Top-down research

Two complementary articles in the Aug. 7 issue of C&EN, the first about funding of research in industry and the second about earmarking to agencies and academia, suggest patterns that are potentially injurious to honest "root" or conceptual research especially.

In "Firms, Stock Analysts Should Take a Long View" (page 36), a joint forum of the Business Roundtable Institute of Corporate Ethics and the CFA Institute Center for Financial Market Integrity noted that from a "survey of 400 financial executives, 80% indicated they would cut discretionary spending on such areas as research and development, advertising, maintenance, and hiring to meet short-term earnings prospects." No surprise there. My own observation is that financial executives, often lacking any knowledge about science or technology and their real contributions to corporate growth, are unabashedly major voices, directly or indirectly, for top-down program steering. Of course, they also are empowered to cut programs, and discretionary projects in the root stage, while least costly generally, are most easily excised, worthy or not.