Dr. HARRIS. I was interested in the observation of the trends which in this data must add to 100 percent and therefore a higher percent of total for one field must be accompanied by a proportional reduction in another field or fields.

Mr. MOSHER. Yes.

Dr. HARRIS. I do want to emphasize that I am talking now about percentage here. I am not talking about total dollars. The actual dollars that are expended today are rather considerably more than they were in 1961, as you well know.

Mr. MOSHER. Yes.

Dr. HARRIS. The only other point I would like to make on this chart is that the percent of Federal R. & D. expenditures for health have taken over the third place position, moving above the education and knowledge line by a small amount in 1969.

For those functional fields that have less than 2 percent of the Federal R. & D. budget in 1969, it is not feasible to plot their trends from 1961 to 1969, because they are so close to each other and so close to zero. Nevertheless, there are some interesting changes to observe. In the functional field of housing and community development there has been an increase from a tenth of a percent up to three-tenths of a percent. In labor and in welfare there have been small increases. These still receive very modest R. & D. budgets.

In the next figure I can show you the relationship between the Federal funds allocated to a field and the Federal R. & D. funds allocated to that field. These data are presented in terms of the percentage of total outlays allocated to research and development.

In 1961, nearly 15 percent of the functional field of national security was allocated to research and development. This had fallen to a little over 11 percent by 1969.

In the field of health, 20 percent of the outlays in 1961 were allocated to research and development. This has now fallen to about 10 percent. In the field of education and knowledge, a larger fraction of the budget was devoted to research and development in 1961 than in 1969. As shown in figure IV, about 9.5% of the total Federal budget was allocated to research and development in 1961 and in 1969, but there have been changes in the patterns of allocations in various fields

Now, I would like to return to page 7 of my prepared statement. (The portions of the prepared statement not read are as follows:) Figure I shows relative priorities among the 13 functional fields in terms of percent of total Government outlays as presented in the budget, fiscal year 1969. It shows that out of every dollar of total Government expenditures: 45 cents went for national security, 20 cents for welfare, 7 cents for health, and so on.

Figure II shows the same picture with regard to relative R. & D. priorities. It indicates that out of every Federal dollar spent on R. &. D., about 53 cents was spent on national security; 23 cents on space; 7 cents on health; 7 cents on education and knowledge; 5 cents on natural resources and environmental; 2 cents on commerce, transportation and communications; about 12 cents on agriculture; and less than one-half cent each on welfare, housing and community develop

All R. & D. figures discussed are R. & D. conduct expenditures. That is, actual expenditures for the conduct of R. & D., exclusive of R. & D. plant and major equipment.

ment, labor and manpower, general Government, and international relations.

Figure III shows trends in relative R. & D. fundings priorities from 1961 through 1969 by functional field and shows that:

(a) The five functional fields for which trend lines are shown making up 95.5 percent of all R. & D. expenditures in 1969.

(b) National security R. & D. is the largest program but shows a relative reduction over the 1961-69 period with a corresponding increase in space, which is in second place. This graph shows quite strikingly an almost mirror image of the trend lines for national security and for space in terms of their relative percentage of the total Federal R. & D. budget. The trend for national security R. & D. decreases and that for space increases between 1961 and 1966. Subsequently, both trend lines reversed their slopes as national security began to increase its relative position and space to decrease.

(c) The relative position of the other fields remains fairly constant except for health, which rises more quickly after 1965 and takes third position from education and knowledge in 1969.

(d) Figures for the remaining eight functional fields are shown next but trend lines are not drawn because the percentages are too low to be shown in any meaningful way on the same scale. No one of these functional fields comprises as much as 2 percent of R. & D. expenditures and the eight together comprise less than 5 percent.

It should be clear from the preceding material that the order in which functional fields are ranked by total budget allocations is very different from that when ranked by research and development allocations. This is not surprising since R. & D. is less important to some functional fields than to others. Some functional fields are more science and technology limited than others.

With these data in hand, it is now feasible to determine the percentage of total outlays allocated to R. & D. for Government as a whole and the percentage of the budget of each functional field that is allocated to R. & D.

Mr. DADDARIO. Mr. Lederman, why don't you come forward and sit at the table so you won't feel inhibited, and break in at anytime you would like.

Mr. LEDERMAN. Thank you.

Dr. HARRIS. In some functional fields, the allocations for R. & D. are significantly above the Government average, and in others, below it, as shown in the following list.

There are a group of functional fields that are above the national average and another group of functional fields that are below.

It is understandable that R. & D. would be a higher proportion of the fields of space, natural resources, and environmental, education, and knowledge, and national security, and a lower proportion of some other fields such as welfare, labor, and manpower, and veterans. However, it is not clear why a higher proportion of the budgets are not allocated to R. & D. in such fields as commerce, transportation, and communication; and housing and community development. Those individuals and organizations interested in increasing the contributions of science and technology to national goals and objectives should explore the adequacy of such resources as applied to all fields, but particularly to those fields with increasing national priority that appear to be confronted by significant technical problems but which are devoting relatively small amounts of their budgets to R. & D.

In general, in those fields in which R. & D. is a higher percentage than the 9.5-percent Government average, total outlays are tending to increase faster than funding for R. & D. This leads to the allocation of a lower percentage of the increased outlays to R. & D. This pattern has been observed in the fields of national security, health, and education and knowledge, although space and natural resources and environmental have not followed the pattern. On the other hand, in those fields in which R. & D. is a smaller percent of the total budget than the 9.5percent Government average, R. & D. has increased more rapidly than outlays. R. & D. represents a higher percentage of the increased outlays in such fields as welfare; commerce, transportation, and communications; agriculture; international relations; labor and manpower; housing and community development; and general government. Thus, there is some movement in most fields toward the Federal average, but substantial differences can be expected to continue because the various fields are not equally science and technology limited. I would like now to summarize the implications of some of our findings and my own thoughts in terms of the subcommittee's current interests:

(1) The major issue, as I see it, on which the future health of Federal R. & D. is predominantly dependent is its capacity to contribute to the achievement of national goals and priorities. Very different organizational structures for R. & D. can be successful if effective and acceptable relationships between R. & D. and goals are established and maintained.

(2) The present Federal R. & D. program established by the U.S. Congress and administered by executive branch agencies is the envy of most of the world. It has permitted active participation by hundreds of thousands of individuals in a wide variety of governmental, educational, business, and nonprofit institutions. Any reorganization should make it possible for the total scientific and engineering resources of the United States to contribute even more to the achievement of national goals.

(3) In analyzing the background material prepared for the subcommittee, and our work as summarized above, we have observed that many of the suggestions for reorganizing Federal scientific and technological activities seem to involve those functional fields in which many agen

33-257-69- -16

cies have programs or those instances in which the responsibility for ultimate program implementation does not have an adequate relationship to supporting research and development efforts. Examples of such situations include:

(a) Natural resources and environmental. Agencies involved include ESSA, HEW's environmental health programs, AEC civilian power program, and Interior's geology and mining programs and its water supply and pollution programs.

(b) Education and knowledge. Agencies involved include NSF, and HEW's related education programs.

Any reorganization should insure that linkages between R. & D. and the other elements of the fields are maintained and strengthened, not weakened. Acceptance of this principle would argue against a large, independent organization that was concerned only with R. & D.

(4) Flexibility of approach to the support of R. & D. has been a useful consequence of multiagency support. Given the subtle and changing nature of the role of R. & D. in the United States and its variety of contributions to national goals. any reorganization should retain and encourage continued flexibility and not insist on too great a degree of standardization of administrative procedures.

(5) Identification of education and knowledge as a functional fieldand parenthetically the establishment of national goals and priorities relating to that functional field-may provide an effective basis for recognition of the national role of basic research and its educational implications.

(6) With respect to the proposed NOAA [National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency], it is recognized that the Navy will continue to have an important role in ocean research and development. Thus NOAA would give its primary attention to nonmilitary ocean programs. If NOAA were established, it would probably lead to an increase in R. & D. support for its field, but if NOAA were to restrict its attention to R. & D. and not incorporate a suitable range of operational responsibilities, it would not necessarily increase the efficiency with which the relevant function is pursued to the same degree.

(7) There are proposals to reorganize the activities of Government concerned with environmental problems. In view of the interplay between air, water, and ground pollution (including solid waste disposal), a logical basis exists for suggesting a consolidation of these activities. In considering such a reorganization, the important principle cited above of incorporating relevant R. & D. as well as operational responsibilities in any new agency or institution should be recognized. (8) The nature of national goals and the R. & D. relevant to them is such that no simple grouping of agencies will eliminate all overlapping activities. Therefore, any reorganization plans should recognize the critical importance of a relatively small, senior office in the executive branch, exemplified now by OST, that has coordinating and central policymaking responsibiliites and a few committees in the Congress, exemplified by this subcommittee, that can maintain continuing surveillance over the health of R. & D. in the United States.

I feel that the analysis of the allocation of R. & D. resources to the various fields and the comparison between R. & D. resources and total allocations for each field has provided an initial insight into the general

relationship of R. & D. to national goals. Such an approach can contribute to a better national understanding of the role of R. & D. with respect to goals. I suggest that an agency of Government be requested to prepare an annual report on this basis. We would be happy to offer our assistance to an agency given such an assignment based upon our experience in making such studies.

In conclusion, I would like to thank the subcommittee for inviting me to testify. You have already met Mr. Lederman, one of the coauthors of the report cited in these remarks, on whom I may wish to call for assistance in responding to your questions.

Mr. DADDARIO. Thank you both.

Mr. Brown?

Mr. BROWN. Well, I consider this to be an extremely provocative report, but I am a little at a loss as to just how to digest some of the findings at the present time.

For example, I can't quite understand the low order of research and development priority for a field such as welfare, considering the substantial amount of Federal funding that goes into this area. I think it is the most striking discrepancy that occurs here. Could you delineate a little more fully the type of expenditures which you have included under the heading welfare here?

Mr. LEDERMAN. Yes. Let me simply read a list of programs or agencies that are included under welfare. This would include the old age, survivors and disability insurance program, the civil service retirement and disability programs, the railroad retirement program, the public assistance program, excluding medical assistance which we classified under health, the vocational rehabilitation program, the school lunch, special milk, food stamp-type programs, the proposed increase in food stamp legislation at that time, the juvenile delinqency program, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Those are the general outlay functions.

In terms of R. & D., the only program area with an identifiable R. & D. program related to the welfare functional field is the vocational rehabilitation program.

Mr. BROWN. How do you classify the expenditures that generally are included in the area of crime, law enforcement, and items of that sort?

Mr. LEDERMAN. That is classified under the heading of General Government.

Mr. BROWN. Under General Government?

Mr. LEDERMAN. Under General Government. The law enforcement, judicial, and legislative expenditures are classified under General Government.

Mr. BROWN. Of course, a great part of these expenditures are not Federal expenditures but are State and local government expenditures. The anomaly it seems to me is that here is an area in which there is a great need for increased and better social science research. Obviously, it isn't taking place at the State and local government level, and it would seem appropriate that in view of the importance that this function has to the national welfare as a whole-it is a goal of high priority at the present time-that there needs to be an expansion of research and development type activities, to contribute to our