Page images

Dr. WATERMAN. To a degree.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Isn't it true that if it were not for this tremendous financing or funding by the Federal Government, many of the universities would not have a scientific effort of anywhere near the magnitude that is going on?

Dr. WATERMAN. There is no question about it.

Mr. Smith. But this plan does not affect this particular subject matter?

Dr. WATERMAX. No; not directly. As you know, there are various movements underway, and especially in the National Science Foundation, which can provide for the institutions some relief on controlling their own growth.

For example, we have a program which provides matching funds for the development of graduate research laboratories. They apply to us if they need a new building or renovation of a building or the furnishing of general equipment. Then we appraise these and grant them 50 percent of the money to do it, on a competitive basis. That strengthens the university.

We also have a program known as institutional grants, which is to provide to a given institution in a given year, to the president, 5 percent of the funds that go to his institution from our research grants during the year. He can use this for scientific activities as he sees fit.

In this way, you see, we are trying to improve their flexibility in view of the point you are making that we are doing too much concentration on particular subjects.

Chairman Dawson. Mr. Anderson?

Mr. ANDERSON. I don't know whether this would be a correct analogy or not to use, Dr. Waterman, but would you be something akin to a chairman of the board in your present capacity as the Director of the National Science Foundation to preside over the meetings of the 24 members of the Board ?

Dr. WATERMAN. No; the Board elects its own Chairman, which I think is the proper way to do it.

Mr. ANDERSON. What is the exact nature of your relationship to the Board now?

Dr. WATERMAN. I am an ex officio member.
Mr. ANDERSON. You are just an ex officio, nonvoting member?
Dr. WATERMAN. That is correct.

Mr. ANDERSON. I ask that for this reason: I note that section 21 of this reorganization plan is going to establish an Executive Committee of this National Science Board; and the Director, this new Director that is proposed in the whole Office of Science and Technology, is going to head that Executive Committee. I think he is going to be the fifth member, and the Chairman.

Then I note you go on in your statement and you allay the fears that have developed in my mind at that point that he might, in fact, become the dictator of the policies of the whole Foundation by say, ing that you think the provisions of the act give him only limited authority

Could you spell that out a little more fully?

Dr. WATERMAN. You are speaking of the Director of the National Science Foundation now and not the Director of the new Office, of course.


Dr. WATERMAN. At the present time the Director is an ex officio member of the Board and is an ex officio member of the Executive Committee. With the new reorganization plan he becomes a voting member of the Board and the Chairman of the Executive Committee. That is as far as it

goes. As I stated in my testimony, I think he is in a good position to be Chairman of the Executive Committee because the functions of the Executive Committee are very largely to carry out some of the detail of the measures approved by the Board.

Of course the Director as head of the staff is in position to give the Board full information and work such matters out.

In the normal meetings of the Board, the Director, of course, prepares the agenda for the Board meeting in consultation with the Chairman; and then he is in a position of presenting to the Board the policy measures he would like to have discussed.

It is quite natural, then, for him not to be the Chairman. The Chairman can then conduct the meeting.

Mr. ANDERSON. Here is the thing I am basically getting at, Dr. Waterman. I think we all realize it is because of the pluralism in American science and the diversity of opinion that we have really attained the tremendous achievements that we have.

I am just concerned about the inherent possibility in this plan of subordinating the Board or the Foundation to a Director of an Office of Science and Technology, who after all, is going to consider himself in his mind as responsible to the President, as he is indeed under the plan; and that you therefore would have just a little bit too much centralized authority here over scientific activity, particularly in the basic research fields.

In other words, if you had a Chief Executive who would really just go hellbent for election on one particular scientific program to the exclusion of everything else, or who had some particular theory about basic research, he would be able to, in effect, impose that idea and his will in turn on these various layers until they get down to the Foundation, and it would actually inhibit basic research in this country.

Do you follow me?

Mr. ANDERSON. I haven't stated that too well. But do you see anything like that as possible?

Dr. WATERMAN. I wouldn't worry about it. Of course, at the present time the Director reports to the President and the President can always tell the Director what he would like to have done since the Director reports to him.

Whether this kind of thing would happen would depend, in the first place, upon the character of the Director and how effective he was in dealing with the Director of the new Office.

But the situation is mostly protected by the presence of the National Science Board. They are all appointed by the President. They are part time, and they are responsible for the policies of the Foundation. They are not just advisers.

So they can take a very strong position, you see, backing the Director if anything like that arose which seemed wrong to the scientists of the country.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. I think your answer was a good one there. I think there would be such an outcry from the whole scientific community if there was an attempt to channel this activity disproportionately that it would immediately come to the President's attention, and I am sure that any tendency to be a dictator would be pretty well crushed at that moment.

Dr. WATERMAN. I believe this is what Congress had in mind in setting up the National Science Board the way it did in the first place.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. They are completely independent. They come in on a consultative basis. I deal with some of these boards on the Joint Committee--the Radiation Council, of which Dr. Taylor is head. Believe me, they are representative of completely independent viewpoints as far as I can see; and I hope they stay that way.

I want to ask you: Is your concept that this new agency would review the overall national scientific program?

Dr. WATERMAN. If you say scientific and technological

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Not only the basic research, but the developmental work.

Dr. WATERMAX. Yes. I really think that the new office will probably leave to the Foundation the basic research. This is a different kind of problem and a much more complex one. But it is technology where the large items are and the major issue are and that is not a Foundation responsibility.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Would they have a chance to screen the different agencies budgets? If not, I can't see how there could be any coordination or any elimination of duplication unless they did get a chance to screen the different agencies' budgets to evaluate their programs and to possibly give priority or to advise a certain agency that they were embarking upon a program which had already been carried on in another one and that sort of thing.

Dr. WATERMAN. I think in the normal course of events the Bureau of the Budget through its examiners would make the detailed examination of these budgets and if

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Wouldn't this be a little bit different from the Bureau? Wouldn't this be a pre-preview, you might say, by a scientist rather than a bookkeeping budget type of review by the Budget Bureau ?

Dr. WATERMAN. It could be done. I would think there would be a danger that they would attempt too much detail if they started to do that. To try to keep track of everything the Federal Government does is not an easy thing to do.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Let's take a specific case. Let us say that NASA had a project and Atomic Energy had a project which was duplicative. This would come to the attention, as I understand it, of the Director of the agency.


Mr. HOLIFIELD. He would be the first one who would know about it because this is his job to know about it, to coordinate and to screen and to possibly advise elimination.

He would look at it from a little bit different standpoint than the Budget Bureau.

Dr. WATERMAN. That is true.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Apparently he could go to the Budget Bureau and say, if they didn't respond to his suggestion to coordinate or eliminate their activity-he could call it to their attention, because the Budget Bureau's Director is looking at the whole scope of the national operation, and this man would be looking strictly at the scientific part of it.


Mr. HOLIFIELD. Then he could act, you might say, as an informer in a way to the Budget Bureau in advance, bringing in the information. So in the setting up of the various agency budgets there would be some prescreening done before it got to the Budget Bureau.

Dr. WATERMAN. Yes; on the program side this could take place. It might very well take place in the Federal Council where they do compare notes.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. You wouldn't concede that he would offer an overall scientific budget. The different agencies would offer their own budget?

Dr. WATERMAN. Yes, certainly.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. So any screening he would do would be in the nature of exploratory and, you might say, advisory to the agencies involved.

Dr. WATERMAN. He would do that, certainly.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. But he wouldn't have an actual control.

Dr. WATERMAN. I can't really speak for the new agency and how that would work. I think there would be inputs from the Federal Council which would involve coordination. There would be inputs from the Foundation which would involve coordination in basic research, inputs from the special studies made by the President's Scientific Advisory Committee, and inputs from the Budget Bureau where they ran into difficulty, you see.

All these would be very helpful and there would be a considerable degree of screening which would have to be done by the staff.

Have I answered your question?

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Yes, I think you have. I have here, for instance, the Federal research and development program put out by the Bureau of the Budget which was handed to me by Mr. Henderson. It shows the oceanographic research surveys, and it shows the different agencies and what they are doing in that field.

This is the final budget. As I conceive it, if this man was given the job of coordinating, these programs would be coordinated by him in advance of the budget action.

Dr. WATERMAN. Programwise, this would be the logical way to do it.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. And there is where you would effect your savings in the elimination?

Dr. WATERMAN. Definitely.
Chairman Dawson. Thank you very much, Dr. Waterman.
The next witness will be Dr. Bronk, Chairman of the Science Board.


SCIENCE BOARD Dr. BRONK. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I think I can very briefly say what is pertinent on behalf of the National Science Board.

We would like to support Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1962. We have had the privilege of conferring with Mr. Staats, of the Bureau of the Budget, and the executive committee also met with Mr. Bell and his associates.

Thus we have been kept intimately informed with regard to those aspects of the act relating to the National Science Board.

Î think that the partial transfer of responsibility for making national policy is natural and desirable. Any agency which is concerned with the expenditure of funds in support of research and development contributes to the making of national policy in science. This is unavoidable. The new proposed office, the National Science Board, the Foundation, and any other agency of Government which supports science will necessarily contribute to the making of our overall national science policy or policies.

The evaluation of the scientific program of the various agencies of Government is an undesirable function for the National Science Foundation. It is much more appropriate and natural that such an evaluating function should be carried out by the office which is directly responsible to the President and susceptible to discussion with the Congress.

We think the changed status of the Director of the National Science Foundation is desirable. In fact, the Director has always been treated as a member ex officio of the Board. While his vote is not thus recorded, the members of the National Science Board have respected the opinions of the Director as a member. He has worked with us intimately and we with him. That he should be designated a member we think desirable.

If he were to be Chairman of the Board, 1 think there would be certain difficulties, for he would be the presiding officer while presenting problems, issues and recommendations to his colleagues of the Board.

So I think it desirable that the Director not be the Chairman of the Board. But, on the other hand, inasmuch as he is responsible for the executive actions of the Foundation, it is, I think, natural and appropriate that he should be chairman of the executive committee.

I have seen this division of functions to be effective in private foundations. For instance, Mr. Dean Rusk, when he was president of the Rockefeller Foundation, was not chairman of the board but was chairman of the executive committee. It worked extremely well in that instance, and I think it will do so here.

« PreviousContinue »