Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: FRIDAY, July 23, 1993 TAG: 9309050295
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A11 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: JESSE H. AUSUBEL and JOHN H. STEELE
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
The same trends have been occurring within science and within universities, which conduct much of the basic research in the United States. Many research programs have been moving toward a flatter management structure.
Power is shared between widely dispersed coalitions of researchers and the federal government, which now pays most of the bill for science. Traditional institutions, like the stately department stores of yesteryear, seem to be receding from influence in the marketplace of ideas.
The reasons for this change reside largely within science. They include the greater scale and complexity of the questions science is trying to answer and the need to cross the boundaries of specialists. But the change poses questions for the broader society.
The flattening of research organizations is especially evident in the earth and environmental sciences, in which we work. Forty years ago much of this research was heavily influenced by the administrative hierarchies and the traditions of the organizations in which it was done. Individual institutions housed and funded major research efforts and schools of thought within their own buildings.
But tools such as satellites and issues such as global warming that matured in the 1970s and 1980s emphasized a different way of doing science. Multi-investigator, multi-institutional programs arose to focus on costly, often global problems.
At the same time, a revolution in computing and communications was transforming all fields of science. Powerful computer chips made it possible to simulate many important features of the earth from a portable screen. Electronic mail and faxes sped the exchange of data, technical information and reports. Colleagues, even if in different institutions or on different continents, could communicate quickly and easily.
These developments, together with the growing expense of research, have shifted the balance of power within science. More control over programs now resides with loosely knit groups of scientific investigators at many different institutions and with the federal program managers to whom they answer. Research institutions, instead of sponsoring and managing research, are responsible mainly for recruiting scientists and training research staffs.
These same trends can be seen elsewhere in society. The increasing integration of technology into the workplace and our everyday lives can detach individuals from traditional hierarchies. Specialized laboratories and facilities are still needed. But a few phone lines and a personal computer enable one to perform most intellectual work almost anywhere.
Many professionals do not need large institutions. And employers can save on expenses (including health insurance) by reducing their commitment to employees. In business, professionals have been urged to think of themselves as ``consultants'' to their employers, constantly rejustifying their presence and ready to shift to alternative employers when opportunity strikes.
The favorable view is that this process results in leaner, fitter organizations. An article in Business Week in February described the new style: ``Big, complex companies usually can't react fast enough. Small, nimble ones may not have the muscle. What's the answer? A new model that uses technology to link people, assets and ideas in a temporary organization. After the business is done, it disbands. It's called the virtual corporation.''
Today, an increasing number of virtual universities are being formed: to understand climate change, to map the human genome, to take stock of biological diversity, to research high-technology materials. Is it only a matter of time before the process embraces the other core function of universities, the education of students?
Universities and other research institutions need to develop new self-images and strategies. The trick will be to use the new technologies and funding patterns to create commitment and excitement among faculty, students and the other constituencies that define an organization whose borders are wide open.
Campuses traditionally have provided stability and leadership for both research and education. Their challenge is to retain those qualities while adapting to the reality of virtual institutions.
\ Jesse H. Ausubel is a professor at Rockefeller University in New York City. John H. Steele is a scientist at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.
National Academy Oped Service
by CNB