Mr. DADDARIO. General Schriever, does that mean the profit is more than 5 cents a 100-pound bag?

General SCHRIEVER. Well, I am not saying. We didn't discuss this at the board meeting.

Mr. DADDARIO. Mr. Pettis.

Mr. PETTIS. Just to follow up on what Congressman Brown was talking about, I might observe that we did set a goal here a few years ago to put a man on the moon and establish priorities and we accomplished that. I also note in the press recently where out in my State of California one body of the legislature passed a resolution stating to the effect that there would be no more polluting automobiles after 1975. Well, now, I don't know whether that will ever become law or not. But it seems as though the permissiveness that we have surrounding these problems isn't really getting us anywhere. Now, I am not advocating a centralized Federal mechanism to establish priorities and do something about them, but I am wondering if we aren't coming to the place pretty soon where we are going to have to be a little more firm and a little tougher in dealing with the problem.

I don't think we can just muddle along and hope that somebody is going to come up with easy answers without some kind of activity, like we have seen in other areas. Maybe you want to comment.

Dr. LONG. Well, all I would say is-I agree with you, and half of the problem that we are dealing with here is, I suppose, the half of how does the system, in this case the Federal Government, get the knowledge that will permit it to make these decisions wisely, and I think that is where science, basic science, applied science, engineering studies contribute, and that is why in making these decisions you need that, you need to be assured that the flow of knowledge coming to you is the right kind and the right volume.

Mr. PETTIS. In other words, we can produce automobiles that don't produce the kind of pollution that we have, but who is to make the decision as to whether or not we should do this, or cement factories or whatever else.

Dr. WALKER. I think you gave the best example there is. We put a man on the moon. It is a great engineering triumph. I say engineering rather than science. But we just made up our minds we were going to do it, we put the money behind it and we did it.

Now, having done that, if we can't cure the smoke from cement plants, we are a funny race.

General SCHRIEVER. No question we can clear our air. There is no question about that. I was in St. Louis, East St. Louis, yesterday giving a commencement address at Parks College, and I went through those plants down there, Monsanto and a couple of others, and I will tell you, it is a crime.

But it takes political action to clean those plants up. You are going to have to take political action to do it, and it isn't going to be done with politics as usual. I don't know how long the political leaders in that area are going to keep messing around there with that problem before they pass some legislation which says, "Clean up those plants." It can be done. There is a smog belt there that is worse than Los Angeles.

Mr. PETTIS. Impossible.

General SCHRIEVER. I am out there all the time, too, so I know. This was terrible. It is not the first time I have ever been there, in East St. Louis.

Mr. DADDARIO. Mr. Symington.

Mr. SYMINGTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I remember a visit from General Schriever to St. Louis years ago. We had less smoke at that time. This hearing really seems almost an extension of your very first hearings, Mr. Chairman, on the role of science and technology in the urban crisis, where Mr. Doxiadis spoke and defined a city, as the Athenians did, as being for the happiness and safety of the people.

Clearly, the political decision itself must be the lubricant between the science and the technology. It has to somehow translate what the scientists are learning into technological advantages for the people.

The decision of the California Legislature that Mr. Pettis described is a sign of the desperation of the political world, that occasionally surfaces in an effort to just mathematically translate science into technological advantage, which is impossible of course that would be putting too much burden on the producers of the automobiles and California purchasers of them.

This has to be a national decision. It can't be made in one locality at a given moment in time. The analogy to the moon landing is useful in another respect, and that is that NASA actually contracted out to certain companies. It didn't have to necessarily rely on its own laboratories as perhaps might have been suggested earlier, but contracted out to the laboratory facilities of private companies some of the technical aspects of the mission.

I am sure one of them might have been Monsanto in a small way. Now, why couldn't some agency of Government contract with Monsanto simply to remove the pollution it is creating? That would be even a greater contribution, I would think, or to some other concern or consortium of concerns. That is what I derive, Mr. Chairman, so far, from this discussion.

Mr. DADDARIO. Any comment on that?

(No response.)

Mr. DADDARIO. Anything further, Mr. Symington?

Mr. SYMINGTON. No.

Mr. DADDARIO. Mr. Winn.

Mr. WINN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Dr. Walker, on page 4 of your testimony, in the top paragraph there, you make several statements, that kind of leave me up in the air. One, if this country really means to solve some of its national problems, large sums of money-just the first part. "If the country." Are you in doubt that the country really is trying to solve some of our national problems? I am sure it may seem that way.

Dr. WALKER. It does seem that way.

Mr. WINN. Are you personally in doubt that we are, or just in this field?

Dr. WALKER. I am talking just of this field. But when you see that solutions are within our grasp and we don't seem to get together and seize them

Mr. WINN. Well, then, what you are really talking about then is a series of priorities. Because we can't do everything at once. We don't

have that kind of money, although some people would like to do everything.

So then you get down to the other part of the statement, is that large sums of money would have to be supplied for technology and these sums might be supplied through a Department of Science and Technology. All right. What are you talking about when you say large sums of money? Can you give us an idea of what you think large sums of money mean for this endeavor?

Dr. WALKER. Well, I think I am talking in this point about the difference between what the National Science Foundation thinks is a large sum and what is really needed. You go to the National Science Foundation

Mr. WINN. Theirs is approximately $1 billion, right?

Dr. WALKER. Yes; $1 million as against $50,000. If you go to the National Science Foundation with an engineering problem, they think in terms of a $50,000 project, but in the case of this acid mine water thing, just to build the model was $2 million.

Mr. WINN. No. Did I misunderstand, from the NSF that they thought a good operation would be about $1 billion? Wasn't that the figure?

Mr. DADDARIO. We have had some testimony, yes, Mr. Winn, that the National Science Foundation within some concept of restructuring to develop new administrative techniques, that if it were to be strengthened to the tune of $1 billion, that it would be able to add a great deal to the way in which our science resources were in fact put together.

Mr. WINN. Yes.

Mr. DADDARIO. To the use of society.

Mr. WINN. That was my understanding. But you are talking about individual projects.

Dr. WALKER. Individual projects.

Mr. WINN. You think they underestimate costs or don't think big enough?

Dr. WALKER. Well, they just don't have that much money. When I knew the National Science Foundation, they had about $30 million a year for engineering research, engineering development, and that $30 million just won't do very much work.

Mr. WINN. Well, now, right along that same line, you say it might be supplied through a Department of Science and Technology. That means we might have either another Government bureaucracy or a bureau or a department. Again we might well be faced with the same problem that we have now, where we hear the Pentagon and State Department and NASA all being accused of being a little royalty within themselves and constantly trying to build themselves bigger and better missions so that the top echelon can be over more employees and thereby get fatter salaries.

You know that, you have heard that.

Dr. WALKER. Yes.

Mr. WINN. How are we going to sell the public on this type of thing? You know the public is right now in sort of a semitax rebellion-I think you will find all of us are getting that kind of mail—and definitely wanting tax reforms and thinking that that is going to take

the load off the little guy's shoulders and it is going to fall on the big guy's, and in most cases they are kidding themselves.

This is what scares all of us, that we are going to get another monster here, if you want to call it that

Dr. WALKER. There is that danger. That is why I am saying I think you have to concentrate on the engineering and technology end so the people can see what they are getting out of it. I think the people are beginning to wonder what they are getting out of science.

What we have to do is transfer this science into something that fits right into their lives.

Mr. WINN. Yes. That is my point. How do we do that? NASA had a hard time for years.

Dr. WALKER. Sure.

Mr. WINN. When we were funding the money for the space shot to the moon and all that, the mail kept coming in saying they didn't understand it, it wasn't doing anything for the little guy, he didn't see any benefits, and really it was pretty expensive-they think it still is. I have two letters right here saying it is a pretty expensive TV show, but everybody enjoyed it and took full credit for it.

Dr. WALKER. Well, my only suggestion, sir, is that we concentrate on trying to give the people what we want and I hope we do as good a job as NASA in showing the people they are getting something Mr. WINN. But they didn't do it until we got the end result. Dr. WALKER. Yes.

Mr. WINN. You see, that is my point. My point is how-if we fund a Department of Science and Technology-and I don't disagree with your philosophy. If we got this going in the direction that you gentlemen and many others ahead of you in the past 2 weeks have said, how do we start an education program to the American taxpayer that makes him feel that he is a part of your endeavors and that he wants to spend part of his tax money for science and technology? That is what I am talking about, a PR program.

Dr. WALKER. Yes. And this is where engineers are notably weak, sir, shouldn't ask me.

so you

Mr. WINN. Maybe we ought to interview some PR experts to see what their philosophy is.

Mr. DADDARIO. You want to say something?

Dr. LONG. Yes, sir; although I am not sure that it merits the input of a new roll of paper.

That is one of the reasons, exactly the kind of question you are raising, I think, may from some different standpoint be worthy of note. General Shriever and I both feel that holding to the position of mission-oriented agency and giving them some responsibility had some pluses in it. Because if one has a Department of Interior, perhaps with pretty explicit assignment, to clean up water and to take care of the water problem, then just figure some work on acid mine water wastes is a little cleaner than if it has to come down through something a little more remote from the mission, like a Department of Science.

My own feeling is that we may very well come to a Department of Science.

I certainly haven't made up my mind firmly one way or the other, but I am absolutely sure that right away we need some additional Federal coordination, long-range planning, and centralization, so that some parts of the things that are used to justify a Department of Science I believe are needed pretty much here now.

Mr. WINN. Well, I agree with your thinking there. But again, being almost facetious about it, it is kind of like the Kansas farmer who was breathing beautiful air, clean air.

Dr. WALKER. Yes.

Mr. WINN. He doesn't really have a problem. He is not too worried about the big problem of New York or East St. Louis, any more than the inhabitant of New York or East St. Louis is very worried about the agricultural price problem.

How do we get everybody on the team, is my question.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DADDARIO. Well, Mr. Winn has asked some questions that are important and they probably underlie the concern of the committee going back to the time when we determined that the National Science Foundation needed to be restructured so that we could point out what it was doing in a better way than it had been able to do up to that time.

We would hope that would become effective and will become effective under a new director, with new assistants, with added opportunities. Yet, these hearings have underlined beneath them the idea that through the better understanding of the way in which we are organized, how we may adjust ourselves in these ways, the public might better understand, develop a feel about science.

I was talking to John Lear at one time. He had a very interesting idea. He hoped that someday in this country we would be able to develop a feeling about science policy in a way that the British have developed a feeling about foreign policy.

Complicated as it is and necessary as it is, I do think that if we can organize, I do believe with you that we must examine more critically the whole process of innovation and invention, the means by which basic knowledge is actually applied to practical use. If more research be done in this particular area, some breakthroughs and better understanding can be accomplished.

Obviously, the people in Kansas, Mr. Winn, not affected by air pollution have to look far enough ahead to the time when they might be so affected that they will support the planning today that they will not find themselves in the same position as in New York and others.

Mr. WINN. I think this is very true, also if you tie the water pollution into the study of air pollution. They are affected by that. Dr. WALKER. Yes.

Mr. DADDARIO. There is no doubt that there is an extremely strong feeling on the part of the public generally about the need to do something about our environment.

Dr. WALKER. Yes.

Mr. DADDARIO. As we are able to translate our ability to handle it, we can get support. The nature of these hearings shows how complicated that is.