Page images
PDF
EPUB

put all the science and technological activities into it rather than to disperse them. The activities are so varied, cover so many areas of science, and in the applied science area are aimed at so many different goals, that to try to encompass these all under a single Secretary for Science, I think, would be confusing and less effective than the present system of having especially applied science activities widely distributed throughout the Government structure.

We pointed out some gaps in this and some difficulties, so it isn't perfect. But in principle the wide diffusion of science and applied science throughout the agencies of Government, I think, is better than concentration into a single agency which then simply becomes a competitor with the other agencies for stature and for funding.

Mr. FULTON. My point is that there is a difference between setting an overall policy for science at the Cabinet level and having a Cabinet member assisting the President in setting that policy for the various other departments that could use science. In other words, there are missions for applied science and there is also implementation in various departments and agencies.

My position is that because of tremendous overlapping, and the lack of an overall scientific policy for the United States, the functioning of science within the Government has become so fragmented that, first, it can't be supervised; secondly, it is expensive and wasteful; and thirdly, there is no single voice at Cabinet level speaking for science. Dr. DUBRIDGE. Well, I guess we just differ on that point. Mr. FULTON. All right. That's fine.

Now, might I say to you that I believe the selection of Dr. McElroy, as the head of the National Science Foundation, is a good choice. I believe that the previous individual recommended, on which we disagreed, to that particular position, was not a good choice because it was a person from controversial military fields.

I feel the National Science Foundation should certainly be able to operate worldwide without getting involved in the so-called militaryindustrial complex. My second comment is that once a man is in the U.S. Government even in a small agency he is in the sea of politics, the swimming pool of politics whether he likes it or not. If he isn't a politician, he very quickly takes a coloration if there is coloration in the pool or in the sea.

He very quickly learns to swim like a politician. He learns how very quickly or else he is quickly out.

So that the point I would make is this: I hope that science will not always be looking down its nose at the art and science of government, as politics. Scientists should not be saying that they are trying to be aloof and pure in an ivory tower. For example, will you have put in the record the previous political activities of the new head of the National Science Foundation, or at least supply it to me? He has been in politics previously and he was one of the Nation's scientists for Johnson's election in 1964.

And I see nothing wrong with that. On the other hand, when politics gets to be a consuming function and overshadows his profession, I do feel there could be criticism. Not in this instance; I think we should clear that up publicly. But when you select a man to take the position as head of the National Science Foundation who has formerly been in

the Army laboratory developing the ballistic missile, then with the Air Force developing the ballistic missile, then on the Disarmament Agency negotiating on arms and ballistic missiles, then takes a position that he is against the defense for the ballistic missile, well, really, that person to me looks as if he is not very well anchored. As we say in the Navy, when you get two anchors out, you are moored to any principle. So I hope you realize that my previous objection to one nominee was on a basis of substance and not politics. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I wanted to clear that up personally with my good friend, the good doctor, whom I respect highly.

Dr. DUBRIDGE. Thank you.

Mr. DADDARIO. Dr. DuBridge, I am always pleased when Mr. Fulton comes to this committee because he livens up the situation. That is very helpful. But in this particular instance, it is completely irrelevant to this morning's discussion.

Mr. FULTON. Oh, this is science we are talking about, Mr. Chairman. Mr. DADDARIO. Yes, it is.

Mr. FULTON. And you, I believe, were talking about the irrelevancy called politics. And you and I are not politicians here, we are scientists; aren't we?

Mr. DADDARIO. Well, the point was made by Dr. DuBridge during the course of this discussion, in his prepared text, that he would want the National Science Foundation Director to be separate and apart from the political game. We made no comment on it because I believe that is how it is.

Mr. FULTON. I question that.

Mr. DADDARIO. I understand, you already have. But the important point is that it is still irrelevant to the proposition of how science ought to be administered and managed. I have made my feelings clear about the matter

Mr. FULTON. Yes.

Mr. DADDARIO (continuing). About which the gentleman from Pennsylvania has injected into this discussion. I don't believe that it either adds or subtracts from the morning's events.

I was pleased to have it put out because it did liven things up a bit, even though irrelevant.

Mr. FULTON. Well, may I ask the doctor a question? You just brought something up for me.

Could you combine the National Science Foundation and the Bureau of Standards into one agency? Would that help?

in

Dr. DUBRIDGE. I think it would not help. And I covered that point

[blocks in formation]

Mr. FULTON. All right. Thank you.

Dr. DUBRIDGE. They are for very different purposes and I do not see any point in conglomerating them.

Mr. FULTON. I would compliment the good doctor, though. When he comes in here and says simply that more money is going to solve all the problems, he has learned at least one of the first lessons of politics.

Mr. DADDARIO. Mr. Fulton, the good doctor, Dr. DuBridge also did something else here today, so far as I am concerned, beyond pointing out that the matter of money was important. He did discuss many

other points which we as Members of Congress and as a committee with responsibility in this area have to take into consideration, and which can be extremely helpful.

From a purely philosophical point of view he said certain things which I hope he would repeat over and over about the importance of science to man and its understanding of this universe within which we live. If this was to be repeated often enough by him, it might create in the public mind a better feeling about the need to support science.

I do think this is one of the selling points that we have neglected. We talk about these subjects in a more cold and analytical manner perhaps than we ought. Perhaps, we ought to philosophize a bit more. Dr. DuBridge could serve this country very handsomely in that particular regard. I was impressed.

Mr. FULTON. And would the good doctor deliver a message for me to the National Science Board, who recommend to the President the head of the National Science Foundation. That in their ivory tower and isolation there are some of the best politicians I ever ran into.

Mr. DADDARIO. Dr. DuBridge, I am not going to belabor the point further. I know you have another meeting to go to, and we appreciate having had you here.

The meeting is adjourned until the 22d of July at this same place at 10 in the morning.

(Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the hearing was adjourned, to reconvene Tuesday, July 22, 1969, at 10 a.m.)

CENTRALIZATION OF FEDERAL SCIENCE ACTIVITIES

TUESDAY, JULY 22, 1969

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND ASTRONAUTICS,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, RESEARCH, AND DEVELOPMENT,

Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:10 a.m., in room 2325, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Emilio Q. Daddario (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Mr. DADDARIO. This meeting will come to order.

As we proceed with our second day of hearings on the way in which our science resources are being administered and managed, this committee finds it hard to conceive of any witness who can be more helpful than Dr. Seaborg, who has been Chairman of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission under three Presidents. He was on the General Advisory Committee previous to that, and has, without any question, earned the high regard which this Nation has for him as one of its top scientists. This subject, one which this committee believes to be extremely important, needs testimony from sources such as him.

Dr. Seaborg, we are happy, as always, to have you here, and would appreciate it if you would proceed.

STATEMENT OF DR. GLENN T. SEABORG, CHAIRMAN, ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION; ACCOMPANIED BY DR. SPOFFORD ENGLISH, ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION

Dr. SEABORG. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I welcome the opportunity to appear here this morning to present my views on several of the issues raised in the report "Centralization of Federal Science Activities." I find myself in full accord with the remarks made by Mr. Daddario in his prefacing statement to the report. In dealing with a situation as ramified as the organization of Federal science activities, it is appropriate at this time to emphasize clarification of major issues, guided by carefully formulated objectives such as those listed in the prefacing statement. Most of us in Government with backgrounds in scientific work feel attraction toward the general notion of some centralization of Federal science activities, but I think it important that we satisfy ourselves, before changes are made, that the changes would be likely to enable a better job of enhancing the lives of the individual citizens. I think it is far from clear at this point, what shape a reorganization of Federal science activities should take in the years ahead. I think we can, however, identify some promising

directions and I will try to do so this morning. To make my point of view clear, I will start with several observations regarding the role and organization of science in Federal activities.

Not long ago, I expressed the concern that scientists in general, and scientists in Government in particular, have failed to make clear to the public the nature of the great bulk of the Federal expenditures for research and development. In large part, these funds allow us to draw from our stock of established scientific knowledge and develop specific solutions to specific problems. A much smaller part of the expenditures go toward discovery of new knowledge. We can think of scientific and technological efforts as falling in two groups. One is problem solving. This is the larger part and forms a portion of the work of almost every agency. The other grouping or class I have in mind here, might be called generation of new scientific knowledge. Work of this latter sort, which consumes only a small fraction of total Federal expenditures for research and development, gives us the wherewithal to meet and solve future problems.

These two classes of Federal science activities are not neatly separable, thought we attempt a similar sort of separation when we report expenditures for basic research and for applied research and development. Even though the boundary is never sharp, it is useful to keep this sort of distinction in mind as we discuss the organization of Federal science activities. The organization should reflect the pervasiveness of technological efforts in present day society. This is a scientific age, an age of institutionalized change, an age with tools of ever increasing effectiveness for shaping each increment of change to the needs of the individual. A soundly designed organization should keep in its nands all of the tools necessary to do its job. An agency concerned with housing should judge how much research and development effort should be put into development of improved materials and building techniques, knowing that these expenditures will cut into the funds available for construction, for example, of low-cost housing using currently available techniques. An agency concerned with transportation systems, will want to weigh programs, involving heavy research and development expenditures, such as development of intercity subways, against programs for improved surface transportation which might involve very little research and development. This is what I mean by reflecting the pervasiveness of technological efforts. Substantial expenditures for research and development need to be considered as one of the means for meeting nearly every one of the major challenges of our times. The wise choice in some cases will surely be not to undertake substantial expenditures along these lines, but the choice is best made with the understanding that the largest segments of Federal research and development should, as illustrated above, compete with other alternatives for meeting particular challenges.

It is useful to identify some essential strands which pull Federal science activity together. In 1966 in a talk before the American Philosophical Society in Philadelphia, I expanded on two major points: The first was that man's growing domination of his environment today demands that we take a new and broader outlook toward our future development. And secondly, in dealing with mankind's physical growth, with the mass society in a world of growing population, we

« PreviousContinue »