« PreviousContinue »
Mr. DADDARIO. Just one question before I turn the time over to Mr. Brown, following Mr. Mosher's question. It was my understanding that although you felt that there should be this definition of objectives both in Government and out, that you did feel that research of all kinds ought to be supported and this ought to be done as a whole through Government and this should be through the kind of support that you recommended we give to the universities, and that we develop our researches within those institutions rather than primarily in-house. It was my feeling that you were recommending to us, too, that although your industrial departments had had this fine line of definition as a responsibility, that they should and were allowed to do a certain amount of basic research, even of the most esoteric kind, to develop quality. When we did discuss the national laboratories, and your prepared statement touches on this, that there ought to be some flexibility in this area of research.
Dr. LENHER. Those are my views.
Mr. BROWN. Well, I would like to say that I feel that Dr. Lenher has made a very real contribution in his analysis of the experiences of his own industry. I would just like to ask one or two questions.
You say on page 16, at the bottom of the page, that "Federal research with short-range objectives and research with an engineering or technological content have little to gain, and probably as much to lose, from centralized control."
I presume that you mean that research activities carried on by a mission-oriented agency such as the Department of Defense should not be subject to a Government-wide coordination but that as long as it does have a definite relevance to their mission that they should be more or less at their own discretion as to how they carry it out.
Dr. LENHER. Yes; that is my view, Mr. Brown. But what I was trying to bring out there was to focus attention on the question of centralization of Federal science, rather than Federal technical work. I think there is an important distinction between scientific work and technical work. I think the technical work should almost take care of itself. If its purpose is well defined, its limits should be quite clear. They are practical, they are engineering, and they are easily comprehended. Scientific work, I think, requires very much more careful study and thought as to whether it ought to be centralized or left alone. But the short-range technical work, it is clear to me, I would leave where it is closest to its sponsor.
Mr. Brown. Well, we have the experience, as I am sure you well know, that a good deal of the support for research of various kinds, whether you call it basic or applied or whatever, has been funded or sponsored by the Department of Defense.
Dr. LENHER. Yes.
Mr. BROWN. This has caused some real problems within the last year or two or three. For example, in high energy physics, the relevance of this to the immediate mission of the Defense Department seems not to have been crucial and therefore-and this is only one example—they have tended, when they face a budgetary stringency, to slough off this particular kind of research. Now, from what you have said I would
feel that possibly they should not have been engaged in this full gamit of what we might call strictly theoretical or basic research since it apparently did not bear a close relationship to their immediate mission.
Dr. LENHER. I don't want to make a judgment with regard to the last part of your question, Mr. Brown, as to whether they should or should not, but I do have the view that, if that type of work is undertaken in the interest of the Department of Defense and it is purely scientific work, to raise the question wouldn't it be better sponsored by the National Science Foundation and with that work supported by the National Science Foundation wouldn't the work itself be in a better posture opposite the Nation as a whole, particularly with the spectrum of political and social opinion that Federal science has to face in the way of criticism-wouldn't that support come better from the National Science Foundation than from the Department of Defense, even though it is exactly the same project?
Mr. BROWN. Yes.
Dr. LENHER. I would say it would come better from the National Science Foundation.
Mr. Brown. Well, apparently the Department of Defense felt this way also since it in effect suggested that some of this work go to the National Science Foundation. The problem was that the National Science Foundation faced the same or even worse budgetary restrictions at the same time that the Department of Defense did. So in a very real sense, we would have been better off if the work had originally been placed with the National Science Foundation.
Dr. LENHER. I think so.
Mr. Brown. Rather than with the Department of Defense, which of course at one time was an agency where funds were relatively easier to obtain than they were for the National Science Foundation. But this problem has bothered me.
The Defense Department does engage in some very worthwhile research of a fundamental nature. The Office of Naval Research has an excellent record in this regard and other similar agencies.
Dr. LENHER. I know.
Mr. Brown. The real question, it seems to me, is are they appropriately funding the full range of the job that they are doing or through some form of overview have they been limited to activities which bore more directly upon their specific mission? This may be very difficult to determine.
On page 17, following on with your reasoning, you have stated that this long-range basic research be subjected to more centralization, and I presume you are thinking in terms of the responsibilities for the funding of this research primarily rather than through the direct control of the direction of the research itself. We have heard a number of statements to the effect that it is best not to try and exercise to close a conti
over the content of basic research from a centralized agency, but I want to make clear in my mind whether you are saying that we should attempt to dictate to the basic researcher, or whether we should merely seek by the processes of funding to establish a degree of priority or order of magnitude of the work that is going on.
Dr. LENHER. My thought there was to help in establishing priorities to support the work that was considered in several views, from several
sources, to be most important, and also where there is interest and substantial interest in several branches of the Government, that the support be coordinated and clearly understood. For example, in health problems, the Department of Defense have had and wils continue to have important health problems that they will wish studied. HEW has a whole area of support that is continuing. I think it would be in the general interest if those health projects were exchanged between the departments and there was a coordinated approach to support of that problem, rather
than a separate approach. Mr. Brown. Well, this is the point I am trying to get. Because you are recommending that basic research be handled through the universities to a large degree.
Dr. LENHER. Yes.
Mr. Brown. I wouldn't want the implication to be left in the testimony that you are favoring a higher degree of Federal control over the method of university research.
Dr. LENHER. No.
Mr. Brown. But merely your desire is to see a degree of coordination as between the various Federal agencies in the priorities they establish and the level of funding they establish for a particular research program.
Dr. LEN HER. That was my intent, Mr. Brown; yes.
Mr. DADDARIO. Dr. Lenher, the committee is appreciative of your testimony and your overall appearance here. As always, when you have testified in the past, you have left us with many further questions we would like to pose and in one way or another through form of written questions or by Mr. Carpenter paying you a visit so we might talk, we hope we might have that opportunity.
Thank you, sir. Dr. LENHER. Thank you, Mr. Daddario. (Questions submitted by the subcommittee to Dr. Samuel Lenher.) 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. The National Science Foundation could solidify its position with Congress and with the American public with a thoughtful public relations program to establish understanding and appreciation by the Congress and the American public of the real connection between the findings of fundamental or basic research and the strength and well-being of modern society. The role of leadership in the Foundation can be filled by the Director of NSF and his staff taking the position that science and technology are such an important part of public interest that they demand strong support and wide understanding.
The personnel of NSF have been mainly scientists or science administrators, while members of the Congress have been largely from legal, journalistic, administrative or political background, with very few trained scientists and engineers in their group. The NSF, dependent on the Congress for funds, should properly try to build a bridge of understanding and communication between its corpus of personnel and aims, and the Congress with its current lack of full appreciation of the Foundation's mission, and the Congress' need to balance the support of many government agencies.
Question 2. The chemical industry has had a long history of providing grants, fellowships and facilities to universities. Has the recent decade of Federal support
over-shadowed or decrcased this private support? In this time of crisis in academic science funding can or will industry come to the rescue? Is there, in fact, any alternative to the Federal budget for the large sums necessary?
Answer 2. The recent great increase of Federal support of universities has not brought about a decrease in support of grants, fellowships and facilities to universities. On the contrary, the chemical industry has increased support of higher education, but the increase has been far short of meeting the national need. In this time of shortage of academic science funding, industry is making a modest effort to accommodate the short-term position, but there is clearly no alternative to a Federal budget with the very large sums necessary to support adequately the advance of science in this country.
Question 3. What is the relative amount of research done in operating divisions (corresponding to mission agencies) vs Central Research Lab (corresponding to NSF) in Du Pont?
Answer 3. The amount of research and development work done in the operating departments of the Du Pont Company, corresponding to mission agencies in the Federal government, is 80% versus 20% of basic or exploratory research, corresponding to the role of NSF.
Question 4. Flexibility in the use of certain National Laboratories could be construed as competition with industry. (e.g. if Oak Ridge National Laboratory was assigned the task of developing a phosphate-free detergent or a lead-free gasoline). What problems do you foresee and what mechanisms might be necessary to avoid interference with market place economics while getting the "social overhead” problems solved ?
Answer 4. If certain National Laboratories are assigned missions which are directed to development of products or processes which are carried into commerce by industry in a competitive economy, there must be proper incentives for private industry to develop and commercialize government-supported research findings. Incentives must be provided for industry to invest capital and to make a commercial effort to make government-sponsored research findings available to the public.
A re-examination of government patent policy, which is now written to eliminate profit incentives, should be undertaken.
Exploitation of government-sponsored research which is of clear social benefit should be made possible through profitable commercialization with limits which are acceptable to the Federal government.
Mr. DADDARIO. Our next witness is Dr. William J. Harris, Jr. He is assistant director of technology of Columbus Laboratories, of Battelle Memorial Institute.
Come forward Dr. Harris.
He is a man who has a long period of involvement in Government prior to his service with Battelle, who we believe can give this committee a great deal of help.
We are happy to have you here, Dr. Harris. I understand too, that you have some charts, and I wonder if we might place those so that the people who are here can also see it as well as the committee.
STATEMENT OF DR. WILLIAM J. HARRIS, JR., ASSISTANT DIREC
TOR OF TECHNOLOGY, COLUMBUS LABORATORIES, BATTELLE
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee and ladies and gentlemen, I was pleased to receive your invitation to appear before you today and have read the report on “Centralization of Federal Science Activities” with a great deal of interest. After several decades of very rapid growth in Federal support of research and development, R. & D., and current efforts to reexamine national goals, it is appro
priate to discuss the contributions of R. & D. and to seek organizational improvement.
It is my view that the most important general issue regarding Government R. & D. policy and organization involves the relationships between Federal R. &. Ď. activities and national goals. Of course, this subcommittee and the Congress as a whole has been stressing with increasing vigor the need for research to be relevant to goals.
On this general question, the report to the subcommittee indicates that the proponents of both the diffuse and the centralized organization have suggested that their organizational philosophy will better serve national goals. Under the section in the report entitled "Pro and Con Arguments for a diffuse and a Centralized Organization Grouped Around Major Functions," is stated: “* * * a diffuse organization links science and technology to basic national goals * * *»—page 10 and "A centralized organization would relate R. & D. activities to national goals * * *».
-page 11. We have had an opportunity in the course of the last few years and particularly in the course of a recent study' to analyze the allocation of Federal R. &. D. fiscal resources in terms of the functional end use to which they are related. I would like to note, Mr. Chairman, that we have given your staff copies of this report, in two volumes and I will leave another copy with you for such use as you wish to make of it.
Mr. DADDARIO. We will appreciate that, Dr. Harris.
Dr. HARRIS. I would like to present a few of the results of this study and then discuss their implications for some of the questions that you have raised.
Although we are keenly aware of and sensitive to the many ways that a Government may express goal orientations, the allocation of Federal budget resources appears to be the best reflection of their importance and their relative priorities. This was well expressed by Melvin Anshen when he said:
The unique function of a public budget is to implement the conclusions of a political philosophy through the assignment of resources to their accomplishment."
A simplified expression of this idea comes through in the old American adage, “Put your money where you mouth is."
With the concept of basing goal orientation on budgetary allocations in mind, the fiscal year 1961–69 budgets were examined. The budget presents Federal outlays by agency and also by function. The arrangement by agency-or other administrative body-is largely a reflection of the historical growth and development of the administrative apparatus of the executive branch.
Although this arrangement indicates lines of responsibility and authority in carrying out Government programs and is the basis on which congressional appropriations are made, the functional classifi
1 "An Analysis of the Allocation of Federal Budget Resources as an Indicator of National Goals and Priorities," by L. Lederman and M. Windus, Battelle Memorial Institute, Columbus Laboratories to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Federal Clearinghouse for Scientific and Technical Information, vol. 1 (summary), is N69-20989, vol. II (details), is N69-29088. A copy of this report was provided this subcommittee and the Science Policy Research Division of the Library of Congress several months ago.
Anshen, Melvin, "The Federal Budget as an Instrument for Analysis and Management,” The Rand Corp., Santa Monica, Calif., April 1965.
S“The Budget of the U.S. Government,” Fiscal Year 1969, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1968. Referred to throughout this paper as the budget.