« PreviousContinue »
it is complete. Information is also being gathered from the agencies for an inventory of Federal laboratories and their capabilities.
This focusing of attention on the university-Federal laboratory relationship has been fruitful in several areas:
(1) Better understanding and lines of communication have been established between the Federal and university communities.
(2) New university courses designed with Federal laboratory needs in mind should start this fall.
(3) Use of Federal laboratory space and equipment by universities is being encouraged.
(4) Defense Federal Contract Research Centers are being encouraged to consider use of part of their resources for non-defense related problems.
This tends to stimulate cooperation with universities. I am concerned, however, that the current reduction in fiscal support to universities and tight budgets for research in the Federal laboratories will make real progress in this area difficult until the fiscal pressures lessen.
Mr. DADDARIO. Mr. Fulton, who is the senior member on the Science and Astronautics Committee on the Republican side, on occasion likes to wander into this subcommittee's meetings. I wouldn't want to foreclose him from the opportunity of saying hello to you, Dr. DuBridge.
Mr. FULTON. As an ex officio member I am glad to be here.
I want to welcome Dr. DuBridge. The point is this: evidently from your previous comments, you say, “I am not saying that the present organization in Government for procuring our research and development is the final one."
That means you aren't quite satisfied with it the way it is, doesn't it, Doctor?
Dr. DuBRIDGE. No, I said that very emphatically at the beginning of my statement.
Mr. Fulton. Well, I was quoting a previous remark.
Mr. FULTON. And I wonder if you really meant that, or do you now mean what you mean here?
Dr. DuBRIDGE. I think there are many things that are inadequate about our present handling of science and the support of science and the management of technology. I have been groping today for suggestions as to how to improve this picture.
Mr. FULTON. Now, we have business represented by the Department of Commerce, and we have labor represented by the Department of Labor. Certainly those functions pervade everything in our economy. And, we have Cabinet representation for them.
Why, then, is that not an argument to have a Department of Science, Research, and Technology? And I might say parenthetically, as you know, I have been supporting such a department for a long time and have a bill in on it in this particular Congress.
Dr. DuBRIDGE. Well, I am just afraid my answer has to be that I do not think there is a very close analogy between commerce and science; that the scientific and technological enterprise is an important tool for each agency of Government to use in achieving its mission.
And most agencies and departments of Government need that tool, just like they need typewriters and clerks, and of course they also need money. Therefore, it seems to me the widest dispersion of scientific and technological efforts in Government agencies that we can get is the best for the progress of the missions of the various agencies. With a single Department of Science, there would be a tendency to try to
put all the science and technological activities into it rather than to disperse them. The activities are so varied, cover so many areas of science, and in the applied science area are aimed at so many different goals, that to try to encompass these all under a single Secretary for Science, I think, would be confusing and less effective than the present system of having especially applied science activities widely distributed throughout the Government structure.
We pointed out some gaps in this and some difficulties, so it isn't perfect. But in principle the wide diffusion of science and applied science throughout the agencies of Government, I think, is better than concentration into a single agency which then simply becomes a competitor with the other agencies for stature and for funding.
Mr. FULTON. My point is that there is a difference between setting an overall policy for science at the Cabinet level and having a Cabinet member assisting the President in setting that policy for the various other departments that could use science. In other words, there are missions for applied science and there is also implementation in various departments and agencies.
My position is that because of tremendous overlapping, and the lack of an overall scientific policy for the United States, the functioning of science within the Government has become so fragmented that, first, it can't be supervised; secondly, it is expensive and wasteful; and thirdly, there is no single voice at Cabinet level speaking for science.
Dr. DuBRIDGE. Well, I guess we just differ on that point.
Now, might I say to you that I believe the selection of Dr. McElroy, as the head of the National Science Foundation, is a good choice. I believe that the previous individual recommended, on which we disagreed, to that particular position, was not a good choice because it was a person from controversial military fields.
I feel the National Science Foundation should certainly be able to operate worldwide without getting involved in the so-called militaryindustrial complex. My second comment is that once a man is in the U.S. Government even in a small agency he is in the sea of politics, the swimming pool of politics whether he likes it or not. If he isn't a politician, he very quickly takes a coloration if there is coloration in the pool or in the sea.
He very quickly learns to swim like a politician. He learns how very quickly or else he is quickly out.
So that the point I would make is this: I hope that science will not always be looking down its nose at the art and science of government, as politics. Scientists should not be saying that thev are trying to be aloof and pure in an ivory tower. For example, will you
have put in the record the previous political activities of the new head of the National Science Foundation, or at least supply it to me? He has been in politics previously and he was one of the Nation's scientists for Johnson's election in 1964.
And I see nothing wrong with that. On the other hand, when politics gets to be a consuming function and overshadows his profession, I do feel there could be criticism. Not in this instance; I think we should clear that up publicly. But when you select a man to take the position as head of the National Science Foundation who has formerly been in
the Army laboratory developing the ballistic missile, then with the Air Force developing the ballistic missile, then on the Disarmament Agency negotiating on arms and ballistic missiles, then takes a position that he is against the defense for the ballistic missile, well, really, that person to me looks as if he is not very well anchored. As we
say Navy, when you get two anchors out, you are moored to any principle.
So I hope you realize that my previous objection to one nominee was on a basis of substance and not politics. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I wanted to clear that up personally with my good friend, the good doctor, whom I respect highly.
Dr. DuBRIDGE. Thank you.
Mr. DADDARIO. Dr. DuBridge, I am always pleased when Mr. Fulton comes to this committee because he livens up the situation. That is very helpful. But in this particular instance, it is completely irrelevant to this morning's discussion.
Mr. FULTON. Oh, this is science we are talking about, Mr. Chairman. Mr. DADDARIO. Yes, it is.
Mr. FULTON. And you, I believe, were talking about the irrelevancy called politics. And you and I are not politicians here, we are scientists; aren't we?
Mr. DADDARIO. Well, the point was made by Dr. DuBridge during the course of this discussion, in his prepared text, that he would want the National Science Foundation Director to be separate and apart from the political game. We made no comment on it because I believe that is how it is.
Mr. FULTON. I question that.
Mr. DADDARIO. I understand, you already have. But the important point is that it is still irrelevant to the proposition of how science ought to be administered and managed. I have made my feelings clear about the matter
Mr. FULTON. Yes.
Mr. DADDARIO (continuing). About which the gentleman from Pennsylvania has injected into this discussion. I don't believe that it either adds or subtracts from the morning's events.
I was pleased to have it put out because it did liven things up a bit, even though irrelevant.
Mr. FULTON. Well, may I ask the doctor a question? You just brought something up for me.
Could you combine the National Science Foundation and the Bureau of Standards into one agency? Would that help?
Dr. DuBRIDGE. I think it would not help. And I covered that point in my
statement. Mr. FULTON. All right. Thank you.
Dr. Du BRIDGE. They are for very different purposes and I do not see any point in conglomerating them.
Mr. FULTON. I would compliment the good doctor, though. When he comes in here and says simply that more money is going to solve all the problems, he has learned at least one of the first lessons of politics.
Mr. DADDARIO. Mr. Fulton, the good doctor, Dr. DuBridge also did something else here today, so far as I am concerned, beyond pointing out that the matter of money was important. He did discuss many
other points which we as Members of Congress and as a committee with responsibility in this area have to take into consideration, and which can be extremely helpful.
From a purely philosophical point of view he said certain things which I hope he would repeat over and over about the importance of science to man and its understanding of this universe within which we live. If this was to be repeated often enough by him, it might create in the public mind a better feeling about the need to support science.
I do think this is one of the selling points that we have neglected. We talk about these subjects in a more cold and analytical manner perhaps than we ought. Perhaps, we ought to philosophize a bit more. Dr. DūBridge could serve this country very handsomely in that particular regard. I was impressed.
Mr. FULTON. And would the good doctor deliver a message for me to the National Science Board, who recommend to the President the head of the National Science Foundation. That in their ivory tower and isolation there are some of the best politicians I ever ran into.
Mr. DADDARIO. Dr. DuBridge, I am not going to belabor the point further. I know you have another meeting to go to, and we appreciate having had you here.
The meeting is adjourned until the 22d of July at this same place at 10 in the morning.
(Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the hearing was adjourned, to reconvene Tuesday, July 22, 1969, at 10 a.m.)
CENTRALIZATION OF FEDERAL SCIENCE ACTIVITIES
TUESDAY, JULY 22, 1969
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:10 a.m., in room 2325, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Emilio R. Daddario (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. DADDARIO. This meeting will come to order.
As we proceed with our second day of hearings on the way in which our science resources are being administered and managed, this committee finds it hard to conceive of any witness who can be more helpful than Dr. Seaborg, who has been Chairman of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission under three Presidents. He was on the General Advisory Committee previous to that, and has, without any question, earned the high regard which this Nation has for him as one of its top scientists. This subject, one which this committee believes to be extremely important, needs testimony from sources such as him.
Dr. Seaborg, we are happy, as always, to have you here, and would appreciate it if you would proceed. STATEMENT OF DR. GLENN T. SEABORG, CHAIRMAN, ATOMIC
ENERGY COMMISSION; ACCOMPANIED BY DR. SPOFFORD ENGLISH, ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION
Dr. SEABORG. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I welcome the opportunity to appear here this morning to present my views on several of the issues raised in the report “Centralization of Federal Science Activities." I find myself in full accord with the remarks made by Mr. Daddario in his prefacing statement to the report. In dealing with a situation as ramified as the organization of Federal science activities, it is appropriate at this time to emphasize clarification of major issues, guided by carefully formulated objectives such as those listed in the prefacing statement. Most of us in Government with backgrounds in scientific work feel attraction toward the general notion of some centralization of Federal science activities, but I think it important that we satisfy ourselves, before changes are made, that the changes would be likely to enable a better job of enhancing the lives of the individual citizens. I think it is far from clear at this point, what shape a reorganization of Federal science activities should take in the years ahead. I think we can, however, identify some promising