Page images

the load off the little guy's shoulders and it is going to fall on the big guy's, and in most cases they are kidding themselves.

This is what scares all of us, that we are going to get another monster here, if you want to call it that

Dr. WALKER. There is that danger. That is why I am saying I think you have to concentrate on the engineering and technology end so the people can see what they are getting out of it. I think the people are beginning to wonder what they are getting out of science.

What we have to do is transfer this science into something that fits right into their lives.

Mr. Winn. Yes. That is my point. How do we do that? NASA had a hard time for years.

Dr. WALKER. Sure.

Mr. Winn. When we were funding the money for the space shot to the moon and all that, the mail kept coming in saying they didn't understand it, it wasn't doing anything for the little guy, he didn't see any benefits, and really it was pretty expensive-they think it still is. I have two letters right here saying it is a pretty expensive TV show, but everybody enjoyed it and took full credit for it.

Dr. WALKEP. Well, my only suggestion, sir, is that we concentrate on trying to give the people what we want and I hope we do as good a job as NASA in showing the people they are getting something

Mr. Winn. But they didn't do it until we got the end result. Dr. WALKER. Yes. Mr. WINN. You see, that is my point. My point is how—if we fund a Department of Science and Technology-and I don't disagree with your philosophy. If we got this going in the direction that you gentlemen and many others ahead of you in the past 2 weeks have said, how do we start an education program to the American taxpayer that makes him feel that he is a part of your endeavors and that he wants to spend part of his tax money for science and technology?

That is what I am talking about, a PR program.

Dr. WALKER. Yes. And this is where engineers are notably weak, sir, so you

shouldn't ask me. Mr. Winn. Maybe we ought to interview some PR experts to see what their philosophy is.

Mr. DADDARIO. You want to say something? Dr. Long. Yes, sir; although I am not sure that it merits the input of a new roll of paper.

That is one of the reasons, exactly the kind of question you are raising, I think, may from some different standpoint be worthy of note.

General Shriever and I both feel that holding to the position of mission-oriented agency and giving them some responsibility had some pluses in it. Because if one has a Department of Interior, perhaps with pretty explicit assignment, to clean up water and to take care of the water problem, then just figure some work on acid mine water wastes is a little cleaner than if it has to come down through something a little more remote from the mission, like a Department of Science.

My own feeling is that we may very well come to a Department of Science.

I certainly haven't made up my mind firmly one way or the other, but I am absolutely sure that right away we need some additional Federal coordination, long-range planning, and centralization, so that some parts of the things that are used to justify a Department of Science I believe are needed pretty much here now.

Mr. Winn. Well, I agree with your thinking there. But again, being almost facetious about it, it is kind of like the Kansas farmer who was breathing beautiful air, clean air.

Dr. WALKER. Yes.

Mr. WINN. He doesn't really have a problem. He is not too worried about the big problem of New York or East St. Louis, any more than the inhabitant of New York or East St. Louis is very worried about the agricultural price problem.

How do we get everybody on the team, is my question.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DADDARIO. Well, Mr. Winn has asked some questions that are important and they probably underlie the concern of the committee going back to the time when we determined that the National Science Foundation needed to be restructured so that we could point out what it was doing in a better way than it had been able to do up to that time.

We would hope that would become effective and will become effective under a new director, with new assistants, with added opportunities. Yet, these hearings have underlined beneath them the idea that through the better understanding of the way in which we are organized, how we may adjust ourselves in these ways, the public might better understand, develop a feel about science.

I was talking to John Lear at one time. He had a very interesting idea. He hoped that someday in this country we would be able to develop a feeling about science policy in a way that the British have developed a feeling about foreign policy.

Complicated as it is and necessary as it is, I do think that if we can organize, I do believe with you that we must examine more critically the whole process of innovation and invention, the means by which basic knowledge is actually applied to practical use. If more research be done in this particular area, some breakthroughs and better understanding can be accomplished.

Obviously, the people in Kansas, Mr. Winn, not affected by air pollution have to look far enough ahead to the time when they might be so affected that they will support the planning today that they will not find themselves in the same position as in New York and others.

Mr. Winn. I think this is very true, also if you tie the water pollution into the study of air pollution. They are affected by that.

Dr. WALKER. Yes.

Mr. DADDARIO. There is no doubt that there is an extremely strong feeling on the part of the public generally about the need to do something about our environment.

Dr. WALKER. Yes.

Mr. DADDARIO. As we are able to translate our ability to handle it, we can get support. The nature of these hearings shows how complicated that is

Mr. Winn. I think, too, Mr. Chairman, that we have a problem of sort of like a football team, offense and defense. Great parts of this country, particularly through the Midwest, are constantly defending themselves against things like water pollution or flooding.

They want money spent for defense. What we are talking about is reversing it and going to the offense, so we won't have to spend so much money on defense, really.

Mr. DADDARIO. Gentlemen, thank you all. These hearings to this point have become more interesting and have added more to the knowledge of the committee and given us more to work with.

This committee will adjourn subject to the call of the Chair. (Whereupon, at 12:04 p.m., the committee was adjourned.)




Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10:10 a.m., in room 2325, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Emilio Q. Daddario (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Mr. DADDARIO. This meeting will come to order.

Dr. Piore and Dr. Keeney, will you come forward together. I think that will probably be the best way for us to have our hearing.

Before commencing with your testimony, I would like to simply remark that today we resumed hearings on the question of whether the present organizational framework for Federal activities in science and education and engineering is as good as it should be.

Frankly, the testimony is closely correlated with the position of where the witness stands; that is, is he presently in or out of Government? The present administration appears to suggest that congressional budget cutting is the first problem to be solved and suggests that any reorganization wait.

Èx-officials are agreed that organizational weaknesses do exist; that more centralization is needed for planning, coordination, and efficiency; and that something need be done.

There is also no clear indication that centralization would, in fact, lead to more funding support. In fact, a billion dollar National Science Foundation would still have to be augmented with considerable money from mission agencies to total up to the required amount for a strong academic research and training program for the United States.

As we continue to study the relationships of organization funding and deployment of science and national objectives, we will continue to consult further with many experienced persons. We are fortunate today in having as our witnesses Dr. E. R. Piore and Dr. Barnaby Keeney.

Dr. Piore is vice president and chief scientist of IBM and has rendered long, valuable, and varied service to the Government including his present Vice-Chairmanship of the National Science Board of the National Science Foundation.

Dr. Keeney, Chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities, brings to these hearings the very necessary viewpoint of the scholarly and academic community. Incidentally, as everyone knows, he is a former president of Brown University and, as many do not know, is a native of Hartford, Conn., which is my home city.

Dr. Piore.
Dr. PIORE. Thank you very much.

[ocr errors]


Dr. PIORE. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am delighted to have been asked to participate in this discussion on how the executive department should be organized to optimize the national effort in science and technology. I am also grateful that this subcommittee has opened the dialog and is keeping the issues before the Congress and the public at large.

I would like to observe that I am speaking as an individual and not representing the point of view of any board or any other group that I may be associated with, since I don't know what the consensus would be if I tried to obtain one.

The desirability and the need for a Department of Science on the Cabinet level has been debated for the last 20 years. Until recently, the outcome of these debates could be summarized by stating that it has neither appeared desirable nor in the national interest nor important to the support of science to have a Department of Science. This feeling was very strong in the scientific community.

During the last few years, however, the scientific community's opposition to a Department of Science has been gradually eroding. This change in the general feeling toward a Department of Science has been due, in large part, to the modification of budgets, the shifting of support among various fields and the very large dependence upon Federal financing for the continued forward movement of science in this country and the desire for continued world leadership in scientific fields. When I refer to science, I am referring very broadly to the natural sciences and the social sciences.

It is well to point out that during World War II there was centralized and coordinated direction of our scientific and technological efforts under Dr. Vannevar Bush, who practically had Cabinet status. Under conditions of war and centralized administration, we, as a scientific community, distinguished ourselves. Dr. Bush, in his report to the President, entitled "Science: The Endless Frontier," did recommend certain structures within the executive department to deal with and manage our scientific and technological effort. For a variety of reasons, those recommendations were not accepted, and we faced a period of establishing various new agencies with specialized responsibility for moving ahead in the area of science and technology. Between the end of World War II and now, only two actions were taken in an effort to pull things together across Cabinet departments and independent agencies. They were the creation of the Federal Council for Science and Technology and the appointment of a number of assistant secretaries for science and technology within the Cabinet departments. The creation of this Council was based on a report issued by the President's Science Advisory Committee in 1958 entitled “Strengthening American Science.”

There is no question in my mind that the last decade has demonstrated the great creative capabilities in our country in science and technology. The United States has made major contributions and has displaved great intellectual leadership in many fields. Many of the countries of the world have copied our patterns, are increasing their support of science, and are meeting the pace set by us.

[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »