campus research at the universities, an increasingly rich flow of important new ideas has come from other performers of research. Whether these are among the larger Government laboratories, or, as is the case with the major AEC laboratories, they are Governmentowned and contractor-operated, they ordinarily share one characteristic in common. They commit a significant part of their effort to wide-ranging inquiry, to acquisition of new knowledge. This is certainly true of the major AEC laboratories. These efforts in basic research stimulate a heightened awareness of scientific trends and opportunities, of the importance of scientific excellence, and should continue to be integrated within overall laboratory structures. Just as the effectiveness of any industrial or Government operating unit is highly dependent on the organizational skills of its top management, the effectiveness of any laboratory is highly dependent on the scientific skills of its basic researchers. In the AEC laboratories, great emphasis has been given to collaborative efforts with the universities. I believe these efforts have been extremely fruitful. There is heavy interaction between the AEC laboratories and the universities to the advantage of both.

The important, often rather glamorous role of basic research and academic science should not be allowed to obscure the principal thrust of Federal science activities. Earlier I described the great bulk of these activities as concerned with providing solutions to specific problems. The Government as a whole is concerned both with how to solve particular problems and with which problems deserve tackling at what levels of effort. It seems to me that there is considerable merit to having comparisons of problem solving methods made within an agency so those with the broadest policymaking responsibilities can most effectively compare the levels of effort appropriate for groups of tasks with related purposes. The principle I am invoking here is much like the notion of program budgeting. It makes good sense to organize departments and agencies around coherent endeavors. There are, of course, a great many ways any particular set of activities can be grouped as programs. The same is true for grouping programs to form agencies. One of the questions we need to examine is the intrinsic difficulty of the comparisons at the earliest steps of the budgetary process. Also, are the people involved within the agency likely to feel a sense of unity of purpose? These are questions we should ask about proposed reorganizations. They are also questions worth asking with regard to present agencies.

The Atomic Energy Commission arose, I think, from a sense of special national responsibility. Its unity is based on the idea that, to best fulfill this responsibility, work concerning both military and civilian applications of nuclear energy should be merged in a single agency. Sometimes the feeling is expressed that nothing so familiar as nuclear energy really deserves special handling. The report under discussion here, for example, suggests that the weapons development work of the AEC could be transferred to the DOD. But I believe that there is widespread public recognition that the idea of merging work on civilian and military applications remains valid and, needed, compelling. The discovery and development of nuclear energy has changed our world. In a moment, I will dwell on some of the benefits we can

look forward to in the coming decades. About half of AEC expenditures are now directed toward civilian applications. This Nation should, I believe, continue to reap the benefits derived from such peaceful applications of nuclear energy. But we have not treated and should not begin to treat nuclear weapons as just another weapons system, and I think it remains wise to handle nuclear energy matters, with their magnificent and their fearsome possibilities, in a rather special institutional framework.

In many ways, the best criterion for judging the soundness of the present framework, for judging the AEC as an institution, is its record in the development of civilian and military applications. It is a record of success. It is a record compiled in large part by workers at the AEC's major multidisciplinary laboratories which have maintained over the years unparalleled standards of creativity and excellence. The importance and impressiveness of AEC contributions to military applications is, I believe, widely recognized. On the other hand, by its very nature, the peaceful atom is a rather "silent servant of man" so much of the record is not too well known.

Certainly one of the most prominent successes, and one in which all of us associated with the AEC take great pride, is the development of nuclear-fueled central power stations. I think there is little doubt that nuclear energy opens up vast new resources at a most opportune time in our energy consumption history. If we project our population growth, the growing power demands of our technological civilization and the even more rapidly increasing demand for electricity, it becomes obvious that the world's fossil fuel resources alone could not fill our needs.

Nuclear power has a number of advantages besides economics. It is a compact source of fuel so that plant location decisions need not be dominated by transportation costs. It is uniquely clean. In the long run, nuclear power may help to alleviate air pollution in an additional way; that is, in the use of nuclear-generated electricity for operation of electric trains and perhaps even battery-operated automobiles, thus lessening one of the chief causes of the Nations air pollution. The heat from nuclear powerplants can be used to desalt seawater, and as an extension of this concept, there appears great promise in the development of large nuclear powered agroindustrial complexes.

I have spoken of successes to illustrate the health of our laboratories and the fruitfulness of the AEC as an institution; but I want to emphasize even more strongly where our past work can lead us, and I believe, should lead us. The increase in the peaceful applications of nuclear energy in recent years has been so great that I've often referred to it as the "proliferation of the peaceful atom." The AEC laboratories have a full agenda of work in the nuclear field; work which, I think, will be of outstanding value to our Nation. This situation did not come about by chance or by the assumption of projects of marginal worth. Since its beginning, the AEC has taken as its responsibility not merely the development of a few obvious examples of civilian applications, but rather a full range of applications wherever nuclear energy could make important contributions. Our country has made and is making through the AEC sizable and sound investments in the understanding of nuclear processes. Projects are

underway at every stage of maturity-from the nurturing of newborn ideas to the employment of fully developed techniques and systems. I can attest to the fact that the competition for the available funds is extremely keen.

I spoke earlier of the use of nuclear energy for the generation of electric power, and I believe this can be expected to remain the largest peaceful use of atomic energy. For the future, we are looking toward the development of much more efficient reactors, known as advanced converter reactors, and eventually "breeder" reactors. I think it would be totally unrealistic to look solely to industry to develop these power sources. The long-range nature of these programs, the magnitude of the necessary investment, and the inability of any company to take into proper account the full range of social benefits combine to preclude development by the private sector alone. I think the importance of the advanced converter and breeder programs to the general welfare is not easily exaggerated. I think the AEC has demonstrated the skills in overall planning and management to bring these programs to fruition while bringing industry in as soon and as fully as the public interest allows.

Another source of nuclear power is under investigation based on use of controlled thermonuclear reactions. If we can succeed in developing controlled fusion, we could literally use the heavy hydrogen in the waters of the oceans as a source of energy-a source equivalent to 500 Pacific Oceans filled with high-grade petroleum. These studies hold promise of almost unparalleled social benefits, but, again, their nature is such that sound policy requires Federal leadership and Federal investment, particularly at their present stage.

An increasingly promising use of nuclear energy is nuclear explosives for peaceful purposes, which are being developed under our Plowshare program. Important areas of application include nuclear excavation of harbors, lakes, mountain passes, and canals—and what we call underground nuclear engineering-which includes fracturing of rock to improve recovery of natural gas, of oil from shales, of important elements such as copper and gold from low-grade ores.

Nuclear propulsion has been tremendously successful for naval vessels, and in my opinion, it is only a matter of time before we seriously exploit the use of nuclear power for merchant ships. The AEC is also developing nuclear sources to furnish the energy required for the recovery of minerals in the ocean and on the ocean floors. Related sources of nuclear auxiliary power are being developed for satellites, space ships, lunar and planet exploration in our space program, and, as you know, the AEC and NASA are jointly developing a nuclear rocket engine that will be much more efficient than the chemical engines in use today.

Turning from space to a quieter but more widespread application of nuclear energy, I would like to mention the role of radioisotopes and radiation. More than 30 isotopes are used by some 10,000 hospitals and physicians to diagnose and treat 3 to 4 million people in 8 million individual applications per year in the United States alone. An even more dramatic medical use of radioisotopes is in the development stage, and that is as a power source for such heart-assist devices as a cardiac pacemaker and even a completely implantable artificial heart. We

know of more than 1,000 industrial uses of radioisotopes, including their application as gages to measure the thickness and density of material, as tracers to indicate the flow of material in pipes and to detect leaks, and in X-ray fluorescence for nondestructive analysis of products. Another activity in which radioistopes are widely used is in agriculture. They are used in tracer experiments to develop better fertilizers and livestock feed, to develop plant growth and plant breeding through induced mutations, and for grain deinfestation and pest eradication as exemplified by the successful eradication of the screw-worm fly. Another application of radioistopes that promises to assist the world's food supply is the pasteurization and sterilization of food by irradiation.

A nuclear process that has wide applications in the humanities, mineral exploration, and scientific research is neutron activation analysis. It has also become important in criminal investigation. An especially useful portable source of neutrons is the isotope californium252, which is equivalent to a hip pocket reactor. Production of this isotope was initiated several years ago as part of our national transplutonium production program. The first samples are now available for medical and industrial experimentation, and I think the importance of this isotope is only now beginning to be fully appreciated.

I have taken several minutes here to sketch some of the unfinished business of the AEC, because I think that its past successes have led some persons to assume the laboratories were about to run out of important work to do. I hope that I have helped to dispel that impression, because I am convinced that the vitality and importance of the work of the AEC and its laboratory programs in the nuclear field have been advancing steadily throughout the last decade. I certainly include here the Brookhaven, Oak Ridge, and Argonne National Laboratories which were specifically mentioned in the report under discussion this morning. As I indicated earlier, the AEC laboratories and particularly these three, now have great interaction with the university community, particularly in the efforts I have described as the search for new scientific knowledge. I would hate to see their role. changed, as may have been implied by the discussion in the report, in any way that would jeopardize their interaction with the universities or that would bypass the important contributions they are mak ing and can make in the years ahead to the nuclear field.

I would like to mention two other challenges of a more purely scientific nature. We are on the threshold of one of the most exciting scientific adventures of our times-the search for what I have called the island of stability, a group of totally new chemical elements far heavier than any we now know and with properties about which we can now only speculate. The second scientific challenge I would like to mention has received more active attention during the past decade, but may be even more far-reaching in its implications. I refer to the search for the fundamental nature of the forces which dominate the laws of matter, the central preoccupation of high energy physics. In the report concerning "Centralization of Federal Science Activities" brief reference is made to transferring the latter search, and, perhaps, by implication the former one, to another agency. The matter is per

haps peripheral to this committee's main concerns but I thought I would mention two thoughts concerning such transfer. Efforts along these lines fall naturally within the region of principal AEC concern, well within the coherent endeavor of which I spoke earlier, and I believe they contribute in an important way to the overall effectiveness of our other efforts.

In addition, a major part of efforts along these lines are closely integrated with the operation of one of our plutonium production plants, the Savanah River plant in South Carolina. I doubt that this sort of transfer would clarify the very real problems in setting priorities for efforts of this type, and perhaps it was suggested only as part of a larger plan that includes an attempt to describe very briefly integration of AEC programs into those of other agencies. I would hate to see programs which are being carried out with the marks of success which these programs have, sapped of their vitality by any too disruptive reorganization.

In many of my remarks this morning I have, by implication, emphasized the important advantages of a highly pluralistic organization of Federal science activities, and, indeed, I see much of the present pluralism as a natural reflection of the many-faceted role of science in Government and the general desirability of tying scientific efforts to meaningful and coherent purposes. I have expressed my continued belief in the AEC as an organization with vitality, coherency, and clarity of purpose. At the same time, I cannot help but be aware, sometimes painfully aware, of the problems which continue to plague us. Our failures in clarifying and communicating the relationship of scientific and technological efforts to the welfare of the individual is one of my major concerns. I recognize the difficulties, in a complex organization, of being sure that workers in one area are fully aware of what workers in related but organizationally distinct areas are doing. I face, as each of you do, the problem of questions of priority among projects of great potential value to our society not all of which can be supported. I feel concern about the instability and inadequacies in the support of academic science and engineering.

Many of these problems, perhaps most of them, are not addressed by the type of reorganization proposed in the report. The present pluralistic framework has many advantages which should be continued. However, it has the disadvantage that comes with the Government appearing to speak, and actually speaking with more than one voice. This unfavorable aspect and the serious problems caused by sudden reductions in financial support must be overcome by the introduction of more rational apparatus at the Federal level. An example is the sort of action we saw this past year, where the National Science Foundation asked the central administration of the universities to impose severe cuts on projects at each campus. Also we need to establish a relationship between Federal support for academic science and the emerging Federal role in the overall support of higher education. I think that increased coordination in this area, perhaps, may well be necessary to help formulate a wise overall response to sharp budgetary changes.