« PreviousContinue »
Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Bronk, may I stop you just a minute. You realize that under this plan the Director would be eligible to become Chairman of the Board if the Board chose to elect him? Dr. BRONK. That is true, sir.
I think that the creation of the new Office of Science and Technology will strengthen the National Science Foundation; will strengthen science generally; and speaking on behalf of a private agency, the National Academy of Sciences and its research council, I think they, too, will be strengthened and aided.
The creation of the post of Special Assistant to the President for Science and Technology and the creation of the President's Science Advisory Committee have had a profound effect upon the strengthening of science throughout our country.
For instance, the Committee on Oceanography of the National Academy of Sciences made strong recommendations with regard to the strengthening of oceanography, as you heard from one of your colleagues this morning.
The fact that there was an agency centrally placed made possible the transformation of recommendations of this Committee into effective action. I could cite many other instances : Recommendations for the furtherance of the atmospheric sciences, for the strengthening of materials research, for the carrying out of our space program; recommendations which were put into effect because there was strong central representation of science in the White House through individuals such as Mr. Kistiakowsky, and before him, Mr. Killian, and now Mr. Wiesner, and their Science Advisory Committees.
I think this reorganization plan will strengthen the Science Foundation rather than weaken it and will strengthen science generally throughout the country, including our universities.
Chairman Dawson. Thank you very much. Mrs. Granahan?
Chairman Dawson. Thank you very much. I am happy to see you again.
Our next witness will be Mr. William 0. Baker. Mr. Baker is vice president of the Bell Telephone Laboratories at Murray Hill, N.J.
STATEMENT OF DR. WILLIAM O. BAKER, VICE PRESIDENT, BELL
Dr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I am research vice president of the Bell Telephone Laboratories and a member of the National Science Board and have served on the President's Science Advisory Committee in past years.
It is a privilege to appear before your committee and to add my support to the generally favorable views already expressed about the establishment of the new Office of Science and Technology.
I could in a moment or two perhaps be most useful, Mr. Chairman, in referring to the issue that has been raised several times already about the transfer of functions noted in connection with section 3(a) (1) of the present National Science Foundation Act.
My own concern has been mostly with the substance of science and its applications in things like transistors, solar batteries, solid state masers, superconductivity. Such basic elements of scientific discovery cannot be planned or scheduled and thus require certain freedoms and flexibility in research and development policy.
I think we would have strong agreement with the statements of Dr. Waterman about the continuing obligations of the Science Foundation and the Science Board to promote basic research and education in sciences.
I believe that this obligation will continue along with the similar activities of the new Office of Science and Technology. The reason particularly is the interesting combination of science and technology that the Federal Government has to deal with.
Part of this combination is what we call mission-oriented or missiongenerated science in which the regular departments and agencies having established missions need, as has been pointed out, to carry on the best scientific research and development for achieving their missions.
But there is another half which is quite subtile and equally important, which one calls a science-generated mission. Atomic energy is a striking, dramatic example of this type of mission in this half of the century, and space research is another.
These things don't come from inside the Government in the first place. They don't come from any planned mission or design to discover that particular scientific or technical capability.
Therefore there has to be a national policy which recognizes this special quality of them—the thing that Dr. Waterman pointed out as arising from freedom to inquire into the uncommitted nature of basic research.
I would thus emphasize, Mr. Chairman, that it is the furtherance of this kind of activity in science, the science-generated mission, which will be one of the strong continuing roles of both the Science Foundation and the new Office of Science and Technology. They are roles which are not covered by other agencies in the Government with clearly defined missions.
They are roles which, as Dr. Bronk has also emphasized, have been shown to benefit greatly from the existence of the Special Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, and from the staff that that office has created, and which will be strengthened in the new Office of Science and Technology.
These agencies can actually assure the survival of opportunity for science and technology to generate new resources for this country. That very survival of opportunity is dependent on a freedom to allow, to promote, new kinds of research, new kinds of education, to be carried on-in fact, to support such new kinds of research and education, uncommitted to any particular mission.
The National Science Foundation has built up a unique relationship with universities. Both researchers and teachers look to the Foundation for and receive from it support based upon the high principle that scientific research adds increasingly national capital resources. Similarly scientific and technical education enriches national capabilities. Accordingly, continued and enlarged sponsorship of this area by NSF should accompany the improvements in coordination and evaluation of the other parts of Federal science and technology which will result from the creation of the Office of Science and Technology in the Executive Office of the President.
We think that the combined agencies' activities as described in this new reorganization plan will greatly facilitate both missions.
Chairman Dawson. Thank you very much, Dr. Baker. Mrs. Granahan?
Mrs. GRANAHAN. No questions.
Chairman Dawson. Our next witness will be Dr. George B. Kistiakowsky.
STATEMENT OF DR. GEORGE B. KISTIAKOWSKY, PROFESSOR,
Dr. KISTIAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. it is a great pleasure for me to appear here in support of the Reorganization Plan No. 2. I am a professor at Harvard University, and have been for about 32 years.
I have served the Government of the United States on a full-time basis about 5 years during World War II in connection with the Defense Research Committee, and then the Manhattan District at Los Alamos.
I then was a member of quite a variety of advisory boards, mainly in the Department of Defense. I was and still am a member of the President's Science Advisory Committee, and I have been a member since its establishment in November 1957.
During the last year and a half of President Eisenhower's term of office I was his special assistant for science and technology, and chairman of the committee. Currently I am also Chairman of the new Government Relations Committee of the National Academy of Sciences.
The National Academy of Sciences is a non-Government organization which was chartered by Congress in 1863 to provide on request advice to the Government, both executive and legislative branches. The new Committee on Government Relations was established this winter by the Academy to coordinate these services and make them more effective.
The National Academy of Sciences is uniquely qualified to act as a spokesman for the scientific community of the Nation.
So because of my experience on the President's Science Advisory Committee and as special assistant, I feel myself reasonably qualified to speak on the subject of interest here, and I feel very strongly that the proposed reorganization is advantageous from a national point of view.
I think our national scientific position, which is certainly preeminent in the world now, owes very much of its strength to our somewhat decentralized form of support of science by the Federal Government. There are a number of agencies, each with its own mission supporting research insofar as it relates to their missions, and then we have the National Science Foundation supporting basic research across the board.
The relation of the completely vital role of scientific leadership to our political world leadership has begun to be clearer and clearer. There has been almost this explosive growth of Federal support of science in the colleges. As the support grew, it became also clearer and clearer from the President's point of view that a more effective overall coordination and planning were necessary. I participated in the earlier phases of development of this coordination plan which involves, as has already been testified—so I need not repeat it—the President's Science Advisory Committee, his special assistant, who on one hand rely on the National Science Foundation for certain plans and long-range planning in basic research, rely on the National Academy for planning in other areas of science as an example, I might mention the Committee on Oceanography which Dr. Bronk spoke about, the Standing Committee on Space Science, and of the others. There is now a Committee on Research To Preserve our Natural Resources, and so forth.
Then, on the other side, you rely on the Federal Council for Science and Technology, as we know, which is made up of the policy level officials of all the agencies engaged in technical work to make sure that the plans are transformed into action.
Finally of course and certainly not least-is the active involvement of the Bureau of the Budget in monitoring the programs, and also in assisting the Bureau of the Budget in budget formulation.
When I was in the White House I felt more than once very keenly my inability to establish working relations with Congress, to be able to testify what we were thinking of and why we were trying to do certain things and not others.
As a matter of fact, on a completely informal basis, I had several discussions with the chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on National Policy Machinery, and I would like to point out that this study which is called science in the President's Office is not at all inconsistent with the present reorganization plan. At the time when it was being prepared, I had an opportunity to discuss it, as I say, more than once. So in that way I regarded that very favorably.
I think, since I really have no prepared statement, I would be very happy to answer questions.
Chairman Dawson. Mr. Meader?
Our next and final witness will be Mr. Paul H. Robbins, who is the executive director of the National Society of Professional Engineers.
STATEMENT OF PAUL H. ROBBINS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS
Mr. ROBBINS My name is Paul H. Robbins. I am the executive director of the National Society of Professional Engineers, with headquarters in Washington, D.Č.an educational institution dedicated to the promotion and the protection of the profession of engineering as a social and economic influence vital to the affairs of men and of the United States (Extract, constitution and bylaws of the society).
Each of the society's approximately 58,000 members is qualified under applicable State engineering registration laws which certify that registrants thereunder have met the prescribed qualifications for engaging in the practice of professional engineering. The society's membership is affiliated through 53 State and territorial societies and approximately 425 local community chapters.
Of the estimated more than 60,000 engineers employed directly by the Federal Establishment in 1960, approximately 71/2 percent, or 4,600, are members of the national society. The Federal Government is by far the largest single employer of scientists and engineers, in addition to both directly and indirectly supporting in large measure the estimated current $15 billion annually being spent on research and development at all levels. That the Government and the Congress must seek to coordinate these efforts to achieve maximun efficiency and optimum results from its research and development dollars cannot be seriously challenged or questioned.
But the method of accomplishing this objective does seem to be open to some divergent views.
The National Society of Professional Engineers has followed with great interest the many diverse proposals to accomplish this objective, including the latest bill introduced by Senator McClellan (S. 2771) to establish a commission to study the advisability of the creation of a Cabinet-level Department of Science and Technology.
While the creation of a Department of Science and Technology has been advocated for a number of years, such proposals have generally failed to receive, with some notable exceptions, support from the scientific and engineering community. Our future progress and development as a Nation is inextricably woven into the success or failure of their research and development efforts; our destiny in large measure is determined by their ability of devise methods and systems vastly superior to any other nation so as to operate as an effective deterrent to any country that might seek to conquer our soil. It is respect fully submitted that their views should be accorded substantial weight.
Last year, the Committee on Federal Engineering and Scientific Activities of the National Society of Professional Engineers, following an exhaustive study of the Government's research and development activities, published a so-called white paper entitled “Organiza