« PreviousContinue »
I saw the launch on a friend's TV set in Korea. I stood with 60,000 to 100,000 Koreans on the top of Yongsan Hill in the rain to watch some of the events during the flight.
Mr. DADDARIO. 60,000 to 100,000 ? Dr. HARRIS. 60,000 to 100,000 stood in the rain watching a 30-by-30 TV screen, each of us with our umbrellas. I saw the quiet but real enthusiasm of the crowd. Later I watched the moonwalk, itself, in the laboratories of the Korean Institute for Science and Technology, which is a joint Republic of Korea-United States Government program established to bring science and technology muie effectively to bear on the economic development of Korea.
That evening Ambassador Porter had a reception for a National Academy of Sciences team looking at technical assistance in Korea, to which the representatives of KIST (Korean Institute for Science and Technology) were invited, I among them.
Ambassador Porter, I observed, received the compliments of every single Korean, and their very enthusiastic comments about the accomplishments of the United States. Having seen this and knowing the involvement of your committee in this program, I wanted to have an opportunity to tell you in a personal way how much the fact that the Americans were first on the moon had meant to the Koreans.
Mr. DADDARIO. Well, we are certainly appreciative of your telling us about that experience, Dr. Harris. It is one that I am sure that every member of this committee would have been pleased to share with you, to see that kind of enthusiasm about a program of the United States in such a place.
We thank both of you for your testimony.
Mr. Brown has already indicated that there is much in what you have said which needs to be analyzed further. It certainly puts before us many provocative ideas, as well as somewhat disturbing figures and statistics which must be looked at very carefully.
So we will need to take advantage of you both-
This committee will adjourn until tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock in the same room, when we will have Dr. Ivan Bennett, former Deputy Director of OST, and Dr. James Shannon, former Director of NIH.
(Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Wednesday, July 30, 1969.)
CENTRALIZATION OF FEDERAL SCIENCE ACTIVITIES
WEDNESDAY, JULY 30, 1969
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10:13 a.m., room 2325, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Emilio Q. Daddario (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. DADDARIO. This meeting will come to order.
Our witnesses this morning are Dr. Ivan L. Bennett, who is the director of the New York University Medical Center; and Dr. James Shannon, special assistant to the President, of the National Academy of Sciences.
In introducing them to this committee and giving them these titles, it does not mean that this is a sufficient introduction or explanation of their backgrounds. We need not go any further than to refer to the time when Dr. Shannon was the head of NIH, did an exemplary job for so many years, and Dr. Bennett, previous to his present assignment, was deputy to the Science Adviser to the President. He is also on the permanent science panel of this committee. Both have the kind of background which this committee is particularly concerned about and anxious to get advice on, so far as these hearings are concerned.
I thought that it would be wise if both Dr. Shannon and Dr. Bennett came to the table together. We will proceed first with Dr. Bennett's testimony and then with Dr. Shannon, with the committee welcome to ask questions at any time during the course of the delivery of this testimony.
STATEMENT OF DR. IVAN L. BENNETT, DIRECTOR, NEW YORK
UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER
Dr. BENNETT. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DADDARIO. Before we continue, I would like to welcome to the committee a new member, Congressman James Symington, who is here for the first time, which means the committee has been somewhat enlarged, by one member on each side of the aisle. We are happy to have
Mr. SYMINGTON. Thank you.
Dr. BENNETT. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, it is a pleasure and a privilege to appear before you again. My admiration and gratitude for your interest in national science policy and
for your many actions to support the quality and to assure the effectiveness of the Federal effort in science and technology are a part of the record of past hearings. They are expressed in the most complimentary language and fulsome phraseology that I dared to use and still retain some degree of credibility. All of my testimony before you, until today, was given in my former official capacity as a member of the Executive Office of the President during the last administration, and was--and I think rightly-constrained by that administration's executive policies. Here at the beginning of my first statement before you as a private citizen, then, I wish to say that the compliments that I have paid in the past to the work of this subcommittee coincide with my personal opinions. My prior praise and thanks were, indeed, something more than the mere parroting of an official consensus, agreed upon at midnight meetings somewhere within the dim recesses of that fortress of administration policymaking, the Executive Office Building, I can present only one piece of tangible evidence in support of this declaration. Were it not for my high opinion of your committee's panel on science and technology last January when Dr. Lee DuBridge resigned to assume a position which places him under constraints similar to but, I hope and trust, not identical with those which I have now cast off. In short, I can now tell it like it is, or rather, tell it like I think it is.
There is a neurological disorder known as psychomotor epilepsy in which the victim, rather than suffering from periodic, generalized convulsions such as occur in the better known form of epilepsy, so-called grand mal, is subject to fleeting aberrations of mentation. A particular type of psychomotor epilepsy is characterized by episodes during which new objects or persons may seem strangely familiar. This is referred to in medical jargon as the déjà entendu phenomenon, the feeling that something one has just heard has been heard at some other time, or as the déjà vu phenomenon, the mental impression of having just seen something which has been seen before. I mention these clinical phenomena not simply to remind you of my biomedical background, but because they best characterize my initial reaction to the news that the subcommittee was planning to hold hearings on the subject of “Cenalization of Federal Science Activities."
The subject of centralizing Federal science has been discussed and debated, off and on, privately and publically, for a surprisingly long time. Shortly before my former boss, Dr. Donald Hornig, ended his tenure as Science Adviser to President Johnson, he referred to the recurrent "peaking of public concern about the state of American science” which has led to suggestions for centralization as well as evolutionary steps in that direction at intervals of 5 or 6 years since World War II. This began with Vannevar Bush's landmark report, Science: “The Endless Frontier” in 1945 which along with the so-called Steelman report, “Science and Public Policy,” in 1947, finally led to the establishment of the National Science Foundation in 1950. The Korean war stimulated the establishment of the Science Advisory Committee in the Office of Defense Mobilization in 1951, then the challenge of sputnik in 1957 led to the elevation of the committee to the White House as PSAC and the appointment of Dr. James Killian to advise President Eisenhower in 1957, and then after another review
of central science structures, the Office of Science and Technology was set up in 1962 to provide staff resources for dealing with scientific and technological matters at the presidential level. Six years later, in 1968, another wave of concern about the Federal effort in science and technology began to reach a crest, as is very well summarized in the report which the subcommittee has had prepared for these hearings. For example, table 1 on page 3 of that report lists 20 serious proposals for centralizing Federal science activities since 1961, of which no less than 15 were made in 1968 or 1969. This recent history of the evolution of present Federal machinery for the governance of science is, of course, familiar to us all. I was surprised to learn recently, however, that there have been outbreaks of congressional interest in a central authority for science since 1884. These have been elegently documented by Herbert Roback in an article published only this month which contains some information that I found fascinating. For example, Congress established a joint committee (then referred to as a commission)
to study the organization of Goverment science agencies in 1884 and the National Academy of Sciences set up a committee to advise Congress. The Academy Committee recommended putting all of the science agencies under a central authority. Roback quotes from the Academy report as follows:
* * * The best form would be, perhaps, the establishment of a Department of Science, the head of which should be an administrator familiar with scientific affairs, but not necessarily an investigator in any specific branch. Your Committee states only the general sentiment and wish of men of science when it says that its members believes the time is near when the country will demand the institution of a branch of the executive Government devoted especially to the direction and control of all the purely scientific work of the Government.
In 1946, Representative Clare Booth Luce of Connecticut introduced a bill to establish a department of science and research and her statement at the time is equally interesting since present proponents of such a department use the same argument, and I quote:
Only the prestige which attaches to a regular member of the Cabinet will render the findings of any scientific body of sufficient weight to command the constant attention of the highest officials of the Government in the consideration and formulation of policy.
I will not further rehearse the history of this question but I strongly recommend the article by Roback to those who are interested in the evolution of ideas.
The subcommittee's background report correctly points out (p. 5):
Although the term “Department of Science” is most commonly used to describe the proposed change, it is actually a euphemism for centralization.
The brief historical review that I have presented also makes it clear that this euphemism has been suggested as a possible solution on every occasion when there has been a wave of concern about Federal programs in science and technology, no matter what the problem that caused the concern happened to be. Thus, in 1884, the main concern was to avoid domination by the military of science agencies; in 1945 it was the prevention of the disbanding of scientific organizations that had contributed so much during World War II; in 1952, it was the fear that the Korean war might require another mobilization of the scientific and technological community; in 1957, it was the desire to assure