« PreviousContinue »
from research, except for research into education itself, has resulted in a great deal of flabbiness and difficulty in defining what is and what is not innovative.
However, the proposed separation of higher education from education at the elementary and secondary level is not to be commended in my opinion. It is from higher education that educators at the lower levels probably will increasingly have to draw means of improvement in the future. The proposed reorganization would place the Science Foundation and the Humanities Endowment in close proximity to the offices charged with fostering innovation in education, but would separate both from the secondary schools which are most in need of help.
The major difficulty educators now have with the organization of the Federal Government is that they find no place to go for funds for an entire program of education. There is educational funding for the disadvantaged. There is funding for buildings, including dormitories and student unions. But there is no place in the Government to which an undergraduate college, for example, can turn for support of an educational program designed to improve the institution across the board. This causes a number of difficulties. It is not, in the long run, beneficial to any educational institution or system to have to go to 10 places to get 10 different parts of the same thing, as is now the case, even within a single office of the Government.
It is often observed that education at the highest levels is inseparable from research. In the Government, we are dealing with all levels of education, and we need to tie together the various aspects into a single program for support of education.
My major criticism of the proposal, however, is that the reorganization would still leave a great deal to be accomplished, and very little with which to accomplish it. I do not say that centralization would injure the Government; neither do I say that it would be great advantage to the Government, or to the humanities. I do say that I doubt very much that any reorganizational steps are going to make much difference where the humanities are concerned, until the humanitiesand their uses-become an important and daily part of American life. And I do think that Government activities in education, and possibly research, ought to be centralized, with particular attention to innovation in education.
Mr. DADDARIO. You and Dr. Piore, both touch on the Cabinet level and support it to varying degrees because it would give more visibility and more of an opportunity for the case to be made. How do you contemplate the present OST? How would it fit into this adjustment? Would the Cabinet level position swell into it so that you would have a Cabinet level post for one purpose? Would there be two separate people, two separate places? How does that fit in?
Dr. KEENEY. That would fit in depending a great deal on the inclinations of the President himself. Would he not decide that question, whether or not he wanted a separate adviser? If he decided he did not, I should think OST could become the planning staff of the Department.
Mr. DADDARIO. My answer is that our job is to look over the structure and develop what appears to be the very best. Obviously the President, as you have pointed out, will listen or not listen, depending on
whether he want to or not. How would we structure the situation where the best possible purpose would appear?
Dr. KEENEY. I should think if you wanted to look at it that way, you would have OST as the planning staff of the Department.
Mr. DADDARIO. How do you feel, Dr. Piore !
Dr. PIORE. The President, I think, you know, will continue to have a science adviser. The President has an economic adviser, and there are other economic structures within the White House. OST can continue to have a coordinating function, to pull together these broad agencies that I talked about and the mission agencies.
Still some kind of coordinating function may be required. Whether you abolish OST by creating the Department, you have to be concerned how this new Department would relate to defense, to the clinical medical research that goes under the auspices of HEW, et cetera. It is not clear in my mind how to structure it, whether you keep it or whether you abolish it and give the coordinating responsibility possibly to this new Cabinet department.
It is always difficult for one Cabinet department to coordinate another department. So I come out finally that there would be continued need for the Office of Science and Technology.
You can even go a step further and say that maybe it ought to be pulled into the Bureau of the Budget with a coordinating responsibility, if you put a very large department together. There are a number of choices, and I have not thought through all the pluses and minuses for each possibility.
Dr. KEENEY. I think the number of things that are left out of your proposed department would make a coordinating office necessary in science alone.
Dr. PIORE. I think we have any number of departments that have broad policies for science, because the country just wants to do science. They ought to be pulled into it.
Mr. DADDARIO. Dr. Piore, you make a very important point. I don't recall whether it is in your formal or informal remarks. You said, in order to get the kind of support we need, that you have got to develop in the country a public policy of support of science.
Dr. Keeney seems to be touching on that same subject in a different way. He sees a great deal of flabbiness developing. The need for innovation in the Office of Education and the removability of it from research.
He says whatever is done, education and possibly research ought to be centralized with a particular attention to innovation in education. Can you correlate these by bringing together all of these disciplines so that support would be able to develop such a public feeling rather than the proliferation we have presently?
Dr. KEENEY. I think if you pull together activities concentrated on education and on the research that is a proper part of an educational institution, including the research into education itself, which very badly needs some research, and which very badly needs to be stimulated to respond more to present needs than it does, you might have two things moving in the same direction.
Mr. DADDARIO. How do you feel about that?
Dr. PIORE. You have two ways to go, and I have presented one, and Dr. Keeney another.
Pulling together science and pulling together education are two different problems. How you marry them is very difficult for me to think through.
Dr. KEENEY. This is where I break down, too.
Dr. PIORE. One of the reasons is that the constituency in education is large, it has deep roots, and it does not overlap the constituency of science. Organizational pressures on the Office of Education come from, let me call it, the "schoolmen." This is a traditional problem we have had since schools of education were created. They have been a little outside the university setup. They are very powerful.
Dr. KEENEY. I would take exception to that. Are you through? Dr. PIORE. I am. Dr. KEENEY. Actually, it isn't that simple. You have, in the Office of Education, all the constituency of education from the primary school to the university, and they all bring pressure on it. When you get up to the university part of it, your constituency coincides with science.
Dr. PIORE. I would agree completely.
Dr. KEENEY. I don't think you can separate them out without damaging education quite seriously.
Mr. DADDARIO. Dr. Piore, you point out our present position, and the pace of the world in following and meeting the U.S. pace. You indicate that we may no longer be or soon will not be the pace setters. How does that fit what we are looking at here?
Dr. PIORE. Let me talk about the scientific area. We have set a certain
pace. We have encouraged a great deal of creativity in this sector. The large instruments which we as a Nation have supplied our scientific establishment, have given us a unique position in the scientific world. European countries look at us and are concerned about what is known as the “technological gap.” They have started to emulate us. In many places in the world, you will find, they are building the next set of instruments to break through new areas of science. In that sense, we are going to fall behind.
There are a number of areas where we are facing that sort of problem. CERN is building a clashing beam instrument. The most interesting radio astronomical instruments will not necessarily be in this country in the future, the way we are going. One can cite many other examples. I am not quite so familiar with the biological area.
So that I do not like the word leadership—our intellectual drive in one way or another will be reduced.
Mr. DADDARIO. Do you caution that the balance and the adjustment in our organization and our policy towards the way in which we do this at the present time can be affected by our handling the mission support and fluctuation over a long period of time?
Dr. PIORE. Yes, the mission agencies were very important since actually they dominated most of the funds. Now this is no longer the pattern. They will have less and less money for a lot of reasons. Part of it is the mood of the universities. Part of it is the administrative view in a given department. Congress is in the mood to reduce the role of the mission agencies in science.
Unfortunately, in the congressional debate there is great conviction but no transfer of money, which makes it very difficult. This lack of transfer of money is not because of lack of congressional will but congressional structure.
I am probing for an organization in which the congressional will would reflect itself in a procedure where money would be forthcoming and would facilitate both the Executive branch and Congress to look at the totality of the picture. At the moment, there is no opportunity, even on the educational area, for Congress to have a total look. Congress in the educational area is concerned about the underprivileged, and it is very generous in that area. It is so structured that even the underprivileged cannot be properly dealt with unless you take care of the total educational problem, even the super bright kids. This is the problem we face in science, too.
Dr. KEENEY. May I go at that question another way?
Dr. KEENEY. The real question, it seems to me, is where do we want to go. I don't aim to project trends of where we are going in the matters of population and waste disposal and the possibility of atomic war and so forth and so on. We may be going into extinction or at least considerable diminution. The question isn't being asked very often, where do we want to go? It is only going to be asked as a result of haring the question brought up quite early in people's lives through education.
It isn't going to be brought up at home. It isn't going to be brought up at church. It isn't going to be brought up much of anywhere else.
The support of education, to me, and the change in education so that such questions will be brought up is the most important thing before us, and it has got to be done quite quickly. Once it is determined where we want to go, the very greatest of scientific and other kinds of ingenuity and creativity and skill are going to be needed to make sure we go there; and for that reason, the support of science, to me, is a most important thing.
Mr. DADDARIO. Mr. Pettis.
Mr. PETTIS. I just wanted to ask a question of either one or both of you gentlemen.
Theoretically, at the Cabinet level, there are scientific departments now in almost each one of these Cabinet posts. For example, in HUD, they have a department
Dr. PIORE. Assistant Secretary.
Mr. PETTIS. In Defense, you have Jon Foster, and in HEW, you have a man. You have got education. You have got the biological sciences.
What I am wondering is, what would be the impact on these existing structures if what you propose were to take place? Would there be a lot of catterwalling and dog fights over jurisdiction for a while, and then it would settle down to all of the new scientific exploration, let's say, on how to, say, in HUD, for example, which has some scientists over there trying to figure out new and better ways to build housesthat is science in one broad sense, but at least it is a technological aspect that is somewhat scientific or any other agency? Isn't there a very jealous situation here which would be fractured by what you propose ?
Dr. PIORE. I do not think so. I would certainly, in any organization, permit or encourage each mission agency to work in areas that are important to that
agency, and let this new agency worry about the general balance, policies, et cetera.
This is what has happened. I will go down agency by agency. The Department of Defense has narrowed its interest in science. I am not sure of the facts, but at one point they started out with a number of solid state institutes at universities. In doing as the universities—broke department lines and considered these to be continuing commitments. DOD is now disengaging itself. The National Institutes of Health, which once heavily supported chemistry, are moving out of chemistry. So these mission agencies are narrowing their view of those areas of science that are important to them.
This is one of the reasons that we have to regroup and continue the balance in various areas of science that exist now and not wreck this balance by administrative action.
So I would say, if HUD can get $50 million or $100 million 'on the Appropriations Committees to do your technological work, God bless you, you know, and please spend it intelligently. But they would not, in my view, do the science that is very vital to the underpinnings of the future of the building industry. This is an example of one of the problems we face.
Mr. PETTIS. Mr. Chairman, if I might pursue this just in a way, I see a situation today where, let's say, you take a very bright investigator. He wants to do his thing in science, and he has a lot of talent. Today, when he comes to Washington, he shops really in our Government for someone who will buy what he is trying to do.
Dr. PIORE. That is right.
Mr. PETTis. I would like to make it a little easier for the bright men in science to find the resources to do their thing provided it shows potential and provided it has some merit and scientists have their own way of measuring merit, and I certainly am not a scientist and would not pose to be one; but it seems to me, at the moment, we lack this ability to really, at any one place, measure this man and what he is trying to do in terms of our national goals, whatever they may be, or in terms of any national goals.
I have had men in my office in the last week that have spent a week or two in Washington shopping really, shopping all around, at the Defense Department, here, there, when you really get down to it; and one of these men considers himself an oceanographer and yet he will go anywhere to try and get some money to pursue his program. He has been very successful here in Washington in years past, the last 15 or 20 years, and if you look back at where he has gone, he has gone three or four places. The Navy has supported him for 2 or 3 years, and then NIH supported him for a while, and then somebody else did.
Dr. Piore. This is a very critical problem, especially for the young investigator. Wherever you turn, the man who is starting as an assistant professor at this time in our country has a very rough time getting support. The reasons go back-I feel I am playing the same phonograph record so you will have to forgive me to the mission agencies. When they start narrowing their support, they do two things: They narrow the field, and they want to keep on their payroll the best and the most distinguished persons. So the young man is the first to be dropped. The mail is not even answered, symbolically.