Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

In a message to Congress of September 6, 1945, President Truman urged that Congress adopt legislation for the establishment of a single Federal research agency, but he said nothing concerning the form such an agency should take other than that it discharge certain functions which he listed.

During October and early November 1945, joint hearings were held on both the Magnuson and the Kilgore bills by the Subcommittee on War Mobilization of the Senate Committee on Military Affairs. Since introduction, Senator Kilgore's bill had been revised to incorporate the major provisions recommended in the President's message, in Dr. Bush's report, and in previously published reports of the subcommittee. Approximately 100 witnesses gave testimony with advocates for both sides. An analytical summary of testimony was prepared by the Subcommittee in December 1945, which included a section on the administrative organization of the proposed Foundation, and presented in condensed form and by categories, the views of the witnesses on this subject.

S. 1720, a new version of S. 1297, was introduced in December 1945; in February 1946, S. 1850, a compromise version of S. 1720 was introduced. S. 1850, providing for an Administrator and an Advisory Board, passed the Senate on July 3, 1946. No further action was taken on the bill.

In October 1946, President Truman appointed John R. Steelman Chairman of a President's Scientific Research Board to make a study of Federal research programs, of non-Federal research and development and training facilities, and of the interrelation of Federal and non-Federal research and development.

The legislative history of S. 526, the bill which finally passed both Houses of Congress on July 22, 1947, and which was pocket vetoed by President Truman, is very complicated. Introduced by Senator Alexander Smith, in February 1947, the bill originally provided for a 24-member Board, which would elect a 9-member executive committee to exercise the powers and duties of the Foundation, including appointment of the Director and prescribing his powers and duties. During consideration of the bill on the floor of the Senate, Senator Kilgore attempted to amend the bill so that the Foundation would be headed by an Administrator with a nine-member Advisory Board. Senator Kilgore's amendment was rejected by a vote of 52 to 23, with 20 members not voting. Then Senator Magnuson proposed an amendment to the bill which would provide for the Director to be appointed by the President instead of the Executive Committee. The amendment was proposed in an attempt to meet administration and presidential objections, and was passed by a vote of 42 to 41 with 12 members not voting. The bill passed the Senate on May 20, 1947.

A similar bill, H.R. 4102, was introduced in the House on July 7, 1947, and was considered and passed by the House on July 16; immediately thereafter a motion was made to strike out everything after the enacting clause and insert the text of S. 526. The motion was agreed to by the House and the bill was sent to conference. In conference, the administrative organization of S. 526 was accepted. Both Houses approved the report on July 22 and the bill was sent to the President and subsequently vetoed.

On August 27, 1947, Mr. Steelman presented his report to the President, entitled "Science and Public Policy" in which he expressed agreement with President Truman's view that "the role to be played by a representative group of scientists in the administration of the National Science Foundation is more appropriately one of an advisory nature rather than of full responsibility.'" Mr. Steelman recommended that the National Science Foundation "should be headed by a Director appointed by the President and assisted by a part-time Advisory Board of distinguished scientists and educators similarly appointed."

Legislative action continued in 1948 with the introduction of S. 2385 by Senator Smith and H.R. 6007, by Mr. Wolverton, originally identical bills. S. 2385 passed the Senate May 5. Both bills were considered in committee and in brief hearings on June 1, and H.R. 6007, with changes, was reported on June 4. No further action was taken in 1948. The administrative provisions of S. 2385 differed from S. 526, which the President had vetoed, by providing that the Director would be appointed by the President instead of the Foundation, and would be responsible to both, and by elimination of the provision for an Executive Committee elected by the Foundation to supervise its programs, although the Foundation could appoint one to advise the Director.

A dozen bills to create a National Science Foundation were introduced in 1949. Except for H.R. 359, which provided for an Administrator and an Advisory Board, all the other bills were roughly identical in providing for a National Science Board of 24 members to be appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, and for a Director as chief executive officer, also appointed by the

President with Senate consultation and approval. The House Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee held hearings (National Science Foundation) on March 31, April 1, 4, 5, and 26, 1949. The following excerpts pertaining to Foundation administrative organization were taken from the 23 statements and approximately 40 briefs, letters, reports, etc., submitted for the record from Government agencies, scientific and educational organizations, and interested individuals.

STATEMENTS IN FAVOR OF A STRONG NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD

J. C. Hunsaker, Chairman, National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics:

[blocks in formation]

"Sound American business principles recognize the effectiveness of a board of directors guiding the policies and operations of an organization through officers who are subject to the board. An organization, similar to this is proposed in all of the bills except H.R. 359, which would place the whole authority in an Administrator with a Board which would be merely advisory to him. It is believed that highly qualified men who can best guide the destinies of a National Science Foundation would be reluctant to serve under an Administrator who would be free to act without regard to their considered judgment. For this reason, the NACA suggests that the form of organization proposed in H.R. 359 is less desirable than that proposed in the other bills."

[blocks in formation]

Karl T. Compton, Chairman, Research and Development Board, National Military Establishment:

[blocks in formation]

"The bills before your committee fall into two principal groups (those identical with H.R. 6007 and those identical with S. 2385, both of previous session) * * *. Both are entirely satisfactory to us, and they meet the specifications for a suitable form of National Science Foundation which were accepted by all but a few of those interested in this legislation. Moreover, I believe that both groups of bills provide a generally acceptable resolution of all of the controversies which have arisen in the past.

"Specifically, they provide for an independent agency in which the wisdom and experience of a rather broad cross section of the leaders of science, industry, and public affairs will be brought to bear on the highly complicated technical problems which the Foundation will be called upon to solve. At the same time, they provide for efficient administration by a well-paid Director who will be subject to proper controls within the executive branch of the Government. ***

"H.R. 359 stands apart from the two groups of bills above discussed. In general, it contains the provisions which gave rise to the major issues the resolution of which has been accomplished by both of the groups of bills now before your committee ***""

TESTIMONY OF DR. KARL T. COMPTON

*

"Mr. O'HARA. *** Let me ask you first, should the Foundation run the show or should the Director run the show?

"Secondly, to what extent would be the effect of the Foundation or the Director, whichever directs, upon the scientists of the country having in mind the necessity of their wholehearted cooperation in doing these many things which are contemplated in such a bill?

"Dr. COMPTON. *** I believe the Foundation should run the show as far as basic policies and scientific objectives are concerned, the Director being an executive officer to carry out those policies but having one additional function which I think is important, having the veto power over any action which is contrary to Government administrative policy. In that sense he would safeguard the executive branch of the Government.

"There are many scientists, I think I can almost say a majority of scientists and maybe a very large majority, who are very much worried about this science foundation bill, for fear that it may be straitjacket science, or that it may be misused. Perhaps I shouldn't say this, but they are afraid it would get into politics. It has been pretty free of that. I think they have enough faith in the way in which things have been handled during the war that that will not happen and their faith will be supported by the fact of having this large board of men who presumably will be distinguished scientists and men of public affairs.

Any Director of the Foundation I think would find himself in a very difficult position if he acted in such manner as to bring about a condemnation by that Board of 24 men. So I think the scientists feel that this large Board appointed by the President after consideration of recommendations of such scientific agencies and other public groups as wish to make recommendations for personnel, they would have a good assurance against the things that they fear, and if those things that they fear continue to be protected against, then I think they are all for this bill. ***"

Charles F. Brannan, Secretary, Department of Agriculture:

[blocks in formation]

"[Expressed support for principles of H.R. 12 and other similar bills] ** * The form of organization proposed in H.R. 359 differs quite materially from that proposed in the other bills referred to. Under this bill, the National Science Foundation would be an independent agency of the Federal Government consisting of an administrative organization headed by an Administrator and operating in much the same manner as other Government departments and agencies. The Administrator would consult and advise with a National Science Board of nine members plus the chairmen of several divisional scientific committees.

"In view of the fact that the duties of the Foundation largely relate to the determination of grants and contracts for research and the awarding of scholarships and fellowships, it is suggested that the form of organization provided in the five bills previously referred to would be better adapted to the type of Foundation provided for in this legislation. A Foundation of 24 members (as proposed in the other bills) can appropriately be given the responsibility of taking into consideration the wide variety of factors required in the allotment of grants and the awarding of fellowships, and advising the Director according."

[blocks in formation]

"Generally speaking, H.R. 12 appears to provide a workable basis for the establishment and operation of a National Science Foundation. However, I am somewhat disturbed by certain structural rigidities imposed upon the Foundation by the provisions of the bill. I refer to (1) the mandatory provision of an executive committee in section 5, * * *. I believe that the purposes of the Foundation would be better served by substituting in each of these instances permissive language which would serve to guide the members of the Foundation in approaching the problem of organization, while recognizing the essential need for flexibility in a major undertaking of this nature where organization must be readily adjusted to the changing frontiers of scientific research***.”

George E. Folk, adviser to the Committee on Patents and Research, National Association of Manufacturers:

"The NAM favors the provision of paragraph (b) of section 6 of group 1 bills which paragraph reads as follows:

(b) The Director shall, in accordance with such directives as the Executive Committee shall from time to time prescribe, exercise the powers set forth in this Act within the policies developed by the Foundation: Provided, That the authority granted to the Foundation by paragraph (c) of section 11 shall be exercised by the Director with the approval of the Executive Committee.'

"In canceling out the above paragraph (b), the specification of the powers of the Director has been left out of group 2 bills. This is, in the opinion of the NAM, a serious omission. As a result of this omission, there is no adequate check on the Director. It appears as if, in effect, this omission tends to make the Director a one-man Foundation with the members of the Foundation serving only in an advisory capacity. The NAM believes that the concentration of authority in one man is unsound."

[blocks in formation]

Charles E. MacQuigg, dean, College of Engineering, and director, Engineering Experiment Station, Ohio State University:

[blocks in formation]

"***Throughout the history of this type of legislation over the past decade or more, the chief final matters of controversy have come down to (a) the organi

zation of the Foundation and (b) the patent question. It has been thought generally by persons speaking for the sciences involved, that the major administrative responsibilities, such as nomination of the Director, would best be in the hands of the Board on the score that such a scheme would most nearly eliminate the possibility of partisan criticism."

[blocks in formation]

Dr. Dael Wolfle, secretary of Intersociety Committee for the National Science Foundation:

[blocks in formation]

"With regard to the administrative structure, we have a slight preference for S. 247 over H. R. 12 or the similar House bills. The Senate bill does not require a specific committee organization as is required in most of the House bills. It is extremely unlikely that the Foundation would try to operate without an executive committee. The appointment of such a committee is therefore almost as likely under S. 247 as it is under the House bills. But other committees may also be necessary. Time may change the Foundation's requirements. Since fairly general agreement has now been reached upon a Foundation consisting of 24 experts, we believe that they should be given as great freedom as possible to arrange the details of their own internal organization and to change those details from time to time as changing conditions may warrant.

"With regard to the Director of the Foundation, we support the manner of appointment described in section 6(a) of H.R. 12. We strongly recommend the retention of section 6(b) of H.R. 12, which specifies the duties of the Director. This statement of his duties and authority seems much preferable to the silence of S. 247 on the question of the authority of the Director."

[blocks in formation]

Vannevar Bush, Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington, D.C.:

"I am gratified to see that six of the bills before your committee show general agreement as to the essential nature of the National Science Foundation. The record of past hearings show that these bills meet with the general approval of the vast bulk of scientists, educators, and industrial and Government officials. Among the bills before you, again excluding from consideration H.R. 359, there are divergences but these appear to me to be of minor importance. ***" S. 247, as amended, was approved by the President on May 10, 1950, becoming Public Law 507, the National Science Foundation Act of 1950. In a statement at the signing of the bill, President Truman expressed approval of the bill and gratification to Congress for resolving the differences and clearing the way to passage. Dael Wolfle discussed the administrative structure in his August 1957 review article on the first 6 years of the Foundation ("National Science Foundation: The First 6 Years." Science, vol. 126, Aug. 23, 1957, pp. 335-342). He stated that the issue of the Board-Director relationship was "more vigorously debated than any other aspect of the Foundation idea. Yet once the bill became law, the argument quickly died." He cited the impossibility of knowing how well an alternative arrangement would have worked, and quoted Board Chairman Chester Bernard's opinion as stated in the Foundation's fifth annual report: "During the 5 years of its work, this peculiar organization, depending upon cooperation between the Board and the Director, has worked exceedingly well."

In 1958 the organization of the Board came under consideration both through a self-examination and during hearings on amending legislation which the Foundation sponsored. Dr. Waterman discussed the internal review in the introductory statement to the reissuance of Dr. Bush's report, "Science: the Endless Frontier," in 1960:

"In 1958 the Board, through an ad hoc committee appointed for this purpose, reviewed the working relationship of the Director and the Board in the light of experience and noted that this relationship has been harmonious and constructive largely as a result of the excellent cooperation on the part of both. The Board noted further that each year of successful operation, built on a clear understanding on the part of each Board member of his proper function, and upon wise statesmanship on the part of the Director and his associates gives assurance of continued success. The Board further observed that as each year passes a body of precedents

for sound administrative procedures is being built up that may ultimately become an unwritten constitution which will prevail.”

The Board's findings are understood to be contained in a Board report, "Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Relationship Between the Board and the Director," of December 1, 1958-the Middlebush report.

Nevertheless, despite Dr. Waterman's favorable summary of the Board's findings, the need for certain changes was revealed in legislation introduced in 1958 at the Foundation's request, which in addition to shifting the anniversary of Board members' terms, sought to allow the Board to delegate to the Director certain of its powers and duties. Another proposed section provided for changes in the size and authority of the executive committee. Hearings were held on the bill, H.R. 11257, and on other bills affecting Foundation activity on May 13-16, and July 24, 1958, by the House Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee. Only Dr. Waterman and Dr. Bronk, Board chairman, gave testimony on this bill. In consideration of the bill on the floor on August 20, 1958, the House approved a motion to substitute the provisions of a similar bill, S. 3268, which the Senate had passed earlier. No further action was taken during the 85th Congress.

Similar legislation, H.R. 8284, was introduced in 1959 and the House Committee on Science and Astronautics held 3 days of hearings in July 1959.

Foundation analysis of the changes requested was contained in a statement submitted during the hearings which is excerpted below:

***The changes proposed for section 5(b), section 6(a), and section 6(b) of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950 are related. At the present time, the Board must approve the award of each fellowship and each grant or contract for basic research. This rigid requirement has at times posed serious problems for efficient operation. For example, when grants were being made for supplies for the scientific expedition to Antarctica in connection with the International Geophysical Year, time was of the essence. The lack of a Board meeting at which a contract or grant could be approved at the proper moment was an obstacle to assuring the timely dispatch, and therefore arrival, of equipment for the scientists. Under the proposed changes, it is contemplated that the Board might delegate specific authority to its executive committee or to the Director to approve grants or contracts in certain situations. In addition, delegations of authority to the Director could be made by the executive committee as well as by the full Board. The change in the required size of the executive committee is suggested for the purpose of giving the Board authority to constitute a smaller executive committee, if that would appear desirable, which could more easily be assembled for emergency action. The Board would still retain complete power in any given case to exercise or delegate its authority to approve grants or contracts. ***" The authority the Foundation sought was granted through enactment of the bill, which became Public Law 89-232, approved September 10, 1959.

The most recent changes in the evolution of the Board occurred under Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1962. Most of this story is so well known that it seems unnecessary to review this change in detail. Some interesting background information not previously made public was given by Board Chairman Dr. Walker in his written response to questions following his appearance before your subcommittee at the 1965 hearings. Excerpts from his remarks may serve to conclude this somewhat abbreviated review of the Board's evolution:

*

*

*

*

*

"The Board spent a great deal of time in 1961 and 1962 discussing how well this [Board-Director] relationship had worked. Dr. Baker, as chairman of an ad hoc Committee on the Organization of Government for Science and Technology, produced a report on the matter which said in essence that continued successful operation was possible.

"On March 15, 1962, the Board was informed that a reorganization plan was being written for submission to the Congress 'which will among other things create an Office of Science and Technology in the Executive Office of the President. This act was expected to do several things. It would transfer the evaluation function (of the Board) to the new Office and the authority to develop and encourage a national policy for basic research and education in the sciences. Other changes would make the Director a voting member of the Board, and have the divisional committees report to the Director rather than jointly to the Director and the Board.' There were other proposals which were intended to reduce the size of the Board and to change the term of the Director. All of these proposals were discussed. Some of which met with approval and others with strong disapproval.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »