« PreviousContinue »
Mr. DADDARIO. I agree with that. Yet we have got to consider this when discussions take place in the Senate about funding of research in the mission agencies. The word is that what is done in these areas must be immediately and obviously applicable. I do think that, this question of administration and management of resources and the need of manpower does become extremely important.
Dr. STEVER. What you are saying is the thing we talked about, the long range planning aspect of the new agency which is responsible in the basic science field. That is a very important thing, and I will agree with you. I honestly believe that we in science have made a mistake in our golden years and, you know, it is very easy to make mistakes when everything is going easily. In the years when we could get funding for all the growth we wanted in all the sciences, I think we made the mistake that this was going to be a permanent condition, that it would never catch up on us, and we then tended to pay less attention to really our relationship to society.
In that respect, long-range planning, the relationship of science to society, is an important issue and should be part of this mission, and I believe we could move reasonably soon to an organization which would bring that out.
On the other side, however, the application of science, I still get to the point that that isn't a purely science organization. That is a missionoriented agency, to take pollution for example, that depends heavily on science and on government operations and on industry. It is a very involved process. So that is not pure science. I would hope that our government does organize better for this, and I would applaud it if it did.
Mr. PETTIS. May I ask a question, Dr. Stever. Do you see any constraints on the production of adequate numbers of these scientific people in our society at the moment?
Dr. STEVER. I think with healthy and well supported, but not oversupported, educational institutions, there is always a sufficient number of the young people who are interested in that area; so we will have a reasonably good supply. I think probably in the past we have overeducated in some areas, and undereducated in others, and the missing link was a stronger motivation for fields in which we undereducated. Today's society is giving us this motivation to get involved in those fields, and that is important.
Mr. PETTIS, Mr. Chairman, if I may follow up with a second question related to the first, and I have asked this of other witnesses, I am perplexed to explain the diminution in numbers of Ph. D.'s in science of all kinds, of the hard sciences particularly in this country, relating it to our total population and taking the same situation in, let's say, Eastern Europe, Europe or the Orient. How do you explain this? The social problems of our society, is that what is taking the cream off?
Dr. STEVER. I think it is a very complex problem. For one thing in many respects young people think we have succeeded enough in science I believe they are wrong because I don't think we are going to accomplish all the things we talked about today without having continuing and overwhelming inputs from science. But there is also the feeling that science isn't as relevant as it was. Relevant is the favorite word of young people today.
So we need a better sales campaign to convince young people that science is important in solving the very problems which are uppermost in their minds. This is the educator's job. This is everybody's job, to show there is a role.
Mr. DADDARIO. Mr. Winn.
Dr. STEVER. Yes, indeed. It is a tough job to get to be a scientist or engineer. That is a long education and you have to work pretty hard and sometimes other fields seem to be greener; so we do need more sex appeal, sex appeal in the sense that we can convince people that our society cannot reach the goals that are on everybody's minds without an important input from engineering and science and the other specialties.
Mr. DADDARIO. That is part of our advanced planning.
Dr. STEVER. That is right. That would be a very important part, that communication job. And, you know, it is part of your communication job, too, and you are helping. The very fact that you talk to many scientists and engineers and social scientists as well and use their input is an important part of the sales campaign. It helps us.
Mr. Winn. If we would, along this same line, maybe set some priorities that we are always yelling about up here—no matter what the administration, we are always yelling about priorities—this would sort of help sell the job in the state, too.
Dr. STEVER. I think it would help. Mr. Daddario is talking about what Government instrumentality could help in planning this communication, and this, I think, is the main job. If you centralize on the basic science, I think this is the main focal point.
Mr. DADDARIO. Mr. Winn may be pointing the way towards something that might be significant here. If we could develop between the scientific community and Congress what the needs are in the future. It might add the necessary appeal to what needs to be done in the long range by funding in such a way as to attract people.
Dr. STEVER. I agree.
Mr. PETTIS. Not all together, Mr. Chairman, I think, because I am talking to an awful lot of young people today who are very bright in physics and math and chemistry, who are making a 180 degree turn in high school into sociology and psychology and theology, and I am perplexed.
Mr. DADDARIO. Mr. Pettis, if I might get involved in this and then ask Dr. Stever for a comment, this point has been raised time and time and again and I do think it gets back to the point Mr. Winn has raised. We have had testimony from MIT that people do come in and go into something else. These are extremely bright kids in various areas of science. I wonder if they look around, see a superabundance of people and recognize there are not many who are working at the real hard problems of our society. Maybe part of the problem is providing people in those areas of science and engineering which are understaffed. This requires hard work and long years of training. These gaps have to be filled. We have to maintain a proper balance.
Dr. STEVER. Mr. Chairman, the thought occurred to me—it deflects from the idea a little bit—I don't think this country is using a capability of industry as well as it should. Industry can change directions when it has a profitable kind of business, and there are lots of people who are brought up in one field of education who get redirected because
industry has discovered a new and profitable line of business, and I think we ought to use this a little bit more.
You know, education doesn't stop with college, nor does growth of one's realization of what the world is like and growth of one's capability of contributing stop with college. It still takes place when people are in their working life. People can convert later. I really don't think right now we are trying to make industry the whipping boy on a number of these problems, and yet right in industry's bag of tricks are solutions to some of these problems.
We can get them to shift. In fact, I know some industries that are asking for essentially the support of our whole country to get them into these new areas.
Mr. WINN. Mr. Chairman, the Government and scientists have to show industry that there is a profit motivation for them to change direction. They are not doing this for fun. I don't know where some of us up here get the idea that industry might be the whipping boy and we tell it what to do and we don't show them where there is a potential profit.
Dr. STEVER. If we were to do that, I think we could use their tremendous capability.
Mr. WINN. I do, too.
Mr. Fulton, we are glad Pennsylvania is represented here by other than the witness this morning.
Mr. FULTON. I might add, Pittsburgh, Pa., where there is a pawnshop on every corner, as goes the song.
Mr. DADDARIO. Is there such a song ?
Mr. FULTON. “There is a Pawnshop on the Corner in Pittsburgh," is one of the hit songs of the last few years.
Mr. DADDARIO. Do you have a few more lines?
Mr. FULTON. I must say that democracy is always hovering between a pawnshop and just pure, plain catastrophe. We are always, just by the greatest of effort, pulling it back from bankruptcy, plain desertion, or disruption and simply falling apart at the seams. Democracy is a very loose fabric, and I think science is in about the same condition. It goes off into so many directions.
Science is like the Greek king who had the 50 daughters, all of them different and all off in different directions.
The witness should be complimented on the order in which he stated various categories, which I think should be especially appreciated, Mr. Chairman, by this subcommittee. He mentioned lawmakers, administrators, and industrialists. I thoroughly appreciated the order in which he stated them. I thought that was fine.
Dr. STEVER. If I were in the administration, sir, I would probably have listed them first.
Mr. FULTON. Referring to your statement, I am one of those who has favored the creation of a Department of Science in the Federal Government on a Cabinet level.
Secondly, my position is that it should be a policy forming department rather than an administering department. It should not supersede or cancel out any of the present agencies.
The next point is it should operate as a coordinating and correlating department at the Cabinet level. This would place the force of the President directly behind the activities of the Cabinet member who would have the duty of overseeing science policy.
Within the policies themselves, he would determine recommendations to Congress, directly from the President, the order of priorities. Likewise, he would look for coordination within the agencies that now exist which are engaged in either pure or applied science. The Cabinet minister would also watch to see that there is no duplication of either research, development, or application, and that there would be no overlapping of agencies or activities. He would be in a different position than the Science Advisor to the President.
My comment on the Science Advisor to the President is that he sits on a cloud and his contact is only to the top. He has no direct relationship to Congress; nor do we have any particular influence with him other than through the President. The President's Science Advisor is not empowered to make decisions on priorities. He can only make recommendations through the President. They then possibly come to us. He can have no influence on Government departments other than through the President as an intermediary:
His staff is so unknown to this committee that I only know two of them at the present time. There is no direct liaison or communication with the congressional committees nor the subcommittees having jurisdiction. This makes a situation where we in Congress cannot call the staff members because the President's Science Advisor has people who are assisting him in developing recommendations to the President. They are then doubly removed from Congress.
One other point. He has no direct relationship with the Bureau of the Budget except as an adviser of the President. It makes him an anomaly in the Government structure, almost as big an anomaly as the President's Advisor on Security Matters, Dr. Kissinger. Under those circumstances, Congress cannot call Dr. Kissinger to account. Therefore, the people's representatives do not have the required influence in determining the policy that comes to the head of the Government, the President. The give and take between the executive department and the legislative department is, in the case of the President's Science Advisor, missing.
I believe Dr. DuBridge is as fine a selection as you could get for the position. May I finish just a couple more comments that I make on your statement. Could I have another few minutes?
I concur with your comment on page 2 of your statement; “rather strengthening the existing agencies to do a better job of supporting both faces of science.” To me, these agencies are badly in need of upgrading; made more efficient and their jurisdiction firmly fixed so there is no infighting. That cannot be done by a President's Science Advisor because he does not have the statutory authority which a Cabinet-level position would give him.
In your next paragraph on page 2, you say, “particularly the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and some parts of the Office of Education.” We are willing to give stronger Federal support in Congress, but as you recall, when we put an extra billion dollars into the HEW Department for educational purposes, the comment was that first this is not necessary and, secondly, the money will not be used. So it is not as easy as it sounds.
Now, the point I would make is that the funding of the agencies at the Executive level is actually decided in the Bureau of the Budget by faceless people that Congress does not know nor have any or much contact with. For example, with regard to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration budget, I was checking—and I can't give it in detail—but I found there were five people making the budget decisions. I understood that three of them had no competence; engineering, scientific, or otherwise, to make the decisions in these scientific fields but were rather accountants.
If we in Congress are to have priorities made on these tremendously involved scientific programs that have far-reaching impact on our future, we need people who can make the decisions on these priorities on a much broader foundation, than whether or not the cash box is full or empty, I am afraid this is what is happening. That is why I feel that you need the Cabinet minister to bring directly to the American people from his statutory position, as well as to the President, the making of fundamental policy on these diverse fields in the application of science as well as in pure research.
I disagree with you that the National Science Foundation should expand into the social fields. We have National Institutes of Health and other agencies. I believe that every dollar that the National Science Foundation spends on social problems, is taken from their physical sciences programs. I want the physical sciences protected. I don't want the National Science Foundation engaging in what is called basic social science, whatever that might mean. I have fought that, unfortunately on the floor rather unsuccessfully at times, as the chairman will recall.
Mr. DADDARIO. And a good thing, too. [Laughter.]
On page 3; I would caution the witness slightly when he says, "the National Aeronautics and Space Agency for exploring the moon.” Actually the NSF Act of 1968 provides a much broader base than National Aeronautics and Space Act because it gives NSF jurisdiction for all science, military or peaceful, whatever, all through the Government. That would be the equivalent of me saying that the CarnegieMellon University is operating a very successful cafeteria system, bi that is not quite enough. It is true, but not enough.
Mr. DADDARIO. You raise so many points I am trying to keep them all in my mind. They are staggering my memory.
Mr. FULTON. On the bottom of page 3, you state, “which bring right to the top of the administration and of the legislative bodies of our Government the programs and progress and problems in science and its applications." This is an excellent, fine statement; in order to have that done, we do need a different organization. We don't need to cancel our agencies, but we certainly need a coordination, a correlation, and a Cabinet-level position that has this statutory power.
On page 4; I agree with you, if you mean at the top of page 4, "I believe in the fundamentals of our current organization rather than in a highly centralized department of science." To me it is impossible to centralize an administrative department of science with the many ramifications in the Federal Government and now with State governments moving into the same field. Administratively, it would not be