« PreviousContinue »
and appearances before congressional committees that he is not there to give me my course.
This is the type of complaint that I get.
Dean PRICE. I think that the universities of the country which have insisted most that people continue to do their teaching jobs at the senior level are the ones that I admire the most. And speaking for myself, while I wouldn't undertake to teach you, sir, in anything, especially in the sciences, I meet my classes and I don't miss them for outside engagements.
Mr. Winn. I was using that as an example. Dean PRICE. Excuse me. Mr. Winn. Because I know some have to appear up here in the middle of the week in the middle of their class sessions.
Dean PRICE. But you know, I think I would come back to Hunter Dupree's point here. I think more of this comes from their administrative and professional political function. A man who takes the lead in a field in a modern university in the sciences is going to have to spend a lot of time on National Academy or similar work; he is going to have to be cultivating the private and public foundations. If we could do more to reduce the complex system of grantsmanship in this country so that money would come in larger packages at less frequent intervals
in other words, so that you don't have to get money separately for so many little things so often, I think that the senior people would—they would have just as intensive scrutiny and review.
They might get less money. But they would also have to do less work of this kind and have more time to spend on what ought to be their major function.
Mr. WINN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am sorry.
Dr. REAGAN. I would just like to make the viewpoint unanimous from this side of the table.
One, I think the basic reason for the problem you raise, Mr. Winn, is not research grants, but growth in college population, which in the postwar years has simply outstripped growth of faculty. And the best thing the Federal Government can do to help alleviate this situation is not to separate research from teaching and not to discontinue the research grants, but to explicitly double, triple, tenfold its support of graduate education so we can get enough teachers to go around.
When a student signs up for a course with Professor Jones and there are 625 students who want to hear his lectures, they may be able to hear his lectures, and in my viewpoint he better show up to give them. But he is not going to be able to meet for the third hour in discussion groups of 20 students for those 600.
That is where the teaching assistant comes in or the junior faculty member. And there just aren't enough of them. Secondly, I think if one assumes that the senior professor is there to give the lectures and that he participates in undergraduate as well as graduate teaching and most of those I know do—then I don't see anything wrong. I see some distinct advantages in also using teaching assistants.
Assuming that you have got some good graduate students to begin with and that you prepare them adequately. They bring an enthusiasm
and immediacy to their teaching in small groups, and they are enthusiastic about doing it, which the senior professor, after 30 years, may not always have himself.
I think it is not entirely a disadvantage that we use the TA's but as a supplement to rather than the replacement of the senior man.
Mr. Winn. But you have still got experience that widens the gap with the years, some there are only 2 or 3 years' difference. Maybe that person was a senior in high school just 2 or 3 years ahead. There is not enough mileage experiencewise as there would be with the senior instructor.
Dr. REAGAN. That is true, but then I just go back to the fundamental point: that we don't have enough senior people to go around to the number of students. I don't want to cut down on the number of students, therefore we have to enlarge the number of teachers.
Mr. DADDARIO. Mr. Cabell.
Mr. CABELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank and commend these gentlemen for a very forthright and I think unusually objective discussion on something in which I know that they are intensely interested. I thought Mr. Price raised a very interesting analogy when he spoke of NIRAS being comparable to the United Fund. I think you are entirely correct, sir, that it could well mean slightly
But on the other side of the coin, don't you feel that the donor gets better mileage out of his money by the various disciplines within that field, each of whom believes he is the most important that is operating, where they are subjected to certain discipline. You prevent the overlapping, and by the same token, they have to have demonstrated their ability or their capability of accomplishing certain tasks in that field. Then they have to do some matching themselves.
So in the final analysis, I think that it was a good analogy. I think that the good outweighs certainly some of the defects of it. Thank you very much.
Dean PRICE. Thank you, sir. I do agree.
Mr. DADDARIO. I have one point that I would like you to comment upon, Dr. Dupree, and maybe in the time remaining also some reaction from the others.
On page 10 of your statement you say: To propose that research funds be withdrawn from the military and transferred over in a straight line fashion to pressing social problems is to misunderstand both the scope of military research and the nature of science.
I have no argument with that, but isn't one of the problems the way in which we administer, manage, and organize our science resources? However you want to talk about it, this misunderstanding does in fact exist. Whether for the right or wrong reasons? We ought to, by putting our organization of these matters into better perspective, be able to have this misunderstanding clarified.
I find this to be one of the great problems with many of our young people: they don't understand what is involved in the research, or how it may strengthen the university, or how it may enhance the quality of teaching that will be available to them. This is something we ought to do something about.
Dr. DUPREE. Yes, sir. I would say that. I would go further and say that I did not mean to imply by that statement that the status quo
in terms of the division between the military and the nonmilitary in the support of research, especially basic research, should be maintained.
It may very well be that a large amount of research, of which in this respect social science research comes almost first to mind, might better be supported outside the military. The question is, How do you manage such a shift in a way that respects the integrity of the scientists who are providing the input to the system?
I am reminded here of the difficulties that arose in the early 1950's when the assumption was made that the creation of the National Science Foundation would make it easily possible in the physical sciences to transfer virtually all the contracts under the Office of Naval Research to the new National Science Foundation.
That turned out to be a very difficult proposition, and in many cases it didn't work at all. The money that was cut out of the military budget-that is, the ONR budget for basic research-did not find its way over into the National Science Foundation research.
In this case, it is complicated by the fact that there are a large number of research activities. I believe that the military themselves would be perfectly glad to get rid of if there were a competent agency to take them up.
Therefore, it seems to me that the strategy of a NIRAS should be to provide the capability to do research on a scale that is adequate as a necessary prelude to transfer. This would involve, among other things, developing investigators in the university who were willing to come forward with proposals to do that research under civilian auspices.
Only when this is the case will it be possible to say that the large amount of social science research, for example, which is now funded by the military, could be shifted over to a civilian agency.
Mr. DADDARIO. It would be helpful, in the process of making these changes, that this be explained. You have a laboratory that is doing a certain kind of work that must continue, but that, in the process of finishing it, parts of the laboratory can, perhaps, begin to change in some percentage to solve our problems. The transfer probably could take place over a long period of time. The instantaneous taking of a good laboratory and saying it will no longer do any military work but will now answer the problem of our cities is just an impossibility.
That ought to be explained.
Dr. DUPREE. That is correct, and I couldn't agree more, that it should be explained and emphasized.
Mr. DADDARIO. Did you have something in mind of this kind when you recommended that organization would not necessarily have to come before a declaration of national purpose in this particular area, Mr. Reagan?
Dr. REAGAN. Yes, I think these things are related, at any rate. It seems to me that anything we are spending $17 billion a year on we ought to be able to make a simple statement of what it is about. And we haven't yet been able to do so concerning R. & D., or at any rate we haven't done so. I just can't believe that we are totally incapable of it at this time.
And each agency, in the absence of some such legislative declaration of purpose, each agency develops its own set of assumptions, its own premises of action, and with great variety among them. I think this impedes comparability, and impedes cooperation and coordination.
If we had some fairly succinct but meaningful statement of overall Federal purpose, it seems to me it would in at least a mild way help us to put together the pieces.
Mr. DADDARIO. Well, gentleman, we are already beyond our scheduled time, and the statements have been, as most of the members have said, filled with material that can be helpful to us.
I would hope that, once we have had an opportunity to analyze these statements, other thoughts may come to mind; then we might have a chance to ask you further questions about this for the record. We would appreciate it if we might do that. Dr. REAGAN. Certainly.
(Questions submitted by the subcommittee to Dr. Michael D. Reagan:)
Question 1. It is common knowledge that the National Science Foundation has always had difficulty selling itself to Congress and the American public. What positive steps can you suggest that the Foundation might take to improve its image, extend its constituency and secure the funds corresponding to a national policy of continued preeminence for U.S. science?
Answer 1. Perhaps the biggest step that NSF could take to "sell itself” better would be to recognize that government is not like science. In science, the evidence is supposed to speak for itself. In government, support must be built for programs; citizens and legislators must be persuaded of the value of programs—the facts do not speak for themselves.
I have the impression that NSF has been inept and lackada isical in its Congressional and public relations. I would hope that the new Director would take a much more positive attitude that his predecessors apparently did toward the political processes by which authorization and appropriation decisions are made. One of the concrete steps would be greater efforts to acquaint legislators on the relevant committees with NSF programs and officers in greater degree. Another would be to keep every Congressman and Senator informed of NSF funds supporting research/education in his district or state.
NSF does have a constituency. In fact, it has three constituencies: the scientists; the colleges and universities; and the school teachers aided by summer institutes. I have the impression that none of these areas of programmatic support has ever been systematically tapped. Why not some area conferences to which NSF could invite representatives of its various constituencies for briefings on the agency and for program suggestions and criticisms? Why not a newsletter to all beneficiaries, institutional important developments in the agency, including legislative and appropriations happenings? In short, NSF should frankly recognize the legitimate role of interest groups in our political system, for informing policy makers, and build a conscious support system among its constituencies.
As regards the general public, too, NSF could do more. I recall seeing some years ago, for instance, a travelling AEC exhibit on the atom. Why not travelling NSF exhibits, to high schools and small colleges, to show what basic research is, and to exemplify some of the ways in which basic research underlies major technological developments? NSF could also provide prizes at science fairs.
Question 2. What is your opinion concerning the effects on management or organization of Federal science activities which have resulted from the application of planning-programming-budgeting methods and techniques ?
Answer 2. I do not have sufficient information about the application of PPB to science activities to permit an informed reply to this question.
Question 3. In recent years there has been considerable discussion of the need for an annual report on science and technology. You too have made this recommendation. What do you think such a report should contain? Should it be a review of the immediate past or a blueprint for the future, or both?
Answer 3. An annual Presidential report on science and technology should be only in small degree a review of the year past. In major part, it should be a real attempt to articulate an Administration position on the forthcoming year's special needs for emphasis and priority, an attempt to grapple with and present reasoned positions regarding selected major issues of science policy each year.
Mr. DADDARIO. This committee will adjourn until 10 a.m. on Monday at this same place.
(Whereupon, at 12:08 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned, to reconvene the following Monday, July 28, 1969, at 10. a.m.)