Page images

I am interested, Dr. Dupree, that you do seem very favorable to the NIRAS model that the report proposed, and I am interested in this sentence:

The crucial ingredient would be the policy planning capability available to the administrator.

Do you want to expand on that a little bit? How would this policy planning capability be effected to make it adequate, in your mind? Do you have any suggestions there?

Dr. DUPREE. Mr. Mosher, this remark comes from a long observation of the whole area of the National Science Foundation's efforts to develop a capability in policy planning. Much of what I had to say before I got up to this point had to do with the importance of balancing off a much broader series of forces than is done by any single agency at the present time.

One of the serious problems here—and I may say that I believe this applies to an extent to the Office of Science and Technology and to the National Academy as well—is the belief on the part of scientists that only they can plan their own policy:

In actuality, it seems to me the planning of policy is a very different problem which requires a skill very different from the kind of skill that is required for the working scientist at the bench. It requires nothing short of the development in this country of a whole discipline which is devoted to the study of the policy of intellectual power, if you will, as a separate discipline.

This is as different from science per se as the study of national defense policy is from the workings of line military organizations.

Mr. MOSHER. Are you saying that if a NIRAS—how are we going to say that, “NIRAS?

At least I like that better than Mr. Reagan's "DRAG." Mr. DADDARIO. “NIRAS" sound like a Greek coup. Mr. MOSHER. If we are to have a NIRAS, are you saying that the administrator, to make it work, to do the job to effect the improvements we are seeking, is going to have to rely on a staff of people who have capabilities in disciplines that really don't exist as yet?

Dr. DUPREE. I am pretty close to that. I feel that this is one of the great weaknesses of the present central organization. There is not in this country a pool of people who do understand the science policy as a substantive field of study in itself, as distinct from science as a field.

The National Science Foundation has made recurrent efforts to create a staff which would be skilled in the study of science policy. Mr. Reagan mentioned a classic point in his testimony; that is, to study the relation of basic and applied research as a problem in itself.

If you are either a basic scientist or an applied scientist, you have a bias going into that problem which makes it virtually impossible for you to come up with a solution.

Mr. MOSHER. Well, now, Gene Skolnikoff of MIT was here the other day with some 90 faculty people--I guess most of them were faculty people, and graduate students from various universities around the country who I understand are beginning to pay some very particular attention to the skills that you are talking about.

Now, would we have to recruit these people from that source, or would we recruit them from fellows like Phil Yeager and Dick Carpenter here who through their very practical staff opportunities at this level would have some special experience and qualifications?

Dr. DUPREE. Well, of course I think that a closed source would be a violation of the interdisciplinary nature of the skills needed in planning as well as in the operation of research. I may say parenthetically, Mr. Mosher, that I am in touch with Mr. Skolnikoff and have been in setting up programs at Brown University. This is precisely what he and some of us scholars in the United States are trying to do.

But we are not doing anything so dramatic as to say we are creating a closed corporation from which you must choose your people. Rather, the aim is to provide a pool from which the Government can choose people who will provide a policy-planning capability which will transcend the individual components of the organization which you are creating

The problem here is that the Bureau of the Budget has been the only place at which all these things come together, and the administrator must create a way in which he can deal with problems—and Mr. Reagan mentioned a good many of these in his testimony-which are common to all of these agencies without at the same time destroying their identity.

The National Science Foundation, again I say, has tried to do this over the

years in a number of efforts. My first contact with the National Science Foundation came in 1953, just two years after its founding. At that time it had a "program analysis oflice."

As a matter of fact, my entry into this field, and my book, “Science in the Federal Government,” is a direct result of the program analysis office of that period. One might be tempted to say that, except for the North Carolina study of research in state governments, this was about the only result.

It was reorganized out of existence into a special studies office and then the reorganizations go on down. Yet it has never been able to develop the kind of independent view which would make it able to stand up even to the research divisions of the National Science Foundation, much less to make a judgment between, say, the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation.

If the administrator is going to make this organization work, that is precisely the kind of job that he not only must do, but at which he must spend most of his time. And he must do it in an informed sort of

way rather than in a simple cutting of the pie between the agencies which on paper are under his jurisdiction.

Mr. DADDARIO. It would be helpful along this line to have people of this kind, with this policy-planning capability added to the National Science Board ?

Dr. DUPREE. I certainly think this point of view is one that needs to be represented at all of the policy areas of the Government, and I would answer your question yes.

Dr. REAGAN. I would like to add a comment or two there. I think that science policy, or what Christopher Wright has called science affairs, very much exists, that it is not the same thing as science itself; that we do need to develop some new capabilities for handling the problems of science policy and science practice.

But that there are going to be severe problems in getting any such capacity today, even when it begins to develop in individuals, because the scientists who run agencies like NSF aren't aware that there is any difference. Time after time they give forth statements indicating that to plan the administrative operations of the National Science Foundation is to perform physics--not in so many words, but they just don't recognize that there are some different skills required.

In the Office of Planning and Policy Studies in NSF, I would make a very frank comment: it is, it seems to me, bureaucratically timid, not very expansive in its views.

I think there are going to be tensions between the physical scientists and the science policy planners who are coming out I don't know the exact composition of the group that Skolnikoff had here, but I assume that most of them come from non-physical-science disciplines, a lot of the political scientists are interested in this area.

Don Kash's program at Purdue, and so on. The program of Skolnikoff and others at MIT-Harvard. And we are developing as Dr. Dupree suggests university programs in this area in a number of institutions now. There are at least 12 or 15 the last time I saw it counted up, graduate programs in science policy.

And I think Don Price is the grandfather of these programs with his seminar at Harvard some years ago. The movement is catching on, but I think it is going to be a long time before full utilization is made of this capacity. I would like to add just one other small point, too: most of the work that is done in this area is done largely on the executive side, and the problems of Congress in science I think are only beginning to be adequately addressed.

Just as a personal thing, I think it would be nice if you would create in this committee a couple of-at least summer-internships so that some graduate students working at learning the science policy area would have the opportunity of learning the legislative areas of science at first hand.

Mr. DADDARIO. That is a very good suggestion. Actually, I think we have all found in our own summer intern programs—at least the people on this committee—the tremendous effect just studying the committee proceedings and participating has on some of the students; and that it would be a good opportunity to create for these people a view which might lead to the development of people who could in the future fit in this policy planning area.

We don't have enough of them certainly in the science field. Mr. Carpenter has made the point to the group which was down here last Friday, there were many who had switched over into the political sciences but who had had a strong undergradutae training in the sciences, and this was a very important ingredient.

Mr. Pettis?
Mr. PETTIS. No questions, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DADDARIO. Mr. Winn?
Mr. Winn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think that, too, is a very, very fine idea. I happen to have a young intern on my staff, a Negro that has only finished 2 years of school, but he is doing daily research in the ghetto areas—because I am on the District of Columbia Committee-trying to get the ghetto side of

the story; althougn he is a general's son and has a fine education. He is finding it a little hard—with his education, just 2 years of college, so far, to understand the problems of many of his own people. It is very interesting and I think it makes a lot of sense.

I would like to ask just one question, one of you mentioned it earlier there, about a possible systems analysis of the teaching scientists and the research scientists. I think Mr. Price mentioned that there is always discussion of the teaching scientists not paying enough attention to their students.

I get this complaint from the university that I represent, the University of Kansas, that they sometimes never see these men and that they are working with undergraduate students and associates. They have a man's name on their card, but very seldom see him.

I am wondering if we in the Government by giving all these grants this is just a basic question—to these scientists, we are not hurting ourselves as far as the future is concerned more than we are helping and should there be a complete division of teaching scientists and actual research?

Dean PRICE. If I may reply, Mr. Chairman, I think Mr. Winn's question is a very important one, and I think it has been a disadvantage both in actual practice and in public relations to have grants much more readily available for research and not available for the support of the universities' broad teaching function.

This means that agencies like the Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health and the military departmental sections which give grants to universities tend to get into the university world primarily through the research picture. This isn't so much true of the Science Foundation any more, but people think of it in this way.

And it means that a lot of graduate work plans are juggled so as to load the costs onto research grants when they are really indistinguishable I don't mean this is fraudulent, because I think that the function is the same: in working with your graduate students you are doing both research and teaching.

At the same time, I think a lot of the talk about this problem is considerably exaggerated, and more of it is attributed to the grantin-aid system that ought to be blamed on it.

I once spent some little time at Oxford University, in which the oldest college, dating back to the 13th century, had on its staff in the late 19th century a philosopher named Bradley, who was one of the most famous English philosophers of the century. He was a don at that college for 10 years and during that whole period refused ever to see a single student.

This problem didn't start with research grants in the natural sciences. There are people who are immersed in research and just don't like to bother with students, and this has always been true. I think the grant system has made it a more difficult problem and it has made it financially possible.

It is a very bad system, and I think with rare exceptions people ought to teach as weli as do research. And it is good for their research if they teach.

Mr. WINN. My question was should we separate them, because if you have a teaching scientist that is also doing research it looks to me like most of them are not capable of doing both 100 percent of the time. One phase, either the teaching or the research, is going to suffer.

Dean PRICE. Well, sir, I would tend to argue in the other direction: that in most cases the men who do good research are likely to be the better teachers, and they are not likely to be very good teachers unless they are doing some research.

And I think at the graduate level, to have some students around you working with you, this is what the physical and biological scientists tell me, and it certainly corresponds to my experience in my own field, it adds greatly to your research to have a lot of bright students pushing you and asking you questions and taking part in what you are doing.

I think it would really be very bad indeed to go in the direction of separating the two. Here is where I think we can learn a negative lesson from the scientific community of Russia. Over there their universities and research institutions were fairly separate and they saw many disadvantages in it and I think a lot of them are trying to work more toward our model.

Dr. DUPREE. I would like to comment on that in somewhat the same lines as Don Price but again to add a certain note of alarm. I think the kind of complaint that you have received is widespread across the country. They are heard in every educational institution with which I have had anything to do.

Now, obviously I think well of teaching. Any graduate of Oberlin College must think well of teaching. At the same time, the charge that it is research that is spoiling the teaching of the universities is a tragic misconception, and therefore to come in and say that we must separate research from teaching is to change what is a problem in the universities at the present time into a disaster. It would mean that the people who are willing to admit that they do not have all of the answers—and this is really who the researchers are—would leave the teaching function of the universities in the hands of those who think they have all the answers, leading straight to a kind of institution which is unrecognizable in terms of what we have known as the American university or the American college. The real problem is that since World War II the professors, who in the 1930's didn't have so many functions as they have now, have been called upon to do a large number of different things, of which research is only one of the new burdens.

The thing that has seriously distracted my teaching since 1964 has not been my research, which has suffered just as badly as my teaching. It has been the fact that I happen to have been at an institution which, by going through recurrent crises of authority, required my spending not only my days but also most of my nights through a part of every academic year since 1964 in an atmosphere of heated crisis and debate in the attempt to keep together some kind of community which one could still call a university.

Many of the professors who are absent and are never seen are not off doing effective research; they are off in closed caucus trying to influence in one way or another either the next crisis that is coming to their institution, or trying to clean up and sweep up from the last crisis.

Mr. Winn. I would like to just make one point. If I sign up to take a course in science from Mr. Price with a great reputation, I don't want to get some postgraduate that is only 2 or 3 years older than I am teaching me that course because Mr. Price is so much in demand in research

« PreviousContinue »