has presented serious problems with respect to long-term planning and program development, particularly with respect to science education, while the universities and their faculties are confronted with a maze of differing ground rules and regulations and administrative practices.

Because the United States has, again without a truly overt decision, carefully spelled out, accepted the premise that the universities should be the primary seat of fundamental research-rather than the independent research institutes characteristic of science in other nationsthe problem of science support has become inextricably intertwined with the problem of financial support to the educational institutions wherein science is conducted.

The final thread in this fabric stems from the fact that both the Congress and the mission agencies become decreasingly comfortable with both laboratories and research support programs which appear to be relatively remote from the agency missions, for example, the support of high-energy particle physics both by the Atomic Energy Commission and the Office of Naval Research, the support of materials science laboratories by the Advanced Research Projects Agency of the Department of Defense, the support research in chemistry and in fundamental biology by the National Institutes of Health, as well as those programs of the Bureau of Standards which seem otherwise unrelated to the classical functions of the Department of Commerce. To this list should be added the fact that the space agency is, in its entirety, a science conducting and supporting agency. The proponents of an amplified Federal undertaking in oceanography and marine science suggest that yet a new agency be created with exploration of the oceans as its primary mission, and, in other quarters, there is a substantial feeling that current understanding of ecological principles and phenomena is so primitive at a time when such understanding is imperative to intelligent planning for conservation, highway construction, pollution abatement, and urban renewal that yet another agency is required to assure progress at a rate commensurate with national

needs.

Meanwhile, the more painful aspects of American life in this decade have suggested to another group that an intensive and substantial program, by yet another agency, in support of the social sciences, so that the latter may contribute more effectively to the solution of national problems, represents yet another significant and seriously unmet need.

I shall undertake no analysis of these various contentions, many of which are summarized in the report to which mention was made earlier.

Suffice it to say that in the minds of some, a new major science agency could alleviate many of these ills, thereby easing the concerns of the Congress, providing for the support of inadequately nourished scientific disciplines and an appropriately balanced national program, enabling flexibility of response as new scientific vistas are opened and coming to grips with the perpetual problem of determination of priorities, meanwhile minimizing the difficulties to both investigator and academic science administrator occasioned by our pluralistic system, and assuring that science will be highly visible and sufficiently repre

sented within the councils of Government. Moreover, such an agency, with its manifold listening posts, its links to all elements of the scientific and technological community could serve as a focus for efforts to assure that advancing technology could be brought to bear on the domestic problems of our society. When these thoughts are advanced, the chief argument against them—at least within the scientific community is the grave concern that, having failed to support the National Science Foundation in a manner commensurate with its potential contribution to American society, the Congress is unlikely adequately to support a yet more all-embracing science agency and, hence, provide less support than the organizational components from which it had been fabricated might otherwise have commanded independently. I cannot help but share that concern. Conversely, a good deal of the interest of the scientific community in such a new venture would probably evaporate were the appropriation to the National Science Foundation to double in the next few years, a goal which, in any case, I warmly commend to you.

The second concern expressed by opponents of a more centralized single agency is the potential loss of the system of multiple juries which now assures that worthy new ideas can receive, when necessary, more than one hearing, thereby avoiding the specter of authoritarianism in the direction of scientific activity. And, again, I share that

concern.

The charter of the National Science Foundation, particularly as amended under the initiative of this subcommittee, is adequate statutory basis to assure the support of worthy science in all disciplines, to manage programs in support of the universities and other nonprofit institutions which engage in such research, and to manage programs in support of science education and information. Current inadequacy of funding for research and education in ecology and the social sciences, for example, readily could be managed by the NSF were its appropriation sufficient to these tasks. Indeed a significant fraction of all of the desired goals listed earlier could be achieved by adequate funding of the NSF together with transfer of responsibility for certain activities now funded by other Federal agencies.

Nevertheless, I consider it timely and appropriate that we consider alternative organization forms and inquire into their merits.

As the report from the Library of Congress indicates, there is a spectrum of possible reorganization schemes. Quite clearly the maximal arrangement, an amalgamation of all science-using, conducting, and supporting agencies, would not be politically acceptable, nor would it be in the national interest. Science and technology are so pervasive that they have become relevant to the missions of virtually all Federal agencies. I continue to adhere to the philosophy that each such agency should sponsor or conduct research which is most immediately relevant to improvement of its mission capabilities. But not quite so clear is the extent to which each such agency should also fund fundamental research whose mission-relatedness is not so apparent. The latter problem is not readily susceptible of definitive solution, and in all likelihood, such definition really isn't required.

On balance, I favor the compromise of creation of a middle-sized agency generated by the fusion of a limited number of existing agencies.

In its simplest, most readily accomplished form, this agency would engage only in programs designed to support research and education but would not, at first, undertake to manage any federally owned laboratories. Indeed, the process might well be viewed as an evolutionary one, initiating in this fashion, and when the new agency is sufficiently mature and competent, it might later acquire direct operational responsibilities.

The model of a new agency proposed in the report is very close to the arrangement which I would espouse. I mean this in the sense of aggregating into a new agency the functions suggested from the titles of the component units considered in the report for incorporation into this new agency.

1. There can be doubt but that the National Science Foundation must be the cornerstone of any new science-supporting agency. Its statutory authorities are such as already to make possible almost all of the functions which might be conducted by the agency itself. Moreover, the NSF has already established the style, the thoughtful deliberative mechanisms, the responsive and responsible attitudes which should be characteristic of the new agency.

2. Because of the intimate relationship between advanced education and research, such an agency would be hamstrung if it could not engage in programs supportive of advanced education and of the institutions in which advanced education and research occur. Yet today, many such activities which could markedly benefit by centralization, are fragmented among the NSF, the fellowship, training, and institutional grants programs of the NIH, the university sustaining grants of NASA, and various of the programs of the Office of Education. A single rational set of coherent programs tailored to the reality of the educational world and its needs would become possible where the authorities of these various agencies blended into a single new agency. 3. It is commonplace to criticize Federal programs in support of activities and institutions of higher learning on the grounds that support of the arts and humanities has lagged seriously behind the support of the natural and even the social sciences. Indeed, the chief criticism which has been leveled at H.R. 35, a bill which emanated from this committee, is its failure to include support for education in the arts and humanities. Moreover, it has been painfully evident that, whereas the endowments for the arts and humanities were created with considerable enthusiasm by the Congress, they have failed to find funding commensurate with the potential contribution of these disciplines to our national life. Partially sheltered within a substantially larger organization, and defended in considerable measure by natural and social scientists who can not be charged with aggrandizement of self-interest, such programs could be nourished decidedly more vigorously than has been true in the history of the current organizations to date.

Several additional comments should be made with respect to the nature of the model portrayed in the report.

4. The block diagram and the agency listing describing the new proposed agency should be interpreted only as a transfer of functions and of statutory authorities. It should not be considered as descriptive of the actual functional or organizational structure of a new agency. The new agency should not be merely a collection of old agencies, function

ing in parallel under their old statutory authorities, seeking their own funding and merely responsible to a single Director, Administrator or Secretary, whatever his rank. It will require a new organizational plan, a simplified set of programs and, in some measure, a new style of operation, which is not quite that of any of the components. However that be accomplished, the project grant system should be retained as the cardinal aspect of research and training support.

Perhaps the principal attraction I find in the proposal to create such a new agency is that it is the most rational and most politic way to accomplish implementation of the various recommendations of the National Science Board in its report to the Congress in January, entitled "Toward a National Policy for Graduate Education in the Sciences"; a report which I strongly endorse.

Implementation of this far-seeing report will remain difficult if not impossible as long as the necessary authorities remain fragmented among so many agencies. And I have little faith in the ability of an interagency committee to surmount current hurdles in this path.

Similarly, an agency such as that proposed could make possible implementation of the major recommendations to be brought to you, in a few weeks, by the report of the Commission on Social Sciences of the National Science Board, a report entitled "Knowledge Into Action: Improving the Nation's Use of the Social Sciences." But, I find no excuse, for example, for the creation of a new "National Institute of Ecology" or for a new "National Social Science Foundation." Rather do these suggest the titles of major program offices of the new agency. Indeed, the new agency itself could best be described as the "National Foundation"-rather than Institute-"for Research and Advanced Studies" and each of the original component agencies should in fact disappear.

5. As a new Foundation, an equivalent of the National Science Board should, together with the Director of the Foundation, serve this new agency much as the Director and the Board currently serve the National Science Foundation. The virtues of this arrangement have been amply demonstrated and its continuation would do much to assure support of the scientific and educational communities for these proposals. Each of the major programs of the new agency would then have their own appropriate external advisory structures.

6. Several major decisions are required with respect to the National Institutes of Health. Should the in-house laboratories thereof be transferred to the cognizance of the new agency or should they remain in HEW? Should the grants programs of the various institutes in support of clinical research and clinical training be transferred? As originally envisioned it was considered that, at NIH, there would be meaningful ties between the in-house programs and the external research and training support programs. However, these ties have proved to be extremely slender. As a minimum, it might be considered appropriate to move into the new agency only the research support programs of the National Institute of General Medical Sciences and its research training programs together with pieces of the programs of other institutes. Although each of the other eight institutes supports fundamental research whose mission-relatedness is not always evident. I would consider it most inappropriate to cancel their licenses to do so

if they remain outside the new agency. Although it might be argued that the totality of NIH is today relatively unrelated to any other activity of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, actual transfer of the totality of its programs is a complex and largely political decision. I suggest that only the extramural programs of NIH should be given consideration at this time and perhaps only the fundamental research, research training and institutional support programs should be so transferred with all the more clinical programs remaining where they are presently managed.

Were it deemed appropriate to transfer the National Institutes of Health in their entirety, or almost so, to this new Agency, then the logic of transfer of the Bureau of Standards to the new Agency becomes at least equally compelling as does transfer of the "National Laboratories" of the Atomic Energy Commission. The Bureau is today a far cry from a "National Bureau of Weights and Measures.” It engages in highly sophisticated science, much of which is as remote from the immediate interests of the Department of Commerce as are the current programs of the NSF. Similarly, the high energy physics support programs of the AEC and a large fraction of the activities of the National Laboratories of that Commission no longer bear a clear relevance to the Commission's principal functions: weapons production, development of technologies for nuclear power, and fostering of the use of radioisotopes for civilian purposes.

In short, as we have already noted there would be required a decision concerning the character of any new agency. Should it or should it not have responsibility for the management of in-house laboratories engaged in fundamental and exploratory applied research? In my view, it would ease the transition from current organizational arrangements to avoid this problem, that is, not to bring into the Agency, until some later date, the in-house laboratories of the AEC, Department of Commerce or the National Institutes of Health, and perhaps others, while accepting responsibility for the science-supporting functions of these agencies with respect particularly to academic research and education. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration is clearly a rather special case. Certainly, as long as the Space Agency continues to manage the Apollo or post-Apollo applications programs, involving manned space flight, that Agency should remain independent and free standing. However, were its activities to subside to a program exclusively of unmanned, instrumented space probes, then, fusion with the new Agency, when and if it acquires in-house laboratory functions, would appear entirely logical.

With these relatively minor modifications in principle, I find myself in support of the general concept formulated as the model new agency described in the report. It differs little from my earlier suggestion that there is need for a new agency which could be brought into being by fusing the statutory authorities of the National Science Foundation, the Endowment for the Humanities and Arts, certain of the programs of the National Institutes of Health and the higher education functions, or perhaps only the graduate education functions of the Office of Education.

Were such an amalgamation to occur, then it would become possible to simplify many procedures, rationally to manage a somewhat more