Harvard ranked seventeenth among other colleges and universities in its increases in funding of research and development (R&D), according to a study released this week by the New England Board of Higher Education (NEBHE).

According to the study, Harvard's R&D expenditures increased by 86 percent from 1984 to 1991, 18 percent below the national average.

The report highlights a decade-long plunge in New England's percentage of the total R&D expenditures among U.S. colleges and universities. Between 1984 and 1991, the region's proportion of R&D fell from 10.1 to 8.7 percent.

Only two New England schools, Harvard and MIT, ranked among the top 20 schools in R&D expenditures. John Hopkins University ranked first, MIT ranked fifth.

But Harvard's rank in R&D expenditures does not reflect its decline as a research institution, said John Hoy, president of NFBHE.

"Harvard is a very large university and, because of that, growth seems to be slower," said Hoy.

According to Robert H. Scott, Harvard's vice president for finance, the University's rank in the NEBHE does not indicate a decline in the quality of its research.

"I think the reason that Harvard is not higher on the list... is that Harvard does not have a very large engineering program," said Scott. "The second reason is that the hospitals with which Harvard is associated are not owned by the University."

And Dr. Bernard N. Fields, Lehman professor of microbiology and molecular genetics, said that research in areas like defense incurs huge economic costs which might "artificially skew [another university's] budget."

But New England's overall declining proportion of R&D expenditures raises economic concerns, said Hoy. "The New England regional economy is more dependent upon the products of R&D than is any region in America." The NEBHE approximated New England's loss in economic stimulus at $1 billion between 1990 and 1993.

New England's declining share can be attributed, in part, to "overconfidence" and deficient state funding, Hoy said.

"[In the 1980s], we were self-confident, if not arrogant, that our newly--found success would continue," said Hoy. "Perhaps we became lazy collectively. Meanwhile, other universities around the country were investing more."

Hoy said he emphasized the need for "intercampus cooperation and sharing of resources [among schools] to define and address the problem."

But Scott maintained that Harvard's rank "is a cause for concern, not alarm. It's not where we are on the list that matters, but whether we can win sources of support for projects faculty members want to do.