eral stabilization of universities which they are able to do only partially and enable them then to concentrate better on the accomplishment on their respective missions.

But the pluralistic system of support for research is quite different from the pluralistic attempt to support these institutions as institutions. I think that it would make possible a transition of this responsibility to NSF where it would be placed squarely and where NSF would be able to fulfill this responsibility.

Mr. DADDARIO. We see this disengaging situation developing in a very graphic way at this time. The unfortunate situation is that as the disengaging takes place there is not sufficient funding for the National Science Foundation to truly fulfill this role.

Dr. BENNETT. This is absolutely correct, and the reason that I suggested the 3-year indicative plan would be to display for Congress as well as the agencies how these shifts would take place, so that we wouldn't have the situation which I personally have seen where funds for high energy physics were removed from the Department of Defense budget but then appeared in the NSF budget and the reaction of one particular congressional subcommittee, not this one, and indeed not in this House, was that someone was trying to play tricks on them by putting something over into another budget. If they had enough beforehand that this was part of an integrated plan and understood that no one was trying to hide the fact that this support would now be from National Science Foundation rather than the Department of Defense, I think the reaction would have been quite different. And the whole purpose of this indicative plan-3-year plan that would be updated each year-is to demonstrate that the budgeting is indeed integrated and that there is a long-range plan for shifting these responsibilities to more appropriate places within the existing agencies.

Mr. DADDARIO. Mr. Winn, you had a question—or Mr. Mosher?
Mr. WINN. Go ahead.

Mr. MOSHER. Dr. Bennett, you certainly have been in a position to see the National Science Foundation in operation and I would like to have your comment on a statement made by a previous witness here, when he referred to "bureaucratic timidity" in the National Science Foundation. I believe that was the phrase he used, and the implication was that the National Science Foundation has been particularly timid in speaking to the Congress, it hasn't been aggressive enough in trying to tell Congressmen what its goals are. Perhaps NSF's inadequate financing stems in part just from that simple fact, that the National Science Foundation hasn't been up here lobbying enough on the Hill. Do you want to comment on that?

Dr. BENNETT. I would comment on it only to say that I agree with that general view of the past, but being well acquainted with the new Director for the National Science Foundation and in the most complimentary fashion I can, I would like to say that insofar as personalities can reverse this trend, I think Dr. McElroy will be able to do it. Mr. MOSHER. You would say that NSF has a job to do in educating the Congress, would you agree with that?

Dr. BENNETT. I would certainly agree with that, yes.
Dr. SHANNON. Could I comment on that?

Mr. DADDARIO. Why of course.

Dr. SHANNON. I don't think it is simply a question of educating the Congress. I think that the greatest barrier to getting its story across over the now almost 20 years of its existence has been in the definition of its responsibility. This has been dominated by a meaningless term called "basic research." Such a term cannot be used as the basis for either budget development or program performance. It does not carry with it a sense of responsibility for an essential program. Both Dr. Bennett and I pointed out that this appropriation, i.e., NSF, should be the primary source to provide for the stabilization and future development of the essential science necessary for the development and maintenance of our great universities, and that this budget should be adequate to support a lively program in graduate education, and that the needs of science in these areas are derivative of these very real program needs. In such a sense the NSF acquires broad social purpose and adequate funds to fulfill such a purpose.

Over the years many of us have felt that this probably is the most restricting deficiency in NSF, the definition of what its function really is. A clear purpose does not come out in its own reports, it does not come out in congressional hearings, and basically an acceptable purpose that is also generally understandable has not been perceived by the leadership within NSF. Yet it now has all the authorities required to fulfill these essential roles.

So, I would say, or the thrust of my comments-I won't interpret those of Dr. Bennett-is that the definition of the purpose for which NSF is there requires certain inquiry and redefinition, in more understandable terms.

Mr. DADDARIO. Dr. Bennett, in reply to Mr. Mosher, you, in praising the new director, Dr. McElroy, believe that it would not be the case with him that he will not be timid. I would expect that his role would be enhanced considerably because of the restructuring of the National Science Foundation which gives him a deputy and four assistants and by providing these people, he can play a tremendous role in bringing the National Science Foundation into the perspective or into the scheme of things which you people believe is necessary.

Dr. BENNETT. I would certainly agree that his ability to carry these things out will be greatly enhanced by this restructuring, the implementation of which of course was held in abeyance until his selection. The additional authority and this restructuring, insofar as these particular factors can play a role, will be much more favorable than they have been in the past.

Mr. DADDARIO. Both of you have offered organizational suggestions or recommendations and you lead us in various directions. You have also talked about the stabilization and further development of science, the need for programs in graduate education.

You have touched on this, Dr. Bennett, in your supplementary statement. I think it would be helpful to the committee for you to look ahead a bit and give us your idea of what you believe we are going to need to do in this area. If I understand your figures, it is going to be in such a high order that the accounting, the explanation, and the ability to do this and have the public support it, is going to need handling by the Congress in a way that it has not done before. I would like both your comments on that, if I might.

Dr. BENNETT. I would just say that I think the basic difficulties in which the universities now find themselves result from the fact that a majority of the Federal funds that flow into the universities are for academic science, although the nonscience component is rapidly increasing. Therefore, it was not just simply that there were certain bits of research that could no longer be continued when there was this rather sudden decrease in the annual rate of funding. The discovery was made at that time that the support of academic science had become so intimately entwined with all of the function of the university that all of the functions suffered as a result of this.

What I am really saying is that we had a system, the results of which have been excellent beyond any question by any criterion because American science is certainly the envy of and it is really the emulative model for all the rest of the world. But the system that evolved was one that functioned because there were very large increments of funds each year. When there was abrupt cessation of these annual increases, it became evident that we had a system that worked very well while the money was increasing but that it really didn't function as well when the money was not increasing.

And the suggestions that I have made point toward restructuring a system that will operate well but will be able to operate in times of budgetary restraint as well as in times of plenty.

There is a chart in the submission that I gave you that shows how abrupt this cessation was. Over a period of from 1955 to about 1966 the annual rate of increase of funds for academic science-it is on page 10-really averaged about 2212 percent. This suddenly in 1967 dropped to 6 percent and in 1968 to 1.7 percent. Now universities can't respond that quickly and that is why my suggestion was that there be a 3-year indicative plan. What has happened each year since these restraints were set up is there has been a feeling in the university that next year things will get better and each year, for a number of reasons, things have gotten tighter, either because of expenditure restrictions or lack of new obligational authority.

It seems to me that until there is some projection ahead so that the university can see what the situation will really be and quit hoping that each year we will return to the former system, that we are highly unlikely to get the kind of forward planning that is so necessary.

And I think that a 3-year projection at minimal levels would be a sort of minimum Federal guarantee of support so that any change would be an add-on if the economic situation improves. This would go a long way to making the university face up really to the need to restructure this system.

So from a purely budgetary viewpoint, I would hope that eventually there again would be moderate annual increases in this. I wouldn't say 15 percent, although that is the figure that is often given, but I would hope that for the near-term future that the increase would be at least enough to cover increase in real costs and maintain the existing effort at approximately its present level.

Mr. DADDARIO. Dr. Shannon, do you have any comment on that? Dr. SHANNON. Yes, sir. I come out much at the same end but by a somewhat different reasoning process. I say there is no doubt in my mind that graduate education in this Nation must be restructured.

At the present time graduate education operates within a hit or miss system with little structured stability. The net mass of graduate education that proceeds in any given year is the result of separate budget decisions made by as many as 10 mission-oriented agencies. It flourishes or wanes depending upon the cumulative effect of these individual decisions, few of which directly reflect the needs of graduate education. I would say with the pressure of students in our colleges and in our graduate education system, we have the capability to develop a solid base of scientific competence for an increasingly technological society. Yet we have no means of appraising what our precise goals are. My feeling is that within the next year or two that it will become not only clear, but also necessary to be rather explicit about what these goals are. I think when such goals are established, then the budgets are derivative of these goals and also derivative of these same goals will be a rational plan for the use of funds that we wish to expend for one purpose as opposed to the other.

I believe it is impossible for the Congress or for the executive branch with its present mechanisms to do the type of system exploration of this very complex subject—that is, science and educationand derive hard arnswers that are realistic. A new type of capability must be developed and there must be a reallocation of the planning function.

For example, the Secretary of HUD said a week or so ago that it was interesting for him to note that in 1949 a national goal was set to provide good housing for all of the American citizens, and about 10 years later there was the commitment for an Apollo program. The latter went through. The former obviously did not. So that it becomes necessary, I think, to be much more explicit about what we strive, consider costs and translate these to operational programs. I say specifically translate our aspirations to goals and our goals to programs rather than slogans.

You have heard on the floor of Congress many times, and certainly in many statements from the executive branch, that a specific goal of the Nation is the right to good medical care for all citizens-a right rather than a privilege. You have also heard that decent housing is a right rather than a privilege. You have also heard that we are devising an educational system which will provide each citizen the opportunity to develop to the maximum of his intellectual capability. But these are slogans. These are not goals. They have not been analyzed either individually or in the aggregate to see precisely what the cost will be, what social mechanisms we must bring into play in order to achieve each of these goals. I am quite certain that they can't all be achieved at once, but I think it is the responsibility of the executive branch, and I would think also of the Congress, to look at the aggregate of these and other social goals and decide which ones are going to be given high priority in the allocation of resources.

Now, I don't visualize priorities as being a set of objectives amenable to simple linear scaling. But I do think objectives and goals must be looked at in a comparative way, and what Dr. Bennett and I both say is that there is no mechanism within Government today short of a nontechnically oriented policy staff in the Bureau of the Budget where these broad programs come together for study and resource determina

tion. Finally, the objectives on a year-to-year basis are spelled out explicitly in terms of dollars made available in each of the appropriations. So, while one can say that goal setting and resource allocation are very complex processes, we are performing these functions today but without any rationale, without a comparative assessment, and without any attempt to weigh the results against their long-term consequences to the Nation.

Mr. DADDARIO. One further question, Dr. Shannon. Your suggestion here is that as we look into this problem further and as we make recommendations, that we shoot for a goal, a timespan of that of the present administration, within which adjustments and changes can take place, and to give sufficient opportunity for these changes to come about in a rational way. I believe that to be an extremely good suggestion.

Mr. Mosher?

Mr. MOSHER. Mr. Chairman, there has been so much meat in today's testimony, I think it is going to take us some time to digest it.

In Dr. Bennett's testimony on page 19, as alternative A, where he proposes a Council of Advisers on Education and Science to be established by legislation, he said the members should be full-time Presidential appointees. Who would these people be? Where would you recruit them, what type of people would you recruit? It is very difficult, isn't it, to get a responsible, active, research scientist to change his career, to accept that type of appointment?

Dr. BENNETT. Well, Mr. Mosher, I didn't specify the number of individuals on this Council, but I would suppose it would be composed of three or five individuals. A little later on I point out that one advantage would be the opportunity for individuals with differing backgrounds to exchange views as equal members of a council. My own guess would be that the creation of such a council would eventually pose no more difficulty in selecting members than one encounters in trying to select members for the Council of Economic Advisers. And I would think that one would be able to persuade research scientists to do this. I think that one would probably be able to persuade the president of a university to take leave of absence to do this. I think one would be able to persuade an individual with experience in engineering and technology, possibly even from industry, to do this.

The suggestion was that the present Director of the Office of Science and Technology, who automatically in the past, at least, has been the President's Science Adviser, would act as Chairman of this council.

Mr. MOSHER. It would have to be a very prestigious group in order to attract the talent you want, and the talent that you might recruit would in turn determine how prestigious a group it became, I suppose Dr. BENNETT. I think precisely that; with the present organization in the Office of Science and Technology, one has relatively little difficulty in attracting talent or supposed talent, I will put it that way, as Director for, or as Deputy Director, but below that one has no Presidential appointments to offer. You just become a member of the staff. We are talking here about really increasing the number of individuals and the variety of individuals who would be willing to accept a prestigious and responsible position. There would be more full-time minds thinking in this area. And I think that the situation is precisely at the