5 years they were in tremendous operation, and I actually think we could repeat that.

We did it with NASA, too. There was another emergency when we turned to, and I actually think this is something which our Government ought to do.

I think we can establish centers pointing toward these new problems, getting at them with not just a submarginal but a major effort. We can establish both Government laboratories and Government-supported laboratories, and I don't even mean just science laboratories; we can turn out all the other people needed to attack these complex issues.

I think, at the same time we do that, in order to operate efficiently we might want to look over the other government labs and governmentsupported efforts to make sure that some of them are phased out when they are not as relevant as they were or to convert some to these new issues.

Mr. DADDARIO. The point you just raised has been threading through these hearings.

How do you adjust yourself to the society's needs? You hear from the people who are in charge that they wouldn't feel these restraints if we would be allowed to phase them in and out over a period of time. Yet this is no answer to the fact that they have not set up a timetable for phasing in and out.

This is only a part of the major problem. If you begin developing in the country the ability to shift your laboratories from one phase of activity to another, you are going to have to develop a planning capability which is more national in scope than they presently are. Dr. STEVER. Yes, I will agree, and let's look to the experience. In the first place, to tackle the problems in front of us, we need more than just the physical sciences which we have gotten so well organized in this country. We need more than the life sciences. We need the social sciences as well, and the political sciences. In other words, these are complex issues.

Now, when we attacked the problem such as our military problems, going back to World War II, we had planning and the political side of this in the military organizations themselves, and so the laboratory approach, the research approach, the development approach, the engineering approach, was essentially added onto a large and complex operation in our military, our defense structure.

When we tackle these modern problems, we are going to have to remember that science alone isn't going to solve them, but I don't think they are going to get solved without science. So our real problem, as we convert, is to bring all the phases together. As you know, I was a member of a National Science Foundation Commission on the social sciences, and as far as I am concerned, one of the most important kinds of recommendations that that group came out with was this idea of developing broader scale centers to tackle these problems, centers which don't just depend upon an engineering group, for example, tackling transportation through the city, because there is also sociology involved in that and politics and political science. We have got to find ways to do this better.

Now, we, at the present time, in our studies for tackling those complex problems are at a very high level in the Government right here in this

Congress and in the highest levels of the administraiton. It may be that we want to take some steps to get that broad combining at some lower levels, centers throughout the country either supported by Government or partially supported by Government, possibly located at academic institutions, possibly located entirely independent. Certainly industry would be involved in this, but I do think our biggest problem is to work out ways of organizing on a broader basis to tackle these problems, almost on an emergency basis, because the people of the country are really forcing us to attack these on an emergency basis, and furthermore events are, too, because problems like pollution have shot up now where they are at the critical angle of advance.

Mr. DADDARIO. How ought this be done?

Dr. STEVER. Well, as I look to this-and this really is an addendum in a slightly different attitude with respect to my paper here on the application side we are either going to have to upgrade certain agencies of Government which are responsible for these, so they are much more powerful than they are now, or we are going to have to add new organizations for the application of science.

We do an immense amount of talking about transportation and pollution and the other problems, and we have not yet organized the application of science, these technologies, as well as we should, and we have lots of experience doing it.

The Department of Agriculture is a long term and a very early example of successfully developing an agency of the Government to use in bridging science and technology. The Department of Defense has done it. We can go through and find examples, but I am not sure we are moving fast enough with some of our new agencies such as the Department of Transportation and Housing, urban things. We have not somehow gotten them up to the power to tackle these problems.

Mr. DADDARIO. Yes, Mr. Brown.

Mr. BROWN. Can I offer a comment at this point?

Mr. DADDARIO. Yes.

Mr. BROWN. It seems to me, from the theoretical point of view, there is a substantial difference between the nature of the problem that faces the Department of Transportation and, say, some of our organizations concerned with pollution and the Department of Agriculture which you cite as a successful example of coping with the problem and the Department of Defense.

I will suggest what I think this difference is, and I would like you to comment on it. It seems like in, say, the Department of Agriculture, we had an organization set up to serve a certain clientele, the farmers, in a fashion which would enhance their contribution to the total welfare and there was no substantial adverse clientele; that is, there was no one who would say, well, we don't need to improve our agricultural technology. There might be a slight question of the amount of resources to devote to it, but there wasn't a countervailing power structure. Whereas, in the Department of Transportation and some of the other things we are getting into, we are running into a real problem of a countervailing power; that is, the influences which are opposed to the role and function and enhancement of that particular depart

ment.

I don't want to overstress this, but it does seem to me, for example, when we think in terms of the need of urban mass transit-and I have seen this in California-that all of the automobile and all of the highway interests are resisting strongly the diversion of funds and research and the other actions necessary to accomplish an urban mass transit program which would be nonautomotive or nonhighway using in its effect. Therefore, we have another order of magnitude of the problem involved.

Dr. STEVER. Yes, sir; I agree. Your last statement I agree with a 100 percent. It is a higher order of magnitude problem. However, if you look at all of the groups, you will not find any of them that doesn't say we need better transportation, a better solution. They disagree as to the means, and I am sure they will scrap. It is the same way with pollution. I don't think you will find anybody in industry or outside that doesn't say we have got to solve our pollution problems. They disagree as to the means, but I do agree with you it is a higher order problem because there are very strong units which would like to solve it one way versus another, and this means it is a governmental problem of higher order.

It probably also means it is a technical problem and scientific problem of higher order, but I do think we have to address it. I agree with the last part of the statement.

Mr. BROWN. The defense situation is similar. There are very few who argue with the need of harnessing the best efforts of the Nation behind a program of progessive defense. Of course, the Congress puts a few roadblocks in the way, but basically there is no argument with the need. It is rather how large the need is.

Dr. STEVER. Mr. Brown, let me say that in past talks here I believe I have distinguished the interest of young people in two different kinds of science and engineering, one of which I called performance-limited and the other I called society-limited. Performance-limited science and engineering is the kind of thing we get into when we are involved in a space program or astronomy, scientific research, or the development of new accelerators in physics, and even many military problems where the goal is to do the best with the knowledge and capability we have in science, and when a young person, a scientist, says this is place I can make the raost of my techniques and education.

The problems we are now dealing with are what we call societylimited. It isn't as if we could tell some people to go out and make the best high-speed underground train possible, because we know that we have other influences affecting that. But I do think that that is the nature of our time in history. We are going to have to find wavs of going at the higher order problems, and I really think that is the problem facing your generation of law makers and this generation of administrators, to bring our Government to a place where it can solve that kind of thing.

I think that we need great strengthening of the agencies which are. essentially application agencies, that are mission-oriented agencies. In this respect, I would separate that function from what I said about basic science; that is, the colleges and universities which are to supply the workmen who will enter these fields.

If we need to reorganize science, I think what I am saying is we really need to look to the reorganization or the strengthening of Government as a whole, the Government that uses science rather than science itself. I think that our younger generation is more interested in going at these tougher problems; and if we are wise enough to give them some organization and support so they can do so, I think we will get an immense amount out of them.

Mr. DADDARIO. Dr. Stever, Mr. Brown brings up a point that might fit into the structure of the development of a laboratory which might handle, for example, transportation and pollution. He emphasizes the problem we have any time there is a change. The industry that is involved does rise and resist as though with one voice. You see this time and time again. But I wonder if automotive people came to the lab with separate reasons for resisting, and if you got them together and made these reasons more visible, you would find that they wouldn't hang together as well as they might themselves think.

Dr. STEVER. Yes, sir. First of all, I would like to talk to this point. I don't think we should say only industry resists this kind of change. All people resist this kind of change. In an academic institution, our departments, those that are going down in popularity, resist change. Our real problem is to set new goals and new ways so that these units can discover a new and higher activity that they can be involved in. You know, we are not going to solve the problems of pollution without industry, without science, without Government. Industry is going to be involved in a major way. We have got to set the goals to make them realize it. We are not going to solve transportation without industry, either.

Mr. DADDARIO. In fact, their resistance is preventing them from enlarging their activities.

Dr. STEVER. Going to larger goals, that is right. In fact, I think the business opportunities in getting at some of these new things are just immense and also I will say the same for the rewards to people in the colleges to get involved, and it works for everyone. So I do think, to go back, that the sign of our times is to address the higher order problems.

Mr. BROWN. Can we involve the ministers and philosophers in this. If we talk about setting goals, they ought to have something to say. Mr. DADDARIO. Even throw a few lawyers in there.

Dr. STEVER. There is going to be plenty for all of us to do, so the real problem is to get at the new problems, and I think young people often see these more clearly than we do.

People always try to find the bad guys, the ones who are to blame for our current problems. I am awfully glad we have automobiles. I do know they pollute the atmosphere, but I am not going to give up my automobile. I'm going to try to solve the pollution problem.

I am glad we have airplanes. I know they make noise and cause other problems, and I am glad we have new buildings which cause other problems. I don't want to give these things up. I want to apply the tremendous strength we have to fixing up the weaknesses.

So I think that is really our problem, to get people marching toward these new approaches.

Mr. DADDARIO. Dr. Stever, this subcommittee has found itself engaged in not only organization, but also in the effects on our environment of our science and our technology. In our technology assessment work, we find that people generally do stress the negative aspects of science and technology. Even though each report does point out there is so much good that can come from this provided we properly structure our society and develop the management and administrative capabilities which can mold and form and direct this to its most positive use.

I must admit that we can talk about it much more easily than we can do or have done something about it in the past. What we are hoping for is some guidance in the development of a strategy which can over the long run adjust what is going on within Government and move it so that it can achieve purposes and ends and not develop competitive strain which inhibits the best uses of our society.

Dr. STEVER. Yes, I think so. If the current organization of science and its relation to the rest of society is not capable of doing this, then I think you have no choice but to reorganize.

This is, as I say, the place where you are going to be tested as legislators. This is the sign of our times, and it is the place where we are going to be tested as scientists.

Mr. DADDARIO. We are wandering all over the lot, but I do think it is helpful for the purposes of these hearings.

Dr. STEVER. Going back to the organization of science, as I thought over the testimony which I wrote earlier, I think I would put the condition on it that either we are going to have to use this structure we have which is going to have to respond quickly, or we have got to reorganize. I would go that far.

We do have groups that frequently make me realize that the structure we now have is beginning to think more and more about this, trying to do a better job. The National Science Foundation, which I know something about, is trying to broaden their mission and to select more carefully the sciences of the future. Whether they are going far enough, I am not sure, but I think we do have to put the pressure on it right now and make a decision.

Mr. DADDARIO. Are we moving in the right direction by bringing more and more of the scientific people into the legislative process? This develops a closer working relationship than we have had in the past. I have been particularly pleased with the American Chemical Society's work. After some thrashing around, Their work on a cleaner environment is particularly significant and helpful. The other work they intend to involve themselves in could be extremely helpful to the legislative problems. The engineers are trying to restructure themselves. It does appear that we need somewhere to break down the barriers which prevent the political process and the scientific management and administration from somehow relating one to each other. Dr. STEVER. I agree. I think the increased communication has been immensely helpful. Unquestionably the activities in the field of science and its applications in every group, every committee, every organization, are now directed more broadly than they were before with respect to communication and cooperation in this effort, and I think they are tremendously positive signs.