« PreviousContinue »
Mr. MOSHER. Mr. Chairman, could I just inject one other question here?
Mr. DADDARIO. Go ahead, Mr. Mosher.
Mr. MOSHER. If you gave the national laboratories this new, freewheeling mandate and opportunity, would this open up new opportunities perhaps for the National Science Foundation? Could the National Science Foundation by contract with these laboratories encourage certain work to be done that it sees the need for? Would this be good for the National Science Foundation or would it take them off on a tangent away from the universities that would be bad? By contract with the various Government laboratories the NSF might encourage some very valuable and different sort of work.
Dr. Long. This is certainly true. I suppose I ought to comment that there is one concern in the laboratories which is not trivial. One of the great pluses to a laboratory like Brookhaven is that a particular agency, in this case AEC, does take fundamental responsibility for the well-being of that laboratory. The position in which it had become essentially an entrepreneur in applied science, and if the price of becoming an entrepreneur was for AEC to cut it loose and say you are on your own, we will give you some support if your programs look good, but we won't any longer accept fundamental responsibility, that could worry the laboratories very badly. That is why I am sure, again, that some general Federal understanding of how this is done would be important.
Well, I can be very brief on the one or two other things I wanted to say. I am apologetic in not being very bright on mechanisms. I studied with a good deal of interest the mechanism proposal of the committee which we were supposed to keep in the back of our minds. I will make some comments on that.
I have to say that in the process I found myself looking with a good deal of interest as to what might be done by expanding and modifying an interesting and already existing office; namely, the Office of Science and Technology. I don't think OST as it now is can take on these significant added centralizing responsibilities. But if it were permitted to grow if it were elevated in status with perhaps two or three Presidential appointed Deputy Directors, if there were new arrangements in which OST participated more formally in some budget preparation for science support, if, and I think this is most important, provisions for much closer and continuing liaison with Congress were established, and if OST was formally changed by Congress for some of these areas, I could imagine OST making a very substantial contribution.
Mr. DADDARIO. Under those circumstances, Dr. Long, do we put OST in such a situation so that its operating head can still function as he should as the Science Adviser to the President? Do you place him at some stage of a development beyond the point where he can effectively discharge both these responsibilities?
Dr. LONG. I think so. I would be very uneasy if this expanded OST with substantial added responsibilities, closer congressional liaison and so on, if the head of that were so associated with the White House via PSAC and via the job of science adviser, I would worry if the OST that one would see would still be almost an arm of the White House, whereas I think this agency we are talking about ought to be looking very much more like an independent Federal agency. So I think for this to work, I would feel the need of some decoupling of these several functions that the Director of OST now has.
Mr. DADDARIO. What harm would that do to the President's authority in this overall area? Wouldn't it appear that if you were to do this, the science adviser would not have the authority and the relationship so that he could be an effective adviser and sort of go between to the Congress and other places, if he were to be so detached?
Dr. Long. I have no easy answer to that. Is it a partial answer to note that Mr. Kissinger seems to have modest authority without any agency under him.
Mr. DADDARIO. Moynihan.
Mr. DADDARIO. Kissinger, Moynihan. That question is what I had in mind.
Dr. Long. I think to be the Science Adviser to the United States is in itself—it brings really very great influence and if in addition one is Chairman of the President's Science Advisory Committee, I think that is a very influential position.
Mr. DADDARIO. Well, then, the answer really is it depends upon how the President uses the office and the man.
Dr. Long. Yes, sir.
So given then some worries about using OST, even though in principle it looks very attractive, I looked at the structure that the committee had discussed and I am a little uneasy about going the whole way of the National Institutes of Science. I would rather prefer an attempt to be evolutionary and set up some significant components that hopefully could be consistent with the bigger plan.
Mr. DADDARIO. I would like to again, Dr. Long, at this point detach the committee from the idea that it is proposing as its own, the National Institute of Research of Advanced Studies. It is one of several we have thrown on the table, and from these deliberations we would hope that some model will develop which we will then propose
Dr. LONG. I accept that.
Dr. Long. I am quite sure that this was a target for discussion purposes, and if I have implied otherwise, my apology.
Mr. DADDARIO. No; I just wanted to make that clear, because it keeps popping up that we are for this first, last, and always, and we are not.
Dr. LONG. But I guess my belief is that-if OST were not to be used, that I would myself hope that an office be established which did have a responsibility in this centralizing area concern hopefully with all but perhaps at least one or two of these areas that I just delineated. One would like to think that it would be consistent with growth so that it might lead into a Department of Science if that continued to look interesting or it might lead into another one of your models. But I do believe that there is a strong case to be made for some first steps, pretty soon. And I should be glad to end on that note.
Mr. DADDARIO. Thank you, Dr. Long. We hope you will continue to participate here during the discussions.
STATEMENT OF GEN. BERNARD SCHRIEVER, SCHRIEVER & MCKEE
General SCHRIEVER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DADDARIO. I guess there is a doctor somewhere in the background.
General SCHRIEVER. Oh, well I have a few honorary ones, if you want to use that.
Mr. Chairman, first of all let me say that my comments are from a background of having been involved in much R. & D. activity in the Department of Defense, having worked very closely with such agencies as the Atomic Energy Commission and NASA, and also having used and had support from laboratories of the other departments of the Department of Defense, and having had to translate research, both basic and applied, into hardware downstream.
Since retiring I have spent considerable time on matters relating to the Department of Transportation, to HUD, and to a lesser degree HEW. So I speak from a somewhat different background, I think, than Dr. Long. And I have a very strong feeling that these agencies, the ones I have mentioned, and others, too, have a very strong requirement for their own research and development activity. And here I am talking about basic and applied research, and I think Dr. Long made that point also.
I perhaps feel a little more strongly on that point even than he does.
Now, my feeling here is that whenever any problems arise, and I have had them arise in the past a number of times, centralization seems to be the standard answer. You know, reorganize and centralize and you are going to have everything all fixed up nice and pretty. I just am very skeptical of this as a solution to the problem.
I feel that better coordination might well be accepted as a means, and I would like to put it this way: I favor giving science and technology more emphasis, rather than putting it in a management straitjacket. I think a centralized agency, would tend to put bureaucratic management procedures into an area where I don't think it really belongs. It certainly doesn't belong, in my opinion, in the basic research and applied research areas.
So, I would be very-well, I think I could say right now, based on my background, I would be opposed to a centralized agency. I would certainly support improved coordination.
I think what really is lacking in many of the agencies, and this has been an evolutionary process within the Department of Defense and NASA and AEC, is better planning, advanced planning, wherein the technologies, the state of the art, assumes an important factor with respect to what the objectives and mission of that agency or those agencies are.
I have found this to be almost completely lacking in the Department of Transportation. As a matter of fact, there are several congressional reports which point this out. I don't see it in HUD. I don't think you will ever have the basic and applied research programs that really tie into the missions of these organizations, until you improve the advanced planning activities in those departments. I think there is an awareness
of this and steps are being taken. I have certainly seen progress in HUD and in DOT in this regard. I think this is one of the very important factors that should not be overlooked when we discuss science and technology from a national standpoint.
I think really I am not qualified to speak at all on the educational side of the matter which Dr. Long dealt with. I think that what I have said really sums up my feeling on the matter of a centralized agency, let's say an operating agency having to do with science and technology in the country;
I would think to create such an agency would be a mistake and in the long run would prove counterproductive.
Mr. DADDARIO. Having made the comment about the necessity of planning the state of the art and the technology which can effectively be transmitted within that planning to the accomplishment of mission objectives, can you give some comment about HÙD and Transportation, the aims and objectives of both of those Agencies aimed at solving some of the major problems in our society and the ability to translate to those some of the experiences that we have had in the military and in other places to effect these ends! The transfer of Dr. Finger from his assignment in that Office which stood between AEC and NASA and his assignment to HUD, in the hope that he might be able to transfer the systems capability to the housing problems of the country is an effort in this direction. I wonder what comment you might have about that and what more needs to be done.
General SCHRIEVER. I have talked to Harold Finger and I think that was a very good move. As a matter of fact, if we want to talk about personalities for a moment, I think some very good moves have been made in recent months to focus on the planning problem and to bring some of the technologies to bear on problems other than those we normally consider in DOD and NASA.
I think Harold Finger's assignment in HUD is an extremely good one. He certainly brings to HUD the background and experience that should be valuable in bringing to bear both technology and planning to the urban problem.
Jim Begg's moving to the Department of Transportation is another move which I think is an excellent one.
Secor Browne, who is the Assistant Secretary for R. & D. in the Department of Transportation is another one. These people have the background. That is what I really had in mind when I said progress is being made in this direction. There is no instant solution to these things. It takes time to really establish the kind of planning activity that will be effective and can take advantage of technologies that do exist in solving some of our problems.
Mr. DADDARIO. Well, General Schriever, I would agree with that. When we earlier had a discussion about the national laboratories and the development within them of some flexibility, one of the nagging thoughts that comes to mind there is that if we did have this particular capability within these laboratories, that the transfer of people with the ability to take the state of the art and apply it to the problems of our society might be improved to an immeasurable degree.
I wonder if you have any comment if that might or might not be so.
General SCHRIEVER. I think it is so. Furthermore, there is a study going on right now, a joint study, really, a NASA-Department of Transportation study, which deals with the problem of aeronautical research and development, but this applies across the whole board of aeronautical R. & D. in other words, not just aircraft but air traffic control problems, and so forth.
In reading Senator Anderson's subcommittee report which came out last year on this particular subject—this subcommittee report, incidentally, recommended that this study be conducted. I am sure that coming out of that will be a finding that the Department of Transportation should use NASA's laboratories to a much greater degree in solving some of its problems with respect to transportation.
I don't think at this stage of the game that every department needs to set up its own separate laboratories. I think you should take advantage of all the laboratories we have in existence, and certainly NASA provides tremendous support to the Department of Defense, and it can also provide tremendous support to the Department of Transportation and to HUD.
I think these things should develop. I would hope they would develop faster rather than slower.
Mr. DADDARIO. Dr. Walker.
Mr. DADDARIO. I think at this stage of the game General Schriever threw the ball over to you for your part of this discussion.
STATEMENT OF DR. ERIC A. WALKER, PRESIDENT, PENNSYL
VANIA STATE UNIVERSITY, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING
Dr. WALKER. Well, Mr. Chairman, you mentioned that I was president of the National Academy of Engineering, and I would like to testify as an engineer. This is going to limit my vision and point of view, but I think that there are some insights that ought to be brought out.
During the past few weeks I have been reading a great deal about what has been said about establishing a Federal Department of Science, sometimes called a Federal Department of Science and Technology. This is the point I want to attack. When I come across these articles it seems there is some pretty loose thinking about the establishment of a Department of Science and Technology. No one makes a clear distinction between what is meant by science on the one hand and technology on the other.
The word "technology" always seems to be thrown in as an afterthought. And I think we have seen this here this morning by Dr. Long talking about science and General Schriever talking about technology, mostly. No one seems to go into the problem of what the differences would be in the establishment of a Department of Science as opposed to a Department of Science and Technology.
As a matter of fact, in the reprints of the committee the phrase “Department of Science" seems to be used almost interchangeably with a Department of Science and Technology. In some places it seems you throw in the word technology as sort of an afterthought.
Let me say that I think there will be quite a difference in meaning and scope between a Department of Science and a Department of Science and Technology.