« PreviousContinue »
that have been suggested for a new department, because the key functions are those that can be performed effectively only as part of the Presidency. For all of these reasons, issues involved in establishing a new department should be studied intensively.
Some examples of the problems that must be faced if centralization in a department or agency is chosen as the route are given in the following section.
SOME ALTERNATIVES FOR CONSIDERATION IN CONNECTION WITH A CABINET DEPARTMENT
OF HIGHER EDUCATION AND ACADEMIC SCIENCE While it is not recommended that a Department of Education and Research be established now, the pros and cons of such a step should be seriously considered. This discussion is intended to suggest some plausible alternatives, and the issues raised by each.
Alternative I: Minimum Grouping.--The central functions of the Department of Education and Research would be those performed by NSF, the Office of Education, and the National Foundation for the Arts and Humanities. This would bring together education and research, science, social science, and the humanities. These organizations, their statutory authorities, funds, and personnel would be transferred to the new department.
The argument for placing the NFAH in the Department is that the problem is not simply one of science or education. It involves all disciplines at all levels :
Science is only one important part of education.
Science will be most creative in a broad environment. Left to itself or supported disproportionately, it may be destructive of human society and disruptive of educational institutions. Its results must be formed and implemented
by contact with the humanities and social sciences. The organization of a Department of this scope below the Secretary and Under Secretary could consist of Assistant Secretaries for general education, for research, and for broad disciplines. This last Assistant Secretary could be the staff and coordinating officer. Under him, science, social science, humanities and arts would come as disciplines. He would work with the National Science Board and the Arts and Humanities Councils. He and each of the Councils would be required to make reports to the President and the Congress.
Under the Assistant Secretary for Education (General) would come the activities of the Office of Education.
Under the Assistant Secretary for Science would come the National Science Foundation.
Alternative II: Expanded Group.-In addition to NSF, OE and NFAH, include Federal Laboratories which are not closely linked to performance of the central statutory responsibilities of existing agencies. This would include the Bureau of Standards (NBS) as a minimum, and as a maximum would include not only the Bureau but those laboratory activities relating to study of the environment (ESSA). The arguments for placing laboratory operations in the Department are:
Operation of laboratories gives those who operate grant and contract programs a feel for the needs of scientists.
NBS and ESSA have important functions which cannot develop adequately within the Department of Commerce. The arguments against inclusion of these organizations are:
The functions of NSF and OE alone constitute adequate scope for a Department, and the addition of other organizations and functions would complicate the task of organizing and operating the Department.
The inclusion of ESSA in the new Department would forestall a regrouping of research functions in a department centered around investi
gation of the environment. Alternative III: Maximum Group.-A maximum option would be creation of a Department of Education and Research consisting of the OE, NSF, NFAH and the proposed Social Science Foundation, relevant life science programs of NIH and the VA research program.
• The plan would include that part of the Federal effort in the arts that relates to education and research under the humanities. The balance of the Federal effort in the arts could be reorganized into an independent office including the National Endowment for the Arts, the Kennedy Center, and for other appropriate agencies.
Arguments for such a maximum reorganization proposals are:
It would correct the fragmentation of education and academic science responsibilities that now exist.
It would emphasize the commitment of the Federal Government to education and science.
It would make possible, for the first time, comprehensive policy planning, goal-setting, program evaluation, and administration for both education and academic science.
It would establish an undeniably strong central focus in Government, at the Cabinet level, for science cum education. Arguments against such a maximum reorganization are:
The strengths of separate identities (NSF, VA, NFAH, NIH) would be diminished excessively.
It would be too large and diverse to be administered well.
Political constituencies (medical, veterans) would fuse to block any chance of enactment.
It includes so much (NIH, VA) that it is unwieldly and excludes so much including the research components of DOD, AEC and NASA that it is not
actually comprehensive. In the judgment of the author, these arguments against a maximum group are weighty and main attention should be centered on the further development of Alternatives I and II, above.
Other Possibilities.-It is not difficult to envision other groupings. The three examples given above are based upon the assumption that science should be grouped administratively with education and separated from technology. The addition of AEC (excluding weapons development), NASA, and those elements of HEW responsible for development of antipollution technologies could be considered but the arguments, political and administrative, against any such merger are formidable.
The separation of education and manpower programs implied in the three alternatives might be judged to be a fault. Consideration could and should be given to placing responsibilities for manpower training-OEO programs, Department of Labor programs, HEW rehabilitation programs, and veterans training programs in the new Department. However, in addition to the contra arguments given for Alternative III, inclusion of responsibilities for training segments of the labor force would further diffuse and complicate the mission of the Department and would also remove these activities from their established bases of political support.
Dr. BENNETT. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I will be glad to respond to any questions.
Mr. DADDARIO. Gentlemen, I do think it would be helpful this morning if we were to allow Dr. Shannon to proceed, and then we can have the questioning of both Dr. Shannon and Dr. Bennett.
If that is agreeable, then, Dr. Shannon, if you will proceed. STATEMENT OF DR. JAMES A. SHANNON, M.D., SPECIAL ADVISER
TO THE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES Dr. SHANNON. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I have prepared a very brief statement. In so doing I have deleted much detail from what was a substantially longer initial draft and I may have removed material that could have been of interest to the committee. I am prepared, in accordance with the wishes of the committee, to extend the presentation in direct response to questions or to provide supplemental material at a later date.
To start off, I would like to echo the comments of Dr. Bennett on the importance and effectiveness of the operations of this committee.
Turing now to the statement.
A more suitable organization for science within the executive branch is a manifestly urgent need. This view stems from the belief that, the nature of the organizational setting for Federal science can itself
facilitate or retard the further development of science, the rational deployment of scientific resources, and the development of a broader public understanding of the role science can play in the complexities of modern society.
But the problems of organization are complex. This is clearly manifest in the differing views on organization which have been presented to this committee. These reflect differing assessments of the requirements for an adequate science organization and reflect its importance to a series of “publics"
that of the working scientist;
that of the institutions which house and lend him institutional support;
that of the technologist concerned with the application of science;
that of the program director of a Federal agency; and
and that of society at large in its perceptions of the benefits to be derived from science. The full exploration of any one of these views would require no less than monographic treatment and there would still remain the need for synthesis of a "best fit solution.” Consequently, I believe the committee's purposes will be best suited if I can limit my presentation to a series of positive statements in the form of propositions, and some generalizations that seem pertinent to a consideration of the several organization forms which have been proposed. First, to state the three propositions.
The most important strengths of U.S. science are its broad scope and general excellence, and these are due in no small measure to a support system characterized by pluralism, the bulk of research support being derived from agencies with definable missions.
The most important weakness of U.S. science is derived from the progressive decoupling that has occurred between research and education. Such decoupling results in part from the mechanisms utilized in support of academic research, but more importantly from the lack of sufficient direct concern for the health and vigor of our institutions of higher education.
A second important weakness results from the progressive disenchantment of society with science, there being too little general understanding of the relation of much of the Nation's substantial
research undertakings and their ultimate social purposes. These three propositions are amendable to detailed justification but as generalizations they can be derived from a presentation given before the American Association for the Advancement of Science last December. This was published in Science last February and is appended to this statement.
The biomedical sciences were used in the AAAS presentation as an example of a program of research, the support of which is dominated by mission-oriented agencies. It is clearly apparent from that discussion and a consideration of the development of other fields that the flowering of science in the United States during the past decade or so was due to the intelligent pursuit of a number of broad but specified missions funded in amounts that permitted the growth of science without severe fiscal constraints. The soundness of the programs that evolved reflected in large measure the free operations of the internal logic of science. The view expressed in the presentation was that having come this far, there is much further to go in many areas, and further progress would be greatly facilitated if much of the good of our present support system can be retained and some specific types of medical action undertaken. Such remedial action was discussed under four headings:
The need for a broader measure of institutional support, particularly for the broadly defined educational missions of institutions;
The belief that having secured institutional stability, then the consequent freeing up of mission-oriented agencies would permit them to address themselves to their mission more productively;
The essential need for a more adequate information system that could provide "analyses and arrays of information specifically relevant to broad sets of problems from an overall point of view. I might add: To satisfy this need it was proposed that a limited number of cognizant agencies be designated presumably by executive order.
The need for some central mechanism high in the executive branch which would utilize such organized information collated so as to permit the definition of broad national goals and make the critical policy and allocation decisions that would influence program development in science and education and in the use
of science for other social purposes. It was not envisaged that such a central structure would have operational responsibility for any portion of the program it reviewed and upon which it made judgments affecting the allocation of resources. Such a mixture of policy formulation and program execution was contained in the original National Science Foundation legislation and, I believe, is responsible in no small measure for some of the deficiencies which characterize both the NSF programs and the development of our national science policy. A science policy agency can scarcely have a broad operational program and be free of conflicts of interest.
It is my conviction that a science department, regardless of what it contains specifically in the way of operating programs, would have the same deterrent
to effective service as a focal point for the evolution of science policy;
to the objective consideration of the Nation's science programs; to general acceptance of its leadership role by other elements of the Federal research and development establishments;
and to its acceptance by the public and the Congress as an unbiased source of advice on the best manner by which our scientific resources can be utilized to satisfy our public (social)
purposes. In such a view, the major thrust of R. & D. would continue to be contained in discrete mission-oriented agencies. This does not imply a view that current arrangements are satisfactory. Our present system would require modification so as to provide for the essential stability of our institutions of higher education, for a more adequate program of graduate education and for an adequate amount of what
I would call support for undifferentiated research essential for a broadly enlightened educational process. Particular note should be taken of the lack of use of basic research as a term generally useful in describing academic science.
These ends could be achieved by combining some of the programs of the Office of Education that directly support graduate education with comparable programs of the NSF; broadening the responsibility of NSF in the field of graduate education and in the direct support of, and further development of our universities; creating substantial and visible foci of support, again in NSF, for divisions or bureaus addressed to the social and behavioral sciences, to the physical, mathematical, and engineering sciences, and to the nonmedically relevant biological sciences; providing in NSF the means to provide such centralized and nationalized resources essential for complex research of a fundamental nature but not reasonably replicable in multiple university settings.
In this view, the National Science Foundation, would emphasize the free exploration of science, with adequate resources, in association with our institutions of higher education; the free pursuit of definable problem areas would be the responsibility of mission-oriented agencies; and the general overview of science, including definition of general objectives and the allocation of resources; the function of a central body without operating responsibility. The case has been made very well for the mission-oriented agency by Glenn Seaborg and does not require further comment here. I would only extend his remarks to make one additional point. A major thrust of the President's Science Adviser was that weaknesses in the science base of the several large mission-oriented agencies could best be overcome by an extension of support of NSF. In my view and that of Dr. Seaborg, each missionoriented agency will require a capability to support a broad base of fundamental science particularly relevant to the long-range objectives of the agencies—a đependency on NSF for this function is most inadvisable.
Within such a framework of responsibility, it would be possible to reduce the partial dependence of our universities for their integrity on defense-related support mechanisms, simplify the responsibilities of a number of agencies, viz, Atomic Energy Commission, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and National Institutes of Health, for stabilizing educational institutions, more particularly our universities, and permit the latter to pursue their course of essential development unfettered by extraneous responsibility. As an aside, and very pertinent to the present crisis in the delivery of health services, medical education and its related functions would continue in NIH.
I do not believe that it is possible to legislate such a situation into being, though I do believe that it is possible to set up, through legislation, a framework within which the essential transfers and adjustments can be achieved. With suitable authority, these might be completed within a 2-year period, but perhaps a more reasonable target would be the completion of the operating framework for a science and education within the time span of the present administration.
Finally, it is not possible in a brief discussion such as this to dispose of-for organizational purposes—the many central devices for