Assessing the Health of 

Army Laboratories 

Funding for Basic Research and 

Laboratory Capital Equipment 

By John W. Lyons and Richard Chait 

Center for Technology and National Security Po0licy 

National Defense University 

September 2010 
ii 

The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not reflect the official 

policy or position of the National Defense University, the Department of Defense, or the 

U.S. Government. All information and sources for this paper were drawn from 

unclassified materials. 

John W. Lyons is a Distinguished Research Fellow at the Center for Technology and 

National Security Policy (CTNSP), National Defense University. He was previously 

director of the Army Research Laboratory and director of the National Institute of 

Standards and Technology. Dr. Lyons received his PhD from Washington University. He 

holds a BA from Harvard. 

Richard Chait is a Distinguished Research Fellow at CTNSP. He was previously Chief 

Scientist, Army Material Command, and Director, Army Research and Laboratory 

Management. Dr. Chait received his PhD in Solid State Science from Syracuse 

University and a BS degree from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. 

Defense & Technology Papers are published by the National Defense University Center for Technology 

and National Security Policy, Fort Lesley J. McNair, Washington, DC. CTNSP publications are available 

at http://www.ndu.edu/ctnsp/publications.html. 
iii 

Contents 

Part I. The Distribution of Basic Research Funds............................................................... 3

1. Introduction and Background. .................................................................................... 3

3. Data for the Army Laboratories.................................................................................. 5

4. Assessment.................................................................................................................. 6

5. Conclusions................................................................................................................. 7

Part II. Funding for Laboratory Capital Equipment............................................................ 8

1. Introduction................................................................................................................. 8

2. Definitions and Uncertainties. .................................................................................... 8

3. Data from the Army Laboratories............................................................................... 9

4. Data from Other Laboratories................................................................................... 11

5. Recapitalization Rate. ............................................................................................... 12

6. Conclusions............................................................................................................... 12

Part III. Overall Recommendations .................................................................................. 13
iv 
1 

Preface 

In 1991 a Federal Commission appointed by the Secretary of Defense listed some 

characteristics of an effective laboratory1

: 

• Clear and stable mission 

• Highly competent and dedicated workforce 

• Highly qualified and empowered leadership 

• State-of-the-art equipment and facilities 

• Close relations with the user/customer 

• Strong basic research component 

• Budget stability 

• Champion in senior management above the laboratory 

• Strong ties to other laboratories inside and outside the government 

The authors have been studying the Army Science and Technology Laboratories for 

several years to see what might be done to strengthen them.2 In this paper we respond to 

requests from the office of the Army S&T Executive to address the adequacy of the 

funding provided to two of the above characteristics: equipment and basic research. The 

equipment issue is one of providing high quality research tools that enable the research 

staff to work at the frontiers; the funding of basic research concerns providing a strong 

program of fundamental and exploratory work. Having both excellent equipment and a 

foundation in basic research will help to ensure the technical quality of the products from 

the Army laboratories. 

With the above in mind, this paper is divided into three sections, one for each topic of 

focus and a third for overall recommendations. 

 

1

 Federal Advisory Commission on Consolidation and Conversion of Defense Research and Development 

Laboratories, Report to the Secretary of Defense (Washington, DC: Department of Defense, September, 

1991). 

2

 Findings have been published by the Center for Technology and National Security Policy, National 

Defense University, Washington, DC in the following: John W. Lyons, Joseph N. Mait, and Dennis R. 

Schmidt, Strengthening the Army R&D Program, Defense & Technology Paper 12 (March 2005); John W. 

Lyons, Richard Chait, and Duncan Long, Critical Technology Events in the Development of Selected Army 

Weapons Systems: A Summary of Project Hindsight Revisited, Defense & technology Paper 35 (September 

2006); Richard Chait, John Lyons, Duncan Long, and Albert Sciarretta, Enhancing Army S&T: Lessons 

from Project Hindsight Revisited (book, 2007); John W. Lyons, Army R&D Collaboration and the Role of 

Globalization in Research, Defense & Technology Paper 51 (July 2008); John W. Lyons and Richard 

Chait, Strengthening Technical Peer Review at the Army S&T Laboratories, Defense & Technology Paper 

58 (March 2009); John W. Lyons, Richard Chait, and Jordan Willcox, Improving the Interface between 

Industry and Army Science and Technology: Some thoughts on the Army’s Independent Research and 

Development Program, Defense & Technology Paper 63 (June 2009). 
2 
3 

Part I. The Distribution of Basic Research 

Funds 

1. Introduction and Background. 

Basic research, termed 6.1 in the Department of Defense (DOD) budget, is long-term, 

fundamental study in the sciences, including engineering science, motivated either by 

simple curiosity or by the need to solve a particular problem that existing knowledge 

cannot handle. A good way to think about basic and applied research is from Stokes3

. In 

Figure 1, the vertical axis determines the extent to which the technical work is motivated 

by scientific curiosity with no particular application in mind. The horizontal axis 

indicates whether or not the work is driven by solving difficult practical problems. The 

plot is divided into two by two boxes but it could equally well have been drawn with the 

two axes being continua such that a particular project could be located anywhere on the 

graph. Stokes illustrated his idea by placing noted researchers in three of the boxes. Thus 

Bohr’s work on the structure of the atom was curiosity-driven (pure basic research); 

Edison’s work was said to be totally focused on the potential commercial uses of 

electrical illumination (pure applied research). Pasteur carried out fundamental or basic 

research studies motivated by his desire to treat diseases (use-inspired basic research). 

Much fundamental research today resembles Pasteur’s. 

Figure 1. The Stokes two-dimensional model of research 

showing differences in motivation. 

 

3

 D.E. Stokes, Pasteur’s Quadrant—Basic Science and Technology, Brookings Institution Press, 1997. 
4 

Studies have shown that basic and applied research is essential to a strong technology 

development program. For example, Mark and Levine 4

 in a study of the premier 

laboratories belonging to several federal agencies, including the Department of Defense 

(DOD), concluded that performing basic research was essential to the success of the 

laboratory. They found that basic research not only provides the foundation for the longterm mission but also enabled exploration into technology areas that were contiguous to 

the laboratory mission in case such areas later become highly relevant. 

The DOD definition of 6.1 work is that it seeks to expand the frontiers of knowledge in 

areas thought to be of future interest, but not to address specific problems. However, a 

study by the National Research Council5

 suggested softening DOD’s definition to allow 

work related to some specific applications that need additional fundamental knowledge. 

Much of the in-house DOD’s basic research is in Pasteur’s quadrant. A good deal of 

DOD’s extramural basic research is less closely related to current problems, though the 

research is surely motivated by the known needs and problems of the Services. 

2. Rationale for Basic Research. 

For any laboratory there are many reasons, as noted above, to have some basic research. 

First, as noted above, is to push out the frontiers of knowledge in areas of potential 

interest. Next is to solve intractable problems that arise in the course of the laboratory’s 

mission work. Then, the presence of fundamental, exploratory work in the laboratory will 

help keep the applied work at the state of the art. This may be through seminars or simply 

by cross talk in the lunch room. Basic work is in general publishable and hence puts the 

laboratory in contact with its peers around the world. Exciting results from basic research 

will attract collaboration with the best laboratories around the world. The work provides a 

window for the laboratory on new exciting areas being explored in the scientific 

community at large. Finally, the presence of 6.1 programs facilitates hiring new young 

graduates making the transition from thesis research to the challenges of the military 

laboratory. For these reasons every Army laboratory should have a meaningful 

component of 6.1 in-house research. 

How much 6.1 is enough for the health of the laboratory? A figure often suggested by 

senior research managers across the community is about 15% of the total funding.6

 In the 

rubric for sizing the S&T funds in the general case this would be something like 15% 

basic research, 35% applied research, and 50% advanced development—not including 

customer money. This is a rising curve reflecting the increasing costs as one moves from 

fundamental bench studies to prototyping to full-fledged development activities. 

 

4

 H. Mark and A. Levine, The Management of Research Institutions: A look at government laboratories, 

NASA SP-481 (Washington, DC: NASA, 1984), 226. 

9

Assessment of Department of Defense Basic Research, Committee on Department of Defense Basic 

Research, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2005. 6

 A related figure is the amount of funding that should be available to the laboratory director to use at his or 

her discretion. The “Packard Report” on the Federal laboratories suggested that as much as 10% of the 

funding should be discretionary. See: Report of the White House Science Council Federal Laboratory 

Review Panel (Washington, DC: Office of Science and Technology Policy, The White House, May 1983). 
5 

For a corporate laboratory such as the ARL, the ERDC, or the MRMC, this distribution 

would seem to be a good target. For laboratories focused on development—the RDECs in 

AMC, for example—a smaller percentage would likely suffice. The question then 

becomes, is there a level of 6.1 in a lab below which very little of significance can be 

done? This paper explores this question by first looking at the data for the Army 

laboratories and then providing an assessment with suggestions for improvement. 

3. Data for the Army Laboratories. 

Table 1 below shows the funding in fiscal year 2008 for the directly appropriated mission 

activities and the amount of that funding that is for basic research (6.1). All the 

laboratories have additional funds supplied by customers such as the acquisition 

community, other DOD agencies, and so on. These are not considered in the present 

discussion. 

The calculation is based on total core funding without regard to whether that funding is 

spent in-house or on contracts or grants. The data from ASTMIS as supplied to us does 

not make that distinction. The development laboratories spend substantial amounts of 

their funding, especially their 6.3, extramurally. If we could take that into account their 

percentages would be higher. However, the data, though rough are useful for broad 

comparisons. Also note that the result for ECBC is not significant in that their funding 

comes almost exclusively from special programs at the DOD level. Two of the 

laboratories have no core 6.1 funds. 

Army laboratories are organized as follows: 

Army Materiel Command’s Research, Development, and Engineering Command 

Army Research Laboratory (ARL) 

Aviation and Missile Research, Development and Engineering Center 

(AMRDEC) 

Armaments RDEC (ARDEC) 

Communications and Electronics RDEC (CERDEC) 

Tank Automotive RDEC (TARDEC) 

Edgewood Chemical Biologic Center (ECBC) 

Natick Soldier RDEC (NCRDEC) 

Simulation and Training Technical Center (STTC) 

Army Medical Command 

Medical Research and Materiel Command (MRMC) 

Army Corps of Engineers 

Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC) 

Deputy Chief of Staff of the Army G-1 (Personnel) 

Army Research Institute for Behavioral and Social Sciences (ARI) 

Army Space and Missile Defense Command 

Space and Missile Defense Technical Center (SMDTC)
6 

Table 1. Laboratory core funding from the Army S&T Management 

Information System (ASTMIS) for FY 2008.11

To compare basic research funding across the laboratories we use as the base the total core 

funding (6.1, 6.2, and 6.3).* The result is the following: 

 

Laboratory 6.1 ($M) Total Core ($M) 6.10% 

ARL** 45.9 214 21.4 

MRMC 25.7 162.5 15.8 

ERDC 15.7 92.6 16.9 

 

AMRDEC 9 230.1 3.9 

ARDEC 2.7 100.6 2.7 

CERDEC 1.8 321.2 0.6 

TARDEC 4.8 189.5 2.5 

 

ARI 3.7 26.7 13.9 

ECBC 1.1 4.3 25.6 

NSRDEC 2.3 71.1 3.2 

SMDTC 0 50.5 0 

STTC 0 25.5 0 

* Basic research (6.1); Applied research (6.2); Advanced development (6.3). 

** Only includes in-house R&D funds, not the grants at ARO. 

4. Assessment. 

The Army corporate laboratories—ARL, MRMC, and ERDC—meet the aforementioned 

criterion of 15% or more of their total funding for basic research. The ARL is the 

corporate laboratory of the Army Materiel Command and as such should have a large 

component of basic research. If one adds in the funds managed by the Army Research 

Office, now a part of ARL, the ARL dominates the Army’s 6.1 programs. The MRMC of 

the Army Medical Command meets the criterion of about 15% of 6.1. The current 

challenges of post-traumatic stress disorder, traumatic brain injuries, suicide prevention, 

tissue and organ regeneration, and brain-controlled robotic prostheses will likely warrant 

more 6.1 funding for the MRMC. 

The development-oriented centers—large and small—have relatively small amounts of 

basic research funding. Some argue that these centers should not perform basic research 

at all but leave that to the corporate laboratories and to the external programs. However, 

for the reasons advanced in the introduction above we believe there should be some basic 

research in all Army laboratories. Certainly numbers at or less than 5% are not adequate. 

The fact that a lot of this is In-House Laboratory Independent Research (ILIR) and is 

handled separately by the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Research and 

Technology makes the picture of more concern. 
7 

It is unclear if the lower numbers for these development centers are adequate for 

meaningful research; it depends solely on the nature of the work being funded. An 

investigator working alone can revolutionize a field, viz Einstein or Newton. A research 

group of just a few people can have a great effect on a division. To influence an entire 

laboratory there should perhaps be a group at every division doing primarily fundamental 

and exploratory research. Such a group should have at least some senior researchers 

supported by mid-level staff. A laboratory with six divisions would need about six 

groups, however small, doing 6.1 work. 

 5. Conclusions 

There are many advantages to having basic research in all research laboratories. Perhaps 

the most important advantages are (1) solving very difficult problems in the course of 

doing mission work and (2) that performing exploratory research helps to ensure that the 

laboratory is working at the state of the art, and to maintain a creative environment. 

Another advantage is the improvement in the ability to hire accomplished young PhD 

investigators to the laboratory. Thus, all Army laboratories should have significant efforts 

funded by 6.1 money. 

The distribution of 6.1 funds across the Army laboratories is skewed; in many labs, the 

level is far less than it should be. The numbers for the development centers are not 

adequate to support creative new approaches to difficult problems. 

A critical factor is the attitude of the senior management of each laboratory or center. If 

the management believes strongly in the value of a basic research program then it is more 

than likely that any 6.1 funds provided to that laboratory will be properly invested. 
8 

Part II. Funding for Laboratory Capital 

Equipment 

1. Introduction 

To complement recent studies aimed at strengthening the Army Science & Technology 

(S&T) program (see references 2-6 in Part I), the Army S&T Executive requested an 

assessment of the recapitalization of the infrastructure of the Army laboratories. 

Infrastructure is divided into three components: new buildings or major renovations to 

buildings, large facilities such as wind tunnels, and equipment that can be installed in 

ordinary laboratory modules. Ordinarily, buildings and major facilities are funded 

through appropriation requests for Military Construction (MilCon) funds. Laboratory 

requests for MilCon funds are prioritized against all other Army requests; typically, the 

laboratories lose out in the competition. We elected to study only the funding of 

laboratory equipment. The technology of laboratory equipment evolves rapidly in step 

with that of science and technology as a whole. In order to conduct state-of-the-art basic 

and applied research, the equipment must be also at the state of the art. As noted earlier, 

this means that equipment must either be continually updated or replaced with new 

versions. 

2. Definitions and Uncertainties. 

The situation is not entirely clear with regard to the basic available information. We 

began by seeking clear statements as to what constitutes capital equipment (e.g. the 

necessary useful life and the minimum initial purchase price). Various sources we 

consulted agreed that the useful life is more than 1 year, but the minimum purchase price 

required for an item to be classified as capital equipment varied widely.

In OMB Circular A-110 (revised and amended 9/30/99 Appendix A, Subpart A.2, 

Definitions) relating to contracts and grants, capital equipment is defined as follows: 

Equipment means tangible nonexpendable personal property including exempt 

property charged directly to the award having a useful life of more than 1 year 

and an acquisition cost of $5000 or more per unit. However, consistent with 

recipient policy, lower limits may be established. 

Various other OMB and GAO documents require 2 years or more of useful life but fail to 

set a minimum dollar value. By “capital equipment” it is meant that the item is put on the 

books as an asset. It is not clear what rules apply to putting an item on the books. We 

contacted two Army laboratories to get information beyond the tabulated data from the 

DAS(RT) office. The latter included core funding data from the Army S&T Management 

Information System (ASTMIS) (see table 1). We also had data from the submissions for 

the Army Research and Development Laboratory of the Year. 
9 

In most bulletins and circulars, information technology (including automated data 

processing) equipment is treated separately. These assets are, in general, not included in 

this discussion. 

There is no tax advantage to depreciation of an asset in the government, but, by use of a 

working capital fund, depreciation is a means of spreading the cost of an item over its 

predicted life. Of our government respondents, only two have working capital funds 

(NRL and NIST). In the requirement to list lab equipment in the submissions to the 2009 

Army Research and Development Laboratory of the Year competition, only items costing 

over $100,000 were reported. This makes it very difficult to compare Army data with any 

other laboratory, either government or private sector. Therefore, in this paper we can only 

make broad generalizations with ill-defined uncertainties. However, we believe we can 

draw some conclusions. Also, given the shortcomings of the data available to us, we urge 

that a necessary step is to set a realistic cost basis for Army purchases and seek to get a 

constant basis with other DOD and government laboratories. This may be difficult or 

impossible but it is worth a try if the Army is concerned enough. 

In the competition for the Army Research and Development Laboratory of the Year, the 

Army laboratories are divided into three categories (corporate research laboratories, large 

development laboratories, and small development laboratories) for assessment. However, 

the evaluation factors are consistent across the categories. One of these categories is 

laboratory equipment. The submissions include data on spending for this equipment. 

Laboratory equipment is taken to mean items not normally provided in every laboratory 

and costing over a certain minimum amount. (In the data call for the Army Laboratory of 

the Year this is set at $100,000 presumably to focus on only the most costly investments.) 

In addition, this category includes items that can readily be installed in an ordinary lab 

module. Examples are molecular beam epitaxy machines, chromatograph/mass 

spectrograph machines, and a variety of other analytical tools—X-ray, magnetic 

resonance, and various testing equipment. 

Information on the spending for laboratory equipment is presented below for Army and, 

other Service Laboratories, another government laboratory, and two industrial 

laboratories. The results are assessed, conclusions drawn, and recommendations made. 

3. Data from the Army Laboratories. 

The data for equipment spending are taken from the tabulations in the submissions for the 

Army Research and Development Laboratory of the Year 2009 and are averages for the 

spending reported for the previous 5 years (presumably FY 2004 through FY 2008). The 

data for total in-house mission (core) funding are for FY 2008 and have been taken from 

the ASTMIS files. The data do not show whether equipment is bought using base funding 

or customer money. In case of the development laboratories, it appears that some 

equipment is provided by the customers and may not be included in the figures. Spending 

on capital equipment may vary from year to year depending on the specific needs of a 

laboratory’s projects. Some pieces of laboratory equipment are very expensive (e.g. highvacuum apparatus for molecular beam epitaxy and other such applications requiring the 
10 

laying down of thin films on substrates); such devices may cost upwards of $1M. Current 

work in nanotechnology generally requires clean room conditions along with highvacuum equipment. However, such investments usually do not occur every year. In the 

table, we have taken the 5-year data and divided it by five to afford an average yearly 

figure. 

Table 2 shows that ARL and ERDC spend in the range of about 10% of their core funds 

for laboratory equipment. MRMC is a little less. The RDECs and other development 

centers spend less than 2.5% of their core funds. Note that the core funding is for FY2008 

whereas the equipment funding is for an average over 5 years including FY2008. Recall 

that these numbers are based on only the most expensive items—over $100,000. 

Table 2. Army Spending on Lab Equipment 

Corporate Research Labs Cap Equip* Core funds % 

Army Research Lab $23M $214M 10.7

Engineering R&D Center 18 162.5 11.1

Medical Research and Materiel Command 6.6 92.6 7.1 

 

Res. Dev., and Eng. Ctrs (large) 

Av. Missile RDEC 3.4 230.1 1.5 

Armaments RDEC 5.5 100.6 5.5 

Communications and Electronics RDEC 2.3 321.2 0.7 

Tank and Automotive RDEC 4.7 189.5 2.5 

 

Smaller Laboratories 

Army Res. Inst. 0.04 26.7 0.1 

Edgwd Chem. Biol. Ctr 3.8 4.3 88.4

Natick Soldier RDEC 2.2 71.1 3.1 

Space and Missile Dev. Tech. Ctr 2 50.5 3.9 

Simulation & Training Technology Ctr ** 25.5 0 

 

Source: Submissions to the Army Research Development Laboratory of the Year for 

2009 counting only items valued at over $100,000 

* Divide the 5-year total for equipment by 5 and then by the total in-house funding for 

FY2008. 

** None reported 

Customers provide some equipment for their projects and on some occasions the 

equipment is turned over to the laboratory when work is complete. We were unable to 

obtain good estimates for this funding support. To the extent that customers do not 

provide funding for equipment and that the laboratories’ capital equipment is then used 

for sponsored work, the percentages will be diluted. 
11 

Since equipment is used in all activities within the laboratories the total in-house numbers 

may be a better indicator. On this basis ARL and ERDC have numbers in the 4–9% 

range; all the others are lower. 

4. Data from Other Laboratories 

The data that follows was collected from several non-Army laboratories to provide 

comparisons. In every case there are variations in definitions or in completeness of 

information. Nonetheless, the information provides something of a yardstick for 

comparison. 

Air Force Research Laboratory. 

The Materials and Manufacturing Directorate at Wright Patterson Air Force Base

buys its equipment from its 6.2 and 6.3 accounts. The level of purchases from these 

accounts ranges from 2–5%. The 6.1 is provided from the AFOSR and is not used for 

equipment. AFRL does not have a means to depreciate these expenses. 

The Directed Energy Directorate at Kirtland AFB . The Directorate had an income of 

$325M in FY2009 of which $143M is mission funds. Management estimates that about 

$50–80M of the total is spent in house. About $1M is spent on equipment—or from 1.25 

to 2%. In addition, they receive some equipment from customers but its use is restricted 

to the customers’ projects. 

Naval Research Laboratory. The NRL spends about $15–16M each year on depreciable 

laboratory equipment. The total in-house funding for NRL is about $700M. The S&T 

core funding is $180M consisting of 6.1 and 6.2 only. When asked whether this S&T 

base should be used when calculating the percentage the answer was: no, the total inhouse funding should be the basis. The percentage is then 15.5/700 = 2.1%. To compare 

to the Army data we compute the NRL figure based on core funding. This yields 8.6%, 

comparable to ARL and MRMC. 

The total replacement value of the NRL lab equipment is of the order of $1B so the 

recapitalization rate is over 60 years.7

 

 

7 Capital equipment is purchased through the Navy’s working capital fund (WCF). The fund is repaid by depreciation 

annually, shown on NRL books as part of overhead expenses. The size of the NRL overhead account is controlled by 

external authority. Thus, the amount of depreciation that can be charged is also controlled. Some flexibility has been 

provided by Section 219 of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2009. This legislation gives Defense 

laboratories 3% of appropriated funds for use at the discretion of the director. Presumably this authority could be used 

to purchase equipment as expense items apart from the WCF. Depreciation life varies by class of equipment. Some 

additional equipment is supplied by NRL’s customers. The exact amount is unknown. 
12 

National Institute of Standards and Technology. NIST provided 4-year figures for 

equipment purchases against their Congressional appropriations for their laboratories and, 

separately, against reimbursable funds (RF). NIST purchases equipment in two ways: by 

expensing all costs in the year of purchase, and by use of its working capital fund to 

spread costs over projected lifetimes. Each area devotes about 3% of the total NIST 

budget for an aggregate total of about 6%. This percentage is close to the level for ARL, 

MRMC, and NRL. These numbers do not include purchases in the category ADP 

(automated data processing). NIST argues that this category is largely for office 

equipment. 

Two Industry Laboratories. We consulted two laboratories that conduct research into 

electronics and related subjects. One reported a level of 1.5–25; the other reported a 

percentage more akin to the Army corporate laboratories. 

5. Recapitalization Rate. 

We have very few data on the rate at which capital equipment is replaced—the 

recapitalization rate. The ARL estimates its rate as 68 years; i.e., at the current rate of 

spending on equipment it would take 68 years to replace it all. This computes to a 

replacement value of about $1.3 billion. The Naval Research Laboratory values its 

equipment at about $1 billion for a rate of 64 years. The ARDEC similarly gives a 

replacement value of about $1 billion for a rate of about 180 years! 

6. Conclusions. 

As was the case for doing basic research, there are many advantages to having a wellequipped laboratory. It helps in hiring and maintaining an excellent work force.

First class research equipment not only is required for carrying out the work but also it 

enables a quality of work that is essential for supporting the soldier. Having such state—

of-the-art equipment will attract collaborators from outside laboratories. 

The data are somewhat sketchy and rest on various definitions that we were unable to 

clarify. We can say that the level of spending on laboratory equipment in corporate 

laboratories is fairly similar—ranging from 5 to 10 or 11%. In comparison the 

engineering oriented research centers spend much less—in the area of 1–3%. Figures for 

NRL and NIST are comparable to the corporate Army research labs 

If the Army wishes to establish a sound basis for program planning and budget we 

believe a detailed study involving an in-depth accounting process would be necessary. 
13 

Part III. Recommendations 

1. All Army laboratories should have adequate funding for basic research and for the 

laboratory equipment needed to do first-rate work. This recommendation includes the 

development centers. Basic research helps provide an innovative climate and will provide 

the means to keep the lab at the state of the art. Basic programs will help attract bright 

young new PhDs to the lab. One cannot do world-class technical work with outdated 

laboratory equipment. This is especially true in the newly emerging fields of study.* 

2. Funding with 6.1 money should be based on carefully conceived proposals from 

qualified investigators. To avoid using 6.1 money for projects that are not fundamental 

and exploratory, management should scrutinize proposals and make sure they are based 

on sound reasoning and will be staffed by very capable individuals. 

3 ASAALT should require significant 6.1 funding for all Army labs. One way to think 

about how much is enough is to assume that every research division should have some 

forward-looking fundamental and exploratory work—at least two senior investigators. 

The ILIR funding is insufficient to meet this recommendation.*

4. ASAALT should establish a clear set of guidelines for managing laboratory capital 

equipment. Definitions should be standardized, preferably in concert with the DDR&E 

office so that fair comparisons can be made across the services. It appears that laboratory 

managers do not focus sharply on investment in capital laboratory equipment. 

5. For a sound basis for planning and budgeting an in-depth study involving professional 

accountants will be necessary. The uncertainties in defining what is meant by capital 

equipment and sorting it out from facilities upgrades and the like means taking a careful 

look at each tem and deciding whether it is or is not capital equipment. This would 

comprise an audit of the books.

6. Basic research and capital equipment funding should be emphasized topics in 

conducting peer reviews of the laboratories. We also suggest that additional approaches 

include placing both items in performance reviews of managers and in making them 

special topics to be covered in the submissions to the Army Research and Development 

Laboratory of the Year competition. 

______________________________________ 

*Consideration might be given to injecting more 6.1 funds into the in-house laboratories. In addition to 

direct budget enhancements, a possibility is to allow the laboratories to compete for support from the Army 

Research Office. The Office of Naval Research and the Air Force Office of Scientific Research both 

provide funds competitively to their in-house laboratories. This change in ARO operations would have to 

be very carefully planned and executed and would likely require an increase in ARO’s budget.