There's another point that I should have mentioned in the first instance. In many research and development contracts where a company is given a big contract to, let's say, develop a large system of some sort, such as a military system, or one for NASA, the system is a culmination of research and development. They have to do a certain amount of at least applied research if it is a very front-running sort of thing.

A good deal of research must be done to back up the engineering of the system itself. The agency would never know how much of the effort that went into, say, the Polaris missile was development, how much was research, where it all went and so forth. It would take, in my opinion, a very involved investigation to find out how much research went to what companies to develop the Polaris missile.

To do that sort of thing would obviously be a lot of work for the Foundation, which we are quite willing to undertake. It would also be a lot of work for the other agencies concerned and it would involve a great deal, if I may use a slang phrase, of getting in the hair of the companies in trying to sort all of this out.

Mr. DADDARIO. I wouldn't want the committee to come to a quick judgment on it, but it is my feeling that we would not, at the moment at least, expect you to go beyond the primes and the first tier of subcontractors and that perhaps at first there would be a lag during which material is being put together in order to establish a formula through which more complete information could be made available.

Dr. HAWORTH. As I say, we are quite happy, by sampling methods, by trial and error and so on, to try to find out what can actually be done.

Mr. DADDARIO. That's very helpful.

Dr. HAWORTH. But, to have it be a legal requirement right now troubles us.

Mr. DADDARIO. Considering the past testimony and that which you have added today let us see how we can come up with some language in the report which will cover the parts which concern you. Dr. HAWORTH. It could well be, Mr. Chairman, that interpretation in your report could take care of what I am concerned about. Mr. DADDARIO. Fine.

Dr. HAWORTH. Incidentally, some of the things I said apply to some of the special cases of nonprofit organizations as well as industry, some of the big ones such as in the aerospace field and so on.

Mr. DADDARIO. Fine. If you will proceed, Doctor.

Dr. HAWORTH. Recognizing the desirability of securing such information but also being fearful that the Foundation might be asked to undertake programs which it could not meaningfully fulfill, I suggest that the phrase "received by each educational institution, nonprofit organization, and private contractor in the United States," be replaced by the phrase "received by each educational institution and appropriate nonprofit organization in the United States."

Needless to say, the Foundation would continue to explore the possibilities of expanding its surveys to more nearly meet the very broad objectives expressed in the present version of the bill.

Section 3(a) (7) would then read as follows:

to initiate and maintain a program for the determination of the total amount of money for scientific research, including money allocated for the construction of the facilities wherein such research is conducted, received by each educational insti

tution and appropriate nonprofit organization in the United States, including its territories and possessions, by grant, contract, or other arrangement from agencies of the Federal Government, and to report annually thereon to the President and the Congress.

Incidentally, Mr. Chairman, the question of what fraction of the funds that go to construct an R. & D. facility should be charged to research and what to development, this obviously is not an easy thing to decide.

Fourth, I welcome the proposed new section 3(b) which would permit the Foundation to support applied research under certain circumstances. The line which divides basic and applied research at institutions of higher education is far from clear. The Foundation, in fulfilling its responsibility to initiate and support basic scientific research and programs to strengthen scientific research potential, must consider the overall development of science, including education, at academic institutions. While the role of applied research enters into consideration in many disciplines, it arises with particular cogency with respect to engineering education at the graduate level. At the present time, engineering education in this country is commencing to swing back from a predominant emphasis on engineering sciences, divorced from the solution of design problems, to a more balanced approach. Many believe that increased emphasis on applied research by engineering graduate students is necessary to develop engineers with greater competence to adapt new scientific knowledge into engineering practice for the welfare of the country.

However, in its support of research, the Foundation has, in my opinion, reached the limit of what can be defined as "basic research," particularly in engineering. Hence, to the extent that engineering schools are dependent upon support from the Foundation for their research activities, the limiting of such support for research to that which is purely basic interferes with the ability of these schools to expand knowledge and to enrich their curriculums.

Not only would the ability to support avowedly applied projects be beneficial, but also in many cases it would make it possible for the Foundation to extend support to an investigator in such a way as to enable him to follow promising leads developed in the course of a basic research project even though this might take him into applications. In this way totally new and fruitful research frontiers in basic science may become evident.

It would, therefore, be a most constructive development, I believe, for the Foundation to have the authority to be more responsive to the needs of the academic community, not only in engineering but in other disciplines as well.

I believe, however, that the proviso contained in section 3(b) that applied research be "relevant to national problems involving the public interest" must be applied to academic research of the type I have just discussed as a generality and not to individual projects. After all, applied research which will help an engineer to acquire the competence to exploit breakthroughs in fundamental knowledge in making practical applications of importance to the country is research relevant "to national problems involving the public interest," in the first instance.

However, the particular applied research which might be supported to best further such education may not, of itself have a direct bearing,

at least an obvious direct bearing upon a particular national problem. Likewise, the applied research growing out of basic research which may, in turn, lead to new basic findings, may not have a direct link at the time to a recognized national problem, even though in the end it may vitally affect a matter of extreme concern to the country. While, therefore, it could be difficult to make a finding that support of such applied research in a particular instance met the statutory test, academic research as a class does, in my opinion, meet the test.

I would, therefore, like to urge that this subsection be altered to make it clear that academic applied research projects as such are authorized without reference to their relation to a particular national problem. This could be done by amending the first sentence of section 3(b) to read as suggested in the commentary which the National Science Board is submitting, namely as follows:

In addition to the authority contained in subsection (a), the Foundation is authorized to initiate and support scientific research, including applied research, at academic and other nonprofit institutions. When so directed by the President, the Foundation is further authorized to support, at other appropriate organizations, applied scientific research relevant to national problems involving the public interest.

Now, this may be simply a matter of interpretation on my part, Mr. Chairman, as to whether the clause "research relevant to problems involving the public interest" would modify the authority to support academic applied research or not, but I believe the suggested language would make it clear that it would not, and I would urge that the sections be fixed so it is clear that it does not so modify for the reasons that I have given.

Mr. DADDARIO. How would the recommendation that you have made affect projects of large natures, such as transportation or pollution which the President might recommend be done by the National Science Foundation?

Dr. HAWORTH. I don't believe that my suggestion changes that at all, Mr. Chairman. It is simply that by putting the idea in two sentences the phrase "relevant to national problems involving the public interest" is uncoupled from the academic support. I left it coupled to the "other institutions", industry in other words, just as you had it.

Mr. DADDARIO. Your suggestion here is to broaden your capability rather than to narrow it down?

Dr. HAWORTH. To broaden what I interpret the bill to say. It may be that it is intended to say what I have said in different words, but I was not certain, whereas the suggested language makes it clear that if an engineering group in a university wants to do some applied research, we wouldn't have to make a finding that this was research on a "national problem."

Mr. DADDARIO. That was in the national interest

Dr. HAWORTH. It is still in the national interest as I have said, but it isn't necessarily a hot national problem.

I go under the assumption that the Foundation endeavors to do, to have sort of everything it does be in the national interest, but in different kinds of ways. It is the question of the problem that is of concern here.

Mr. YEAGER. May I ask one question here, Dr. Haworth?
Dr. HAWORTH. Surely.

Mr. YEAGER. By separating the phrasing this way, you would not construe it to mean that the first part of that sentence would preclude you from supporting research which did involve as you call it, the hot national problem.

Dr. HAWORTH. Certainly not. I just didn't want to limit the research in the academic institutions, which by my interpretation of the present language, it could do.

Mr. YEAGER. I see.

Dr. HAWORTH. I do not believe that, in any sense, I am suggesting a substantively different thing than is intended in the bill. It just to me is clearer, and it may be that I am suggesting going further than you intended, but to me the present wording says that we must make a finding that all projects supported are relevant to national problems. As I have said in the text, research may be relevant to the national interest simply in that it makes better engineers, even though the particular problem may not be something that is a problem we should be in hot pursuit of.

Mr. DADDARIO. Well, we will certainly reflect on it, Dr. Haworth. As you spell it out this morning, it does clarify it. We will look into it carefully and if there is any further question, we will discuss it at a later time.

Dr. HAWORTH. Thank you.

My fifth comment is on proposed section 3(c). As stated in the commentary which the Board is submitting, it seems important that this statement of legislative intent should clearly run to all elements of the Foundation. I am sure you will appreciate that in carrying out his functions, both within the executive branch of the Government and also with respect to the academic community, the Director must of necessity "recommend and encourage the pursuit of national policies for the promotion of basic research and education in the sciences." As it is impossible for the Director of the Foundation to abstain from expressing opinions on these matters, both the Board and I feel that this section should be changed, in some suitable way to provide for this fact. Perhaps the phrase, "and the Director" could be inserted after the word "Board" in the first line of section 3(c). This section would then read as follows:

The Board and the Director shall recommend and encourage the pursuit of national policies for the promotion of basic research and education in the sciences.

Mr. DADDARIO. Dr. Haworth, don't you consider that you are part of the Board as an ex officio member and isn't your participation covered under the language that now exists which says "The Board shall recommend"?

Dr. HAWORTH. I don't believe so, Mr. Chairman, because as a member of the Board I am one of 25 members of the Board and I do not believe we would expect that each and every one of the 25 members of the Board should individually do this sort of thing.

Mr. DADDARIO. In other words, as the Director you have a little more weight than any single member of the Board.

Dr. HAWORTH. But wearing a different hat. I wear two hats. I wear a hat as one of 25 members of the Board, but I also wear a hat as chief executive officer of the Foundation. It is to the second hat that I refer here. In other words, I should not speak on behalf of the Board without the Board's complete endorsement and full discussion, and so forth.

Mr. DADDARIO. Don't you believe that your recommendation here-and I have come to no final judgment about it--but don't you believe that you are moving in the direction where your vote in fact will be equal to the Board? You are on the Board as it stands, and then when you add "and Director", in a sense by yourself you would be in a position to nullify the action of the Board. Aren't you giving additional emphasis to strength on the Director's part which might put things out of balance?

Dr. HAWORTH. I don't believe so. I simply believe that the Board on the one hand, and the Director on the other hand should do this activity in different spheres. For example, Mr. Chairman, as a sort of member of the Federal Council for Science and Technology, I make many recommendations to the Council which I do as the Director for the Foundation, not as a member of the Board of the Foundation. I vote on the Federal Council and so on and so on.

I firmly believe that the Board should be explicity mentioned here. The wording shouldn't simply say the Foundation. It should make it very clear that this is a proper function of the Board, but I think it should also make it clear that it is a proper function of the Director. The present act says the Foundation. But says in effect that the nonspecified powers of the Foundation are held by the Board. This bill says that the residual functions shall be held by the Director. And, my interpretation of saying Board here is saying this is one of the functions of the Board. And, I believe, it should be. They should be stated separately here. The bill should not simply say the Foundation since, because of the residual powers section, that would imply that the Director would do this rather than the Board, and I believe that would be wrong.

Mr. DADDARIO. You do not believe then that when the Director became a voting member of the Board, changing his prior position of just being a member of the Board without a voting privilege, his hand was sufficiently strengthened within the Board so as to meet your objection, or do you believe that you must move further toward strength.

Dr. HAWORTH. Remember, Mr. Chairman, we are talking here only about recommendations. We are not talking about authority. Mr. DADDARIO. Yes.

Dr. HAWORTH. Or things of that sort. There are many instances in which things come along on the Monday after the Board met on Friday, and the Director in his capacity as the chief executive officer has to make recommendations to Dr. Hornig or the Bureau of the Budget or appear before a congressional committee or whatever it might be. But, he is then wearing his hat as the Director and not as one of the 25 members of the Board.

Mr. DADDARIO. Well, I think we have touched on that enough.

Dr. HAWORTH. I want it to be clear, Mr. Chairman, I am not suggesting that the Director would be expected to make any recommendations contrary to any of the policies or anything of that sort of the Board.

Mr. DADDARIO. We will take your recommendations in the light that you have given them and we will give them consideration in view of the experience that you have had.

62-309-66