Overhead costs on research grants.

Letters Punctuated Equilibrium: Empirical Response The response to Jeffrey Levinton's letter (28 Mar., p. 1490) is really quite simple and empirical. He says that punctuated equilibri- um is a slogan. Slogans arc tools of rhetoric; they generate polemic and propaganda, not real work. The test of a good scientific theory is its utility in fostering fruitful em- pirical research. I have the, perhaps naive, faith that my colleagues in paleontology know the diJfcr- encc between science and propaganda. They have tested the theory of punctuated equi- librium, obtaining volumnious and rigorous results both pro and con. The relative fre- quency of punctuated equilibrium ditfers across taxa and environments, a basic result with broad and unexplored consequences for evolutionary theory. Punctuated equilibrium has also been fruitful in focusing attention to C\vo vital domains in our quest for a more compre- hensive evolutionary theory: the meaning of stasis and the importance of selection upon units larger than conventional Darwinian organisms (1). But my pleasure in the utility of puncruated equilibrium centers firmly upon its role in fostering (for its test) a decade of direct and careful work on rates and patterns of evolution in fossil lineages Lcvinton, who began his career as a pale- ontologist, might care to have a look back. We arc a magnanimous lot, and gladly greet our prodigal sons. of accountability, were petrified. The people who conferred meaning on objects must have lived long ago, no one having come along since with any changes to make. Clas- sifications are clearly labeled and immobile. Then, and only then, might one allocate dangers according to those that are active and voluntary and, therefore, acceptable, or passive and involuntary and, therefore, properly subject to governmental regulation or prohibition. Once social change enters the picture, however, the active-passive dis- tinctions become movable boundaries, con- stantly redrawn by social interaction. We now see that people on the left con- sider the dangers stenuning from technolo- gy (nuclear power or chemical carcinogens) as passive, while they perceive the dangers stemming from casual contact with those suJfering from acquired inunune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) as active. At the same time, people on the right view the dangers of technology as actively chosen, a price worth paying for the benefits of progress, while they view the carriers of AIDS as bringing plague upon people who are made their passive victims. Which of these dangers is voluntary? To say a danger is voluntary is tantamount to saying it is acceptable; invol- untary dangers, imposed on passive people, by contrast, are unacceptable. Classification and decision are one and the same. ff only the anger against instin1tions were compre- hensive enough, suicides would be owed redress by the implacable instirutions that drove them to their undeserved and invol- untary end. Just as we-the-people are the ones who confer meaning on these distinc- tions, so we arc also the ones who change these meanings. STEPHEN JAY GOULD AARON WILDAVSKY Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138 Department of Political. Science and Graduate School of Public Policy, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720 REFERENCES . J. Maynard Smith, Na111re (Lomfcn) 309, 401 (1984); F. H. T. Rhodes, ibid., p. 116. 2. A. Lister, ibid., p. 114; _ _ and R. A. Fortcy, Spee. Pap. PalatmmJ/. 33, 17 ( 1985). Overhead Costs on Research Grants Defining Risk In i1is letter of 21 February (p. 783), Charle~ Perrow seeks to distinguish between active and passive risks, active risk being more voluntary and controllable by the indi- vidual and passive risk less voluntary and perhaps uncontrollable. This distinction is important because it is often made in justify- ing why certain risks are more and other risks less acceptable. But the distinction is misleading. One might imagine a static so- cial system whose values, including its rules 25 APRIL 1986 As a scientist who depends on research grants, I welcome the news that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) plans to cut overhead (News & Conuncnt, 7 Mar., p. 1059) because tl1is long overdue action will make more money available for research. I have always found it difficult to accept the claim that overhead reimburses academic instirutions for costs associated with re- search. Universities require faculty members to carry out research and secure grants. In fact, promotions often depend not only on publication and teaching but also on the number of grants and their dollar value. To put it simply, faculty members obtain grants because they are required, or at least strong- ly encouraged, to do so by universities that also claim this influx of funds generates costs they seek to recover through overhead. In other words, universities charge the grant- ing agencies and their own faculty for bring- ing in money. An analogy would be an industry that requires its workers to provide their own ideas, products, tools, raw materi- als, capital, and all otl1er resources and then imposes a tax on these items. The fact that the overhead varies from 30 percent to 100 percent is an indication that some universities (i) are more inefficient than others or (ii) have employed more eJfective negotiators, or both. Further, a large proportion of the overhead collected by universities is wasted by inefficient bu- reaucracies that hinder rather than assist the very faculty that generate these funds. Therefore I think a reduction of tl1e over- head rate will benefit research by reducing university bureaucracies. Administrators whose inflated salaries depend on these bu- reaucracies and the overhead will, of course, fight the cuts and try to find other ways to collect as much or more money by other means. Possibilities that come to mind are new or increased charges for library use, interlibrary loan assistance, typing of manu- scripts, custodial services, bookkeeping, electricity, water, and even rental of bench space. To prevent this from happening OMB should not only reduce overhead to 20 percent or less, but also prohibit charges that would allow university administrators to collect overhead under other guises. OMB can increase savings and put even more money into direct costs by requiring that prices of university services and store- house items that may be charged to grants be equal to or lower than tl1ose charged by private contractors. As matters stand now, prices for services and supplies provided in- housc by universities are higher than on the outside. Last but not least, OMB and the granting agencies should require that the final approval of in-house costs be the sole prerogative of the principal investigator. Such a move would reduce costs and en- courage university administrations to be more responsive to faculty needs. JOSEPH ARDITTI Department of Developmental. and Cell Biology, University of CaJ.ifornia, Irvine, CA 92717 Ermr11m: In the listing of t.tlks for the Gordon Re· Conference Chcmiscry and biology of pyrrolcs (7 Mar., p. 1194), Hane degradation by coupled oxidation by Harvey A. lcano should have been includ- ed for 29 July. Emrr11m: In the Research News article Why dynam.ir· ing vampire bats is wrong by Roger Lewin (4 Apr., p. 24), Gordon Orians' name was spelled incorrectly. LETfBRS