Dr. SEABORG. Which gets back to the need for some strengthening of the centralization of Federal science activities.

Mr. DADDARIO. We have had some management changes in this committee. We have a new member here today, Mr. Pettis of California. We welcome you aboard, Gerry.

Mr. PETTIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DADDARIO. We will turn the time over to you.

Mr. PETTIS. I would just like to ask a question related to a question that you asked earlier of Dr. Seaborg. It has to do with this heat as a byproduct of power generation.

Heat can be a beneficial as well as a negative factor. Under whose jurisdiction would research come along the lines of using this heat for productive purposes? For example, I imagine up in Connecticut, Mr. Chairman, vegetables come rather high in January and February; isn't it possible that you might use some of this heat, which is a byproduct of power generation, for, say, the production of vegetables in hothouses? And also some marine life needs heat rather than cold. Dr. SEABORG. Yes.

Mr. PETTIS. We are talking about hunger and all of these things.

Dr. SEABORG. Sure, I should have made that point: About the thermal effects question—and it is for that reason that we don't like to use the term "thermal pollution," because it isn't pollution. The thermal effects have a positive side, and we think that there are going to be a number of instances when the heat can be used beneficially.

And the AEC does have programs underway to test this. There is a program at our Hanford Laboratory planned along these lines, and there is also a program in the State of Oregon, not supported by the AEC, that is investigating just this question, the possibility of increased production from crops and so forth through irrigation at slightly elevated temperatures brought about in a purposeful manner in order to investigate this possibility.

Mr. PETTIS. Thank you.

Mr. DADDARIO. Mr. Lukens?

Mr. LUKENS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am wondering about the rate of dissipation of this thermal effect. Is it difficult to handle? It must be generated in such quantity at such extreme temperatures at one time that it seems to me that the physical handling and the dissipation of this thermal effect for a beneficial cause would be very difficult to achieve. Is this proving difficult?

Dr. SEABORG. Well, it is a matter of increasing the temperature a few degrees at the plant. And then it is dissipated in the larger flow of water depending on where it is. So that if we are looking toward this beneficial effect, the control of the dilution would be important so that you could establish just how great a temperature rise you wanted. Mr. LUKENS. So it presents no great technical problem at this time? Dr. SEABORG. No; not from that point of view.

Mr. LUKENS. Thank you. I would like to ask Dr. Wenk something. Coming from the area of the Miami River, which is referred to as the Madison Valley, we have many, many paper plants plus a great industrial complex in that valley, particularly steel plants and all. I find rising interest and concern in Madison Valley about pollution.

If we could find a way to centralize the Federal science activities, particularly research, how do you think we could bring all this force

and this knowledge immediately to bear on the real pressing problem of water pollution.

Mr. DADDARIO. You are asking Dr. English, not Dr. Wenk.

Mr. LUKENS. I am sorry.

Mr. DADDARIO. The record doesn't show but Dr. English is on the program.

Dr. ENGLISH. I don't know that a very specific answer is possible, as to how soon you could achieve solutions. Actually in principle, of course, solutions to many of the pollution problems are known; one of the big factors is that solutions are matters of economics. In order words, how much money are we willing to spend to not do something or to take corrective action.

It is true that in many cases some of the basic problems of pollution, or some of the features of it, chemical composition or other things, simply are not known very well. But the reason it is impossible to answer you question, I think, very definitely, Mr. Lukens, is that overriding all this is the big question of economics.

Mr. LUKENS. I might say, Mr. Chairman, the reason I brought it up, of course, in a pro-con argument, on page 61 of our report, the No. 1 objectives is policy planning, goals, and objectives. If we have trouble communicating to the general public, and I feel we do, the benefits of such scientific programs as the space program and the atomic energy program, one of the best ways of showing what technology can do to improve our living today without talking in the marvelous technical terms of today is to deliver an answer to water or air pollution.

In my own district, I don't think there is one paper plant-and I have about 17 or 18 at last count-that does not deliver water back to the original source, the stream, in a purer condition than that in which it was received. In other words, they are receiving like 87 percent impure water and they are dumping it back 92, 93.

It is a costly process. Without a real breakthrough in technology, I don't see any hope for them investing more money without going broke. We come back to the tax structure, tax credit and all. But it seems to me we should be applying all this science and advanced technology to the immediate goal which every human being can recognize: "Gee, this is terrific, I support this program."

We have a growing water pollution problem and growing air pollution problem. I just wanted to make the point. It may be made 20 times and without seeming bombastic on the point it is very important to every State, but particularly our corner of Ohio. Thank you.

Mr. DADDARIO. We also welcome Mr. Goldwater of California. We will turn over the time to you, Mr. Goldwater.

Mr. GOLDWATER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I might say I look forward to serving on this committee. I understand it gets involved in very interesting subjects.

I would also like to compliment Mr. Lukens on the point that he made about paper. I think now we know where all the paper is coming because of all which goes across my desk.

Since we are talking about centralization of Federal science activities in regard to the Atomic Energy Commission, I was just wondering, Dr. Seaborg, if you felt or were you satisfied with the direction that the AEC has taken so far, or do you feel that there is a need for reorganization and consolidation?

Dr. SEABORG. In the AEC, you mean?

Mr. GOLDWATER. Yes.

Dr. SEABORG. No; my answer would be that I would leave the AEC pretty much as it is, which of course is not inconsistent with some kind of coordinating mechanism, even eventually a Department of Science. But I don't believe I would dismember it based on the arguments that I have made in my prepared statement.

Mr. GOLDWATER. You presented some apprehension.

Dr. SEABORG. Yes.

Mr. GOLDWATER. But you feel that perhaps consolidation would bring, better benefits to science?

Dr. SEABORG. A consolidation of a number of departments?
Mr. GOLDWATER. Yes; of all the sciences?

Dr. SEABORG. All the departments of science into a single Department of Science?

Mr. GOLDWATER. Yes.

Dr. SEABORG. I think it would be premature at this time. I would go to a coordinating mechanism involving increased abilities in the Office of Science and Technology, as an example, as a first step.

Mr. GOLDWATER. Another matter I am somewhat concerned about, and that is our universities and the use you make of them.

We all know that there is quite a bit of money and effort put forth into our schools in the research programs. Do you feel the American people are getting a return on their invested dollar from a scientific standpoint?

Dr. SEABORG. Yes, we do.

Mr. GOLDWATER. You do.

Dr. SEABORG. We feel so, in the projects that we have. The major part of our research budget goes into our national laboratories, which as I indicated cooperate closely with the universities. But we have somewhat over a thousand research contracts with universities which are very carefully placed and monitored, and we feel that we are getting the Government is getting its money's worth in those contracts. Mr. GOLDWATER. Do you feel that there might possibly be some duplications, or are you referring to the fact that you share laboratories? Might there not be some duplication in research projects from one science to another that, lets's say, could be combined if they were better coordinated from a more centralized approach?

Dr. SEABORG. Well, this would be one of the advantages of a stronger coordinating mechanism. But so far as the basic research is concerned, which is published in the scientific literature, I am not very much afraid of duplication. That is sort of a self-policing mechanism. No scientist wants to be in the position of publishing second in his field, and so you have a sort of a self-policing mechanism there that eliminates the danger of duplication.

There is some need, depending on the type of scientific investigation, of confirming work, for example. An example of that at the present time involves confirming work not in the United States but an international example: Soviet scientists in the Dubna laboratory announced some years ago that they discovered the element with the atomic number 104, which would be the next highest element in the scale of elements, short of this island of stability that I talked about,

just at the edge of what you might call the peninsula of presently known elements.

Work by Ghiorso and coworkers in the radiation laboratory of the University of California attempted to confirm that, because of its importance. This is a case where you would want to do the same thing just to prove whether it is right or not. And they were not able to confirm it. They could not find the same isotope of element 104 that the Soviet scientists had.

And then they went on and found two or three other isotopes of element 104. So now we have the situation of determining which group is right, which will probably involve maybe a third group getting into it.

In general, I think you don't have to worry too much about unnecessary duplication in the field of basic research.

Mr. GOLDWATER. Just one more. How many universities do you involve?

Dr. SEABORG. Our 1,000-plus contracts

Dr. ENGLISH. I don't know. Let me take a guess and if I may I will correct it for the record.

Mr. DADDARIO. Please.

Dr. ENGLISH. It is certainly several hundred.

Mr. GOLDWATER. That would be here and abroad?

Dr. SEABORG. No; this is essentially all in the United States. There may be a couple of biology and medicine contracts abroad, but the great majority is in the United States.

Mr. GOLDWATER. Approximately 100, then?
Dr. SEABORG. I would say a few hundred.

Dr. ENGLISH. Several hundred.1

Mr. GOLDWATER. Thank you.

Mr. DADDARIO. Dr. Seaborg, we appreciate your testimony, and are pleased to have had Dr. English here.

As always, time does not allow us to ask all the questions we would like, and I would appreciate it if we could send some to you for the record.

Dr. SEABORG. All right, we would be pleased to respond for the record.

(Questions submitted by the subcommittee to Dr. Glenn Seaborg :)

Question No. 1. It is common knowledge that the National Science Foundation has always had difficulty selling itself to Congress and the American public. What positive steps can you suggest that the Foundation might take to improve its image, extend its constituency and secure the funds corresponding to a national policy of continued preeminence for U.S. science?

Answer No. 1. The problem that the National Science Foundation faces in regard to its image with the Congress and the American public is manyfold. For one thing, the NSF lacks the glamour of a mission-oriented organization. It would be difficult to equate its success with any one significant breakthrough. While it established and is a major source of support for such large scientific facilities as the Kitt Peak National Observatory and the National Radio Astronomy Observatory, it does not directly operate such facilities and so the public does not associate the Foundation with them or their accomplishments. Its staff is not directly involved in any lifesaving medical procedures. It is not directly involved in the launching of rockets, the releasing of new sources of energy or the operation of any other "spectaculars" of our nuclear-space age. It is, however,

1 In fiscal year 1968 there were approximately 240 colleges and universities involved in AEC programs.

directly and very significantly involved in supporting the basic scientific research that underlies much of the progress in our mission-oriented programs and in the science education that has given this country so many of the advantages it holds today. This is the message it must sell to the American public and Congress. The major problem of image-building related to this is that it is difficult for most people to grasp the significance of basic research and education to technological progress. It is equally difficult for them to appreciate the importance of properly administering programs supporting basic science. Sufficient support to the "right" research at the "right" time can have a great effect on our national well-being over the years. With some hindsight today people are seeing how we might have been better off environmentally, technologically and in other ways, had our resources for basic science and science education been allocated certain ways.

Perhaps NSF can do more to show how their efforts and resources directly and indirectly affect, and could affect, the public. They can do this through their own regular public information channels and perhaps by emphasizing to the people and organizations they support the need for more effective public relations. The report, "Technology in Retrospect and Critical Events in Science," prepared by the Illinois Institute of Technology, under contract to NSF, was a start in this direction. More must be done along these lines.

In addition to emphasizing the importance of the basic research and science education they support, the NSF might also point out their expanded role, in accordance with the new legislation of 1968 (Public Law 90-407), which grants them involvement in applied research, the social sciences and programs of international cooperation, all of which are receiving more public attention and acceptance in a world demanding more positive results from science in solving man's problems.

Question No. 2. Has the application of planning-programming-budgeting methods and techniques had measurable effects on the management or organization of Federal science activities in your field of interest? Please elaborate.

Answer No. 2. The government-wide application of the PPB system in 1966 had no major impact on the management or organization of scientific activities in the AEC since the underlying planning-programming-budgeting methods and techniques had been previously developed and applied in the AEC. The BOB establishment of formal PPB requirements, however, has led to increased emphasis on consideration of alternatives, on significant programmatic issues and, in applied development, on the use of economic analyses in making program decisions. Also, in 1966 the AEC's Office of Assistant to the General Manager for Program Analysis was established to provide guidance and assistance in the preparation of special analytic studies for which our program divisions (including scientific program divisions) have been and still are responsible. Under AEC's cost-based program budget system, we have budgeted and managed scientific programs in terms of costs by project in applied development and by functional area in basic research since 1950. Longer range program planning in the AEC has followed these same project or functional classifications since 1956. The program divisions and subordinate units are organized along project or functional lines; thus, the AEC does not have to prepare complicated "cross-walks" to reconcile planning and programming classifications with budget classification, and has had no difficulty in establishing responsibility for management of scientific activities by organization on a functional basis.

The AEC over the years has prepared a number of special studies in the scientific field. In development fields such as civilian power reactors, and other specific applications for reactors and isotopic energy sources, economic analyses have been used. In basic research, however, we have been constrained in the application of this technique due to the extreme difficulty in quantifying outputs which are essential for meaningful utilization in cost-benefit or cost-effectiveness analyses. On the basis of our experience with this technique, it is our judgment that it is not too fruitful in basic research areas. There has been considerable multi-year planning of our basic research activities and studies of these programs have been made; for example, in the Controlled Thermonuclear Research Programs and in the High Energy Physics Program.

Question No. 3. Since the AEC is admittedly successful, should it be given more responsibility for research peripheral to nuclear energy (e.g. desalting—now in Office of Saline Water, thermal waste effects-FWPCA, ecology-basic knowledge-NSF, medical applications of isotopes-NIH). Who judges these projects vis-a-vis other nuclear projects on overall priority basis?