« iepriekšējāTurpināt »
Mr. DADDARIO. I can see no conflict between our objectives and that suggestion, Mr. Vivian. What we are doing here is getting the benefit of NSF's 15 years' experience. We have a good understanding of what has developed and the recommendations, which have been made, are in keeping with the progress of the Foundation as it has grown. It seems to me that we have reached the point by recognizing what the activities of the Board have been, giving substance to its position by our recommendations and also have seen to it that the Director have the ability to perform better leadership position in the Foundation and by making a bigger impression as the Director on the agencies with which he deals from time to time.
I think this will all work itself out and we can analyze it in committee and see to it that as we do come up with a report on the bill that we emphasize the elements of concern which have been shown, not only within the committee, but within the scientific community.
Any further questions?
This committee will adjourn to a time and place to be determined by the Chair.
(Whereupon, at 12 o'clock noon, the subcommittee adjourned.) RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD SUBMITTED TO
DR. FREDERICK SEITZ, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE
Question 1. You express concern in your prepared statement that the Foundation might, in time, become too involved with applied research to the detriment of basic research. Would it be advisable, in your opinion, to require the Foundation to include in its annual report to the President and the Congress (as required by sec. 3(e) of the bill) information about the type of applied research it has supported and the amount of funds it has expended on such research in order that it would serve to highlight any imbalance which might develop between basic and applied research?
Answer. If the National Science Foundation became involved in a large amount of mission-oriented applied research, the attention and funds given to such work could quite easily have the effect of starving the basic work for which the Foundation has a unique responsibility among the Federal agencies. I believe it would be highly desirable to have the National Science Foundation include a special section on this topic in its annual report, pointing out the type of work in applied research it supports and the magnitude of the Foundation's budget devoted to it.
Exception might be made for work in applied research in the departments of engineering of the universities in cases in which the magnitude of the individual programs is about the same as individual programs for independent investigators in the science departments. Where such work is clearly tied to the educational process, and is in the range of, say, $50,000 to $150,000 per investigator, it need not be handled in a way distinctly different from the work of independent scientists.
Question 2. To what extent is funding for "little science” in danger from the funding of “big science” basic research? How does this possible danger compare with the often-voiced fears that applied research would drive out basic research?
Answer. Big and little science are both essential for the healthy evolution of scientific knowledge. Many fields of investigation exclusively involve small programs, but many others eventually grow to a state in which it becomes necessary to have large and expensive equipment in order to advance. This is true for example in space science, earth science, and high-energy particle physics. It is highly important that there be some reasonable balance between the two types of work. Big science tends to strike the public fancy because of the dramatic quality of the large equipment and the fact that one usually has such equipment located at one or more specific centers that can be identified geographically. As long as the funds available for scientific research are less than is needed to support all good programs that are proposed, as will undoubtedly be the case indefinitely in the future, it is essential that small science be protected to some degree from the demands of big science.
STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAS SOCIETY FOR EXGINEERING
The American Society for Engineering Education has considered the report of the Subcommittee on Science, Research, and Development entitled “The Vational Science Foundation-Its Present and Future," and commends the subcommittee, chaired by Representative Emilio Q. Daddario, for the thoroughness of its review and its perception of the accomplishments and problems of the National Science Foundation. Since the inception of the National Science Foundation, the American Society for Engineering Education has recognized the special role of the Foundation in supporting engineering education at all levels through improvement of facilities and curriculums, and through the encouragement and funding of graduate students and engineering research. The Foundation has an almost unlimited potential for the advancement of the science of engineering.
The favorable comments concerning the accomplishments of the Foundation, as presented in the testimony to the subcommittee, are noted, and in them the ASEE concurs. The society notes with special interest the attention given in the report to the need for strengthening and enlarging the role of the National Science Foundation that it may assume a more positive, dynamic stance. Full exploration of the ways in which the efforts of the National Science Foundation may be vitalized should be undertaken.
The influence of the National Science Foundation upon the development of engineering education is critical Engineering education has undergone drastic changes in the past decade and further changes in the immediate future are inevitable in order to prepare the engineering graduate to assume responsibilities beyond those inherent in a narrow technical specialty. Not only are interactions among the various areas of engineering increasing, but broad interdisciplinary activities among engineering and the biological and social sciences are developirg rapidly. The National Science Foundation is in a key position to stimulate apai foster such activities. In order to assist in the active implementation of broad developments of this character, increased engineering representation on the National Science Board is mandatory, as is adequate funding of engineering research to permit the full exploration of interdisciplinary potentials.
An unprecedented momentum in research has been developed in the engineering and science colleges of the country, and ways and means must be provided to make it possible for the National Science Foundation to assume a positive and powerful "balance wheel" role in the coordination of the development of the sciences, including engineering, without putting the Foundation in the position of exercising undue and restrictive control over all such developments as a line organization.
The American Society for Engineering Education, representing engineering education both through its institutional membership and its individual members, will be glad to cooperate with the Committee on Science and Astronautics and with the Subcommittee on Science, Research, and Development in providing pertinent data relative to the interactions between the National Science Foundation and engineering education.
GEORGE D. LOBINGIER, President, American Society for Engineering Education, APRIL 18, 1966.
STATEMENT OF THE ENGINEERS JOINT COUNCIL
The Engineers Joint Council has been considering a series of complex national issues involving technology, including these relating to pollution, transportation, urban development, and international assistance. In the light of these considered studies, we have read with particular interest both the recent report on the National Science Foundation, Its Present and Future prepared by the Subcommittee on Science, Research, and Development, which you chair and also the proposed bill, H.R. 13696, which is based on the subcommittee report.
Engineering has benefited enormously from support given by the National Science Foundation to basic science because presently it is principally from the findings of basic science that engineering derives new principles which, in turn, has made possible the development of new technology. However, there are problems with respect to the role of the National Science Foundation in the direct support of the development of engineering technology which have not been resolved adequately. Those responsible for allocating resources in the National Science Foundation have been constrained by present legislation which does not provide for the support of applied science activities through which engineering technology is developed. Many mission-oriented agencies of the Government are able to support applied research, but the National Science Foundation has a charter relating solely to science and science education.
The proposed legislation in H.R. 13696 authorizes National Science Foundation support of applied research and should lead to some National Science Foundation funding of programs for engineering. We believe this authorization for applied research in H.R. 13696 is essential in order that the National Science Foundation can continue to play its important and dynamic role in the creation of a national base for science and technology.
Many of the great national issues of the day, such as urban development, transportation, and pollution, fall within the purview of one or more of the missionoriented agencies, but in many instances these agencies do not have a tradition of research. In the field of urban development, there has been essentially no research. In the field of transportation, with the exception of vehicular support by the Department of Defense and certain research connected with the national highway and airway systems, there has been a very limited amount of support provided by the Federal Government in comparison with its enormous responsibilities. The same is true with respect to virtually all aspects of the pollution problem. As the testimony before your subcommittee made clear, there are curr
irrently no profit incentives which attract risk capital to the support of large research and development programs in these fields. Accordingly, industry is not stimulated to apply engineering talents to the new work that needs to be done on these complex public problems. It would seem that a new form of partnership needs to be evolved between engineering and public bodies.
We believe that with authorization to fund applied research, the National Science Foundation can serve as the Government's agency to anticipate national needs and to build research and development programs to cope with these needs. These programs eventually could be transferred to mission agencies of the Government as their recognition of the appropriateness of research and application in these fields becomes reflected in suitable appropriations. Such an approach would have many aspects in common with the establishment several years ago of the Advanced Research Projects Agency in the Department of Defense. We understand that this agency nurtures new technology and concepts until the military departments can take over their exploitation.
While the engineering community is deeply concerned with the need for solving the more urgent national problems that require a huge technical effort in addition to the social, political, and financial considerations involved, we find it difficult to locate coherent and unified approaches to the long-range aspects of these problems within the Federal Government. Under H.R. 13696, the National Science Foundation could assume this responsibility. While we recognize that there are certain risks in the assumption by the National Science Foundation of
such an applied research mission in addition to its major mission in support of the Nation's scientific competence, we believe that the National Science Foundation should assume the responsibility of facing these national problems as permitted under H.R. 13696.
CLARENCE H. LINDER, President,
New York, N.Y., APRIL 25, 1966.
STATEMENT OF THE SECRETARY, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
COMMITTEE, CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES, WASHINGTON, D.C.
The Chamber of Commerce of the United States supports the objectives of legislation to reorganize the National Science Foundation, as a means of providing for more effective management of national research programs. We recognize that Federal financing of scientific and technological research has contributed significantly to the Nation's defense effort and to its economic growth and industrial development.
There has been concern, however, with the manner in which Federal financing programs have expanded, not only in dollar amounts, but also in relation to privately financed research and development. Federal funds have become a major portion of total spending for research, rising much faster than industrial research spending. Although a temporary plateau may have been reached on the Federal side, further increases are likely. A better sense of direction for Federal programs would reduce unwarranted emphasis on certain areas of research and make way for new areas.
There has also been concern with the various channels through which Federal research funds are allocated, largely without planned coordination among the agencies involved. Thus, those agencies with authority to spend large sumsNASA, AEC, NSF, and DOD particularly-have followed different guidelines. Congressional intent has not been invaryingly clear, and the review procedures, likewise, have varied from agency to agency.
National chamber studies relating to the responsibility for scientific research and development indicate that a suitable level of Federal support must be provided, and that such support should be decided on the basis of selected program objectives. The reorganization of the National Science Foundation, along lines proposed in H.R. 13696, would help the Federal Government to more effectively determine both the level and the direction of the Federal research effort.
The NSF needs greater authority for assessing research needs, for defining Federal policy with respect to meeting those needs, and for coordinating such Federal programs as Congress may authorize and fund.
New authority for the National Science Board, as proposed in H.R. 13696, would more adequately centralize the research advisory functions without tending to centralize either financial control or policymaking.
Broad and authoritative representation on this Board is vital to a balanced research effort. In this regard, we recommend that section 4(c) be amended to specify representation on the National Science Board of persons eminent in the field of research management, that is, businessmen with outstanding ability in devising and directing industrial research programs. We recommend inserting the words “research management” following the word “education" in line 21, page 5, of H.R. 13696.
On several occasions, in recommendations to congressional committees, the national chamber has indicated that the funding of scientific research by Government should be based on criteria which will provide for more efficiency in government, better value for each research dollar, and fuller recognition of the capabilities of private and university research. We are hopeful that reorganization of the National Science Foundation, such as proposed in H.R. 13696, will help to redirect Federal research pr ams toward these objectives.
DONALD W. VAN TUYL,
Chamber of Commerce of the United States. May 9, 1966.