Page images
PDF
EPUB

is the belief on the part of many people that the present policies and structure of the Federal Government for the conduct and support of science are to put it mildly-not as good as they should be. I share that belief. In fact, I believe also that the whole structure of our Federal Government is not as good as it should be. President Nixon believes this, too, as evidenced by the fact that he has created the new Advisory Council on Executive Organization. I think that the reports of the hearings of your committee, Mr. Chairman, will surely be of great interest to the Advisory Council, as well as to the Congress and to the public.

But while we seek to examine and cure the defects of the present Federal structure for science, we should be keenly aware of the strengths of the present structure and the brilliant results which have been achieved during the past 25 years. In fact, I sometimes think that there isn't anything wrong with the present structure that a lot more money would not cure. I hope that a major goal of any restructuring that may be proposed by the deliberations of this committee will be to insure adequate financing of the Nation's essential scientific activities. The most beautiful organizational diagram in the world would be meaningless if no one provided any money. A prime purpose of a plan must be to insure the maximum extent possible the continuous stabilized flow of adequate financing. The other desirable features of a good organizational plan-efficiency, coordination, communication, balance, flexibility, and the rest are meaningless of there is no lifeblood in the system.

This leads me to remark that as we examine new plans for science management in the executive branch, perhaps someone should inquire into the adequacy of the structure in the legislative branch from which all good things-like money-must flow.

Mr. DADDARIO. Dr. DuBridge, on that point, you will recall that we have from time to time said that the structure of the legislative branch is in fact a problem, and because we are so structured we do help to create some of the executive problems for obvious jurisdictional reasons. This we incorporate into our thinking as we make this examination. Of course, these are obviously parts of the problem which we recognize.

Dr. DUBRIDGE. Yes. I am glad to hear you say that.

Let's take a look, then, at our present scientific enterprise in America to see what we already have that we must cherish, nourish, and strengthen.

We have, we must admit-and we must emphasize the greatest and most productive scientific establishment in the world. With all the faults which we who are within the system see so clearly, our scientific achievements are admired and envied all over the world. Thousands of highly competent scientists-including many very brilliant onesare effectively at work in many kinds of laboratories in all fields of science all over the country. A large number of well-trained new scientists emerge from our universities every year and thousands of scientists and science students from other parts of the world seek to pursue their studies and their investigations in American institutions. On these things I think we all agree. America does have, should have, and must have, the greatest scientific enterprise that can be

created. We must do this not just to be ahead of other countries, but for our own good, for our own welfare, for the good of all human beings everywhere. We must invest in a fine scientific effort because, from a purely practical point of view, it is our most profitable investment. But we must do it also because-as President Nixon has often stated every great nation, to remain great, must have a great vision, must look outward and upward and forward. Our Nation must encourage the highest type of intellectual adventure and must do the things that challenge the minds and lift the spirits of all men.

What is there about our scientific system that has made it as good as it is? What are the essential features that we must retain and improve?

First, we must never forget and we have not yet forgotten-that science is basically a human intellectual endeavor. New ideas in science emerge not from a machine, not from a computer, not from an orga nization chart, but from the imaginative, talented minds of individual human beings. Science flourishes when talented individual scientists have the maximum opportunity to use their talents in the pursuit of new knowledge.

The three things that scientists need to pursue their investigations effectively are: (1) freedom, or independence; (2) diversity of choice; and (3) opportunity.

Freedom allows the individual to pursue his research in his own way without rigid or authoritarian controls. Inflexible organizational structures are not conducive to creative science. Neither the department chairman, nor the research director, nor the college or company president, nor a Government official, should try to direct the work of a scientist, at least after he has passed through the student or apprentice phase.

Diversity, the second quality, means that a scientist will have a choice among many alternatives as to what kind of a place in which he works, the field of science he pursues, and the way in which he pursues it.

Then opportunity means that when his choice has been exercised, the scientist will find the facilities, the congenial atmosphere, and the financial support which he requires.

Our present great research institutions and our present pattern of private and Government support have provided these three prerequisites to a large number of competent scientists in this country. Whatever we do in Government must be aimed at enhancing and not degrading this situation.

Since science can thrive and render maximum benefit to the Nation only to the extent that we can assure the productivity of talented individual scientists, let us look at the Government structure and procedures from the point of view of that all-important individual—the scientist at work in his laboratory, probably with a group of his younger colleagues and graduate students.

In a typical case, let us say, a scientist finds his university surroundings congenial to his work. He has stimulating colleagues on the faculty, a good library, and the respect and encouragement of the administration. If he doesn't have these, he should blame the university, of course, and not the Government. He needs only funds to purchase

his equipment and supplies, to pay his graduate assistants and laboratory technicians, to cover the costs of travel to scientific meetings and help defray the costs of publishing the results of his work. He looks to the Government for help-and, from his point of view, what does he see?

Well, he usually finds that there are several Government agencies that support academic research in his field. He knows that any proposal he submits will be judged by each agency on the basis of its scientific merits by a panel or review committee of experts in the field. He knows that if the panel thinks his proposal is a good one, it will be recommended for support. He knows, too, that if agency No. 1, say, turns him down for lack of interest in his field or for lack of funds, he can apply to agency No. 2. If he eventually gets financial support, he is quite happy with his only gripe being that the process maybe was long drawn out and required a lot of paperwork-and that he must now do quite a lot more paperwork to submit the required reports and satisfy the university and Government accounting offices.

What fault then does he find with the Government organization for science? Does he worry that it, as an organization, is not efficient? Well, not much-unless the organization took too long to process his grant or to negotiate the exact amount of the budget. Does he worry if the agency that supports him is not "coordinated" with other agencies? Not much. He knows it is his job to coordinate his work with that of others working in his field. He would not be caught dead doing an experiment that someone else is doing or has done-so he reads the current literature, writes or phones his colleagues at other institutions, promptly reports his own results to them-knowing they will return the courtesy-and he publishes his results promptly. It is his job to do the coordination between his work and the work of other scientists in his field throughout the world.

Now, would any change in Government structure help him-the successful working scientist? This question must be seriously considered before radical new structures are approved.

But suppose the time comes when the scientist is told that there are insufficient funds to finance his project, or to finance it adequately or at a level compared to previous years, to allow him to meet the rising costs? That, of course, is when it hurts. That is when he complains about Congress, the Bureau of the Budget, the administration, the science adviser and anyone else who might be in sight. Not only is the scientist hurt, but the national scientific enterprise is poorer because his talents are not being used, or not being fully used.

Well, so much for the scientist's view looking upward to the

Government.

We might now ask how the president of the university and the chief business officer feel about the Government management of science. If their principal faculty members are adequately financed, their complaints will be more about the contract and grant procedures and the red tape, or about the adequacy or inadequacy of overhead reimbursement, or about the need for general institutional grants to cover the hidden costs of supporting university research and graduate study, or the need for free funds to finance the work of young investigators with bright ideas who do not yet have the reputation to compete for

limited funds with their more famous colleagues. Even these complaints of the university administrators could be satisfied by changing existing regulations or by new legislation. They do not require a change in Government structure.

Why then do some university people think there should be a change in Government structure? As far as I can tell, there is but one principal reason: a more coherent or more centralized structure, some believe, will be able to speak more effectively for science in the administration and in the Congress and, hence, to secure adequate funding. This is an important matter, and-if true-would be a powerful argument for a more centralized structure-such as, say, a Department of Science. But would such a single agency be more effective in dealing with its two authorization and two appropriation subcommittees in the House and Senate than several agencies with their several committees? I must leave the answer to that to those of you who are more experienced in the behavior of congressional committees. My limited experience leads me to have some grave doubts.

But if university people have only the one argument of leverage or funding to propose a different science structure, why is it that many of us in Government are so carefully examining this problem?

There are several reasons. First, we, in Government, like to see neat organizational and management structures. The present multiplicity is admittedly confusing to Government administrators and legislators. We worry about coordination and efficiency and budgetary management.

Second, we find the distressing fact that in a number of fields of science of broad national interest-such as, marine science, atmospheric science, environmental science, and other areas it is hard to bring the several agencies with responsibilities in such fields together to implement an adequate and an adequately balanced national program. The various mission agencies have other responsibilities and priorities, and these may not add up to an adequate total program. From the point of view of my own responsibilities, this is a most serious defect in our present system. I will return to this later.

Let me digress now for a moment to remind you again that I have so far confined my attention to the problems of science rather than technology-and especially to academic science.

The management of science and of technology present very different problems. In science, particularly basic science, the individual research worker at the bench is the only possible "manager." As I have already said, not the department chairman, not the university president or director of research, and surely not a Government official, can manage the creative process. Administrators can help the scientist by providing funds, doing the necessary purchasing and accounting and payroll handling and all the rest. But all these functions must only support and not direct the work of the scientist himself. It is true that when a large and expensive accelerator or telescope or other facility is involved, the chief scientist or laboratory director must perform a management function to see that the facility is effectively and productively used. But even he must be the kind of a manager who can enlist cooperation among his colleagues-still leaving the individual investigators freedom to direct their own experiments. Elaborate man

agement structures are not appropriate in scientific work-whether the structure is in the department, the university, or the Government.

Now the reverse situation is necessary in technology-the process of using scientific knowledge to attain a specific desired goal, whether that goal be a spacecraft to go to the moon, a new military weapon, a new industrial process, or a new consumer product.

To mobilize the talent and facilities to achieve such an objective requires management skills of the highest order. The Apollo project, for example, has required the most elaborate and sophisticated systems management structure, extending from the Administrator of NASA down through his staff structure, out into the laboratories and contractor facilities clear down to the worker at the bench, in the production line or at the launching facility. When 200,000 people are working toward a single objective, extraordinary management and leadership skills are essential to success.

By contrast to NASA, the head of the National Science Foundation does not manage the work of any of the scientists which his agency supports. He couldn't, he wouldn't, and it would spoil the whole enterprise if he tried. The NSF Director only manages an expert staff of his own whose job is to find the best investigators and to support them and see that the taxpayers' money is prudently accounted for.

It is absolutely essential when we are talking about the management of research to specify whether we are talking about science or technology-whether we are talking about the discovery of new knowledge or the application to specific ends of the knowledge we already have. Even though science sometimes merges almost imperceptibly into applied science and technology, the broad management principles I have stated still apply. A prime motto which we in Government must keep in mind is: We manage technology but we do not manage science. Or to put it another way: We must manage the process of technology; but we manage only the support of science. In technology we manage people; in the support of science, we only manage money.

The outstanding question to face them is whether we in Government manage properly the Federal funds for science. Do we manage those funds in such a way as to get the maximum benefits from our scientific endeavor and the healthiest possible broad base of science which is so important to our country's future?

Here we are at the heart of the problem and at the heart of our difficulty. We must sadly admit that both in the executive and legislative branches the management of Federal funding is inadequate indeed.

Let us take a look at how we do manage funds for science-and, again, I am speaking of science now, not technology. Many of the independent agencies of Government have found that in order to pursue and achieve their respective missions, they must put scientific knowledge to work. They must, in other words, carry on and support programs sometimes very extensive programs-in applied science and technology. These programs range from the development of new weapons and techniques of defense, new mechanisms and facilities for space exploration, improved atomic weapons and nuclear reactors, on to new techniques for building houses, new transportation systems, new technologies for controlling air and water pollution and for improving the health of our people, and so on. We spend many billions

« PreviousContinue »