Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

In our recent or more recent research conference that point was stressed. It was said by one of men from a very important Government laboratory, for example, at Wright Field, that they were stalled at the moment for developments in basic research to apply to the solution of specific problems with which they are confronted. I know for one, that they were stalled because of lack of knowledge of the phenomena in the upper atmosphere.

They feel that we at the college are now engaged in helping them with it and, so far as applied research is concerned I think we need have no fears, but so far as basic research is concerned we need to have great fears, not only for our national welfare, but for the national safety.

Neither industry laboratories nor Government laboratories or university laboratories have the resources with which to conduct basic research. I know that very few of the university laboratories to which various branches of the Government and industry have to look have very little money. We are just about struggling to keep our heads above the water and we have little money to devote to basic research.

Therefore, for the past 10 years several of my colleagues and I have been interested in this legislation. We have seen it pass all of the way from the start with the Kilgore bill down to the present bill, during that time in our opinion, most of the discrepancies, the unwise measures, the conflicts within the bills have been erased.

We would favor either of the two groups of bills that are before this group. I have a personal preference for H. R. 1845, not just because Mr. Van Zandt, our Congressman introduced it, but also because I think it is written in a little more liberal terms and a little more wisely.

Now, secondly, I would like to say on behalf of educational institutions of which the Pennsylvania State College is a part, that we have no fear that the Federal Government will take a dominating position, or stiffle or control basic research in this country by reason of this bill. We have had an experience of between 80 and 90 years of Federal support for the land-grant colleges of the country.

I have a share in the operation of one of those institutions now and have previously taught in three other institutions, all of them privately endowed, and I would say we are in nor more sense of restraint or control, because of the Federal support of the land-grant colleges, than I was as a member of the faculty at the University of Pennsylvania.

We have no more sense of restriction, control or undue influence in the direction of our educational policies or in the operation of the institution or its specialties in reference to research work. I think that is bogy which need not concern you.

The third thing that I want to discuss briefly is the matter of this controversial patent provision. We have had experience with that at the college. We have a corporation known as the Pennsylvania Rǝsearch Corp. All the members of that corporation are members of our board of trustees or members of the administrative staff of the college and the provision that we have for the handling of patents and which we have tried now for about 15 years is almost identical with the provisions of this bill, namely, that the college shall hold the

89560- 49-6

patents for the benefit of the public, but that the inventor shall receive recognition and compensation for his share.

I forget the exact wording, but at any rate it is a due share in the participation in the production of that patent. It has worked well. Furthermore, we have had experience with patents and have at the present in the ordnance research laboratory, which as I have said is a Government-operated unit. We operate it for the Government. There again our experience has been a favorable one. What we do in the case of the ordnance laboratory is to take out the patent in the name of the college and then give the Navy a royalty free license. They do not wish anything more than that. That also has worked. Mr. O'HARA. You say that you have given the Government a free license?

Mr. HAMMOND. We have given the Navy a royalty free license, but the college retains the patent. And we take it to be our duty to hold that patent for the benefit of the public. So far as I know we have only had one patent in our entire history that has yielded a profit to the college and that was on mushroom spores, strangely enough; but none of the technical patents have ever yielded us a profit.

Now, I simply hope, gentlemen, that this patent matter will not intrude to interfere with the passage of the legislation. It may easily do it.

May I make a rather gratuitous suggestion-not in the case of any previous speaker, but that you examine whatever motives there may be behind objections to the patent provisions of the bill. I do not refer to the previous speaker at all. I think his motives are the same as ours.

Now, that, Mr. Chairman, concludes my testimony. It is very brief. I have a written statement which I have submitted and my colleague, Dean MacQuigg, dean of the college of engineering and the director of the engineering experiment station of the Ohio State University was to be here today, but could not be here because of illness in his family, and he has submitted a companion statement. They are very much. alike and it is not necessary to read either of them.

Mr. PRIEST. We are very happy to have the statements. Without objection, they will be included in the record at this point, if that is your desire and the desire of Dean MacQuigg.

Mr. HAMMOND. I would summarize my remarks in a very few words by saying we hope certainly now, after all these years, and after our near misses of two other years that this legislation will finally be enacted.

We have no preference between these two groups of bills except I have a personal preference for 1845, because of its greater simplicity in three or four places.

I want to say this also by way of addendum, that 2 years ago our engineering groups favored the appointment of the Director by the Foundation. The President vetoed those bills. After careful study of it and consultation with the President's office, we thought it was much better to go along with the President's wishes in that matter than it was to have it remain a point of controversy, and so we agreed to it. That was by unanimous consent of the engineering groups that were concerned. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. PRIEST. Dean Hammond, I share your desire to see that nothing of a somewhat inconsequential nature develops to further delay

the passage of this legislation. I think that feeling is shared by the entire subcommittee and the committee.

There is one question that I would like to ask at this point. You made the statement that you favored any one of the bills. There is a rather considerable difference between the group 1 and group 2 bills, as compared to the Celler bill.

Mr. HAMMOND. I am referring to the two groups of bills now before you.

Mr. PRIEST. You do not include the Celler bill?

Mr. HAMMOND. No; I refer to the bills headed by H. R. 12, and the bills headed by 1845, but those are the only ones.

Mr. PRIEST. Thank you. Are there any further questions?

Mr. O'HARA. Mr. Chairman?

Mr. PRIEST. Mr. O'Hara.

Mr. O'HARA. I might make a philosophical comment, Dean, that does not add much perhaps to this hearing; but I think it is a good thing that we review our thoughts on this legislation from time to time. My mind has changed from the first hearing we had.

Mr. HAMMOND. I am sorry, but I did not get your statement? Mr. O'HARA. I say, I think that it is probably a good thing that we have had these legislative reviews.

Mr. HAMMOND. So do I.

Mr. O'HARA. I think it probably results in better legislation than the first or second time, possibly.

So that you do feel, Dean, that there should be some action taken. along the lines of these two bills, as you have recommended?

Mr. HAMMOND. I do, indeed, and all other engineers agree on it.
Mr. O'HARA. That is purely in the field of basic research?
Mr. HAMMOND. And not in applied science.

Applied science is

well taken care of in this country, but not basic science.

Mr. O'HARA. Do you feel this bill will interfere with applied science?

Mr. HAMMOND. No; not at all, it will support it.

Mr. PRIEST. Are there any further questions?

Dean Hammond, it is a real pleasure to have you before this committee.

Mr. HAMMOND. Thank you, sir.

Mr. PRIEST. And we thank you so much.

Dr. MacQuigg was scheduled as the next witness, but we have his statement for the record. We are sorry that he cannot be here.

(The statements above referred to are as follows:)

SUMMARY OF REMARKS BY HARRY P. HAMMOND BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC HEALTH, SCIENCE, AND COMMERCE OF THE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE IN REFERENCE TO NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION LEGISLATION AND PARTICULARLY H. R. 1845

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the subcommittee, my name is Harry P. Hammond. I am dean of the School of Engineering of the Pennsylvania State College. I am appearing here as a member of a committee representing Engineers' Council for Professional Development, an organization comprising institutional membership of the following national associations of engineers: American Society of Civil Engineers, American Institute of Mining and Metallurgical Engineers, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, American Institute of Electrical Engineers, American Institute of Chemical Engineers, American Society for Engineering Education, National Council of State Boards of Engineering Examiners, Engineering Institute of Canada.

[ocr errors]

Engineers' Council for Professional Development is the agency of these societies in matters relating to the education and professional development of engineers. As such, it has an important interest in research both as related to the professional development of engineers and as related broadly to the national economy and welfare.

Engineers' Council for Professional Development and its constitutent societies representing the great body of professional engineers of the country-their total membership is approximately 100,000-has consistently supported the establishment of the National Science Foundation as a measure not only for the enhancement of the national economy, but also, and especially at present, of the national safety. During the course of development leading to the legislation now before you, the major features of form of organization, responsibilities, and powers of the Foundation have been incorporated in it as the engineering pro fession has hoped they would be provided. This includes, among other features, the provisions of the bill relating to patents.

In making this statement, I am referring especially to H. R. 1845 and S. 247 of the present Congress. We hope that the House will enact this bill into law without significant modification and that this will be done at an early date so that the organization of the Foundation can proceed promptly.

We believe that the fear, expressed by some, that establishment of the Foundation may lead to domination of basic research by the Federal Government is groundless. Experience of over 80 years in the administration of the Land Grant Act of 1862 under which the land-grant colleges and universities of the country were established under Federal aid has shown no tendency of the Government to control or attempt to control or regiment these institutions. Each of them, in addition to instruction, provides research programs in agriculture, engineering, and basic science that have been of inestimable benefit to the Nation. I can testify from personal experience as the administrative officer in charge of two research units which directly or indirectly receive Federal aid— one, the Engineering Experiment Station, and the other the Ordnance Research Laboratory of the Pennsylvania State College-that our operations are conducted entirely satisfactorily as to freedom of action and initiative. The National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics is another well-known example of the benefits of Federal support for research in many institutions throughout the country to the development of a particular industry and system of transportation as well as a vital arm of defense.

We believe that the organization of the Foundation, as provided in the bills, not only will aid existing research agencies, but promote better geographical distribution throughout the country. It seems to us that the bills, if enacted, will serve to preserve the independence of research laboratories and thus to capitalize on the initiative and resourcefulness of research workers. Of even greater importance, the Foundation will aid materially in the training of an increased number of qualified research personnel. This, at present, is one of the greatest single needs of the country.

The bill before you lays emphasis on the support of basic research. This is as it should be, for it is on the new developments of science and their subsequent applications that both our national economy and our safety rest. This country has made great progress in applying physical laws to industrial developments, but it has lagged behind in developing fundamental science. Applied science and development work can look to industry for support. In general, this is not the case with basic science. The stability of support that would result from the establishment of the Foundation would aid powerfully in supplying this need. I have referred previously to the fact that engineers in general support the patent provisions of the present bill. It is my own belief, which is shared by others with whom I have discussed the matter, that the benefit of inventions made with the support of the Foundation should accrue to the public. This will not, I believe, deter individuals or corporations from developing inventions and taking out patents in their own right. Thus the essential features of the American patent system which has encouraged inventiveness will not be endangered.

STATEMENT OF CHARLES E. MACQUIGG, DEAN, COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, AND DIRECTOR, ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION, OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY

My name is Charles Ellison MacQuigg and I am dean of the college of engineering and director of the engineering experiment station of the Ohio State University. My professional experience has been divided between industrial

research and engineering education. I am past president of the American Society for Engineering Education. My work through membership on numerous boards and commissions has kept me in contact with the applications of science to the welfare of society. I do not represent any specific group here today.

In previous hearings before this committee, the need for continued advance in scientific discovery has been pointed out; the idea is probably best documented in "Science, the Endless Frontier," a report by Dr. Vannevar Bush (July 1945) and further developed in the Steelman Report. Both of these presentations carry most convincing statistical support for their theses.

There are two or three points to which the attention of this committee is respectfully invited. In the first place, the type of research activity which this legislation would activate is in the field of "basic" rather than "applied" research, although most informed persons find difficulty in making categorical distinctions between the two activities; similar difficulty is found with definitions to distinguish "pure" research. The type of research which it is proposed to foster in this legislation is the kind which will add to our knowledge of fundamentals in science since it is believed that Federal sponsorship may well leave to private enterprise the application of known scientific principles to the safety and comfort of our people. Unless it is inadvertently dried up, there will likely be "risk" capital or funds available for the advancement of the application of the fundamental discoveries. This can be true in all of the advancing lines of development, whether it be in the manufacture of mechanical appliances or in biological fields. On the other hand, it seems necessary to foster work in research where it is sought to discern principles rather than applications, in order to maintain a flow of fundamental concepts, many of which will subsequently be seized upon and developed for man's use. This has been the pattern through the history of science. It is hoped that through this legislation, much scientific talent may be discovered and the educational value of research programs alone will prove a wise investment for the Nation. Sponsorship for efforts in the discovery of basic principles is seldom undertaken by private interests and has therefore fallen to the institutions of higher education, the foundations, and a few industrial laboratories. Because of the immediate need for such effort, it is necessary for the Government to provide sponsorship.

If and when the program is implemented, it is hoped that even the suggestion of regimentation of research will be avoided and the aim will be to effect a wise coordination to prevent useless duplication. Proper emphasis must be given to problems of the national welfare in the several fields of engineering, medicine and the physical sciences.

The bills which have passed the Senate in the Eightieth Congress, second session, and the Eighty-first Congress, first session, together with the several bills which have been introduced in the present session of the House, all have had the benefit of 10 years or more of careful thought and revision. An early precursor of the present bill will be found in H. R. 3629 introduced in the Seventy-fifth Congress in January 1937. Since then several attempts have been made to enact this type of legislation, but without success because of the unfortunate absence of Executive approval.

The general features are the same in the bills now before Congress with only minor departures in the phraseology and without significant differences in objective or implementation. 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 organization 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. With regard to the questions surrounding patent protection and disposal of patents, it has been the majority consensus of opinion among the friends of this legislation, that it is neither wise nor necessary to enact special legislation to surround the patent negotiations arising out of research sponsored by the Foundation. The present patent laws should safeguard the interests of all concerned and because of the many variations arising in individual situations, specific negotiations should be left to the judgment of the contracting parties. Attempts to ascribe to the Foundation confiscatory powers respecting patents is purely gratuitous. In the case of a national emergency-such as the next one, if it develops-it will be such as to lead Congress to quickly enact laws going much beyond anything envisioned in the present legislation.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »