership in technical document delivery.

More alarming than the official abandonment of excellence in libraries by science agencies and universities has been the stonewalling of the organizations chartered to represent the interests of researchers through promotion of knowledge of various disciplines. They have not met their responsibility for 30 years. Perhaps they are embarrassed to start now. Several of them indicated to me that they are not interested in Federal support of university libraries. For example, Marc H. Brodsky, executive director of American Institute of Physics, neatly sidestepped my direct challenge to policy offices of physical science associations to use their considerable influence to put libraries on the science policy agenda (Henderson 1998).

I wonder about the wisdom and consequences, in terms of mediocrity and the declining cost-effectiveness of research and education, of the policy of neglect. If neglect were a result of open debate, we could call it a choice of consensus. As matters stand, we can not.

I aim to open discussion and debate. I propose as a primary goal to restore the growth of major libraries as an active, integral part of world research. Just as the robust growth of research has encouraged investments in instrumentation, an equal expansion of libraries will nurture innovation in dissemination. An expansion of library research - the evaluation and synthesis of primary results - will serve our vision well.

I wonder whether the new science policy will adopt a vision of instant access to scientific knowledge that is relevant, reliable, and useful. I wonder if the new majority will demand compliance with the law. I wonder whether Federal science agencies will ever live up to their fundamental obligation to assess and qualify their contractors on basics such as maintaining up-to-date information resources. I wonder if research universities will resume their responsibility to maintain the archive of peer-reviewed research - before they turn into vo-tech schools and teachers colleges? Are science libraries related to science? I think that if science is to perform well, they should be. But then, not everything makes sense in the twilight zone.

Following are two letters that I sent to Congress, slightly edited, that encapsulate further issues and arguments surrounding science libraries as I see them. The first outlines points for reform of Federal support of indirect costs. The second focuses on noncompliance of Office of Science and Technology Policy and National Science Foundation with my understanding of the law, supplemented by a list of annotated references.

Whether you, the reader, agree with my points or not, I urge you to write to the committees that control science policy and appropriate / authorize spending and let them know your feelings about the recognition of libraries. I also hope you will urge your professional associations to take appropriate steps to end the era of the twilight zone.

PART 2

Hon. Vern Ehlers, Vice Chairman
Committee on Science
Washington, DC 20515-6301

Dear Representative Ehlers:

I would like to suggest how to increase the cost-effectiveness of U.S. science by reforming Federal policies on information resources.

Fritz Machlup and other economists have noted that information is the ingredient of research that contributes to productivity. It influences what is done and how. Absence of important communications leads to duplication and errors. Scientists and reviewers must be very well-informed in order to be effective. It is the underwriters of research - the American taxpayers - who suffer most when they fail.

Federal policies have actually impaired communications. University research spending doubled after 1972 (constant dollars) while library spending increased only 35 percent. Page counts and prices of science journals soared while the circulation of journals plummeted. The `library crisis' discouraged coverage by indexes and reviews essential to identify primary research. Government agencies and scientific associations turned their backs rather than `interfere' with academic affairs. No Federal agency assesses the information resources - university libraries - used most for Federal research.

These problems appear to be rooted in the OMB A-21 regulations that base library overhead on total population rather than the usefulness of esoteric information. Library overhead pays about ten percent of the cost of libraries at research universities. This is far short of the Federal use of advanced research materials in these collections. Federal science pays sixty percent of research and one-fourth the total expenditures of research universities. I might add that excellent library resources are vital for education, proposals and reviews that (A) are not paid by a specific grant and (B) precede an award.

I recommend four specific areas of policy reform. First, universities should be held accountable to the intent of Vannevar Bush's architecture: "charged with the responsibility for conserving the knowledge." Second, overhead support for libraries should be generalized to support collections rather than specific grants. Third, The majority of science research is authored outside the U.S. Library overhead must be adjusted to meet changes in exchange rates and foreign prices. Fourth, NSF and other science agencies should assess the information resources used by their scientists.

Sincerely,

Albert Henderson

PART 3

Dear Sirs:

On May 7 you will hear witnesses testify for the National Science Foundation and the Office of Science and Technology Policy. You might ask them why they ignore the key ingredient of research: knowledge. Knowledge controls the productivity of research by regulating and reducing costs. University libraries import and assemble knowledge from all over the world, making it available at a fraction of its production cost to industry as well as government and academic researchers. Scientists depend heavily on such libraries to prepare and to referee proposals and articles.

NSF and OSTP turned their backs on university libraries in the 1970s with neither public notice nor debate. Among other things, this means that the "indirect cost" reimbursements meant to support university libraries go unevaluated and unregulated.

More important, this policy of neglect interferes with dissemination. Neglect discourages the synthesis of research findings into useful knowledge. The comparison (on the following page) of research and its dissemination via libraries illustrates a critical imbalance. The largest collections contain a declining fraction of published findings, forcing scientists to travel and to call on foreign resources for photocopies. Neglected libraries can neither absorb nor propagate the full output of science. Nor can they encourage investments in new media, niche journals, and reference works.

Ultimately this policy of neglect undermines progress. It effectively delays and denies information to researchers. The Achilles' Heel of peer review is that referees may be no better informed than the authors of proposals and reports. Postpublication assessments in areas of physics and clinical medicine suggest that half or more research is poorly informed and makes no contribution to knowledge.

The policy of neglect is unauthorized under the law. If you hope to maximize progress and cost-effectiveness, you must address the "policy vacuum" identified by a Senate subcommittee and corroborated by every observer commenting on scientific and technical information policy since 1975.

I urge you to expand the scope of your examination to review the connection of science with the science libraries of universities which, according to Vannevar Bush, "are charged with the responsibility of conserving the knowledge accumulated by the past, imparting that knowledge to students, and contributing new knowledge of all kinds."

Sincerely,

Libraries cannot absorb or disseminate the output of research. Constant dollar spending on academic research and on a sample of 41 libraries belonging to the Association of Research Libraries 1960-95 is combined with the exponential growth of world science projected by Derek de Solla Price.

References to US Code:

American scientists blamed superior education and information resources for the Soviets' success in launching Sputnik into orbit late in 1957. A decade of official focus on libraries, science communications, and information resources followed. The political winds changed in 1968, chilling support for much academic research for a few years and ultimately freezing libraries completely out of science policy. To my knowledge, the decision to delete science libraries out of science policy has never been openly debated.

The policy of neglect appears to be unauthorized and perhaps to be in denial of the law. The legislation that commissions the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) provides no clue to the banishment of science libraries. (42 U.S.C. 1861, 1862, 6601 et seq.) In fact, the law indicates a scope of assessment that reasonably would include the libraries most used by scientists and science students: "review, integration, and coordination of major Federal activities in science and technology, giving due consideration to the effects of such activities on non-Federal resources and institutions." (1861 Message of the President (3), March 29, 1962) (emphasis added)

NSF is directed, "to foster the interchange of scientific and engineering information among scientists and engineers in the United States and foreign countries." (1862 (a)(3)) Academic libraries are the main importers and disseminators of foreign research.

NSF's functions include, "Promotion of research and education in science and engineering. The Board and the Director shall recommend and encourage the pursuit of national policies for the promotion of research and education in science and engineering." (1862 (d)) All science students use science libraries.

The law also instructs, "The Foundation shall continue to make comprehensive studies and recommendations regarding the Nation's scientific research effort and its resources for scientific activities ... and its foreseeable scientific needs... " (1862 Executive order 10521 sec 2) (emphasis added)

The principles governing OSTP include, "the development and maintenance of a solid base for science and technology in the United States, including strong participation of and cooperative relationships with ... the private sector ... elimination of needless barriers to scientific and technological innovation ... effective management and dissemination of scientific and technological information." (6602 (a) (5) (A through C)) In carrying out its mission, the Director of OSTP, "shall provide the President with periodic reviews of Federal statutes and administrative regulations of the various departments which affect research and development activities, both internally and in relation to the private sector, or which may interfere with desirable technological innovation ... " (6614 (a) (7)) (emphasis added) Implementation requirements, too lengthy to quote here, are also ignored (6614 (b))

The law provides, "the responsibility for fostering any policies to facilitate the transfer and utilization of research and development results is delegated to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget." (Executive Order 12039 Feb. 24, 1978) Although this agency has reformed its Circular A-21, covering indirect costs, several times as a result of audits and Congressional investigations, it has not considered revising the section covering libraries. Who but NSF and OSTP should assess this situation?

References Cited:

Brown, David J. 1996. Electronic Publishing and Libraries: Planning for the Impact and Growth to 2003. Bowker-Saur, London, New Jersey.

Bush, Vannevar. 1945. Science--the Endless Frontier. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

Clinton, Bill. 1994. Science in the National Interest. Washington, D.C.: Executive Office of the President, Office of Science and Technology Policy.

Crawford, Walt and Gorman, Michael. 1995. Future Libraries: Dreams, Madness & Reality. Chicago: American Library Association.

Fry, Bernard M., and White, Herbert S. 1975. Economics and Interaction of the Publisher-Library Relationship in the Production and Use of Scholarly and Research Journals. Washington DC: National Science Foundation.

Henderson, Albert. 1998. Decade-long legal battle focused on journal cost, impact. The Scientist. 12(2): 7-8. [Online]. Available: {http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/18779/title/Decade-Long-Legal-Battle-Focused-On-Journal-Cost--Impact/} [December 15, 1998]

National Research Council. 1995. Allocating Federal Funds for Science and Technology. Washington DC: National Academy Press.

Nisbet, Robert A. 1971. The Degradation of the Academic Dogma. New York: Basic. 1971. Reprint 1997.

Policy Perspectives. 1998. 7(4): March 1998. [Online.] Available: {http://www.thelearningalliance.info/Docs/Jun2003/DOC-2003Jun13.1055537929.pdf}. [December 15, 1998].

President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. 1992. Renewing the Promise: Research-Intensive Universities and the Nation: A Report. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.

Science & Engineering Indicators. 1996. Washington DC: National Science Foundation.

Smith, Bruce L. R. and Barfield, C. E. Technology, R&D, and the Economy. Washington DC: Brookings Institution.

Status of Academic Libraries. 1997. Washington DC: Government Printing Office.

Talbot, Richard. 1984. Bowker Annual. New York: R.R. Bowker.

Other References:

Bishop, Ann, and Fellows, Maureen O'Neill. 1989. Descriptive analysis of major Federal scientific and technical information policy studies. In U.S. Scientific and Technical Information (STI) Policies: Views and Perspectives. Edited by Charles R. McClure and Peter Hernon. Norwood: Ablex. 3-55.

"Melvin S. Day, testifying at congressional hearings in 1987, remarked that even though OSTP was established 'with a mandated requirement to concern itself with Federal S&T information programs, there has been no action by OSTP in that area since."

Brown, David J. 1996. Electronic Publishing and Libraries. Planning for the Impact and Growth to 2003. London: Bowker-Saur.

"None of the new media can survive it there is insufficient market." The author summarizes a number of studies that demonstrate enthusiasm for new technology by administrators but apathy by researchers and major problems in the areas of expensive infrastructure, obsolescence, lack of standards, etc.

Bush, Vannevar. 1945. Science-The Endless Frontier. A Report to the President on a Program for Postwar Scientific Research. Washington DC: National Science Foundation. Reprint 1990. NSF 90-8.

One of the fundamental tenets of Bush's architecture for postwar science policy was that universities, "... are charged with the responsibility of conserving the knowledge accumulated by the past, imparting that knowledge to students, and contributing new knowledge of all kinds."(19) He emphasized, "If the colleges, universities, and research institutes are to meet the rapidly increasing demands of industry and Government for new scientific knowledge, their basic research should be strengthened by use of public funds." (20)

Fry, Bernard M., and White, Herbert S. 1975. Economics and Interaction of the Publisher-Library Relationship in the Production and Use of Scholarly and Research Journals. Washington DC: National Science Foundation.

Observed that library budgets failed to rise at the same rate as their host institutions, that declining percentages of libraries' budgets were allocated to collection development, and that libraries were not keeping up with the expansion of publications. Publishers have been discouraged from underwriting research publications. This is one of the last studies of academic libraries produced for NSF.

Garvey, William D. 1979. Communication: The Essence of Science. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Expands on Conyers Herrings "Distill or Drown" ideas of post-publication peer review, noting how evaluations change over time p 113ff.

Herring, Conyers. 1968. Distill or drown: the need for reviews. Physics Today. 21(9):27-33.

"The information explosion sparks a need for creative synthesis of facts and ideas. For efficient access to good science literature we must devise new schemes for compression." Researchers are increasingly dependent on review materials to evaluate prior research and thereby plan their own work. Much research work was compromised by an overload of information that is more widely scattered than ever. Half the articles he sampled on solid-state physics reported research that he found to be "trivial," "outdated," duplicative, or "wrong" five years after publication. As time passes nearly all regress in value ... papers of negative value become less harmful as positive papers become outdated.

Machlup, Fritz. 1962. The Production and Distribution of Knowledge in the United States. Princeton: University Press.

The production of knowledge is dependent on the allocation of resources that include knowledge. Knowledge (i.e. "information") is both an input and an output of research (145ff.)

National Science Foundation. 1976-77. Statistical Indicators of Scientific and Technical Communication 1960-1980. 1977 Edition Prepared by D. W. King, D. D. McDonald, N.K. Roderer, C. G. Schell. NTIS PB 278279.

Why was this series, which covered libraries, canceled?

Price, Derek J. de Solla. 1961. Science since Babylon. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 1961. enl. Ed. 1975.

Price measured the exponential growth, doubling every 15 years, of science and technology by counting the annual production of science papers. He noted that aim of the primary journal, which was developed in 1665 and abstract journals that were introduced around 1830, was to enable researchers to keep up with the findings of other research workers. On page 173 he refers to the growth of libraries observed by Rider, 1945, "Such is the stuff of cumulative growth, the distinction of scholarship in general, but of science in particular."

Rider, Fremont. 1944. The Scholar and the Future of the Research Library. New York: Hadham Press.

Rider observed the exponential growth, doubling of collection size every 16 years, of leading universities over a 300-year period. He correlated this growth with their educational effectiveness.

Spitzer, Walter O., Skovron, Mary Louise, Salmi, L. Rachid, Cassidy, J. David, Duranceau, Jacques, Suissa, Samy, Zeiss, Ellen. 1995. Scientific monograph of the Quebec task force on whiplash-associated disorders: redefining "whiplash" and its management. Spine 20(8S):1S-73S.

Sixty-two studies out of 294 were accepted as relevant and scientifically meritorious. 177 were rejected as lacking merit; 55 as not relevant. (P.25-26S) Over 10,000 articles were screened in preparation for this evaluation.

U. S.. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment [OTA]. 1989. Federal Scientific and Technical Information [STI] in an Electronic Age: Opportunities and Challenges. Staff paper.

"First, although STI is the major product of the Federal R&D (research and development) process that support many national goals and is an important national asset, it is seriously neglected and underutilized. Second, the Federal Government does not have an overall strategy for the management and dissemination of STI."

U.S. Congress. Senate. Special Subcommittee on the National Science Foundation of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare. 1975. Federal Management of Scientific and Technical Information (STINFO) Activities: The Role of the National Science Foundation. Washington DC: Government Printing Office. 94th Congress, 1st session. Committee Print July.

Citing an alleged "policy vacuum" the Congressional Research Service reviewed eleven reports written for Congress or the Administration 1950-1975. It observed a consensus that, "information itself is a national resource, much like energy, to be used for the public good, private gain, and in some cases international barter." However it noted that minor improvements in dissemination were more often offset by inaction, reorganizations, and cuts in support: a, "feudal posture which impeded the realization of national goals."

U.S. Executive Office of the President. Office of Management and Budget. 1995. Principles for Determining Costs Applicable to Grants, Contracts, and Other Agreements with Educational Institutions. Circular A-21. Rev. June 20, 1995.

Section F8 (Identification and assignment of indirect costs. Library expenses) deals with calculating library reimbursements. Prior issues of OMB A-21 were titled Cost Principles for Educational Institutions and "library expenses" were treated under F6. The text of "library expenses" has not changed since Feb. 26, 1979, (the earliest issue we have obtained) or earlier.