President Bok yesterday criticized the proposed cuts in federal support for education, which have prompted some Harvard officials and their representatives in Washington to accuse the Reagan administration of playing a dangerous game with the future of the country's academic community.

Reagan's plans "represent a serious combination of steps that could affect the University adversely." Bok said. "Everybody has to participate in cutting spending, but universities should not suffer as they will if these measures go through." he added.

Although he will not outline his specific plans for spending cuts within agencies such as the National Science Foundation (NSF) until tomorrow's budget address. President Reagan has already said he will sharply reduce support for the "soft" social sciences, while making significant cuts in certain "hard" sciences.

Bok said he "is keenly concerned about proposed cuts in the NSF affecting the behavioral and social sciences." He also listed the loss of training grants from the National Institutes of Health, the elimination of funding for museums from the National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities, and reductions in aid to students as steps that will hurt Harvard.

An "immediate problem" threatening scientific research is Reagan's plan to elimination a $75 million grant to improve laboratory instrumentation proposed by former President Jimmy Carter, Bok said.

Instrumentation in private industrial laboratories "is two times the quality of that in university labs," Bok said, adding that "a $300 million shortfall in funding in this area exists, and the $75 million would finally have been a start."

Bok and other Harvard officials have helped lead efforts over the past several years to pressure the government for money to improve University research facilities.

Elimination

Calling Reagan's proposals " a strategy of elimination," one education lobbyist said last week that he expects a 75-per-cent reduction in the $40 million Carter had recommended for next year for the social and economic divisions of the NSF. He added that he has learned that Reagan also plans to slash over 60 per cent from the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), which funds research in psychology, among other fields.

"There are areas of social reform which are forwarded by research in abortion, families and so on, and [the Reagan administration] figures it can stop the reform by dismantling certain social sciences, Kenneth Pruitt, a director of the New York-based Social Science Research Council, said.

Officials with NIMH and other agencies have repeatedly declined comment on where Reagan will slash funds and on the possible political motivations of the President's moves. But one source close to the administration said last week he had obtained a memorandum written by Herbert Pardes, director of the NIMH, and circulated within the agency, which separates areas of funding into those that "do not involve social research" and those that "involve social research to some extent."

The memorandum states that the social group--including fields such as minority mental health, rape prevention and family mental health and policy research--will be reviewed categorically," the source said. But the "non-social" divisions--such as neuroscience and clinical research--are scheduled to be forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) "per usual procedure," the source added.

Latent Hostility

"Congress cannot let the President get away with the censorship of entire disciplines," the source said, adding that "the disproportionate nature of the cuts toward several areas shows the administration's latent hostility toward the academic community."

Pardes could not be reached for comment, and Paul Sirovatka, an NIMH spokesman, said he had not heard of the memorandum.