APPENDIX E COMMUNICATIONS UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA, SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING AND APPLIED SCIENCE, Hon. EMILIO Q. DADDARIO, DEAR MR. DADDARIO: I have read the report of your subcommittee on the National Science Foundation and should like to offer one or two comments. The committee has done a very thorough job of analyzing the National Science Foundation and pointing out its strengths and weaknesses and has presented many worthwhile recommendations for its further improvement. I am disappointed, however, to find little to indicate that the attitude of the Foundation toward engineering will be changed. As I understand the original charter of the Foundation, it was restricted to basic research, and this has been rather strictly interpreted, so that much very valuable engineering research has been ruled ineligible for sponsorship by the National Science Foundation. Without engineering, science would be quite sterile, as the findings of the pure scientists must be applied by the engineers and the applied scientists. Thus I believe the more applied research of the engineers is as important as the very basic research of the pure scientists. The strict interpretation of basic research has tended to encourage a trend which developed in engineering schools in recent years of putting greater emphasis on basic or purely scientific type of research than on more applied engineering aspects of many problems facing us in our technological development. While certain of this research should be done in engineering schools, this trend toward the scientific aspects has been at the expense of research and graduate student training in applied science and engineering. This situation should be brought into better balance. I hope that, in considering modifications to the laws under which the National Science Foundation operates, it can be made clear that engineering is an important part of our total science technology spectrum, and that support of applied research in this field is a proper function of the National Science Foundation. Sincerely yours, LAWRENCE R. QUARLES, Dean. THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO, SCHOOL OF MEDICINE, Representative EMILIO Q. DADDARIO, DEAR SIR: I have just read your article in Science concerning the proposed legislation affecting the National Science Foundation. In addition, I have studied a copy of your bill. Although I am in great sympathy with many of the things which you and your committee are trying to do, there is one area about which I have some reservations. As a scientist and as a member of one of NSF's advisory panels, I feel I must voice this reservation. Moreover, to make it clear that I am not involved in grinding a personal ax, I should like to point out that none of the grants which I have received have come from the National Science Foundation. My main concern is with the treatment of the basic science mission of NSF. I thoroughly agree that NSF should have a role in pointing out attacks on applied problems and should have a voice in the solution of these problems. Where I disagree is that funding of projects concerned with their solution should come from the National Science Foundation. I believe it would be more appropriate if NSF were to gather information and to provide this information for other governmental agencies directly concerned with the solution of the problem being studied. For example, information on problems of water resources could well be gathered by NSF and relayed to the Department of the Interior or other governmental agencies. The role of NSF in support of basic science has been unique and a credit to this country. It has pointed out that basic science is important. Furthermore, it has been of value to the scientific community to know that unusual or unorthodox projects will get a fair evaluation by NSF, uncomplicated by competition for funds for applied projects. If the mandate of NSF were changed such as to allow it to directly support applied projects, one could predict that it is only a matter of time before its mission would be primarily in applied fields. Let me state that I do not believe this is your intent or the intent of your committee, but the danger must be recognized that future legislatures will not always have the wisdom in this matter as shown by this Congress. It is for these reasons that I am concerned. Hon. EMILIO Q. DADDARIO, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. SIDNEY SOLOMON, Ph. D., CORNELL UNIVERSITY, DEAR CONGRESSMAN DADDARIO: I have just been reading your article in the April 1 Science discussing your new bill to revise NSF. This, plus your talk to the chemists a few weeks back, leads me to make a few comments. I particularly want to speak to the objectives of your bill, to the role of PSAC in the total Federal operation, and to some implications of the second point. The purposes which you list for new legislation seem to me entirely in order and excellent. I particularly think that the Office of the Director does need strengthening and salute the proposals which you make for this. I also believe that the Foundation will be strengthened by some reorganization. Finally, I think that an operation which explicitly charges the NSF with a greater evaluation responsibility and a greater "balance wheel" role in the overall support of science is thoroughly desirable. As you know from previous discussion, I have some reservations about the role of the NSF in directing applied research. On the other hand I do find your analysis of your intent in the Science article enlightening and reassuring. I shall follow with interest the progress of your bill. Let me turn to the question of the role of PSAC in the overall Federal operation. I agree with you that more explicit data gathering and analysis as well as reporting by NSF would in fact be a real help both to PSAC and perhaps more importantly, to OST. Whether the consequence of this would be to permit PSAC "to concentrate on specific important practical missions" is a somewhat different point, however. When I look back over some of the more important studies which PSAC has made in recent years, in almost every case there was at least one Federal agency explicitly charged to do some of the analyses which PSAC groups made. The general character of a successful PSAC study has, however, been to take the more objective, occasionally somewhat longer view which a group somewhat outside of the Government can do and which is particularly hard for an operating agency to do. Let me give you only one example: When, with PSAC's strong support, the Defense Department reorganized its research operations and established a strong Office of Defense Research and Engineering, PSAC, itself, assumed that one consequence would be that it could get out of the defense science business. This has not turned out to be true. PSAC has, in fact, gone back in almost to the same degree that it was in before Herb York or Harold Brown took over. The reason, I am persuaded, is because the total system does need the somewhat distant, objective and often more critical kind of analysis which the PSAC groups can give, at least partly because they are not so committed to the day-to-day operations. I think that the need for this kind of thing will continue and will not be diminished by more analyses by NSF. I do agree that the NSF work will make PSAC more effective, not less so. The important thing which characterizes PSAC is that it is a group of able scientists chosen with careful consideration of their ability to do the kinds of things which PSAC attempts. A second characteristic is the PSAC is a very hard working group. The people on it are part time, true, but almost as part of the invitation to join PSAC it is pointed out that service to the extent of several days a month is indicated. Personally I know that my average service to PSAC is larger than 4 days a month, often going to 5 and 6. The combination of hard work plus vigorous utilization of people from beyond PSAC for panels has led to the relatively large volume of work which they have put out. As just one example, my PSAC Panel on Space Technology met as a full panel 14 times in less than a year and, in addition, met on several occasions as subpanels. All of this, I think, bears strongly on the question of the effectiveness of the Board of NSF. It is probably essential for such a Board to end up with a somewhat involved set of criteria for choosing members. This certainly has strengths as far as giving national representation. It also offers weaknesses in that one is considerably less sure of getting people who are really prepared and willing to work. For this reason, I am somewhat doubtful whether the Board will, in fact, be made into a substantially more significant body. This is, of course, an excellent reason to support one of your principal recommendations, that the Office of the Director be both strengthened and given greater authority. All in all, the Science article was a lucid discussion of an important topic. I enjoyed it. Sincerely yours, F. A. LONG, WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY, COLLEGE OF LIBERAL ARTS, DEAR MR. DADDARIO: I have just finished reading, with great satisfaction, your article in Science (Apr. 1, 1966) on the rationale of H.R. 13696. While there may be a few scientists who will not endorse the proposed changes in the structure and functions of the National Science Foundation, I believe that the scientific community as a whole will support them enthusiastically. Many of us have felt for some time that the Foundation was too passive in its orientation toward the trends of research in many fields. I do not think that we would want the Foundation to set up extensive laboratories and do what NIH calls in-house research; but it does seem possible that NSF could locate gaps in major fields of research and actively solicit proposals from persons known to be competent in the area. This is obviously open to the criticism of "Government direction of research" but it need not extend to Government control of methodology or of personnel. I suspect, indeed, that a few wisely selected staff people could trigger latent research ideas of many young scientists who would truly not be doing what they had been told, but would be doing what they devised for themselves with a little judicious stimulation. I felt that you used a phrase which may be misinterpreted in proposing to "make NSF more sensitive to the changing winds of our national scientific climate," because it seems to me that your proposal really implies that NSF should start these winds blowing. The task of NSF would, so to speak, be to locate a low-pressure center and give it a push to start it spinning. It would be most unfortunate if scientists got the idea that you meant that research should be planned in accordance with some kind of opinion poll, even of Government science advisers. On the other hand, of course, it would be highly appropriate that NSF consult with the National Academy of Sciences, the National Research Council, and the boards of the various scientific societies to gather ideas for exploitation. You mention two points very dear to my heart. One is that more effort go into social sciences, and the other calls for an international orientation. May I be specific with respect to a kind of problem in which basic research is badly needed, and could serve practical as well as scientific purposes? At a recent meeting of the National Research Council we discussed the problem of great gaps in our knowledge of how people may be persuaded to change their food habits. It is reported, for example, that our wheat spoils in some areas of India because the local population is accustomed only to rice. But our knowledge of what factors block such change, and of the variables which might be manipulated by the Indian Government to solve this problem, is deplorably limited. There are important areas of human behavior in which both practical and ethical considerations prevent sound research in the United States. We would obviously be hard put to find any justification for such research on food habits here (some work was done in World War II but was never pursued afterward), and we would be open to criticism for indefensibly interfering in people's private lives if we did experiment on methods of persuasion. Yet in India we have both ethical and practical justification for such research, as indeed we do in Peru and in other underdeveloped areas. Finally, much will depend on the Director of the Foundation. The person in this role must accept the idea of actively mingling with people of OST and PSAC, as of course with the National Academy and the National Research Council. He must really believe in the policy of energetically striving to influence the course of events, rather than sitting quietly and wait for a bright idea to flit within reach of his desk. He must be reasonably conversant with the behavioral sciences as well as the natural sciences, although obviously no one is going to be competent in all areas of our monstrously proliferating scientific knowledge. I hope you are successful with H. R. 13696. Very truly yours, ROSS STAGNER, Chairman, Department of Psychology. FEDERATION OF AMERICAN SOCIETIES Mr. GEORGE MILLER, Chairman, Committee on Science and Astronautics, DEAR MR. MILLER: This federation consists of the six scientific societies. These have a membership of over 8,000 distinguished scientists who are the Nation's leading and most active investigators and teachers in their special fields. The federation board, made up of representatives from the six societies, has reviewed with very great interest and appreciation the many activities, in relation to the National Science Foundation, of the Committee on Science and Astronautics of which you are chairman, and the Subcommittee on Science, Research, and Development of which Mr. Emilio Q. Daddario is chairman. The federation board has instructed me to transmit to you its sincere thanks for the long study which has been given to the National Science Foundation and the National Science Board and for the hearings and reports which have been generated by these activities. The federation board takes them as further evidence of the praiseworthy appreciation by you and your committee of the importance of science today and of the crucial role of the National Science Foundation in the present and future of American biological science. H.R. 13696, introduced by Representative Daddario, displays an earnest and informed concern with the future operations of the National Science Foundation and with the future of research in the biological sciences. Two aspects of the proposed legislation have been of special concern to us. The first point relates to the role of the Foundation in support of pure and applied research, the latter being a proposed new mandate. Whereas it may be difficult occasionally to distinguish between pure and applied research, the new mandate should define clearly the responsibility of the Foundation to sustain the support of the paramount need for fundamental advancement that derives from pure research, as its support of applied research becomes of increasing consequence. Second, the federation board wishes to emphasize to you and to your committee its opinion that extensive and responsible participation of scientists in planning and in the framing of decisions which concern research aims and policies has proved its value. The federation board feels also that the role of the National Science Board must include the planning, policymaking, and operation of the Foundation and should utilize fully and freely the special knowledge and viewpoints of the academic and scientific communities. Accordingly we strongly urge that the National Science Board continue to remain the body responsible for the policies and general operation of the Foundation. With best wishes for the continued productive and successful activities of the Committee on Science and Astronautics, I remain Sincerely yours, KARL H. BEYER, Jr., President. Hon. EMILIO Q. DADDARIO, Chairman, Subcommittee on Science, Research, and Development, April 19, 1966. DEAR CONGRESSMAN DADDARIO: Thank you for your letter of March 30, 1966, concerning H. R. 13696. While I appreciate your invitation to appear at the hearings on April 19-21, my schedule will not permit it. I commend your objectives. I have given considerable attention to the National Science Foundation over the years, and I encourage your efforts to strengthen and streamline it. The thorough manner in which you have approached the matter augurs well for your success. H. R. 13696 is a complex proposal. As you well know, there are often varying paths to the same goal. The committee has recently studied in depth, the subject of weather modification. Under the present law, the Foundation has the major responsibility for the subject. Based on this experience, as well as others, I would certainly agree with many of your suggestions. There are several portions of the bill, however, that I would like to study further. I will have a detailed specific statement on H. R. 13696 for you before the record closes on May 9. Thank you for your consideration. Hon. EMILIO Q. DADDARIO, Chairman, Subcommittee on Science, Research, and, Development, DEAR CONGRESSMAN DADDARIO: This is in further response to your letter of March 30, 1966, inviting comment on H.R. 13696, a bill to amend the National Science Foundation Act of 1950. I again wish to begin by saying that I commend your objectives. A thorough review and revision of the Foundation's role and activities is warranted. Any review of this nature begins with at least three general alternatives: (1) Changing the role and relationship of one member of a group of existing agencies; (2) changing the role and relationship of all of the members of the group; or (3) adding new agencies to the existing group. In this context, only the Foundation, of course, is readily within the control of Congress. A further proliferation of agencies is usually undesirable. H.R. 13696 would authorize the Foundation to support basic research in the social sciences and to support applied research in certain cases. While I am in total agreement with the need for these objectives, I have reservations about whether NSF is the proper body to achieve maximum results in these fields. The Foundation's responsibilities for basic research are immense, when fully performed, without the addition of new duties. Support of basic research in the social sciences was begun by NSF in August 1954. Given the fact that the Foundation has problems supporting all of the worthwhile projects presented to it, the addition of explicit authority to support the social sciences is not likely to substantially improve the present situation. While House Report 1236 states that the addition of the word "social" would not alter any NSF power or function, addition of the word does suggest a contrary intent. The Foundation traditionally has been oriented toward the natural sciences and this will continue to be its first concern. I feel that, while this additional authority is not undesirable, a different approach, perhaps a new group would be necessary to achieve the desirable strong support of the social sciences. The strongest argument for the support of applied research is that it is impossible to separate basic and applied research. Given the nature of the Foundation, I again believe that while the language is not undesirable, a different approach would be necessary to achieve the desired maximum result. In both cases, if weather modification is a precedent, the grant of additional authority does not necessarily |