Page images


center. Then, we found that they wanted some instrument to measure salinity at Woods Hole, and they designed it up there. At the same time, someone out in Scripps wanted the same thing, so their people designed it, but you couldn't correlate them. So the next year, we set up a system of correlating the instruments that we used. I think it has made a great deal of progress, will make progress, but like NASA, it started from scratch.

I think those of us who have had experience with NASA realize that one of the hurdles we had to overcome was the resistance of the disciplines of science to even treat one another on an equal basis. The fellow who was a biologist, what did he care for another scientist in some other discipline, and the result is we had to work on this, and I think we have made a little progress.

Excuse me, sir. I don't mean to get into the picture, but I couldn't help it when you mentioned oceanography.

Mr. DADDARIO. All members are welcome to ask questions, and especially the chairman.

Chairman MILLER. You are very generous.
Dr. PIORE. Let me go on with my department.

I would give this department responsibility for all facilities whose primary mission is to serve the universities. I would suggest that the administration of the Miller bill be placed in this department. I would also place in this department the general-purpose Government laboratories.

One of the goals for the budget of this new department would be, let us say, three-quarters of the funds the Federal Government spends on science; the mission-oriented agencies would have one-quarter. Thus, the mission agencies as they modify their needs and requirements would not perturb the general scientific enterprise too profoundly, and, if some kind of crisis develops where profound modifications are required, it would be very easy for this new department to respond to direction from the President, and at the same time thoughtfully modify the institutions where the work is being done. Under emergency conditions, either during a time of war or of peace, he could restructive the agency.

With this type of structure and with a secretary sitting in the Cabinet, it would be possible to have a national science policy. It would be possible to plan for the needs of science; to plan for the capital needs in terms of large and small instruments; to know who is responsible; to facilitate national debate, that Mr. Miller referred to, among fields. It would provide Congress with a national view and permit Congress to have a more direct say in national science policy. In addition to dealing with science broadly, one then could also deal in a more rational way with those institutions in our society where the work of science goes on. These are just some very broad benefits. I certainly can give you more.

Obviously, I am not emphasizing any negative aspects. However, many problems will arise. One of them which is important is that now and again we, as a country, want to move into a certain area as a matter of national policy. Currently, the area of interest is oceanography, but something else will get our attention 5 years from now. When this happens now, special independent agencies are set up. The purpose of such a special structure is to make it visible to Congress and the

people. Such institutions certainly can be put into such a department from time to time, and visibility can be provided by creating the office of an undersecretary or an assistant secretary for the new area. But a new department would stop the continued proliferation of new agencies as the country falls in love with a specific area of science and technology.

A new department would also create problems in Congress. Some Congressmen and Senators have spent a lot of time and energy acquiring expert knowledge have dedicated their careers and become specialists in certain fields of science. The Committee structure within the Senate and the House may be such that this great expertness among some Members would be lost if they are not put on the appropriate committees.

I have been very evasive in telling you what else you include, because once I start saying you will put in this laboratory or this research facility or this large operation through Executive order, then people start building fences and stop debating the issue.

So. I by design have not identified agencies and groups that ought to be in the Department of Science. We have a number of agencies that have very broad missions in science. We have a number of facilities scattered throughout our agencies that really support academia. You can have a department of almost any science, a billion dollars, $6 billion—it depends on what you put in. We have talented—what do you call these people who arrange charts organization people both within Congress and the Bureau of the Budget. They ought to be given a set of guidelines based on policy considerations and see what kind of structure they come up with.

If we start identifying the structure right now, fences, very tall fences, will be built both in Congress and in the agencies, and we will not be able to move ahead.

Thank you very much.

Mr. DADDARIO. Before proceeding with questions, I think we ought to hear from Dr. Keeney, and I would feel that it would most likely be the questions would apply to both.

If you will be kind enough, Dr. Keeney, to please proceed in that way.



Dr. KEENEY, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to talk with you.

The National Endowment for the Humanities, of which I am chairman, is, in effect, an independent agency that now reports directly to the President. It was established in 1965 as part of the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities. The other part is the National Endowment for the Arts, but each endowment has an independent head and an independent advisory council of private citizens appointed by the President. There is no executive head of the foundation as a whole, though the Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities consisting of representatives of nine Government agencies, is charged with the coordination of the activities of the two endowments.

[blocks in formation]

I shall direct myself to the question of whether the arts and the humanities, particularly the latter, would be better or worse off under an arrangement more centralized than the present one. What I shall say will reflect my experience as chairman of the endowment for 31%3 years, and as dean and then president of Brown University for approximately 18 years; I do not represent the administration, and I am not expressing its views.

The humanities constitute the oldest part of education, as we know it, and are, in effect, the liberal arts as they existed at the time of the foundation of our educational system. These disciplines are the newest to receive support from the Government, however. And the support is very small indeed, being restricted to funds in the endowment for the humanities, and to an even lesser extent, the Office of Education. In 1969, the endowment will have approximately $6 million to spread over its four major programs—fellowships, research, education, and public needs—plus whatever matching funds are appropriated and whatever funds come from private sources to be matched. The amounts are small compared to the sums available for the sciences.

The position of the humanities has been a fluctuating one. In higher education, the position of the humanities declined concurrently with the emergence of the sciences, and continued to decline until about 1960, when concern for the humanities began to rise again as it became apparent that science alone would not solve our problems, something the better scientists had recognized for some time.

I might interpose here to say that anything that I say that sounds like opposition to science, and to the results of science, is not directed at science. It is directed at the imbalance that exists herein a very serious way.

Mr. DADDARIO. I would expect, Dr. Keeney, that Dr. Piore would agree with you in this matter of balance, and that he would include parts of the humanities as a necessary involvement in this balance which he believes needs to be created.

Do you have any comment on that, Dr. Piore?

Dr. PIORE. There is no question in my mind that there is an imbalance between the emphasis on humanities compared to science, as far as Federal expenditures are concerned. There is no question in my mind.

Structurally, how you organize this in the Federal Government, is a difficult problem in my mind. I don't know what Dr. Keeney is going to say. He may bring this up on the surface, and I would rather wait until he finishes his remarks.

Dr. KEENEY. Accordingly, in the 1960's, we have been hearing demands for better instruction in the humanities, with greater attention to what is relevant to contemporary problems.

In practical affairs, the preoccupation with the use of the sciences, and then of the social sciences, in the solution of problems, has been such that the contribution the humanities could make was all but ignored until quite recently, and in most quarters, still is ignored. During the First World War it became apparent that scientific investigations could be used to develop many of the instruments of destruction and of industrial production that were necessary for the successful waging of war. During the course of the Second World War, it became apparent that much of what was needed could not be obtained without support of basic science, in addition to applied science, and the Government entered into support for basic scientific research-support in which many agencies are today involved, including the Defense Department, HUD (support for social science), NASA, and so on. The National Science Foundation was founded to support pure research on the assumption that pure and applied research can be separated, which I very much doubt, and on the further assumption that the support of pure work could result in the production of more applied work, which it sometimes does.

Social scientists attempted to use the methods of the natural sciences, with some preliminary success, though it has become evident in the social as well as natural sciences that the emphasis on scientific methods and tangible reality, or what we recognize as tangible reality, has hindered efforts to cope with some abstract problems of the sort that are most difficult for society. But at any rate, at present, the sciences, technology (which is the outcome of science), and the social sciences are supported by—and are used by—many agencies of the Government. Social sciences receive some support even though the National Science Foundation and the National Endowment for the Humanities. The humanities, however, are used substantially by hardly any agency of the Government, and, as I have indicated, are supported only in a small way through the endowment and the Office of Education.

That is the situation of the humanities today, which I think should be considered in any reorganization of Government support. It is necessary to ask also, however, how the situation might be different, and how the humanities might be used.

Let me give a couple of examples. In foreign affairs, there is the obvious example of our habit of furthering representative democracy in underdeveloped countries. Little application of the cultural and political history of such areas is made in the development of policy. There are obvious difficulties in effecting representative government in a country where there is no well-established local base and where nothing politically previously has stood between the village and the central government. We have attempted to behave throughout the world as if these difficulties didn't exist, and the result is often dictatorship or totalitarianism of the right or left.

Closer to home it was assumed, until relatively recently, that Negroes made poor troops. Negroes were, for the most part, segregated into units that performed supporting tasks. During World War II, they were permitted to serve in segregated combat units, at least, and late in the war, a short of brigaded arrangement began. Now the services are integrated.

The reason I brought this up is that the change was made because of social pressure at home, not because of examination of historical fact. The change was not made on the merits of the question, and the fact is, that in every war fought by this country in which Negroes were used in combat, Negro troops served, sometimes with distinction, and the present situation in Vietnam certainly indicates that they always could have. Historical fact was not used or the change would have come much more easily and much more quickly.

My third example is far more involved. There is considerable evidence to indicate that the central difficulty of our times is the obsolescence of at least parts of our traditional value systems. The resurrection of meaningful values will not result from scientific inquiry, or from social science, but only though the philosophical and historical examination of society and of the bases of its values. Many of the values we say we hold today are based on assumptions that no longer reflect reality in contemporary society. If we are to wait for ethical principles that can be validated scientifically, however, we will wait a good longtime. In dealing with basic values, we must use the humanities, and history and philosophy in particular.

Given, then, the need to increase the use of the humanities, which we have been trying to do through the Endowment, let me take up the question of what effect the kind of centralization with which you are concerned would have on our effects.

It is proposed to place the Endowments for the Humanities and the Arts together with various science, social science, and educational programs, including an Institute for Higher Education. The agency would have Cabinet status, which I do not personally regard as very important; though I recognize that something might be gained by having a Secretary so that the views of the agency can be presented at the Cabinet level.

It is possible, also, that the centralization would result in better funding for the humanities, because the appropriations for the humanities would be attached to larger programs, and would, therefore, be somewhat sheltered. A small, isolated appropriation request coming independently to the Congress is readily attacked. Moreover, an independent agency reporting directly to the President really doesn't report to the President unless he has a strong interest; and when the need for support arises, it is often difficult to get help from a staff that has many other responsibilities. I don't believe that the proposed centralization would result in serious loss of independence to any great extent, provided that the program in the humanities would be carried out by skillful and experienced bureaucrats who believe in what they are doing and know the arts of advocacy.

One advantage of the proposed reorganization is this: It would bring activity in the sciences into closer proximity to activities in the social sciences and the humanities, and this would undoubtedly increase the infusion of value judgments into science, a process already underway, which I personally think is very valuable for science. The concept that science is free of values is one of the most obsolete with which we are burdened, and since scientific activity has a major impact upon human life today, and will have in the future, consideration of values must enter into it. There have been many examples in recent years of scientific activity that is quite successful and that attains the objectives set for it, but which does not answer the question, "Is it worth doing?” There will be other examples in future years, and the sooner they are brought to light and examined with that question, the better.

Similarly, the proposed merger of research and educational activities into a single agency is to be commended. Education suffers when it is separated from investigation. The separation of the Office of Education

« PreviousContinue »