Mr. MOSHER. And I certainly hope the Ash committee is adequately staffed and really gets to the job and does it.

Dr. DUBRIDGE. Well, it is a tremendous job and I don't know what an adequate staff would be. It might take a thousand people to really look at the complex problems of Government organization. The way they are working now they will at least certainly identify the problems and see to what extent they can get into them.

I only mention that that is one of the executive office agencies that is taking a look at the Stratton report.

Mr. MOSHER. Mr. Chairman, we could push this subject for quite a while, but I will return it to you.

Mr. DADDARIO. Mr. Brown?

Mr. BROWN. Yes. There are a number of things I would like to discuss with you, Dr. DuBridge, but I doubt if we will have time to do that.

I think you properly make this sharp distinction between applied science and technology and basic science; and that the organizational difficulties that we run into in Government frequently are more in the applied science and technology field. I would like to question you, if that doesn't stem from the fact that in a period of rapid change in technology and in various other areas, we sometimes find ourselves without an agency that has a concern with the particular function that we are talking about; at least an overall concern. Oceanography is a good example of this, as it was true of space before we created NASA.

How can we identify the areas in which there isn't a mission oriented agency? It would be in an area that is obviously of great national concern. Is there somplace in the whole structure of Government which is charged with or should be charged with this responsibility of making sure that there are no major gaps within the areas of responsibility of mission agencies? You pointed to this gap problem in your own

remarks.

Dr. DUBRIDGE. Well, I did throw out the suggestion that a central institute or agency for applied science is a conceivable structure to think about. I have not thought deeply enough about it to have any final suggestions to make. I did point out that it is a possible structure, and I pointed out one drawback to it, namely, that a general purpose applied science agency might not be necessarily the best way to push forward in these various applied science fields, in those areas at least where existing agencies do have a strong urge and responsibility and need for applied science work.

I mentioned some agencies where they do have a strong urge to do applied science work, do have a responsibility for doing it, and they should be the ones to do it. There may be other areas the marine area might be one, the environmental area might be another-where no single agency or department now has enough of a responsibility, where it is an important enough part of its mission to really push this applied science field ahead more vigorously. And, therefore, a new agency with that mission might be required. Now, it could be a separate agency or it might be a subdivision of some new applied science institute. I think it is conceivable to think of an applied science institute as a feasible and possibly a desirable feature of the Federal structure.

I would start with it rather small, with just a couple of different functions now, and not try to rob all the other agencies of their applied science functions. But start with a few things, like marine, environment and so on, and see if one could get applied science activities established in that agency, and then maybe it would be a suitable one to grow into other national fields for which no existing agency has adequate mission or responsibility or an adequate urge to push forward the field.

I would like to reflect on that problem. I really didn't get to that in my statement, and I dismissed it a little lightly, and I just haven't had time to develop ideas on that particular question of an applied science institute. I think it is worth thinking about.

Mr. DADDARIO. Dr. DuBridge, we will certainly think about it and we would appreciate anything you wish to do to supplement your own thinking on it. We will leave time so that that can be done for the record, if you like.

Mr. BROWN. Let me ask you, in connection with our support for basic science, you have indicated that here the problem is one of our commitment rather than structure. The problem that we have here in the Congress-and I am sure the executive branch has it also-is how do you measure the desirable degree of commitment. You have indicated that this is under study for the 1971 budget.

There is a typical measuring rod which Congress and most people apply to other types of things, and that is does it have a payoff; you know, the cost effectiveness measuring stick. If it is effective, I mean if it produces results, we will commit the necessary funds for it, because under this yardstick you get back more than you put into it. Now, this is difficult to measure in basic science, and it is questionable whether it should even be used as a measuring rod.

The other kind of measurement that could be used-and I am only suggesting this and asking for your comment-is are we supporting all of the able and competent scientists who would devote their energies to basic science if they had the resources to do it? In other words, are we at present precluding the use of a large body of competent scientists because we are not supporting them in basic science? Are they being, say, forced into applied science or technology or becoming salesmen because we just don't have the support for them? Can that be measured and would that be a reasonable index?

Dr. DUBRIDGE. Yes; I will take your first question first about the payoff.

It is certainly true that the specific payoff for work in chemistry or physics or in astronomy cannot be foreseen and cannot be measured quantitatively. I think if one is looking for payoff in monetary terms in basic science, you have to look back into history and take the whole progress of science in the last 200 years, and say what has it done for the world, and what has it done for the United States. And then you begin asking, well, what would our life be like in America if we hadn't had this 200 years of progress in so many fields of basic science.

Mr. BROWN. You understand there are some people who say we would be better off?

Dr. DUBRIDGE. Right.

I think the way in which you can answer the assertion that "we would be better off" would be to look at, say, some major country where

this has not been the case. And I suggest India might be a good example.

The major difference between the United States and India is that the United States has found ways to develop science and use it effectively, India has not. And if you would like to trade places with India, then I guess you are free to make that choice. But I think that the science and technology gap between the United States and India is only one example, and India is better off than many others. That one example suggests that the use of science for the welfare of human beings is a pretty important thing, and sure, it has some backlashes. You know, we get some pollution out of it and some other problems, and traffic congestion. But if you ever tried to drive around India among the bullock carts I don't think you would think their traffic congestion problems are any better than ours. So I think that is the kind of point of view I take: That the sum total of the results of the scientific enterprise in the last 200 years has given us a great many of the good things that we like. They would not have been possible without the development of science and technology. So you have to take a long view, if you are going to talk about payoffs. There have been some specific studies that traced a particular valuable technological development back through its history of applied science, basic science, and so on, and people have added up the amount of money that has been spent and then looked at the total value of the final product and found that the investment, you know, has paid off at 50 or 100 percent a year. But it is only occasionally that one can identify things so closely. I think you can in such fields as agriculture and a few others.

But even our progress in agriculture did not come wholly out of work in agriculture. It came out of new discoveries in physics about the structure of organic material. It came out of new discoveries from chemistry and biochemistry as well as the more applied work in agriculture. Therefore, the payoff is hard to determine, and it has got to be projected a 100 years ahead maybe. And it has got to be projected not in terms that this experiment or that one will be the thing that leads to a big payoff, but altogether all of the scientific enterprise will have a payoff. But I think that science is a field in which one has to think in terms other than dollar payoffs. You have sort of got to think in somewhat more intangible, intellectual terms. The exploration of the universe I just think has been an elevating thing for human beings. I think we are better off as human beings because we know about the structure of the universe now as compared to 500 years ago when everybody thought that the planets were being pushed around by angels and devils and that the day on which you were born and where the angel was on that day determined your future. I think we are better off that we know better about the mechanism of nature and the shape and structure and progress and history and future of the universe. You can't measure that in dollars.

Mr. BROWN. Well, the other criterion I was setting forth here had to do with the degree to which we are actually making use of our trained manpower.

Dr. DUBRIDGE. Yes.

Mr. BROWN. Can that be used as a measurement? I am talking about dollars. You are suggesting a billion dollar budget for the Science

Foundation. How do we justify this to some hardnosed members of the Appropriations Committee?

Dr. DUBRIDGE. Yes. All right. I think you have put your finger on a much more viable method of judging the adequacy of the scientific enterprise.

The scientist is looking always for significant and important things to do. No scientist wants to do trivial things. It is the last thing in the world he wants to do, like any other human being who doesn't like to spend his life doing trivial things.

So he tries to identify those scientific enterprises in his area of interest which have an important effect on strengthening our knowledge in that area of science. And you can tell the important newly developing areas of science. As new discoveries open up new potentialities for a new scientific field, the bright young scientists are pretty likely to say, there is the wave of the future, there is where I want to be.

A number of years ago nuclear physics was clearly the exciting area to be in, and the young physicists flocked into it. In more recent years, other areas. And now I suppose biochemistry and microbiology are among the more exciting areas.

What I am getting at is simply the initiatives, the interests, and the thinking of especially the younger scientists, are clearly an extremely good gage of what scientific areas have scientific importance for the future, and which ones are significant.

Therefore, if one does look around the country and ask in what areas of science are there competent, lively, imaginative young people working without adequate support, you do identify then the important areas. And I would put as an important criterion for the adequacy of science the identification of competent scientists who are now working on what they consider to be lively and important areas for the future, where the support is inadequate.

Now, I know from the Government point of view it is awfully hard to say, well, we are going to spend our money on the whims of the scientists, and it is a hard thing to justify. But the whims and the desires and the intellectual enthusiasm of the scientists are all we have got. That is all that makes science go.

It is not a thing that can be directed and ordered by a Government agency. It is a thing that has to well out from the sprit of curiosity and impulse to do things useful and significant that are inherent in the individuals. Therefore, if we could identify where the individuals are and see where they are lacking in adequate facilities, support, atmosphere, then you have got a far better criterion than any other I can think of for saying our support is or is not adequate.

Now, you know perfectly well in the last 3 or 4 years the support has been inadequate because things have been going along, new scientists have been training, new ideas have been developing, new projects have been started and suddenly they have had to be stopped or decreased, and new ones haven't been started.

So we have a clear example of inadequacy today.

Mr. BROWN. But can we measure these things, can we get a count of the number of brilliant young new scientists who are not being adequately supported in the fields in which they are not being supported?

Dr. DUBRIDGE. Yes.

Mr. BROWN. Is that effort being made in terms of the commitment? Dr. DUBRIDGE. Yes, we can and it is. I do not think it is possible to measure this with very high precision nor do I think it is necessary to do it.

Mr. BROWN. No.

Dr. DUBRIDGE. But it doesn't take very much of a sampling process to find out in the major institutions of the country where science is going on what the situation is. Remember, there are only 150 universities in the country that are really involved in scientific graduate training and research.

There are 2,000 colleges that aren't, or are only involved in undergraduate training or only in small scale research. If we could find out from the 150 or even the 50 leading universities, I am sure a sample there would show exactly where the lively young minds are that need additional support.

And the Federal Council committee on this is now taking a look at precisely this problem.

Mr. BROWN. I have never seen this kind of information. I have seen the information indicating that we have cut back so much and so many projects are having to be cut. You can get a reaction from this. The reaction, of course, is any time you start something and then cut if off you get a reaction.

But that doesn't begin to measure whether or not we are really doing the job that needs to be done in terms of supporting the potential amongst these brilliant young scientists who otherwise are not going to starve to death, but they are just going to move into some other more lucrative field and we will be deprived of their efforts in this area. Dr. DUBRIDGE. Well, we are studying that situation exactly now. Mr. BROWN. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DADDARIO. Beyond studying it and coming to some determination about how many of these young people ought to be supported, Dr. DuBridge, there does have to be created in the public mind the type of opinion, which the Congress then will reflect, that they are actually deserving of such support and that it is necessary to the welfare of this country that that be done.

Dr. DUBRIDGE. I hope, Mr. Chairman, that your committee can be a key factor in conveying to the Congress what the situation actually is. We will certainly keep you informed of whatever we can find out about it.

If your committee can look at these facts and size up the situation and come to a conclusion about the national interest in this field, it will be enormously helpful and useful in educating the people of the country.

Mr. DADDARIO. Dr. DuBridge, when under the Reorganization Act, the Office of Science and Technology was founded, it was given the responsibility to evaluate scientific research programs undertaken by the various agencies of the Government. In your concluding remarks, you talk about basic sicence being supported by an independent agency, which is the National Science Foundation.

You also said that you did not think it wise to take away from other agencies the basic research activities that those agencies were working on, but rather to build up the National Science Foundation through