Mr. CAREY. The bill continues the present arrangement under which the Director is appointed for a 6-year term unless sooner removed by the President. With the exception of certain commissions whose members are appointed for fixed, overlapping terms, the Director is the only Federal executive appointed for a specified number of years. The committee may wish to consider substituting the prevailing arrangement-that is, appointment to serve at the pleasure of the President-rather than for a specified term.

This, I bring you, Mr. Chairman, not with intense feelings at all, but to note the exceptional arrangement for the term of the Director in case you may wish to change it.

Mr. DADDARIO. Mr. Carey, I appreciate your bringing this up. We have thought about it and I can't argue with your recommendation even though we have not included it in the report because this is a matter of judgment and balance. The argument doesn't swing very much in either direction.

Mr. CAREY. I think this is right, sir.

As I said a little earlier, Mr. Chairman, we suggest for the subcommittee's consideration a further amendment providing that the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the National Science Board be designated hereafter by the President. In view of the importance of the Board's policy role, we think it entirely appropriate to improve the stature of the Chairman by having him chosen by the President. Finally, Mr. Chairman, we are glad to see the specific reference to the social sciences in the proposed bill. This is an area where we believe there is great potential for attacking many of the problems of a changing society, and we welcome greater visibility for social science research within the framework of the Foundation's policies. and programs.

That concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DADDARIO. Do you have any questions, Mr. Brown?

Mr. BROWN. No.

Mr. DADDARIO. Mr. Carey, I appreciate the fact that you have been here and the effort you put into this report, and I am certain the committee will give it every consideration.

Mr. CAREY. Thank you, sir.

Mr. DADDARIO. The work you have done at the Bureau of the Budget is important. Also, we have been struck by the outside activities you have taken part in and the articles you have written over the course of time concerning the place of science and research in Government. Because of that, this comes to us with greater weight than it otherwise would. We appreciate both your efforts in that behalf and your help to us this morning.

Mr. CAREY. You are very kind. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DADDARIO. This committee will adjourn until tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock, same place.

(Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m. the committee adjourned until 10 a.m., Thursday, April 21, 1966.)

RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD SUBMITTED TO WILLIAM D. CAREY, EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF THE BUDGET, 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. I think it would be helpful to provide that the Foundation's annual report should disclose the Foundation's activity in applied research.

However, I would not think it desirable to require the Foundation to report in such detail that it would necessitate keeping separate books and accounts differentiating support of basic from support of applied research. As the subcommittee knows, which way a project falls is likely in many instances to be a matter of subjective judgment. It would be better, I think, to make the statutory requirement a fairly simple one. This could consist of instructing the Foundation to report on how it has made use of its authority to support applied research. This should suffice, since in addition the budgeting and appropriations process provides a regular procedure for looking into the balance between basic and applied research support.

Question 2. Would it satisfy your objections to section 4(a) of the bill if the legislative report contained words to the effect that, to aid it in establishing the policies of the Foundation, the Board would be expected to keep abreast of the activities of the Foundation and to periodically review its programs?

Answer. The intent of the suggested language is very good. I must say, however, that the rewording of the final sentence of section 4(a) as proposed in our testimony still seems to us to define the function of the Board more accurately than the present wording. Granting that it has the ring of semantics, the fact is that the Board cannot really establish the Foundation's policies in the exclusive sense conveyed by the wording of the bill, because the agency's policies are obviously and necessarily affected by the Congress and the President as well as by the Board. The point is, I think, that to the extent that policy is made within the agency-and so long as the Board is other than an advisory bodythis is the Board's responsibility. In keeping with the intent of the committee to clarify the current authority of the Board, the language we have proposed concerning the Board's review of programs seems to us to preserve the Board as a policy body while giving the Director the responsibility for shaping and executing programs. I hope the subcommittee will consider carefully whether this should not go into the bill instead of into the accompanying report.

Question 3. Regarding your comments concerning section 5(d) of the bill, couldn't your objections be met within the framework of section 5(d) whereby the Board may set "such other conditions as the Board in its discretion may determine and publish in the Federal Register"? If not, please explain.

(a) Wouldn't you agree that insofar as it is reasonably prudent, it is desirable to have a clear dividing line between the functions of the Board and the functions of the Director?

Answer. We think it would be most unfortunate to forgo the opportunity now present to make the Director fully responsible for making contracts or grants. I shall not repeat my testimony on this point, except to say again that we can see no reason for circumscribing the Director's authority in the precise area of executive action where there ought to be as little ambiguity as possible. It is hard, for example, to reconcile the provision of the bill which would put the Director in level II of the salary schedule with this provision which makes him subject to the Board on matters involving the making of grants and contracts. The one provision raises his stature while the other diminishes it. Making a grant is an executive function and not a policy making one, and we strongly urge the subcommittee to use this opportunity to meet the issue by removing the restraints on the Director.

Question 4. 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. It is quite possible that heavy investment in some sectors of basic research could be made at the expense of other sectors. We have no evidence at this point to indicate that "big science" in basic research is holding back other fields. Opportunities vary from one sector of basic research to another, and the element of uncertainty is conspicuous where we are dealing with basic science. Until we have better perspectives on science as a whole, decisions are likely to be imperfect though conscientious. This is why some of us have urged new devices to provide an overview of science (an annual report being one such device), together with a stronger effort to formulate criteria of scientific choice which could help in guiding public investment decisions. Meanwhile, the most that can be said is that the Foundation, the Office of Science and Technology, and the Congress need to be watchful of the balance between "big" basic science and general support of research.

A BILL TO AMEND THE NATIONAL SCIENCE

FOUNDATION ACT OF 1950

THURSDAY, APRIL 21, 1966

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND ASTRONAUTICS,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, RESEARCH, AND DEVELOPMENT, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to adjournment, in room 2325, Rayburn House Office Building, at 10:05 a.m., Hon. Emilio Q. Daddario presiding.

Mr. DADDARIO. The meeting will come to order.

Dr. Walker, we are pleased to have you here as our first witness this morning. Dr. Eric A. Walker is president of the Pennsylvania State University and also Chairman of the National Science Board. We are happy to have you this morning, and we are anxious to hear your statement.

STATEMENT OF DR. ERIC A. WALKER, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD

Dr. WALKER. Mr. Daddario and members of the committee, the members of the National Science Board have spent a great deal of time discussing the bill before us today. They have arrived at the consensus which I have sent to the committee. It is a formal document entitled "Commentary, Concerning H.R. 13696” which I would like to have made a part of the record.

Mr. DADDARIO. Without objection it will be made a part of the record, Dr. Walker.

(The commentary is submitted for the record on p. 86.)

Dr. WALKER. Rather than spend your time and mine reading this commentary, I would like to highlight a few points in it which I think you have been discussing the last few days.

Let me refer to the bill proper.

Scientific research activities in international affairs is covered on page 2, line 6-12. The Board would like to suggest two changes. We would like to insert the phrase "and with the approval of the National Science Board" on line 7 between "Defense" and "to," and we would like to delete the word "research" on line 8. The reasons for this are that the Board would like to reserve to itself the power to review proposals which come from the Secretary of State or the Secretary of Defense to assure itself that operations which are proposed are the proper concern of the National Science Foundation.

In other words, first we do not want to be doing something that is not within the sphere of the Foundation. Secondly, we would like to delete the word "research" because we can visualize requests which