Page images

They are bearing a very heavy cost which should be borne by the people who drive cars.

The process of reallocating that cost would be to say that the automobile manufacturers will produce an engine that doesn't produce smog and pass the cost on to the people who buy the engines. In that way, the old people, who are forced to move out of town because of the smog, can continue to live there and won't be bearing the cost.

Dr. STEVER. I think that goes back to an earlier statement I made. I think we have got somehow to get across the concept to industry and everybody else involved that there are tremendous opportunities for them if they move into these things, into solving these problems.

Mr. PETTIS. To pursue this just a little further, we have had examples, in the past, where industry has not done what it could have done, and rather economically, to clean up the air, because I think industry and society thought we just had all kinds of air and this was really no problem. In California, in the Los Angeles Basin, from which both Mr. Brown and I come, I think it was, in 1953, that there was an invention of an antipollution device. I don't know who invented it, but the automobile industry came by this invention. There was a sort of cross licensing agreement in the industry, and that device did not show up on automobiles until 1964, when the State of California passed a law. You know, that old cartoon, there ought to be a law.

What I asked myself is, why was there 11 years between the invention of a device which wasn't too expensive and I think the time frame since 1964 proves that it isn't too expensive. We are selling more automobiles in California than we ever did before with the device. Why can't we involve industrial concerns with a little more concern for social and scientific problems?

Dr. STEVER. Well, I don't think we can blame automobile pollution on the industry. They operate with certain constraints on them. If society puts another constraint on them, which is Mr. Brown's social cost, then I think they can operate with that constraint on them. You know, they do have to operate. They conduct their business with lots of fences around them, to make them operate in a certain way, and I think another fence, they can adjust to it. I see no reason why they shouldn't, and I think this is really what we will always face as we bring in new costs.

You know, it isn't just the automobile industry. We talk about pesticides.

Mr. PETTIS. We just used the automobile as an illustration.

Dr. STEVER. I think this is a problem of society to express the cost to it of eliminating pollution and to give some indication through the processes which we have, the passing of laws and regulations to get people to move constructively in this way.

Mr. BROWN. This brings us right back to the fundamental problem we are addressing here, the organization of science. The prerequisite condition to establishing these fences is an understanding. It is knowledge. These fences aren't erected just to put roadblocks in the way of companies seeking to fulfill a public goal. They are seeking to enhance the fulfillment of public goals. We, therefore, need the best organized knowledge possible in order to establish these public goals.


It happens that a great share of these problems today are bound up with knowledge of what is happening. We don't seem to be getting an adequate relationship between the sources of knowledge, the sources of political power to set up the fences, and the sources of private power that have to live within those fences. We are concerned about how the structure of this organization can be made more effective.

Dr. STEVER. Let's not decry our success. The very fact that you people are interested in getting the knowledge which will help you make the laws and regulations better is definite progress. The contribution of science is that knowledge. If in science's relationship to lawmakers and administrators and industrialists, we begin to realize the kinds of fields in which our new knowledge is in demand, why, we will turn to those fields. I see much hope in what we are doing; we now understand the problems.

There was a time in this country when we thought we had all the air and all the water and all the land and all the everything that we needed. The reason I put my second priority on the environment is that we are now getting so many proofs that we don't have all of these that we need. Every place we turn we see that we don't and that what we are doing is affecting our environment and, therefore, we ought to get the long-range planning you are talking about.

That is also why I said that now is the time to take emergency Government organizational action to tackle this. It is not a purely science problem. It is a much broader one.

Mr. DADDARIO. If we don't do that planning, I would guess that soon you would have to move environment up to number one.

Dr. STEVER. Yes, indeed, and/or population control and lots of other things.

Mr. DADDARIO. Dr. Stever, you again come back to organization. What ought we do in the organization within Government of our science and technological activities to attract the funding necessary to achieve these ends? It appears that despite some of the adjustments you have made in your testimony from the standpoint of the questions that have been asked, you think we ought to strengthen what we presently have.

This subcommittee, some time ago, looked to the future and recognized unless we could make a better case for science, technology and engineering, that we would soon be running into difficulty. We thought this way, even prior to the squeeze that has come about because of the Vietnam situation. It didn't appear possible that we could increase the level of expenditure without people in the country and in the Congress examining these matters carefully. The Vietnam situation adds an extreme additional burden.

I do believe that the way they are organized and administered is related to our ability to get the necessary funding. Because of this, I wonder if we ought not to move somewhat away from where we are

Dr. STEVER. Organizationally.

Mr. DADDARIO (continuing). In organization. What's your thinking about the direction of change and the necessity of doing it?

Dr. STEVER. If we are to move, I think on one side we should have an organization which looks to the seed corn, essentially the education and bringing along of young scientists and young engineers and young social scientists, to get them into the labor pool to tackle the problems.

Mr. DADDARIO. I agree with that. Yet we have got to consider this when discussions take place in the Senate about funding of research in the mission agencies. The word is that what is done in these areas must be immediately and obviously applicable. I do think that, this question of administration and management of resources and the need of manpower does become extremely important.

Dr. STEVER. What you are saying is the thing we talked about, the long range planning aspect of the new agency which is responsible in the basic science field. That is a very important thing, and I will agree with you. I honestly believe that we in science have made a mistake in our golden years and, you know, it is very easy to make mistakes when everything is going easily. In the years when we could get funding for all the growth we wanted in all the sciences, I think we made the mistake that this was going to be a permanent condition, that it would never catch up on us, and we then tended to pay less attention to really our relationship to society.

In that respect, long-range planning, the relationship of science to society, is an important issue and should be part of this mission, and I believe we could move reasonably soon to an organization which would bring that out.

On the other side, however, the application of science, I still get to the point that that isn't a purely science organization. That is a missionoriented agency, to take pollution for example, that depends heavily on science and on government operations and on industry. It is a very involved process. So that is not pure science. I would hope that our government does organize better for this, and I would applaud it if it did.

Mr. PETTIS. May I ask a question, Dr. Stever. Do you see any constraints on the production of adequate numbers of these scientific people in our society at the moment?

Dr. STEVER. I think with healthy and well supported, but not oversupported, educational institutions, there is always a sufficient number of the young people who are interested in that area; so we will have a reasonably good supply. I think probably in the past we have overeducated in some areas, and undereducated in others, and the missing link was a stronger motivation for fields in which we undereducated. Today's society is giving us this motivation to get involved in those fields, and that is important.

Mr. PETTIS. Mr. Chairman, if I may follow up with a second question related to the first, and I have asked this of other witnesses, I am perplexed to explain the diminution in numbers of Ph. D.'s in science of all kinds, of the hard sciences particularly in this country, relating it to our total population and taking the same situation in, let's say, Eastern Europe, Europe or the Orient. How do you explain this? The social problems of our society, is that what is taking the cream off?

Dr. STEVER. I think it is a very complex problem. For one thing in many respects young people think we have succeeded enough in science. I believe they are wrong because I don't think we are going to accomplish all the things we talked about today without having continuing and overwhelming inputs from science. But there is also the feeling that science isn't as relevant as it was. Relevant is the favorite word of young people today.

So we need a better sales campaign to convince young people that science is important in solving the very problems which are uppermost in their minds. This is the educator's job. This is everybody's job, to show there is a role.

Mr. DADDARIO. Mr. Winn.
Mr. Winn. What you are saying is you need more sex appeal.

Dr. STEVER. Yes, indeed. It is a tough job to get to be a scientist or engineer. That is a long education and you have to work pretty hard and sometimes other fields seem to be greener; so we do need more sex appeal, sex appeal in the sense that we can convince people that our society cannot reach the goals that are on everybody's minds without an important input from engineering and science and the other specialties.

Mr. DADDARIO. That is part of our advanced planning.

Dr. STEVER. That is right. That would be a very important part, that communication job. And, you know, it is part of your communication job, too, and you are helping: The very fact that you

talk to many scientists and engineers and social scientists as well and use their input is an important part of the sales campaign. It helps us.

Mr. Winn. If we would, along this same line, maybe set some priorities that we are always yelling about up here--no matter what the administration, we are always yelling about priorities—this would sort of help sell the job in the state, too.

Dr. STEVER. I think it would help. Mr. Daddario is talking about what Government instrumentality could help in planning this communication, and this, I think, is the main job. If you centralize on the basic science, I think this is the main focal point.

Mr. DADDARIO. Mr. Winn may be pointing the way towards something that might be significant here. If we could develop between the scientific community and Congress what the needs are in the future. It might add the necessary appeal to what needs to be done in the long range by funding in such a way as to attract people.

Dr. STEVER. I agree.

Mr. PETTis. Not all together, Mr. Chairman, I think, because I am talking to an awful lot of young people today who are very bright in physics and math and chemistry, who are making a 180 degree turn in high school into sociology and psychology and theology, and I am perplexed.

Mr. DADDARIO. Mr. Pettis, if I might get involved in this and then ask Dr. Stever for a comment, this point has been raised time and time and again and I do think it gets back to the point Mr. Winn has raised. We have had testimony from MIT that people do come in and go into something else. These are extremely bright kids in various areas of science. I wonder if they look around, see a superabundance of people and recognize there are not many who are working at the real hard problems of our society. Maybe part of the problem is providing people in those areas of science and engineering which are understaffed. This requires hard work and long years of training. These gaps have to be filled. We have to maintain a proper balance.

Dr. STEVER. Mr. Chairman, the thought occurred to me—it deflects from the idea a little bit-I don't think this country is using a capability of industry as well as it should. Industry can change directions when it has a profitable kind of business, and there are lots of people who are brought up in one field of education who get redirected because

industry has discovered a new and profitable line of business, and I think we ought to use this a little bit more.

You know, education doesn't stop with college, nor does growth of one's realization of what the world is like and growth of one's capability of contributing stop with college. It still takes place when people are in their working life. People can convert later. I really don't think right now we are trying to make industry the whipping boy on a number of these problems, and yet right in industry's bag of tricks are solutions to some of these problems.

We can get them to shift. In fact, I know some industries that are asking for essentially the support of our whole country to get them into these new areas.

Mr. WINN. Mr. Chairman, the Government and scientists have to show industry that there is a profit motivation for them to change direction. They are not doing this for fun. I don't know where some of us up here get the idea that industry might be the whipping boy and we tell it what to do and we don't show them where there is a potential profit.

Dr. STEVER. If we were to do that, I think we could use their tremendous capability.

Mr. WINN. I do, too.
Mr. DADDARIO. Mr. Pettis.
Mr. PETTIS. I have no more.
Mr. DADDARIO. Mr. Brown!

Mr. Fulton, we are glad Pennsylvania is represented here by other than the witness this morning.

Mr. FULTON. I might add, Pittsburgh, Pa., where there is a pawnshop on every corner, as goes the song.

Mr. DADDARIO. Is there such a song?

Mr. FULTON. "There is a Pawnshop on the Corner in Pittsburgh," is one of the hit songs of the last few years.

Mr. DADDARIO. Do you have a few more lines?

Mr. FULTON. I must say that democracy is always hovering between a pawnshop and just pure, plain catastrophe. We are always, just by the greatest of effort, pulling it back from bankruptcy, plain desertion, or disruption and simply falling apart at the seams. Democracy is a very loose fabric, and I think science is in about the same condition. It goes off into so many directions.

Science is like the Greek king who had the 50 daughters, all of them different and all off in different directions.

The witness should be complimented on the order in which he stated various categories, which I think should be especially appreciated, Mr. Chairman, by this subcommittee. He mentioned lawmakers, administrators, and industrialists. I thoroughly appreciated the order in which he stated them. I thought that was fine.

Dr. STEVER. If I were in the administration, sir, I would probably have listed them first.

Mr. FULTON. Referring to your statement, I am one of those who has favored the creation of a Department of Science in the Federal Government on a Cabinet level.

Secondly, my position is that it should be a policy forming department rather than an administering department. It should not supersede or cancel out any of the present agencies.

« PreviousContinue »