« PreviousContinue »
tion of Engineering and Scientific Activities in the Federal Government.” Copies of this publication have been made available to this subcommittee.
The report, after reviewing the various Government studies, activities, organizations and agencies concerned with engineering and scientific matters, concludes in part with the following recommendation:
A high-level coordinating body, designated as the National Advisory Council for Engineering and Science, should be established as a permanent body by legislative action, as a successor to the Federal Council for Science and Technology. It should be located in the Office of the President and headed by an Engineering and Science Adviser to the President, specified as such in the legislation. The Council should be broadly representative of Federal agencies with a major interest in engineering and scientific affairs, but should also include by statutory action eminent representatives of the engineering and scientific community with broad and extensive background in major engineering and scientific disciplines in order to bring about closer contact and coordination with engineering and scientific bodies, and their work related to Federal interests.
The report also recommends that a Department of Science and Technology not be established.
While we would have preferred legislation creating a National Advisory Council for Engineering and Science, we believe that the Reorganization Plan No. 2 as submitted by the President is substantially in accord with the foregoing recommendation and others made in the
While implementation of Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1962 would not in any way preclude subsequent establishment of a Cabinet-level Department of Science and Technology, it would certainly appear to have some bearing upon the desirability of doing so at this time. We would, therefore, like to make a few brief comments about the desirability of establishing such a Department.
We believe that the proponents of Cabinet-level Department of Science and Technology overlook the basic nature and purpose of research and development in the Federal Government, i.e.
To provide the means by which the various departments and agencies may best achieve and accomplish their mission and objective.
In other words, research and development is not the end-product; research and development points the way to the optimum method and means by which the objective and mission of the agency or department can best be carried out.
Because of the great and varying objectives of each department and agency, the National Society of Professional Engineers does not believe that it would be administratively and organizationally desirable or possible to endeavor to house, under one department, the incredible variety of research and development activities of the Federal Government. But we do believe that these activities should be coordinated on a broad basis, and that a central authoritative source of information and guidance as to various Government-sponsored research and development activities should be available to the President, the Congress, and the public. A very vital and important part of the President's proposal is that while the Director of the Office of Science and Technology will act as principal adviser to the President, hewill also be available to the Congress for questioning about the Government's engineering and scientific programs.
While the Office of Science and Technology will not enjoy statutory authority to implement its recommendations in the field of research and development, it may reasonably be expected that, operating under the prestige of the Office of the President, any recommendations made by the Director of the Office of Science and Technology to any department or agency will receive the most thorough analysis and consideration.
We have previously mentioned that we would have preferred that the proposed Office be created by statutory authority. One of the reasons for this preference is that it would then have been possible to make what we feel is a very important recommendation as to the name of the proposed authority.
I might insert here, if I may-although I apologize for being a little late--while I was here, I have not heard engineering mentioned once. It is to this point we are concerned.
We believe that one of the major causes of the decline in engineering enrollment in recent years is attributable to the public relations relegation of engineering to science, and this has mistakenly led many of our young people to foresake study of engineering. This is borne out by a recent survey of 174 engineers at the U.S. Naval Underwater Ordnance Station in Newport, R.I. This survey conducted at the request of Senator Claiborne Pell, of Rhode Island, asked the engineers why they felt the enrollment of engineers was declining; what influenced you (the engineer) to become an engineer; and whether the engineers would advise their sons to become engineers ? Although various reasons were given by these engineers for the enrollment decline, M. G. G. Gould, technical director of the station, who conducted the poll for Senator Pell, commentedthat the major, single cause for failure to attract young talent is the social status of the engineering profession * * * The most important ingredient for building up the future engineering capability is to provide a respectable social status to the engineering profession.
We would, therefore, have recommended that the title of the Office be amended to "Office of Engineering and Science," rather than including “engineering” in the all-inclusive descriptive term “technology" or "science.” However, we believe that the proposed Office of Science and Technology may still recognize the importance of engineering, not only in content and contribution, but also in the public relations sense. This can be accomplished most effectively by the separate identification of engineering and its function in the Office, thereby avoiding the popular misconception that all technical activity is "science."
We would also hope that the new Office will establish appropriate machinery and procedures to closely monitor the developing and changing manpower picture and coordinate manpower activities of the Federal agencies and the engineering and scientific societies. This continuing and close study of engineering and scientific manpower needs is urgently required in the national interest.
Because of the phenomenal growth of the importance of engineering and science to the national defense effort, we cannot urge too strongly that the Government's efforts be coordinated in the most eflicient and expeditious manner possible. We believe that the President's proposal represents a significant and long stride toward that end, and urge this subcommittee to disapprove House Resolution 595.
As previously pointed out, the creation of an Office of Science and Technology would not preclude the establishment of a Cabinetlevel department, should this be the desire of the Congress at a later date; but the Office of Science and Technology can begin operating within less than 45 days and commence to demonstrate to the Congress whether this is an adequate coordination of Federal engineering and scientific interests.
Thank you for affording the opportunity to appear before you today. In view of our great interest in this field, we would naturally be most pleased to provide any assistance possible to this subcommittee and the new Office as it becomes established and formulates its programs.
Chairman DAWSON. Mrs. Granahan.
A letter received from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce will be introduced into the record at this point. (The letter referred to follows:)
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES,
Washington, D.C., April 16, 1962. Hon. WILLIAM L. Dawson, Chairman, Government Operations Committee, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. DAWSON: The Chamber of Commerce of the United States supports the President's Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1962, establishing an Office of Science and Technology within the Executive offices. Accordingly, the national chamber asks the Executive and Legislative Reorganization Subcommittee of the House Government Operations Committee to reject the resolution of disapproval, House Resolution 595.
The national chamber's views on this reorganization plan were expressed by our president, Richard Wagner, in an April 5 statement, a copy of which is enclosed.
We would appreciate it if you would make this letter and Mr. Wagner's statement a part of the record of the hearings on Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1962. Sincerely yours,
TERON J. RICE, Legislative Action, General Manager.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD WAGNER, PRESIDENT, CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE
UNITED STATES The President's plan for an Office of Science and Technology can be a needed step forward toward fuller utilization of the Nation's capacities in science and technology in the national interest, both as to national security and in strengthening and expanding the economy.
It is the chamber's hope that the Office and the National Science Foundation will effectively coordinate the study of Government needs in science and technology, balancing these needs with available resources rather than centralizing this work.
Coordination can contribute to a more effective use of the Nation's scientific and technical resources. Centralization could stifle the initiative and diversity essential to progress.
Effective work by the proposed Office of Science and Technology is of great importance to the public interest because of the need to review, integrate, and coordinate all the major Federal activities in this field. This is true because of the vast public costs involved in these activities. It is true also because of the need to give public consideration to the effects of these programs on the Nation's resources and on our private and public institutions.
In transferring some of the functions of the National Science Foundation to the new Office, the work of that Office can be made more fruitful, without impairing the commendable work of the National Science Foundation. The Foundation's work in promoting basic research and education has been particularly effective because of its stress on using the resources and capabilities of our educational institutions and private industry. We would hope that the new Office will encourage broader application of this policy.
The National Science Foundation assignment in the past to evaluate Government research and its responsibility to develop and encourage the pursuit of national policies to promote basic research and education were handicapped by the fact that it has been a sister agency alongside of the other agencies with which it was working. The functions under the new Office, as indicated by the President, should transcend agency lines and thus make the work of the Office more effective.
We would hope that the President or the Congress will take the necessary steps to make the Director of the Office fully responsive to the substantive committees of the Congress. This is especially important in view of the wide range and extent of Government programs involving science and technology and the consequent legitimate interests of congressional committees on behalf of our citizens.
The CHAIRMAN. That brings our hearing to a close. We will go into an executive session. I thank all those who participated. You gave a wonderful service to the Government.
(Whereupon, at 12:25 p.m., the subcommittee proceeded to an executive session.)