relationship of R. & D. to national goals. Such an approach can contribute to a better national understanding of the role of R. & D. with respect to goals. I suggest that an agency of Government be requested to prepare an annual report on this basis. We would be happy to offer our assistance to an agency given such an assignment based upon our experience in making such studies.

In conclusion, I would like to thank the subcommittee for inviting me to testify. You have already met Mr. Lederman, one of the coauthors of the report cited in these remarks, on whom I may wish to call for assistance in responding to your questions.

Mr. DADDARIO. Thank you both.

Mr. Brown?

Mr. BROWN. Well, I consider this to be an extremely provocative report, but I am a little at a loss as to just how to digest some of the findings at the present time.

For example, I can't quite understand the low order of research and development priority for a field such as welfare, considering the substantial amount of Federal funding that goes into this area. I think it is the most striking discrepancy that occurs here. Could you delineate a little more fully the type of expenditures which you have included under the heading welfare here?

Mr. LEDERMAN. Yes. Let me simply read a list of programs or agencies that are included under welfare. This would include the old age, survivors and disability insurance program, the civil service retirement and disability programs, the railroad retirement program, the public assistance program, excluding medical assistance which we classified under health, the vocational rehabilitation program, the school lunch, special milk, food stamp-type programs, the proposed increase in food stamp legislation at that time, the juvenile delinqency program, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Those are the general outlay functions.

In terms of R. & D., the only program area with an identifiable R. & D. program related to the welfare functional field is the vocational rehabilitation program.

Mr. BROWN. How do you classify the expenditures that generally are included in the area of crime, law enforcement, and items of that sort?

Mr. LEDERMAN. That is classified under the heading of General Government.

Mr. BROWN. Under General Government?

Mr. LEDERMAN. Under General Government. The law enforcement, judicial, and legislative expenditures are classified under General Government.

Mr. BROWN. Of course, a great part of these expenditures are not Federal expenditures but are State and local government expenditures. The anomaly it seems to me is that here is an area in which there is a great need for increased and better social science research. Obviously, it isn't taking place at the State and local government level, and it would seem appropriate that in view of the importance that this function has to the national welfare as a whole-it is a goal of high priority at the present time-that there needs to be an expansion of research and development type activities, to contribute to our

understanding of the drastic increase in social costs resulting in this field, and obviously we are not doing that. That seems to be clear from the thrust of your statistics here.

Dr. HARRIS. It has been our estimate that there certainly are opportunities for R. & D. to make contributions to various goals and objectives relating to these fields, which it is not now being called on to make.

Mr. BROWN. I presume that is one of the values of looking at this kind of a survey of the actual dollars involved in these programs. Dr. HARRIS. We think it may make the issues more explicit than they have been in the past.

Mr. BROWN. I don't think I have any further questions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DADDARIO. Mr. Winn?

Mr. WINN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

On page 7, Dr. Harris, under paragraph (c), the second sentence, you said:

However, it is not clear why a higher proportion of the budgets are not allocated to R. & D. in such fields as Commerce, Transportation, and Communications, Housing and Community Development.

I agree with your statement. Could you give us, or do you have some ideas of your own, which would figure out why there isn't a higher proportion? Can you tell us in your own words why you think it isn't as high, because some of those are the top problems of this Nation.

Dr. HARRIS. In examining the aggregation of institutions that have come together to create the agencies whose programs are described, most of those agencies have not traditionally been involved in the fields of research and development. As an example, in the field of housing and community development, most of the approaches to the solutions of the problems that we confront have been developed by people much concerned with the social interests of the Nation without involving the scientific and technical community. This is in strong contrast to the involvement of the R. & D. community in the space program and in the national security program.

I am pleased to see some growth in institutional arrangements in those agencies to identify a leadership position for research and development. The designations in an agency of an assistant secretary for research and development inevitably will lead to budget requests which ultimately will be shown in increased allocations for R. & D. in those fields. At present we do not have the tradition of marshaling science to solve those problems. Many people in many institutions are trying to find a way to break through this barrier of the past.

Mr. WINN. Do we have the technological know-how in these fields that we have in say, space, or some of the others that are taking more of the R. & D. percentage of money?

Dr. HARRIS. We certainly have very substantial capabilities that could be marshaled and could be utilized. With respect to some of the issues that we confront in how better to relate people to cities, we are deficient in knowledge. In these cases, further understanding is necessary before we can make major technological investments. In other areas, we have knowledge that we could apply now.

Mr. WINN. Well, for instance, in the housing and community development field, don't you think that it is possible that we have left it up to the free enterprise system without Government cooperation, rather than a couple of agencies that say they have something to do with housing.

Dr. HARRIS. Certainly the free enterprise system and the entrepreneur has been a very important factor in these fields. The interplay between unions, housing codes, technology, the entrepreneur, and the investment community has made it less easy for technology to be introduced in those fields than in the space field, where some of those functions were somehow taken into account and coordinated by the directors of the program. Of course, some problems that affect the application of technology to housing and community development do not apply to the field of space.

Mr. WINN. This is the point I wanted you to make.

Dr. HARRIS. Right.

Mr. WINN. Thank you very much.

Dr. HARRIS. Surely.

Mr. DADDARIO. Mr. Pettis?

Mr. PETTIS. No questions, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DADDARIO. Mr. Lukens?

Mr. LUKENS. No questions.

Mr. DADDARIO. Dr. Harris, the questions raised by Mr. Winn as to why there is no more R. & D. being allocated to these objectives, which he rightfully refers to as among some of the biggest problems of our times, compel me to ask you why it is that you are pleased with the appointment within these new agencies of assistant secretaries for R. & D. This will inevitably lead to research and development when there certainly does exist, as you have already said, a great deal of knowledge which can be applied to these particular problems.

Since this is so and because we have discussed not just the organization of our science resources but the way in which they would be administered, managed, and directed, doesn't his line of questioning lead us to the conclusion that because we know that these are problems which we ought to overcome and because we have knowledge which could help us to overcome them and because we are not using that knowledge, they weren't probably organized to merit the challenges of our society.

Dr. HARRIS. The appointment of the people and the establishment of the positions that I have just mentioned as you know have only taken place in the last few years. Until that time we certainly were not organized correctly. We may still not be organized adequately to respond to these problems.

Mr. DADDARIO. Well, my question goes further than that. I am not particularly pleased with the idea that we have to set up a new agency and a new position within that agency to take the resources we have already available and to wait for that to be put together to be able to do something about it. If it does exist and if it is available, we ought to be able to marshal those forces without going through all of this business which it seems falls in the pattern of a tribal dance. We create new agencies with titles which appear to be aimed at accomplishing these problems, when you know very well it is going to take a long period of time to do that. It seems to me that leads to disorganization.

Dr. HARRIS. Let me try to respond in two different ways to your statement and your question. In one of these fields, housing and community development, for example, until there is a position of leadership that can bring a concern for science and technology into the policy councils of the relevant organizations and an understanding at the relationship of science and technology to other issues, the linkage is so remote and difficult that technology will not be given proper attention. I think the chance of forcing the technology on an agency from outside is a modest one unless there is internal receptivity. Such receptivity requires that R. & D. be recognized in the form of a staff appointment.

I don't mean to imply that by creating such a position in these agencies, however, we automatically are led to the necessity of establishing the whole range of in-house laboratories, et cetera, that normally has followed the establishment of positions of that kind in the past.

Given the responsibility and an adequate budget to insure the marshaling of available resources to attack those problems, a small central group in these agencies can draw on in-house government laboratory capability, on the universities, on industry, and on the notfor-profit institutions of the country. Their attention can be directed toward these problems very quickly. Their experience can be of help in dealing with these sorts of problems. I respectfully suggest that unless the appropriate internal organizational changes are made in these agencies, the chance that the agency leadership will understand what science is all about and how it can help in the solution of these problems is somewhat remote.

Mr. DADDARIO. This committee recently looked at our national laboratories to see how they might turn in a more flexible way to the solution of problems of our society or at least to give some thought to these problems. Recently at MIT there was an investigation by its president, through a committee he had put together as to the relationship of MIT to society and to the two laboratories there which it manages, for the purpose of coming to some determination as to what a university ought to be doing and what laboratories of this kind can in

fact do.

One of the results from that was that there was the possibility, not that these laboratories could be immediately turned from the work that they were doing to the solution of the problems which beleaguer us, but that over a period of time within those laboratories enough flexibility might be developed so that this capability which does exit and which has been stifled because of sponsorship control, might be flexibile enough so that from time to time it could focus its attention on these particular problems.

I wonder if we do not need to take a look at what we have rather than create something else to transfer abilities in these laboratories. Somewhere in our society, we should develop flexibility so that great men can be given the opportunity to focus and refocus on certain issues. This way we will always have available the ability to put together the knowledge which gives us the answer to these particular problems.

Dr. Lenher this morning gave us an analogy I think which applies. One of his laboratories working with rayon went from there, because

they had some experience with rayon, to many, many other things, giving them a great deal of flexibility, to the point where when the time came to shuffle out rayon, the laboratory just did not collapse as many of ours do, and which we keep going in many instances to simply keep them going, or to stuff things into them because they are not able to be kept going to 100-percent efficiency because of the sponsoring agency does not have a capability to keep them going efficiently.

Dr. HARRIS. Yes.

Mr. DADDARIO. And if part of our problem is not in the way in which we administer, the lack of flexibility which we develop, and the lack of overall purpose which we inject into these laboratories.

Dr. HARRIS. Certainly the great in-house laboratories of Government are among our more important national scientific and engineering resources. I have had an opportunity in various capacities to be associated through advisory committee work with the National Bureau of Standards for some years. NBS is an example of a laboratory that derives a substantial amount of its total income from other agencies to perform work for those agencies. It is doing important work for the Departments of Transportation and Housing and Urban Development. We all know of the splendid work that Oak Ridge National Laboratory has been able to do in support of some of the major problems of the country, outside the atomic energy field. The central issue I would suppose is how budget support can be provided to permit the laboratories to carry on these extra functions. If you were to ask the agency that has primary cognizance of the laboratory to take on a new set of missions, this might raise fairly difficult questions. If you were to give the laboratories some opportunity to seek funds from other agencies to carry out programs, utilizing Government-furnished resources and staffs that have been built up to approach one program but have broad competence and flexibility, you might find this an appropriate way to arrange for their ultilization.

Mr. DADDARIO. We asked Mr. Ink when he was here, a week or so back, if he saw any problem in the Bureau of the Budget for any reason, accountability or otherwise, which would prevent a laboratory from having its manager have a certain percentage of its overhead to spend any way that he wanted. He said he didn't. This would eliminate the need for other agencies, really, to give them the money to do something on a flexible basis. It would allow for the flexibility and an allencompassing look, which may be what we need to have in some of these laboratories for their own good as well as for the country's good. Dr. HARRIS. Certainly they can achieve some degree of flexibility with those in-house overhead funds that you have described. Yet, ultimately, if they are going to be linked to the missions of other agencies, they would have to be directly associated with programs. This would require a transfer of funds. After the laboratory demonstrates with its own funds that it could provide a service, the transfer-of-funds mechanism could link it to the ongoing program of the other agency.

Mr. DADDARIO. How would you as a man connected with a nonprofit research organization look to these developments in society? Would you see it as a threat, or would you see it as something which would enhance your possibilities as well as their's or ours?