Page images

I am for it. If you will clean the mess up in the bay, you won't need to establish a refuge. The fish will be there and the game will come there. You can't entice them there under the conditions that exist today, though the very charming wife of a former president of the University of California led a great crusade to do this, sat in my office, was very much discouraged and disappointed with me when I told her that some of the things she said were not true. She said that the fish spawn there. I said, no, fish don't spawn there. It is exposed to the sun certain hours of the day. I said the migratory birds aren't coming. It is a little close.

She said, you have got to admit you can go out there and see shore birds. I said, yes, you can go out and see shore birds if you are interested in seeing the long-legged boys run around.

We have destroyed these things and we have to put them together again.

Now, what has taken place there is taking place all over the world. The last time I was in Europe, we were over at the meeting of the U.N. Committee on Peaceful Uses of Outer Space. Colonel Gould and I went down to Lisbon to see a great Portuguese hydrographic institute where they are making a study of Rio de Janeiro Bay to see what can be done with it. We were going to Belgrade to the meeting of our own science advisers and stopped at Zurich. We were told one of the things that they were worrying about was the pollution of Lake Zurich. Most of it is a result of the use of chemical fertilizers. Lake Erie is bad enough, but when the beautiful lakes in Switzerland go, what is going to be the cost to the people?

Excuse me, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DADDARIO. It is all right, Mr. Chairman. We have to leave a little time for Mr. Winn. He has been very patient.

Mr. Winn. I am sorry I was late and I was in and out of the room, but I got the feeling what both of you are saying is we sort of need a king of science, stronger leadership, a coordinator, or a captain, whatever we want to call him, to bring directions together instead of going in different directions or floundering separately.

Is this basically what you are saying?
Dr. PIORE. Well, I would-
Mr. Winn. You said you didn't like the word "leadership.”

Dr. PIORE. I would modify it a little bit. We are doing well. We can do much better, in my view. This is a personal view. We have very definite problems which cannot be settled unless we pull a lot of things together under one administrative tent.

Dr. KEENEY. Mr. Winn, what I have been saying is you have got to pull together a lot more than science.

Mr. WINN. More than science ? Dr. KEENEY. Yes. You really have got to pull together the whole intellectual enterprise.

Mr. WINN. Then along that line, what can we do? You talk about maybe the not too bright or the average senior intellectual. What can we do to stimulate private enterprise into becoming more involved in our programs, footing more of the bill for research in scientific fields and hiring a lot of these associate or assistant professors, whatever you call them, that are having a hard time getting off the ground? This

isn't too unusual. Young lawyers usually don't do too well and young doctors don't do too well. So I don't think we are going to change that too fast. That seems to be a part of our system of working their way up. But they do have to make a decent living if they are going to stay in the field.

How can we get the free enterprise system to be more involved and use more of these men?

Dr. PIORE. Let me put it this way. In our free enterprise system, you will find that American industry is increasing its support to universities slowly, but it is on the rise. When I talk about American industry, I mean the 500 in Fortune.

The other thing is that there is a general trend in American industry to be responsive to the thinking of our college presidents. They like to receive general funds to run their institutions, not specific funds for departments or for some specific purpose.

So from where I sit, the trend is to an increasing part, increasing donation, whatever you want to call it, from private enterprise to universities in the area of general support.

Another thing one has to remember is that you can just go so far in trying to get it from American industry. They have a lot of responsibility. I would say the companies have been comparatively generous. One has to look to the Government to support our intellectual plant. Private enterprise and foundations all do their part. Let us not forget our State legislatures.

Dr. Keeney would know much more how much private industries give to universities in any given year, but I don't expect a profound step function. It will keep increasing slowly.

Dr. KEENEY. And more wisely.
Dr. PIORE. More wisely; that is what I meant.

Dr. KEENEY. I would not like to see the private industry take over the assistant and associate professors, Mr. Winn. You cut off your intellectual future if you strip the institutions of the people who do the teaching

Mr. Winn. I don't want them to take it over, but I am talking about someone to foot the bill so they don't have to run to Capitol Hill with their hands out. That is what I meant and what Jerry Pettis talked on a minute ago. It is ridiculous for our top men to have to run around up here with their hands out looking for support for a job they want to do, whether they are qualified or not, and that is one of the bad parts about the Government. We put them in a slot somewhere because they have got this degree or that degree, but some of them sit down and do not produce nearly what they are capable of producing

I think you will agree on that.

The other thing goes back to the universities and brings up the subject we have talked about before. I have been very outspoken on it because I see it. I ran into it at two different universities this past weekend where I think scientists and educators—I am not pinning them all down in one category—are hiding behind the guise of education so they can get this funding to carry on their work. I don't know which is right.

The point is they are being paid by free enterprise and the Government, both maybe, to do a certain amount of scientific research and they are supposed to be educating the students of the future and the students never see them. That is where I got the complaint. They are in so and so's class, advertised under so and so, who has a great reputation. They haven't seen him all semester. You know it and I know it.

Dr. KEENEY. Yes; but you know that sort of thing has been going on for as long as I have been in universities which is some time, and a lot of it is true and a lot of it is exaggerated. You have heard the story about students who came in and

found a tape recorder

in the seminar room and left their tape recorders and went away. I don't know whether that happened, but it is an exaggerated situation or an exaggerated story, one or the other. But there is a great deal of absenteeism, and sponsored research does interfere with education at some levels.

Mr. DADDARIO. Having said that, if I might interrupt for a moment, Mr. Winn.

Mr. WINN. I am all through. Mr. DADDARIO. What would your observations be, Dr. Keeney, on whether or not the level of teaching has improved over the course of these years since this kind of support has come about?

Dr. KEENEY. I think it has improved from where I was to where I ended up quite a lot. I don't know that it has improved anywhere near as much as it should. A great deal of education is directed to things that don't matter much and that have to be squeezed quite hard to get anything of consequence out of them. I think we need a thorough educational reform and I think it has got to be started in an awful lot of places at considerable expense.

Mr. DADDARIO. Because there are divisions, they aren't pulled together and because we don't have a national goal we don't have the kind of vigor we ought to have. It is not just a matter of money. How you pull it all together? How you develop an approach to the accomplishment of these ends? This is what you both seem to be talking about.

Dr. KEENEY. That is what I am talking about and it has quite a lot to do with glass bottles at the bottom of the sea and old tires in San Francisco Bay at low tide, and it is the failure of education to concentrate the people's attention on questions of ultimate consequence that is concerning me and frightens me quite a lot.

Mr. DADDARIO. There was one point, Dr. Keeney, that Mr. Winn raised. I don't know whether that was the point Mr. Pettis was in fact making about these researchers coming up here for support. I understand Mr. Pettis' point to be not they had come up with their hands out but rather they were coming up here and shopping around. Somehow we ought to be better managed so they would not be able to play one agency against the other. Mr. Winn. I missed that point,

Mr. Chairman. I think my point was why are they coming to the U.S. Government all the time? Why aren't they going to free enterprise ?

Chairman MILLER. Because that is where the action is.

Mr. DADDARIO. I think that is the question that Dr. Piore in fact answered. Maybe not completely, but that is the question he answered. Although he considers there is room for improvement, there is a tendency toward additional support. Private enterprise cannot do it all. Both of our witnesses this morning are somewhat concerned that these types of people, with this kind of innovative capability, are being supported in other countries to a greater extent than ever before. This offers us some challenge. They are putting these questions of education and research much more closely in perspective to the problems of their society. This seems to have something that comes through from both your testimony.

Dr. KEENEY. I think if I were a young man capable of having innovative ideas and carrying them out, I would probably go to Britain.

Where would you go?
Dr. PIORE. I would stay here, but that is neither here nor there.
Dr. KEENEY. I probably would, too.
Chairman MILLER. You don't like that cold country.

Dr. PIORE. Phil Abelson returned from a trip abroad and gave a talk to the American Chemical Society indicating how Europe potentially can outstrip us technologically. It would be a very interesting document for the members of this committee. He has been requested to publish it.

Mr. DADDARIO. Gentlemen, we have come to the end of our time. Mr. WINN. Mr. Chairman, can I make one statement.

It is a statement, I think, interesting to our guests and to the members.

I was at Manhattan, Kans., this last Saturday, and a young lad, a junior in school, an engineer, smart as a whip, asked me if I would introduce a truth-in-education bill. That really stirred my thinking. I have been thinking about what that young man was really meaning and he was saying he had never seen some of his engineering professors. He felt he had been misled. That was kind of interesting, I thought.

Mr. DADDARIO. This committee will adjourn until Thursday next at 10 o'clock at the same place.

(Whereupon, at 12 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Thursday, October 9, 1969.)




Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10:13 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.

We are pleased to have as our witness this morning Dr. H. Guyford Stever, who is president of Carnegie-Mellon University in Pittsburgh, and really a part of this committee's Permanent Advisory Panel. This panel has been in being some years and will hold in January its 11th meeting. I am particularly anxious to hear him because he has chaired an ad hoc science task force on this subject and other matters following the elections of last November and will have some insight from that point of view on our deliberations.

Dr. Stever, we are pleased to have you and anxious to hear what you have to say and ask you some questions about it. STATEMENT OF DR. H. GUYFORD STEVER, PRESIDENT,


Dr. STEVER. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am very pleased to be here. As you know, I have submitted a written statement, and I would like to have that entered into the records of your committee.

Mr. DADDARIO. Without objection, it will be entered. (The prepared statement of Dr. Horton Guyford Stever follows:)


Congressman Daddario and Members of the Subcommittee on Science, Research and Development, I am pleased to offer this statement on the subject of the Centralization of Federal Science Activities, a subject which you have investigated in the report to your Committee prepared by the Science Policy Research Division of the Library of Congress entitled "Centralization of Federal Science Activities," on which you are now taking testimony.

Science in the larger sense of the word has always and two faces. The first, and to pure scientists the more important, is science itself, the sum of man's knowledge of the physical world together with the pursuit of more knowledge and more understanding of that world. The other face is the application toward human ends of the body of scientific knowledge and the technique developed to explore it. Both aspects of science are important, but few man and few organizations are capable of understanding and treating both properly. It is this problem which your Subcommittee is considering. 33-257---694-24


« PreviousContinue »