Page images

actions now being taken threaten the intergity of our universities, as do the actions that will continue to be taken as budgets are adjusted and, I expect, reduced, although I hope not.

I hope and strongly urge that the budget reduction process be stopped. However, even if it is stopped, we still have the problem of balancing our scientific effort through various fields. There is no way at the moment to deal with that problem.

Mr. DADDARIO. Dr. Piore, you raise the question of balance. I believe this is important. In fact, it is one of the goals of the National Science Foundation. The point, you are getting at here, is that as the missionoriented agencies detach themselves, the National Science Foundation with limited budget and flexibility will include programs which shift from the mission agencies to it and have difficulty in maintaining balance.

Dr. PIORE. That is the point I tried to make. I think it is very difficult at this time to maintain the balance. An easy solution to all this would be to double the budget of the National Science Foundation, give executive and direct administrative power to the Office of Science and Technology, and leave the structure alone. This is an unrealistic solution, in my book. Neither in Government nor in industry can executive power be given to any coordinating group, because no one there is responsible in the operational sense.

This is the experience in Government and large industrial enterprises.

Mr. DADDARIO. You mentioned the Federal Council for Science and Technology. I don't believe its record shows it can in fact be responsible for all the operations?

Dr. PIORE. It can issue reports. It can try to persuade people. It has no leverage at all except that. Unless you get a consensus, you cannot move on any problem. I am always nervous about moving with a consensus. The legislative process is another thing. Here we are trying to get something done. I sit in a very large corporation, where I have a great deal of leverage, but I have no operational responsibility. It is always difficult for the person like myself to convince the person who has operational responsibility to do something that is not in his narrow interest.

What one is trying to do in creating a Department of Science is to have one person who has responsibility to the President to execute something.

Now, the policies to be executed require a great deal of wisdom and a lot of other things, but let me go on. Bush and the military after World War II created the Joint Research and Development Board. It never worked. It had to be abolished and another structure organized. Now there is an operating person, a Director, Dr. John S. Foster, Jr., Director of Defense Research and Engineering. He has much more leverage on the three military departments, and he has authority that represents that of the Secretary of Defense.

To me this is a very important administrative procedure. Coordination will produce a lot of paper and a lot of reports. Two years from now they will be reproduced again with different signatures on them. But we will not get a big dish built for astronomy, for example.

I was deeply involved a decade ago in pushing the creation of the Office of Science and Technology. At that time it looked like the best

solution. Ten years later one has to take another look. That instrumentality may be very important for the White House, but it just does not pull the American scientific effort together.

I would like to have a Cabinet officer. I would like to have people assume again in a very broad sense political responsibility. Coming down here this morning, I saw in the newspaper that the AFL was meeting somewhere, I believe, it was Atlantic City. It has an executive committee of 20 or 30 people. I doubt whether five have heard of the National Science Foundation. Let us take the chamber of commerce, which has a board of directors. I doubt whether five have heard of the National Science Foundation.

We need exposure. American science needs exposure and a realization by our policymakers in labor, industry, and elsewhere, of the importance of science. I see no way of getting that with money alone. You have got to let the people see and let the people be committed to a national policy that they want to support science. We lack this instrument at the moment.

That is why I come back to the Cabinet department.
Well, let me proceed.

In looking at this organization, my approach would be to state some principles and ground rules and not try to be specific. The reason is that we must first get agreement on what we are trying to do and what benefits will accrue. If one gets very specific the argument shifts from principles to details and we may lose sight of what we are trying to accomplish. The details would require shifting programs by Executive order with moneys—but I do not know whether that is possible without congressional approval. It would require taking large groups from existing departments and moving them to a new department. It would require a detailed analysis by organization people. It is my view that, if one tells the organization people what one is trying to accomplish, they are in a better position to work out the details.

I would obviously absorb the National Science Foundation in any new organization. I would place within it agencies with broad missions. I mean agencies such as the proposed oceanographic agency, which, as I understand the debate, would have a broad mission to make the Nation strong in oceanography and the technology needed for oceanography.

Chairman MILLER. Would you like to know something, Doctor, off the record ?

(Discussion off the record.)

Chairman MILLER. For the record, as long as you had mentioned this wet NASA, I think if you go back to when shortly after the National Science Foundation or the National Academy of Science rendered its very fine report of oceanography and we started to try to pull it together, we found seven agencies of Government interested in it. One didn't know what the other was doing. There wasn't one place you could go and get this information. So we started in with setting up a clearinghouse for scientific information. Before we could get a bill over, Dr. Wakelund, who was then Assistant Secretary of Navy, and very much interested in it, got an Executive order that brought the seven agencies together; and the first thing we did was to establish a clearinghouse that still exists down in the old weapon

center. Then, we found that they wanted some instrument to measure salinity at Woods Hole, and they designed it up there. At the same time, someone out in Scripps wanted the same thing, so their people designed it, but you couldn't correlate them. So the next year, we set up a system of correlating the instruments that we used. I think it has made a great deal of progress, will make progress, but like NASA, it started from scratch.

I think those of us who have had experience with NASA realize that one of the hurdles we had to overcome was the resistance of the disciplines of science to even treat one another on an equal basis. The fellow who was a biologist, what did he care for another scientist in some other discipline, and the result is we had to work on this, and I think we have made a little progress.

Excuse me, sir. I don't mean to get into the picture, but I couldn't help it when you mentioned oceanography.

Mr. DADDARIO. All members are welcome to ask questions, and especially the chairman.

Chairman MILLER. You are very generous.
Dr. PIORE. Let me go on with my department.

I would give this department responsibility for all facilities whose primary mission is to serve the universities. I would suggest that the administration of the Miller bill be placed in this department. I would also place in this department the general-purpose Government laboratories.

One of the goals for the budget of this new department would be, let us say, three-quarters of the funds the Federal Government spends on science; the mission-oriented agencies would have one-quarter. Thus, the mission agencies as they modify their needs and requirements would not perturb the general scientific enterprise too profoundly, and, if some kind of crisis develops where profound modifications are required, it would be very easy for this new department to respond to direction from the President, and at the same time thoughtfully modify the institutions where the work is being done. Under emergency conditions, either during a time of war or of peace, he could restructive the agency.

With this type of structure and with a secretary sitting in the Cabinet, it would be possible to have a national science policy. It would be possible to plan for the needs of science; to plan for the capital needs in terms of large and small instruments; to know who is responsible; to facilitate national debate, that Mr. Miller referred to, among fields. It would provide Congress with a national view and permit Congress to have a more direct say in national science policy. In addition to dealing with science broadly, one then could also deal in a more rational way with those institutions in our society where the work of science goes on. These are just some very broad benefits. I certainly can give you more.

Obviously, I am not emphasizing any negative aspects. However, many problems will arise. One of them which is important is that now and again we, as a country, want to move into a certain area as a matter of national policy. Currently, the area of interest is oceanography, but something else will get our attention 5 years from now. When this happens now, special independent agencies are set up. The purpose of such a special structure is to make it visible to Congress and the

people. Such institutions certainly can be put into such a department from time to time, and visibility can be provided by creating the office of an undersecretary or an assistant secretary for the new area. But a new department would stop the continued proliferation of new agencies as the country falls in love with a specific area of science and technology.

A new department would also create problems in Congress. Some Congressmen and Senators have spent a lot of time and energy acquiring expert knowledge have dedicated their careers and become specialists in certain fields of science. The Committee structure within the Senate and the House may be such that this great expertness among some Members would be lost if they are not put on the appropriate committees.

I have been very evasive in telling you what else you include, because once I start saying you will put in this laboratory or this research facility or this large operation through Executive order, then people start building fences and stop debating the issue.

So, I by design have not identified agencies and groups that ought to be in the Department of Science. We have a number of agencies that have very broad missions in science. We have a number of facilities scattered throughout our agencies that really support academia. You can have a department of almost any science, a billion dollars, $6 billion—it depends on what you put in. We have talented—what do you call these people who arrange charts organization people both within Congress and the Bureau of the Budget. They ought to be given a set of guidelines based on policy considerations and see what kind of structure they come up with.

If we start identifying the structure right now, fences, very tall fences, will be built both in Congress and in the agencies, and we will not be able to move ahead.

Thank you very much.

Mr. DADDARIO. Before proceeding with questions, I think we ought to hear from Dr. Keeney, and I would feel that it would most likely be the questions would apply to both.

If you will be kind enough, Dr. Keeney, to please proceed in that way.



Dr. KEENEY. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to talk with you.

The National Endowment for the Humanities, of which I am chairman, is, in effect, an independent agency that now reports directly to the President. It was established in 1965 as part of the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities. The other part is the National Endowment for the Arts, but each endowment has an independent head and an independent advisory council of private citizens appointed by the President. There is no executive head of the foundation as a whole, though the Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities consisting of representatives of nine Government agencies, is charged with the coordination of the activities of the two endowments.

[blocks in formation]

I shall direct myself to the question of whether the arts and the humanities, particularly the latter, would be better or worse off under an arrangement more centralized than the present one. What I shall say will reflect my experience as chairman of the endowment for 31%3 years, and as dean and then president of Brown University for approximately 18 years; I do not represent the administration, and I am not expressing its views.

The humanities constitute the oldest part of education, as we know it, and are, in effect, the liberal arts as they existed at the time of the foundation of our educational system. These disciplines are the newest to receive support from the Government, however. And the support is very small indeed, being restricted to funds in the endowment for the humanities, and to an even lesser extent, the Office of Education. In 1969, the endowment will have approximately $6 million to spread over its four major programs—fellowships, research, education, and public needs--plus whatever matching funds are appropriated and whatever funds come from private sources to be matched. The amounts are small compared to the sums available for the sciences.

The position of the humanities has been a fluctuating one. In higher education, the position of the humanities declined concurrently with the emergence of the sciences, and continued to decline until about 1960, when concern for the humanities began to rise again as it became apparent that science alone would not solve our problems, something the better scientists had recognized for some time.

I might interpose here to say that anything that I say that sounds like opposition to science, and to the results of science, is not directed at science. It is directed at the imbalance that exists herein a very serious way.

Mr. DADDARIO. I would expect, Dr. Keeney, that Dr. Piore would agree with you in this matter of balance, and that he would include parts of the humanities as a necessary involvement in this balance which he believes needs to be created.

Do you have any comment on that, Dr. Piore?

Dr. PIORE. There is no question in my mind that there is an imbalance between the emphasis on humanities compared to science, as far as Federal expenditures are concerned. There is no question in my mind.

Structurally, how you organize this in the Federal Government, is a difficult problem in my mind. I don't know what Dr. Keeney is going to say. He may bring this up on the surface, and I would rather wait until he finishes his remarks.

Dr. KEENEY. Accordingly, in the 1960's, we have been hearing demands for better instruction in the humanities, with greater attention to what is relevant to contemporary problems.

In practical affairs, the preoccupation with the use of the sciences, and then of the social sciences, in the solution of problems, has been such that the contribution the humanities could make was all but ignored until quite recently, and in most quarters, still is ignored. During the First World War it became apparent that scientific investigations could be used to develop many of the instruments of destruction and of industrial production that were necessary for the successful

« PreviousContinue »