engineers, economists, scientists, sociologists, in tackling some of these problems.

So that in addition to a concern for the applied science and technology which President Walker has spoken about, I would like to just cover the gamut by saying that also the social sciences should be in this area of concern.

Dr. WALKER. I think that is a point that ought to be emphasized time and again.

Mr. DADDARIO. Yes, Dr. Walker.

Dr. WALKER. The interdisciplinary sciences might be supported by the department you are talking about. At the present time the National Science Foundation feels it can't get into the engineering part of it. The DOD stays pretty much out of the social science end of it.

And yet we have these things that don't fit into any category, don't even really fit into a Department of Transportation or HEW or NSF. One way would be to support them through a Department of Science and Engineering.

General SHRIEVER. Could I make a comment on what Dr. Walker had to say? This is in connection with either, you can call them prototypes or call them demonstration programs. I think there is a lack of adequate demonstration projects in this country.

These can't be taken on by private industry often because they also deal with regulations. Regulations have to go along with them. Let me give you one example. We have been talking about STOL aircraft for a long time. We know the technology exists for STOL aircraft. And we can almost prove that they can be economically operated.

But no company is going to build a STOL aircraft for intercity operation until there is a program which involves STOL airports and also an airways system that will allow these aircraft to operate outside of the current airways pattern.

There is no way of accomplishing this without a demonstration program. And unless the Government supports this kind of thing-and I would think that this would be a logical program, for example, for the Department of Transportation to support-to prove out that the system will in fact work and to see to it that the necessary regulations are written, the FAA regulations and so forth. Then private enterprise can take over and actually build the necessary equipment.

They will do that on their own risk, but they can't undertake it now in the present framework.

Mr. DADDARIO. General Schriever, would you throw in the idea, under adequate demonstration programs, of the Government supporting the building or doing it, supporting the entire building of a new city within which much experimental activity can be done as a way through which we could come to some determination about how to either rebuild' cities or how not to rebuild them?

Would you go that far?

General SCHRIEVER. I don't think I would go quite that far. I happen to be a member of the steering committee on the experimental city program that we have been working on for a couple of years in Minnesota. Now, this has as an objective to get away from all of the restraints and restrictions and to go out in the country somewhere and build a new city and experiment with technology, including the social sciences as well, of course.

The intent here is to get some Government support. But certainly in the building of that city-we haven't gotten to that point yet, I mean of how you would go into that phase. But the financing there should come largely, in my opinion, from private source.

In other words, unless you could project this city as being a viable economic entity, I don't think we should proceed. In other words, it has to be a planned community so that it can in itself be an economically viable entity. If this sort of plan can be developed, then of course private capital certainly would support this kind of activity.

A new city program might ask for some or require some Government support. We are asking for some Government support now for the planning phase, but we also-for example, the next phase that we will enter into is phase 2. Our hope there is to get $4 million, $2 million from the Government and $2 million from private sources.

And we have, in fact, raised most of the private source money already.

Mr. DADDARIO. Would you go along with that, Dr. Walker? You raised the point about the need in the sewage treatment plant, the difficulty of doing that.

If the Government were to support building, that is just part of what a city needs. Where do you say you should begin and end? Can you really build a new city if you just demonstrate how certain parts of it work, rather than every bit and piece?

Dr. WALKER. Well, you almost have to have the aid and even the authority of the Federal Government, to try this, because very often it involves social problems, union problems, and local ordinances. One way to really make a demonstration of it is to have it partly financed, as you suggest, by the Federal Government and then it gets some of its aura of authority from the Federal Government.

Dr. LONG. I wouldn't want to make too much of a plug for the State of New York, but they have developed an entity called the Urban Development Corp. that has, if I understand it-and maybe you will know better, Benny-virtually got from the State the power to take over this whole set of functions, even to the point of building, the right of eminent domain.

At least it is an interesting illustration that States can go a long way.

General SCHRIEVER. They have gone a long way in that corporation. Of course, in Minnesota we are working with the State legislature. They are going to have to pass legislation to authorize the building of such a city in the State, to get away from a lot of inhibiting factors that are present everywhere today.

I think there has to be a team of Government and private interests in everything we do down the road, in the fields of transportation and urban development, in my opinion.

Mr. DADDARIO. Which shows you how complicated and yet how necessary there is the need for organization, administration, management and in this particular area, to use your own words, Dr. Schriever, the use of the state of the art as we look ahead in planning to do all this.

General SCHRIEVER. Yes.

Mr. DADDARIO. Mr. Brown.

Mr. BROWN. I was rather interested in Dr. Walker's testimony, in some of the examples he gave as illustrating the nature of the problems that face us in these hearings. You mentioned this treatment of acid mine water and cement dust problem. It seems to me that the rational organization of a solution to these problems would be to have, for example, in the acid mine water situation a Bureau of Mines that had a mandate sufficiently broad to be concerned with the solution of this problem and the funds necessary to solve it, and the goal of solving it.

Really, the problem starts out with the fact that nobody has as their mission the goal of the solution of this problem. And given the mission and the funds, the Bureau of Mines would probably with research contracts with either universities such as your own or with private enterprise, say, come up with a solution to the acid mine water problem.

I think it could be done fairly quickly, given a goal of solving it and given certain standards, which probably do not exist yet, either, toward the solution of the problem. It seems to me the problem would not be solved necessarily by creating this Department of Science and Technology, but it could start out by being solved by having the goal of solving that problem.

The same way with the cement dust problem. You are faced here with a situation where there is no standard for air pollution by cement plants as far as I know. That nickel a hundred pounds just about represents the profit margin on cement, and nobody is going to give up their profit margin in order to do something that isn't required.

So somebody has to set those standards and set the goal. Then some appropriate agency-it might be someplace in the Department of Commerce or whatever-could have as part of its mission the entering into the contracts either for basic research if such is needed, but more likely for the engineering to go ahead and solve that.

Would that follow along with your thinking?

Dr. WALKER. Yes. You have, Mr. Brown, touched on a point that I think also needs consideration and a problem which the Department of Defense seems to have solved pretty well. And that is, how much do you do in-house and how much do you do out-of-house?

Now, the Department of Defense has its own laboratories, but it still contracts out for a great deal of this development with universities and with industry. It would be the same way with this acid mine water problem. If it were under the aegis of a Department of Science and Technology, they could say what needs to be done and what the goals are. Hopefully they would find the money, and might well use industry and universities to solve some of the problems. Or, some of the national laboratories could be brought in very effectively here to provide a sort of in-house capability for a Department of Science.

As I say, the Department of Defense has had a lot of experience with this. They do it smoothly and easily, at least I think so. Some of the newer departments need help in this.

Mr. BROWN. Well, I am concerned here with the point which I think all three of you have made, that it may not be there may be arguments against trying to create one administrative or bureaucratic organization here, but I am questioning whether it is really needed if we have

the mechanism whereby we can establish the goal and the standards and then through coordination of existing facilities, where it is laboratories or existing institutions or organizations or what not, we can establish that goal.

Dr. WALKER. I think power goes where the money goes and it would depend upon how the money was appropriated.

Mr. BROWN. Well, the money will be appropriated where there is a sense that the problem exists, but we really have not achieved a way of surfacing the problems, bringing them to the top level of consideration in the fashion that we should, in many of these areas which are just beginning to come about.

Let me ask you one philosophical question. You don't even need to answer it if you don't want to. But you used in your testimony in a number of cases for example, that the task of engineering and technology, is using the product of science. On the first page, you say for the comfort, convenience, and progress of modern man. Well, I understand comfort and convenience, but I don't understand progress. I am just wondering if you are using "progress" to mean comfort and convenience or if you have an understanding of what "progress" means. Dr. WALKER. I am afraid I do. There are other meanings, but I was talking about comfort and livability of this planet and so on.

Mr. BROWN. There is a real problem that we are coming to. Under the present procedures of our system-I am using "system" in the broadest possible terms-in a hundred years we are going to have about 27 billion people on this planet. Most of them are going to be very, very poor people and it is going to be a highly polluted planet. This isn't progress, as far as I am concerned.

I am kind of wondering how we are going to insure the comfort and convenience of these 27 billion people, or whether we even ought to have that many people. The role of technology has been to make this possible. I am kind of wondering whether or not we have a very important problem in redefining goals here to a degree.

Dr. LONG. If I could just reinforce that. Almost every major university is finding itself under one rubric or not, taking on the job of studying what one might call the science of society. Thinking of President Walker, we happen to call our program "progress in science and technology," but in effect are reflecting the realization which is surely with us that in the process of doing various good things, science and technology have shown us that over and over again they bring us some unhappy byproducts, unfortunate byproducts, byproducts that cause us trouble, the acid mine wastes being a very concrete and specific illustration.

It is true that we do need intellectually to pay a good deal more attention to the implications of science and technology, to the undesirable effects of science and technology. We need some kind of way to analyze this broad system.

I at least would be quite prepared to use this as an argument in support of more Federal central consideration of the problem, just because one needs a look at the side effects, the long-range effects as well as the near-time consequences.

Mr. DADDARIO. If I might interrupt for one moment, Mr. Brown. It is important, I think, that this be done, Dr. Long. The National

33-257-69-22

Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering will in the next week or so present some studies they have been working on in both of these areas, as both you and Dr. Walker are familiar.

We would hope it would lead to the development of this type of a capability in the country. But as we analyze Mr. Brown's question about population growth, if in fact as we begin dealing with population growth and if we come to an understanding that the population growth ought to be somewhat depressed and if we would develop a stable level of population throughout the world and in this country in particular, it doesn't need to be studied from the standpoint of the effect it will have on our own technological development. Wouldn't this in itself develop into a chaotic situation from the standpoint of the way in which we have grown and we would have to know in what direction it would be leading us?

So as we analyze the one problem, we create a whole series of others, do we not?

Dr. LONG. Yes, sir.

Mr. DADDARIO. All of which ought to be taken into consideration as we begin tampering with it.

Dr. LONG. Yes.

Mr. BROWN. Well, there was another point in your testimony which bears on Dr. Walker's testimony, the very cogent point that you made, there is no profit in some of the things that the public really needs, and the inverse of this is true, that there is a good deal of profit in some things the public doesn't need.

Dr. WALKER. That is right.

Mr. BROWN. The profit, for example, in the cement industry is a profit in the dust.

Dr. WALKER. Yes.

Mr. BROWN. I mean, the exact amount it would cost to control that dust is probably pretty close to the profit that they are making. Dr. WALKER. Yes, sir.

Mr. BROWN. So you can say that they are generating dust to make their profit and we don't need that dust, but nobody has said so up to now. This poses some very important problems in connection with the dynamics of how our economic system works. Somehow or another these problems have to be surfaced at the highest possible level so they can be considered. I would agree, putting these kinds of problems into a central department does not surface the problems necessarily.

It may hinder the surfacing of them, but it nevertheless has to be done in some fashion.

General SCHRIEVER. Mr. Chairman, could I comment on this? Mr. DADDARIO. Of course.

General SCHRIEVER. Because again I think this brings out the point I made, the necessity for really effective advance planning in which you do identify objectives and goals. This, I think, is really a major shortcoming in many of our newer agencies that have been established over the past few years.

I might set your mind at ease a little bit on the cement dust. I am on the board of directors of American Cement and we have just approved the building of a new cement plant in Detroit that will have precipitators on it. That plant will not be spewing out dust.