ESTABLISHMENT OF A COMMISSION ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE ON S. 816

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 66
• Document Creation Date: December 23, 2016
• Document Release Date: February 20, 2014
• Sequence Number: 5
• Publication Date: March 4, 1963
• Content Type: REPORT

rC .0
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20: y
02
IA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1 - / "
Calendar No. 14
88TH CONGRESS }
1st Session
SENATE
{REPORT
No. 16
ESTABLISHMENT OF A COMMISSION
ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
REPORT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ON
S.816
MARCH 4, 1963.?Ordered to be printed
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
85006 WASHINGTON : 1963
I Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
ICIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
CIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
JOHN L. McCLELLAN, Arkansas, Chairman
HENRY M. JACKSON, Washington
SAM J. ERVIN, JR., North Carolina
HUBERT H. HUMPHREY, Minnesota
ERNEST GRUENING, Alaska
EDMUND S. MUSKIE, Maine
CLAIBORNE FELL, Rhode Island
THOMAS I. McINTYRE, New Hampshire
ABRAHAM A. RIBICOFF, Connecticut
DANIEL B. BREWSTER, Maryland
WALTER L. REYNOLDS, Chief Clerk and Staff Director
ANN M. GRICKIS, Assistant Chief Clerk
GLENN K. SHRIVER, Professional Staff Member
ELI E. NOBLEMAN, Professional Staff Member
W. E. O'BRIEN, Professional Staff Member
JAMES R. CALLO WAY, Professional Staff Member
ARTHUR A. SHARP, Staff Editor
KARL E. MUNDT, South Dakota
CARL T. CURTIS, Nebraska
JACOB K. JAVITS, New York
JACK MILLER, Iowa
JAMES B. PEARSON, Kansas
II
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
CIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
CIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
CONTENTS
Page
Analysis of the provisions of S. 816 1
Declaration of policy 1
Objectives 2
General provisions 3
Establishment of a Science Advisory Panel 4
Reports, hearings, and termination of Commission 4
Comments on the role of science in Government:
Dr. Jerome B. Wiesner, Director, Office of Science and Technology,
before the Subcommittee on Military Operations, House Com-
mittee on Government Operations, July 31, 1962
William D. Carey, Assistant Director, Bureau of the Budget, before
the Conference for Federal Executives, Williamsburg, Va., January
24, 1962 7
Background?Committee reports, staff studies:
Science and Technology Act of 1958 (S. Doc. 90, 85th Cong.) 7
Progress Report on Science Programs (S. Rept. 2498, 85th Cong.) _ 8
Science Program-86th Congress (S. Rept. 120, 86th Cong.) 9
Science and Technology Act of 1959 (S. 676) 9
Hearings:
85th Congress 10
86th Congress:
S. 676, to create a Department of Science and Technology 11
Recommendations for the creation of a Commission on a Depart-
ment of Science and Technology 12
S. 1851, proposed establishment of a Commission on Science and
Technology 12
Federal and non-Federal science information processing and
retrieval program (S. Doc. 113) 13
Senate Document 15, 87th Congress (addendum to S. Doc.
113) 14
Subcommittee on National Policy Machinery: Science organization and
the President's office (86th Cong.) 14
Subcommittee on Reorganization and International Organizations: Co-
ordination of scientific information (87th Cong.) 16
Types of information 17
Significance to proposed Commission on Science and Technology_ 17
Subcommittee conclusions 19
Hearings on S. 2771 (87th Cong.) 19-
Conclusion 21
APPENDIX
Extract from speech of Senator John L. McClellan, chairman, Committee
on Government Operations, introducing the bill, S. 816, in the Senate
(Congressional Record, pp. 2263, 2264) 23
Hearings on S. 2771 (87th Cong.): Comments of?
Elmer B. Staats, Deputy Director, Bureau of the Budget 25
Dr. Augustus B. Kinzel, past president, Engineers Joint Council 31
Hon. George Meader, Representative in Congress from the State of
Michigan 32
Dr. Alden H. Emery, executive secretary, American Chemical
Society 33
Dr. Wallace R. Brode, former president, American Association for the
Advancement of Science; former Associate Director, National
Bureau of Standards; and former. Science Adviser to the Secretary
of State 35
Dr. Alan T. Waterman, Director, National Science Foundation 37
in
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
CIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
CIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
IV CONTENTS
Hearings on S. 2771 (87th Cong.): Comnients of?Continued Page
James Rand, president, Rand Development Corp 44
Dr. Roger M. Lueck, chairman, Research Committee, National Asso-
ciation of Manufacturers 47
Dr. John H. Heller, executive director, New England Institute for
Medical Research 51
Dr. Mortimer Taube, chain-ham, Documentation Inc 56
Carl S. Stover, director of studies in science and technology, Center
for the Study of Democratic Institutions 60
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
CIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
CIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
Calendar No. 14
88TH CONGRESS SENATE 5 REPORT
1st Session No. 16
ESTABLISHMENT OF A COMMISSION ON SCIENCE AND
TECHNOLOGY
MARCH 4, 1963.?Ordered to be printed
Mr. MCCLELLAN, from the Committee on Government Operations,
submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany S. 816]
The Committee on Government Operations, to whom was referred
the bill (S. 816) for the establishment of a Commission on Science
and Technology, having considered the same, report favorably thereon
and recommend that the bill do pass.
ANALYSIS OF PROVISIONS OF S. 816
Declaration of policy
This bill proposes the creation of a Commission to be known as the
Commission on Science and Technology. Section 1 of S. 816 declares
it to be the policy of the Congress to strengthen American science and
technology as an essential resource toward the attainment of the
highest potential of Government contribution toward (a) the promo-
tion of the national security; (b) continued national progress in an
era of universal scientific and technical development; (c) the procure-
ment and training of the best qualified leadership to maintain and
promote world peace; and (d) insuring the maximum utilization of
all available scientific know-how and information by coordinating
the research and development programs of the Federal departments
and agencies with those of American business and industry and with
nonprofit organizations, including universities and other educational
or technological institutions.
Section I also emphasizes the importance of formulating a program
for the establishment of national policies which will require coordina-
tion of science and technology programs and operations of the Federal
Government, through necessary reorganizations .of existing depart-
ments and agencies which relate directly to Federal science, scientific
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
ICIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
CIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
2 ESTABLISH A COMMISSION ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
research and technology, increased efficiency in establishing systems
for perfecting a scientific information program, and for the improve-
ment of policies for recruiting, training, and utilizing Federal scientific
and engineering manpower.
The bill includes, also, a special provision relating to, and assessing,
the importance of how the executive and legislative branches can
more effectively achieve common objectives for the advancement of
science and technology in the legislative process, as recommended by
witnesses appearing at the hearings on an identical bill in the 87th
Congress, held on May 10 and July 24, 1962.
Objectives
Section 2 sets out precise objectives to which the Commission might
direct its attention to include, among other areas of study, the following:
(1) The establishment of programs, methods, and procedures for
the effective reorganization of Federal departments and agencies op-
erating, conducting, or financing scientific programs and supporting
basic research in science and technology, with the objective of insur-
ing more effective performance of these essential services, activities,
and functions;
(2) _The elimination of undesirable duplication and overlapping be-
tween Government departments and agencies engaged in scientific and
technological research, and in information storage, processing and
distribution services, activities, and functions, with particular em-
phasis upon effecting the maximum utilization of the resources of
private industry and nonprofit research organizations, including
universities and other educational or technological institutions; and
(3) The assurance of the conservation and efficient utilization of
scientific and engineering manpower.
The commission would be further authorized and directed under
section 2 to make a determination as to the need for establishing
within the executive branch of the Government a Department of
Science and Technology, or for the reorganization of existing scientific
and technological functions through the transfer of such functions to
existing or new executive departments or agencies, to provide more
effective and better coordinated Federal science programs and opera-
tions. The bill provides that, if such a Department of Science and
Technology is deemed necessary, the Commission should, in so recom-
mending, determine . what existing functions or agencies should be
transferred to the new Department, or to other departments, and
which functions and operations, now performed by Federal depart-
ments and agencies, can more properly be performed by private
industries or nonprofit organizations, including universities and other
educational or technological institutions.
The Bureau of the Budget interposed objections to certain com-
mittee guidelines contained in section 2 of the previous bills to create
a Commission on a Department of Science and Technology (S. 1581,
86th Cong., and S. 2771, 87th Cong.), on the premise that it might
be construed as a directive to the proposed Commission to submit
such a recommendation. The committee feels, however, that inas-
much as practically all witnesses, and numerous statements, articles,
and extracts from publications and books which were inserted in the
record of the hearings, advanced or dealt at length (either for or
against), with recommendations that a Cabinet officer for science and
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
CIA-RDP661300403R000300220005-1
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
CIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
ESTABLISFI?A COMMISSION ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
3
technology should or should not be appointed, the proposed legislation
should contain a specific directive that the Commission determine
whether such a department is necessary.
Some of the members of this committee have indicated that they
were inclined to support the creation of such a department, but have
been unable to recommend legislation to achieve this objective.
There was no agreement among the expert witnesses who have testi-
fied as to what functions or agencies should be included in such a
department, if it is established. All witnesses were in agreement that
many of the scientific and technological functions of the Government
should remain a part of the mission of existing departments, and that
certain of those agencies established to perform functions in specialized
areas of science, education, or research and development might
operate better as independent agencies, or as presently constituted.
None made specific proposals as to which agencies or functions should
be included or which should continue to operate outside of such a
department. Accordingly, the bill also directs that the Commission
recommend, if it should determine that such a department is necessary,
what functions and operations should be transferred to the new
department, which should remain independent, or remain as an essen-
tial component of existing departments as essential to the primary
mission of the department in which they are presently located.
General provisions
Section 3 of the bill waives the application of conflict-of-interest
statutes for members or employees of the Commission while serving
on a part-time or full-time basis with or without compensation.
Section 4 provides that the Commission shall be composed of 12
members of whom (a) 4 are to be appointed by the President, 2 from
the executive branch of the Government who are participating in
Federal scientific or technological activities, and 2 from private life
who are eminent in one or more fields of science or engineering, or who
are qualified and experienced in policy determination and adminis-
tration of industrial scientific research and technological activities;
(b) 4 to be appointed by the President of the Senate, 2 from the Senate
and 2 from private life who are eminent in one or more fields of science
or engineering, or who are qualified and experienced in policy deter-
mination and administration of industrial scientific research and
technological activities; and (c) 4 appointed by the Speaker of the
House of Representatives, 2 from the House of Representatives and
2 from private life who are eminent in one or more fields of science
or engineering, or who are qualified and experienced in policy deter-
mination and administration of industrial scientific research and
technological activities.
Sections 5 and 6 provide that the Commission shall elect a Chairman
and Vice Chairman from among its members, and that seven members
of the Commission shall constitute a quorum.
Section 7 provides that Members of Congress and members of the
Commission who are in the executive branch of the Government shall
serve without compensation in addition to that now received, but
shall be reimbursed for travel, subsistence, and other necessary
expenses incurred by them in the performance of the duties vested in
the Commission. Other members of the Commission shall receive
$100 per diem when engaged in the actual performance of such dutiesi
plus necessary expenses.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
CIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
CIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
4 ESTABLISH A COMMISSION ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Section 8 authorizes the Commission to appoint and fix the compen-
sation of such personnel as may be required in accordance with pro-
visions of the civil service laws and Classification Act of 1949; and
that the Commission may procure, without regard to the civil service
laws and the Classification Act, temporary and intermittent services
at rates not to exceed $75 per diem for individuals.
Under this section, the Commission would also be authorized to
negotiate and enter into contracts with private business and nonprofit
research organizations, including universities and other educational
or technological institutes; to conduct such studies and prepare such
reports as the Commission feels necessary to discharge its duties;
and that financing and administrative services may be provided to
the Commission by the General Services Administration.
Establishment of a Science Advisory Panel
Section 9 provides that the Commission shall establish an advisory
panel, including competent and experienced members of the scientific
and technical communities of the United States, to serve on request
as consultants to the Commission or to individual members thereof
while performing the duties of the Commission. The panel would
consist of such number of qualified persons drawn equally from
Government, private industry, and nonprofit organizations, including
universities and other educational or technological institutions as the
Commission deems to be adequate, who shall be chosen on the basis
of competence, experience, integrity, availability, and ability to com-
municate not only to professional scientists but to laymen.
Reports, hearings, and termination of Commission
Section 10 requires that the Commission shall submit interim
reports to the President and the Congress as it deems advisable, and
that its final report shall be submitted to the President and the
Congress not later than January 1, 1965. The final report of the Com-
mission shall propose such legislation and administrative actions as in
its judgment are deemed necessary to achieve its recommendations.
Sections 11, 12, and 13 authorize the Commission to hold hearings
and take testimony as may be deemed advisable to secure required
information and other data from executive departments or agencies
upon request made by the Chairman or Vice Chairman; the necessary
appropriations; and that the Commission shall terminate 30 days
after submitting its final report.
COMMENTS OF THE DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECH-
NOLOGY BEFORE HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE
Dr. Jerome B. Wiesner, Director, Office of Science and Technology,
appeared before the Military Operations Subcommittee of the House
Committee on Government Operations on July 31, 1962, approxi-
mately 7 weeks after Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1962, creating
that Office became effective, in connection with the subcommittee's
inquiry into Government contracting for research and development.
The following are extracts from Dr. Wiesner's testimony:
Science and technology not only play a significant role in
the making of policy, but are crucial in illuminating choices
before us. Yet, we well know that science itself is neutral
in the affairs of men and can be used for good or evil. It is
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
CIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
CIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
ESTABLISH A COMMISSION ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
only with wisdom that these potent creative forces can be
turned to the benefit of all peoples. In an era of explosive
growth and international tensions that evoke an unprece-
dented demand on our total resources?physical and intel-
lectual?there is need to make most effective use of our total
technical resources.
Because of the energy and pervasiveness of science, with
our expanded technical efforts, with diffusion of science in
every facet of national life, the manner in which we as a
Nation arise to the challenge to manage this enterprise is one
of the crucial issues of our time. Many institutions are
involved?Federal Government, State and local govern-
ments, universities, private industry, nonprofit organiza-
tions, the scientific and engineering community. And that
is why, of course, the problem is complicated.
But as measured either by funds or by the impact of policy
decisions, the Federal Government has been increasingly
obliged to assume responsibility for identifying those areas
needing stimulation and nourishment, for determining the
scale and mode of conduct of research, and for setting
priorities.
Because it occupies this key role, the Federal Government
must take those steps in policy formulation, imaginative long-
range planning, and tough management required to meet
today's problems. At the same time, it is essential to main-
tain a sensitive concern for preserving the freedom, strength,
and vigor of the nongovernment entities?of the contribu-
tions of competitive free enterprise and of the freedom of
inquiry of the universities.
We are faced with two major realities:
(1) The increasing role of science and technology in policy
decisionmaking; and
(2) The increasing Federal support for research and de-
velopment.
These two aspects are sometimes contrasted as the "role
of science in government" and the "role of government in
science." While they are clearly related, it is important to
recognize that they often pose quite different problems and,
in fact, are often confused.
That scientific research and development is a major ele-
ment in our most excruciating decisions must be clear from
the almost daily recital of issues before the President and
before the Congress. Not only is there more intimate
involvement of science and engineering in many vital
national decisions today than in times past, but there is also
an accelerating tempo of activity, an increasing complexity of
issues involved (most of which are neither black nor white),
increasingly numerous alternatives, a growing serious conse-
quence of error. There is unprecedented need for human
faculties of critical judgment, and a need for administrative
processes that provide for flexibility, innovation, and feed-
back and processes which amplify the role of fact as compared
to that of opinion.
S. Rept. 16, 88-1-2
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
CIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
CIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
v ?,1..n.v.uviiman.,T ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
" * I think there are two problems. There is a problem
of correlation. Here you will have a very difficult problem,
very similar to the one I have. Second, this is a problem of
selection. It is going to be hard for me to discipline myself
not to try to second-guess everything that other people are
doing, and I think the Congress will have exactly the same
problem. My own operation will be restricted in its ability
to do too much by the small size of its staff, and I presume
this will be the case here, too, because agencies have thous-
ands of technical people available and we have only a dozen
or so and are not planning to grow into a large agency. And
I am sure that Congress itself will never have a very large
technical group. So one has to be concerned in carrying
out these functions with making broad overall judgments
and with general assessment of the directions rather than
with detailed technical study. * * *
There has been concern, first as to whether a Department
of Science was needed to centralize science programs and
operations that are now integrated in various departments
and agencies, perhaps by combining National Science
Foundation, Atomic Energy Commission, National Aero-
nautics and Space Administration, National Bureau of
Standards, and so forth; and second, concern expressed in
these studies as to whether staff resources in the Office of
the President were adequate to meet his needs. * * *
r As I have said many people believe that the present system
is inevitably evolving toward a Department of Science.
However, I don't believe that a single Department of Science
with the responsibility for all of the scientific activities of
the Federal Government would be a workable arrangement
because most of the scientific activities of the individual
agencies are carried out in support of their specific missions.
If, as has been proposed, a less comprehensive Department
of Science were created?by consolidation of the Atomic
Energy Commission, National Science Foundation, Na-
tional Bureau of Standards, and other agencies I talked about
earlier?their operations might be made more effective.
There would still be need, however, to coordinate and inte-
grate their activities with that of the mission-oriented
agencies having related scientific and technical programs.
In other words, the OST is neither a substitute for nor in
competition with a Federal Department of Science.
This statement by Dr. Wiesner is in accord with the views expressed
repeatedly by this committee, and by witnesses testifying at the
hearings before the committee, and conforms to the objectives set
forth in S. 816. The committee has always taken the view that a
comprehensive study must be made by a commission composed of
qualified persons who are familiar with the problems relating to the
operation and support of science and technological programs by the
Federal Government. The committee has also repeatedly pointed
out that such a study is vital in order to determine whether there is a
need for a Department of Science and Technology. Also, that if
such a department is necessary, that the commission should further
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
CIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
CIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
ESTABLISH A COMMISSION ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
7
recommend what Federal activities should be incorporated therein,
and a determination made as to those which would better perform
their allocated tasks as independent agencies or as components identi-
fied as an important function related to the mission of existing depart-
ments. These are among the major objectives of the proposed
legislation being submitted to the Congress in the subject bill.
The committee also took the view as stated by Dr. Wiesner, when
considering Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1962, that, even should a
Department of Science be created, there would still be need for an
Office of Science and Technology in the Executive Office of the
President in order to insure that there was proper coordination of its
activities with those dealing with science in other agencies.
COMMENTS OF THE EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU
OF THE BUDGET
In a speech before the Conference for Federal Executives at
Williamsburg, Va., January 24, 1962, Mr. William D. Carey, Executive
Assistant Director of the Bureau of the Budget, said?
* * *. As useful as the Science Adviser has become to the
President, to the Bureau of the Budget, and to the scientific
community, it remains an essentially unseen instrument of
policy coordination. We have not yet evolved a mechanism
which stands vulnerable to the full light of day as a focus for
accountable leadership in expressing the nation's goals for the
use of its scientific resources. We have no single spokesman
to articulate a coherent synthesis of the relation between
science and public policy, no advocate, defender or rational-
izer of science before Congress and public opinion. Is there,
possibly, more that is needed? Are we approaching the day
when science must have a surer place in the structure of Gov-
ernment, perhaps in the form of a Department of Science, or
alternatively in the shape of a group of wise men whom we
might call a Council of Science Advisers, paralleling the
Council of Economic Advisers? I am less than sure what
the answer should be.
BACKGROUND-COMMITTEE REPORTS, STAFF STUDIES
Science and Technology Act of 1958 (S. 3126)
On January 27, 1958, a bill (S. 3126), entitled the "Science and
Technology Act of 1958", was introduced in the Senate under the
joint sponsorship of Senators Humphrey, McClellan, and Yarborough.
The bill contained provisions authorizing (a) creation of a Depart-
ment of Science and Technology; (b) coordination and improvement of
Federal functions relating to assembling, translating, collating, re-
trieving, and distributing scientific information; (c) educational loans
for the purpose of encouraging and assisting students beyond the
secondary school level in the fields of physical and biological sciences,
mathematics, and engineering; (d) establishment of National Insti-
tutes of Scientific Research; and (e) establishment of cooperative
programs outside the United States for collecting, collating, trans-
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
ICIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
CIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
6 ESTABLISH A COMMISSION ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
lating, abstracting, and disseminating scientific and technological in-
formation, and to conduct and support other scientific activities,
through the use of foreign currency credits.
Senate Document No. 90, 85th Congress, provides complete infor-
mation relative to the provisions and objectives of S. 3126, including
another title, which was omitted when the bill was introduced in
the Senate, providing for the establishment of standing Committees
on Science and Technology in the House and Senate (pp. 33-40;
63-66).
Progress report on science programs (S. Rept. 2498, 85th Cong.)
In a report entitled "Progress Report on Science Programs of the
Federal Government" (S. Rept. 2498), compiled and issued by the
Subcommittee on Reorganization and International Organizations on
behalf of the full committee, on September 9, 1958, a r?m?as
made of all legislation enacted or proposed during the 85th Congress,
which was in accord, generally, with the provisions of the Science
and Technology Act of 1958, or was in some way interrelated with
other science activities of the Federal Government.
This report included recommendations for the establishment of
institutes of scientific research (p. 33), along the general lines recom-
mended in the document entitled "Report to the President on Gov-
ernment Contracting for Research and Development" (S. Doc. 94,
87th Cong.), as follows:
As was pointed out in the information developed by the
staff in Senate Document 90 (p. 45), the establishment of
institutes of scientific research will enable this Nation to
meet not only its basic scientific needs, but would make
important contributions toward the development of its
applied research as well. Since the committee staff orig-
inally stressed the point that the institutes which might be
created in accordance with the objectives of this title would
be operated primarily by educational or other nongovern-
mental institutions on a nonprofit basis with the funds sup-
plied by the Federal Government, or, in certain instances in
part by private industry, this act will permit operations of
this nature under contracts or grants from one or more
Federal agencies which may have an interest in broad
research programs.
As was pointed out by Dr. James R. Killian, at the MIT
regional conference on March 1, 1958, "it is increasingly clear
that within institutions it is going to be necessary to create
groups of a size sufficiently large to be effective in achieving
an integrated approach to certain complex scientific and
technological problems. We need to think of how we can
establish institutes within educational institutions which
make possible a multiple-discipline attack on a problem."
Examples of the types of institutes that may be eventually
established would be Institutes of Meteorology, Oceanogra-
phy, and Solar Energy. In these fields the needed effort in
the national interest appears to be of such magnitude as to
be beyond the existing resources of single universities or
presently established research institutes. Also, economic
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
CIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
.01A-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
ESTABLISH A COMMISSION ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
incentives do not presently exist which would justify the
undertaking of large research programs in these fields by
industrial firms. Additionally, scientific progress in mete-
orology and solar energy may have ultimate implications of
the highest significance with respect to arid areas of the
world which are economically underdeveloped and politically
uncommitted.
Science program-86th Congress (S. Rept. 120, 86th Cong.)
A further report., supplementing the information contained in Senate
Report 2498, 85th Congress, outlining administrative actions taken to
implement thescience programs 'established under authority of legis-
lation approved? in the 85th Congress, and, by reference to related
legislative proposals introduced in the 1st session of the 86th Congress,
was compiled by the staff of the committee and filed in the Senate on
March 23, 1959 (S. Rept. 120).
, This report includes details relative to (1) the operations of the
program approved by the Congress directing the National Science
Foundation to expand its program for the coordination of Federal
activities dealing with gathering, collating, indexing, retrieving, and
distributing scientific information, and to contract through private
groups, qualified .in this field, for the performance of such services as
are necessary to perfect a national program to insure that scientific
information. will .be made readily available to scientists and others
when required; `(2) legislative and adininistrative actions in other areas
of science, such as the effectiveness of programs relating to educational
grants; (3) ,utilization of foreign currencies in assembling, translating;
and distributing scientific material a abroad through the use of foreign
credits,;, and (4) establishment of institutes of sCientific research, as
proposed in the Original Science and TedinolOgy Act. of 1958, in the
fields of meteorology, oceanography, and, 'other basic sciences which
will .require subatantial Federal support ,and appropriations. The
report alao sets forth Other advancements" Made pursuant to congres-
sional 'authorizations by executive or. administrative actions initiated
by the President and other officials following the enactment of the
scienc,e programs by the 85th 'Congress. . -
The information contained in Senate Report 120 indicated the extent
to which Government operations expanded.in all fields as recommended
in the Science and Technology Act of 1958, such as centralizing ad-
ministrative controls and coordination of Federal science programs,
documentation, educational loans or grants, establishment of central
institutes of science, and utilization of foreign credits for the develop-
ment of programs for assembling and distributing scientific informa-
tion and the advancement of other science programs abroad.
Science and Technology Act of 1959 (S. 676)
On January 23, 1959, a revised bill, S. 676, entitled the "Depart-
ment of Science and Technology Act of 1959," was introduced in the
Senate under the joint sponsorship of Senators Humphrey, McClellan,
Ervin, Gruening, Yarborough, and Muskie.
Title I of the Science and Technology Act of 1958, proposing the
creation of a Department of Science and Technology was the only
section of the original bill which was incorporated in S. 676, with cer-
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
IA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
IA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
10 ESTABLISH A COMMISSION ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
tam n revisions. In its progress report to the Senate (S. Rept. 2498,
85th Cong.), the committee stated (p. 14) that?
The Committee on Government Operations was not
afforded an opportunity to hold hearings on title I during
the 85th Congress, due to the rereference of the bill to the
Senate Special Committee on Space and Astronautics, but
the staff, at the direction of the committee, has maintained
a continuing study of the proposal to establish a Department
of Science. The response of scientists to the staff proposal,
since the release of Senate Document 90, has been most
gratifying and helpful. Constructive criticisms in opposi-
tion to the proposal, as well as stimulating and cogent
alternative suggestions, have been received and will continue
to be sought by the committee. * * *
Hearings-85th Congress
Following rereference of the Science and Technology Act of 1958 to
the Special Committee on Space and Astronautics, it was agreed by
the chairman of the Subcommittee on Reorganization of the Com-
mittee on Government Operations and by the chairman of the special
committee to permit the Subcommittee on Reorganization to develop
certain aspects of the proposed program as set forth in title I, relating
to the establishment of a centralized scientific information center.
Hearings were held on May 2, 6, and 7, and on June 25 and 26, 1958,
to enable the subcommittee to properly evaluate the provisions of
S. 3126 and its relation to existing programs dealing with assembling,
translating, collating, abstracting, retrieval, and dissemination of
scientific information.
The first phase of the hearings was directed toward developing
testimony from representatives of various non-Federal agencies,
groups, and individuals who are active in this field, in an effort to
establish the status of operations of existing private facilities, and to
what extent the Federal Government should participate in the formu-
lation of a centralized and coordinated program.
The second phase of the hearings was directed at developing
essential facts relative to the present operations of Federal agencies,
any deficiencies in existing programs, and the need for improvement
of Federal services in the documentation field, including recommenda-
tions for the establishment of an adequate program designed to ac-
complish the essential objectives as developed at the earlier hearings.
The chairman of the subcommittee, in opening the hearings, stated
that the subcommittee was proceeding on the assumption that many
private and industrial abstracting, translating, and research groups
can provide most of this type of service to the Federal research pro-
grams and scientists in our universities and industries, without the
necessity of establishing a centralized dissemination service under the
control of the Federal Government. The immediate objective was
to _develop authentic information as to- services now being provided
by private facilities engaged in the dissemination of scientific informa-
tion,, and recommendations for Government participation either in
the 10,y of establishing a scientific information center, if found to be,
necessary; or in providing funds in support of existing programs.
The chairman further emphasized that the subcommittee proposed
to proceed on the assumption that existing laws are adequate to
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
CIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
CIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
ESTABLISH A COMMISSION ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
11
permit agencies of the Government operating in this area, to provide
the necessary facilities to initiate coordinated Federal programs, with-
out the necessity of enacting further enabling legislation.
Competent witnesses who are actively engaged in various fields of
scientific research and documentation, including representatives from?
universities, research institutes, abstract services, libraries, and
private industrial research laboratories, presented detailed testimony
at the first hearings. The subcommittee also received testimony from
the representatives of the National Academy of Science?National
Research Council, and included in the record of the hearings various
communications received from scientists, librarians, and others which
dealt with all aspects of documentation of scientific information,
as well as comments and recommendations relating to provisions of
the proposed Science and Technology Act.
The hearings were then channeled into the development of essential
facts relative to the present operation of Federal agencies, deficiencies
in existing programs, and the need for improvement of the operations
of Federal agencies engaged in the documentation field. During
the period of approximately 8 weeks that had elapsed between the
first phase of the hearings, the respective agencies?had been supplied
with copies of the previous hearings and requested to examine and
study the original testimony and to submit to the subcommittee at
its concluding hearings an evaluation of the specific suggestions and
recommendations made by representatives of now-Federal groups.
Agency representatives were also requested to submit recommenda-
tions as to what further legislative action, if any, was necessary to
fully implement such proposed programs, or to outline a program
that might be developed under existing authority of law, with the
objective of solving the scientific information problems and to insure
that constructive steps would be taken for the implementation of a
comprehensive and effective program.
Hearings-86th Congress?S. 676, to create a Department of Science
and Technology
The Subcommittee on Reorganization and International Organiza-
tions held further hearings in the 86th Congress on S. 676, to create
a Department of Science and Technology, and to transfer certain
agencies and functions to such Department, and a related bill, S. 585,
introduced by Senator Kefauver, to establish a Department of Science
and to prescribe the functions thereof, on April 16 and 17, 1959. In
his opening statement the chairman of the subcommittee' made it
clear that athe main objective of the committee in conducting the
hearings was to place emphasis upon the need to effect necessary and
desirable reorganizations within the Federal Government structure
which relate directly to Federal scientific activities, and to promote
better centralization and coordination of Federal science programs
and operations. It was emphasized that the bill then under con-
sideration should be considered merely as an approach to the problems
involved, and did not represent any final conclusions of the committee;
that the committee hoped through the hearings to develop testimony
which would lead to the approval of legislation which would promote
more efficiency in governmental science activities and develop the
proper framework under which science and technology can be molded
to the greatest common good.
I Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
ICIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
CIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
rz ESTABLISH A COMMISSION ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Recommendations for the creation of a Commission on a Department of
Science and Technology
Practically every witness who testified at the hearings on S. 676
were in agreement that, in order to insure the establishment of a
workable and acceptable program for the proper coordination of
Federal science activities, reorganizations in existing Federal agencies
dealing with science, technology, or engineering, a comprehensive
study would be required. Some of the witnesses supported the objec-
tives of S. 676, and others expressed opposition, at least until more
information was available as to what agencies of the Federal Govern-
ment should be incorporated in the proposed new Department, or in
any agency that may be established for the centralization of such
activities. The basis for opposition to the proposal for the creation
of a Department of Science and Technology is set forth fully in Senate
Document 90, 85th Congress, in Senate Report No. 120, 86th Congress,
and in the committee hearings.
There was also general agreement, however, that there was an urgent
need for the appointment of a Commission, patterned along the lines
of the Hoover Commissions, to conduct a study as to whether or not
a Department of Science should be created, and, if such a Department
was found to be desirable, that the proposed Commission should recom-
mend to the President and to the Congress which functions now being
performed by other departments, agencies, and independent establish-
ments of the Government should be transferred to such Department,
and those which should remain in an independent status or as an
essential part of the mission of existing departments.
It was suggested that the Commission be composed of eminent
authorities in the fields of science, engineering, research, and tech-
nology, who are recognized leaders of the scientific and technological
communities, representatives of the Federal Government who are
engaged in basic civilian science activities, and of members of the
legislative branch of the Government.
S. 1851, 86th Congress, proposed establishment of a Commission on
Science and Technology
At the conclusion of the hearings, the staff of the Committee on
Government Operations drafted a bill to accomplish these objectives.
The bill, which proposed the establishment of a Commission on a
Department of Science and Technology, was introduced in the Senate
on May 5, 1959, as S. 1851, under the joint sponsorship of Senators
Humphrey, Capehart, Mundt, Gruening, Muskie, Yarborough, and
Keating. Further hearings on S. 676, S. 586, and S. 1851 were held
on May 28, 1959.
In its report to the Senate on S. 1851 (S. Rept. 408, 86th Cong.)
after reviewing the testimony of witnesses, some of whom recom-
mended postponement of legislative action, the committee stated
that?
* * * The inevitable conclusion was reached that it is the
desire of the present administration to continue to center
within the Executive Office of the President all control over
civilian science operations. Unless legislative action is taken
by the Congress to establish some medium through which
reliable information and supporting technical data is made
available to Congress by officials who are responsive to its.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
CIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
CIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
ESTABLISH A COMMISSION ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
13
needs, the committees of the Congress will continue to be
denied access to facts and reliable information necessary to
the legislative process in establishing policies in the fields of
science and technology. Under the present policy, Congress
is denied access to such information through the appointment
of officials in the Executive Office of the President and
Presidential advisory groups composed of the leading scien-
tists and engineers throughout the country. These ap-
pointees are responsible only to the President and the field
is preempted insofar as the Congress is concerned in its efforts
to obtain reliable and factual information which is essential
to the legislative branch if it is to perform its normal consti-
tutional functions.
It is the conclusion of this committee, therefore, regardless
of the recommendations of administration spokesmen, that
there is a real need for a bipartisan commission to study the
problems relating to the proposed establishment of a Depart-
ment of Science and Technology in order that the Congress
may have access to officials who are responsive to its require-
ments, and provided with the necessary information to effect
an equitable solution to the present problems relating to
Federal science programs as may be determined by the
President and the Congress.
As an essential first step in achieving these objectives, the
committee recommends the enactment of S. 1851, so that the
Congress and the President may have the benefit of the
recommendations of qualified experts in the fields of science,
engineering, and technology, upon which appropriate legis-
lative action, directed toward the improvement of Federal
science programs and operations, may be taken.
Federal and non-Federal science information processing and retrieval
program (S. Doc. 113, 86th Cong.)
Pursuant to a directive of the Committee on Government Opera-
tions, the staff developed information during the 86th Congress in
four areas of scientific documentation and information processing
which included-
1. The present status of systems and equipment, relating to
assembling, translating, indexing, abstracting, storing, processing,
retrieving, and disseminating scientific and technological informa-
tion, now in operation or being developed within Federal agencies
considered to be most active in science and technology.
2. Programs already developed or being perfected to modernize
systems of mechanized information processing and retrieval, by
recognized authorities operating in this field outside of the Govern-
ment.
3. Descriptive data relative to the latest and most proficient
mechanized systems and machines now available or being de-
veloped for the improvement of Federal scientific information
retrieval operations, from representative designers and manufac-
turers of automation equipment.
4. Reports from certain selected private industries as to progress
they have made in perfecting information retrieval systems de-
S. Rept. 16, 88-1-3
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
CIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
CIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
14 ESTABLISH A COMMISSION ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
signed to meet their own needs, with recommendations for im-
provement of Federal operations in this area
A draft of the proposed staff report was prepared, under the com-
mittee directive, after consultations with representatives of Federal
agencies and private industry who are active in the above-outlined
areas. The draft was then submitted to the agencies and industries
cooperating in this study for editing and additional comments.
Following a review of the reports submitted to the committee by
the cooperating agencies and participating groups and industries, a
report was filed in the Senate on June 28, 1960, entitled "Documenta-
tion, Indexing, and Retrieval of Scientific Information." (S. Doc.
113, 86th Cong.) The demand for this document was such that it
was necessary to reprint the document in the 87th Congress (S. Res.
95; S. Rept. No. 63).
Senate Document 15, 87th Congress
On March 10, 1961, the committee also submitted for printing an
addendum to Senate Document 113, which contained an outline of
actions taken toward the development of plans for the expansion of
technical information programs by NASA and two agencies within
the Department of Defense, which were prepared after the original
document had been printed. This was printed as Senate Document
15 of the 87th Congress, which also included an outline of further
legislative proposals prepared by the staff of the committee with the
objective of bringing about better coordination of Federal civilian
science programs and for the improvement of science information
processing and retrieval programs of the various Federal agencies
engaged in science activities.
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL POLICY MACHINERY
Organizing for national security (science, technology, and the policy
process) (86th Cong.)
The Subcommittee on National Policy Machinery, of which Senator
Henry M. Jackson was chairman, held hearings on April 25, 26, and
27, 1960, on the subject of how our Government can best gear science
and technology into foreign and defense policymaking. The chairman
stated, in opening these hearings, that:
Science and technology are exercising a new and decisive
influence on national power, prestige, and policy. The
statesman, the soldier, and the scientist must work together
as never before. The question now before the subcommit-
tee is this: What is the right way to organize our Govern-
ment to get the right scientific and technical programs at the
right time?
The subcommittee's search for answers to this question
represents one part of its broader task. That broader task
is to determine whether our Government is now properly
organized to meet successfully the challenge of the cold war.
The fundamental problem is: How can a free society organize
to outthink, outplan, and outperform totalitarianism?and
achieve security in freedom?
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
CIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20 :
CIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
ESTABLISH A COMMISSION ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
15
Based on these hearings and further studies conducted by the staff,
the subcommittee issued a report, on June 14, 1961, entitled "Science
Organization and the President's Office." In the foreword the chair-
man set forth the basis of the report as follows:
Free institutions are now being challenged by resourceful
and implacable adversaries. Their aim is no less than to
write finish to freedom. As Mr. Robert Lovett told our
subcommittee:
"If the public statement 'we will bury you' does not carry
the message to us, then words have lost their meaning."
In today's world, the tide of political power flows with the
tide of scientific and technical power. A decade ago we took
our Nation's scientific and technical leadership almost for
granted. Today it is being effectively contested.
We must bestir ourselves, lest sputnik and the cosmonaut
mark only the beginning of a long list of Soviet firsts, and lest
we fall short of our best in putting science to work for peace
and welfare and individual freedom.
From the start of its nonpartisan study of how our Govern-
ment can best organize to formulate and carry out foreign
and defense policy, the Subcommittee on National Policy
Machinery has given close attention to the impact of science
and technology on national policymaking. * * *
The subcommittee staff has profited from discussions and
interviews with over 50 distinguished scientists and Govern-
ment officials who have lived and worked with this problem.
The list of those consulted includes scientists familiar with
problems of top-level science organization, departmental
technical experts, Nobel Prize winners, and outstanding
authorities on science and the policy process.
The subcommittee staff in its report concluded that?
In certain high priority areas the Special Assistant and
the Science Advisory Committee have recommended steps
for meeting long-term scientific needs. They have thus
partly filled a gap left by the reluctance of the National
Science Foundation to exercise the authority given it to
"develop and encourage the pursuit of a national policy for
the promotion of basic research and education in the
sciences" and to "recommend to the President policies for
the Federal Government which will strengthen the national
scientific effort. * * *"
The President's own science aids, however, have not been
clearly charged with the initiative for sparking across-the-
board forward planning. As a practical matter, in addition,
they are not now staffed to handle the full span of scientific
and technical planning problems requiring Presidential
attention. * * *
While the science advisers now give their chief and the
Bureau of the Budget technical counsel in a number of areas,
this Presidential-level staff assistance is needed on a broader
front.
The Federal Council, as an instrument for assisting the
President in monitoring agency programs, has been of only
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
CIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
CIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
16 ESTABLISH A COMMISSION ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
limited utility. It has worked under the limitations of all
interagency coordinating committees of its kind. Where
program stakes are high and agency differences deep,
departmental heads have traditionally tried to bypass
Council-type mechanisms. The balance of bureaucratic
power is weighted heavily against the Federal Council. * * *
Many of the members of the Science Advisory Committee,
although serving only in a part-time capacity, spend large
amounts of time in Washington on Committee business.
The Special Assistant, however, is the only science adviser
who regularly works full time. The absence of other regular
full-time counselors narrows the range and variety of
technical judgment immediately available to the President.
The lack of full-time Advisory Committee associates
handicaps the Special Assistant as well. He serves not
only as adviser to the President but also as Chairman of the
Science Advisory Committee and Chairman of the Federal?
Council. He needs more day-in day-out help.
The staff then proposed that?
The post of Special Assistant to the President for Science
and Technology and the President's Science Advisory Com-
mittee should be made permanent parts of the Government?
with statutory underpinning The Administration should
now consider the desirability of creating an Office of Science
and Technology within the Executive Office of the President.
The Office would be headed by the Special Assistant to the
President for Science and Technology. He would continue
as a Presidential adviser and Chairman of the Federal
Council.
The President's Science Advisory Committee would con-
tinue in its valued counseling role.
The Office would provide staff support for the President's
Science Advisory Committee and the Council.
A science unit in the Executive Office would ratify the
institutional and professional advisory role of the Special
Assistant and the Science Advisory Committee. It would
confirm that their responsibilities to the President correspond
to those of Executive Office officials like the Council of
Economic Advisers.
As will be noted from the extracts from the remarks of the Deputy
Director of the Bureau of the Budget, when testifying on S. 2771 in
the 87th Congress, the President's Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1962,
establishing the Office of Science and Technology in the Executive
Office of the President, was based upon this subcommittee recom-
mendation (p. 26).
SUBCOMMITTEE ON REORGANIZATION AND INTERNATIONAL
ORGANIZATIONS
The coordination of scientific information was a principal theme
of the activities of this subcommittee during the 87th Congress.
It released a series of reports by the chairman and the subcommittee
staff, documenting serious weaknesses in information exchange:
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
CIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
CIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
IA.13111'fl eviyixibi.piN ON SCIENCE AND 'TECHNOLOGY
17
? (a) Within -the largest agencies, such as the Department of
Defense, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, and
Department of Agriculture;
(b) Between the principal agencies supporting research and
development.
The subcommittee's work may be seen in four hearing-exhibit
volumes:
Two on "Inter-Agency Coordination of Drug Research and
Regulation," hearings of August 1962;
Two on "Inter-Agency Coordination of Information," hearing
of September 1962.
In addition, four mimeographed reports were issued by the subcom-
mittee chairman:
March 1962?on the Department of Defense;
March 1962?on the Agency for International Development
(with respect to overseas technical assistance of all types);
April 1962?on the Department of Agriculture;
May 1962?on the Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare.
Each of these reports cited deficiencies in existing intra- and inter-
agency information, organization, and procedure.
Types of information
The overall series of reports covered information of many types:
(a) On current research and development;
(b) On completed research and development (including re-
search canceled prior to anticipated termination);
(c) In printed form?e.g., in articles, monographs, abstracting
and indexing publications, books;
(d) In oral form?at conferences, seminars, symposia, con-
gresses, in personal meetings, over the phone;
(e) In audiovisual forms.
Two printed reports were issued on shortcomings in coordination
of information on current research: "Coordination of Information on
Current Scientific Research and Development Supported by the
United States Government" (S. Rept. 263, 87th Cong., 1st sess., May
18, 1961, 278 pp.); "Coordination of Information on Current Federal
Research and Development Projects in the Field of Electronics"
(September 20, 1961, 267 pp.).
Significance to proposed Commission on Science and Technology
The chairman of the subcommittee has expressed the view that the
shortcomings in science information which the subcommittee has
brought to light represent one of the many important reasons for the
establishment of a Commission on Science and Technology. He has
stated the following:
The evidence which has been compiled by the subcom-
mittee staff and by myself leads to the following conclusions:
(1) This Nation is paying a staggering and largely un-
necessary price because of weaknesses in the ramshackle
system of scientific and technical information. The price
involves a toll in the form of delays and gaps in strengthening
of national security, lagging civilian technology, less than
attainable services to human health, losses to the Federal
Treasury.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
?IA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
CIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
16 ESTABLISH A COMMISSION ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
(2) While actions by the Federal Government to remedy
the shortcomings in information are not the only answer,
they can be a decisive answer. The scientific and technical
community knows that it is the U.S. Government which
pays three-fourths to four-fifths of the research and devel-
opment bill. Ultimately, it is Federal action, therefore,
which must play the largest role.
(3) The agencies of the U.S. Government have made at
least some noteworthy improvements in the internal manage-
ment of their scientific information?i.e., on an intra-agency
basis.
(4) However, the agencies have made comparatively little
improvement in interagency management of information.
The underlying fact is that most agency systems have
evolved along such completely different lines as to be largely
incompatible. Moreover, the agencies have, to date, shown
little interest in coming to grips with the chaotic conditions
which prevail and which resemble a Tower of Babel in in-
formation diversity.
(5) The Office of Science Information Service, National
Science Foundation, has stimulated numerous information
advances within agencies, However, since OSIS has no
authority over other agencies, it has had only limited success
in fostering teamwork on an interagency basis. The inter-
agency Federal Advisory Committee on Scientific Informa-
tion, which functioned under its auspices and which is now
defunct, accomplished little of genuine importance as re-
gards Government-wide coordination.
(6) A new interagency group?the Information Commit-
tee of the Federal Council for Science and Technology?has
only begun its efforts. It remains to be seen whether this
organization will accomplish anything more than its prede-
cessor, mentioned above.
(7) Commendable interest in improvement of information
has been displayed by the Director, Office of Science and
Technology. At his behest, an important report was pre-
pared by a panel of the President's Science Advisory Com-
mittee ("Science, Government, and Information," January
10,1963) . The report makes numerous important suggestions.
Its recommendations, however, fall far short of the bold
proposals for a system of Government-wide clearinghouses
which had benn proposed by a task force to the President's
Science Adviser ("Scientific and Technological Communica-
tion Within the Government," April 1962).
(8) There is an urgent need for review of the organization
and location of major Federal science information organiza-
tions. These organizations have tended to grow up in the
executive branch in a haphazard, illogical, arbitrary way.
For example:
The organization which registers current research?the
Science Information Exchange?is located within the Smith-
sonian Institution, where it bears no organic relationship
with any other information activity or agency.
Ambiguity of authority persists between the National
Science Foundation's Office of Science Information Service
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
CIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20
CIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
ESTABLISH A COMMISSION ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
19
and the Office of Technical Services, Department of Com-
merce.
The information programs of the National Bureau of
Standards' Data Processing Section are not fulfilling a frac-
tion of their potential contribution to Government needs.
Hundreds of specialized information centers have pro-
liferated throughout the United States and largely under
Federal auspices. With but few exceptions, these centers
bear little relationship: (a) to one another, (b) to any other
Federal agency but the one which directly supports them,
or (c) to the regional report depository centers, recently
established by the National Science Foundation and the
Department of Commerce, or (d) other information activi-
ties "in the field."
(The largest sponsor of the centers?the Department of Defense?
has yet to take substantive action to bring about a meaningful rela-
tionship between the Armed Services Technical Information Agency
andithe scores of specialized centers.)
Subcommittee conclusions
It was the conclusion of the subcommittee that a Com-
mission on Science and Technology could serve as an impor-
tant instrument for the examination of problems such as those
just mentioned. Only an independent Commission could
make the type of root-to-branch analyses of the informa-
tion confusion which continues to characterise the executive
branch.
Experience indicates that no Federal agency is likely to
take the initiative of recommending the reduction of its own
size. Thus, none is likely to recommend the transfer even of
those of its information functions which bear no inherent
relationship to the agency's central mission. Yet, some in-
teragency information functions can be consolidated in the
interest of economy, efficiency, and service?and without
the slightest impairment of individual agency missions.
No one claims that coordinating information is a cure-all
for management ills; but few ills will be cured if information
is too late, too disuniform, too fragmented, too hard to get,
too unreliable.
Five years ago, the doubters looked askance when the Com-
mittee on Government Operations and this subcommittee
claimed that the information explosion had precipitated an
information crisis. Today, most of these doubters are
quoting our very words. But today, the doubters deny
that a reorganization of information services is necessary.
I believe that the future will prove them just as wrong as has
the past.
HEARINGS ON S. 2771, 87TH CONGRESS
S. 2771, a bill which is identical to the pending measure, was intro-
duced in the 87th Congress on January 31, 1962, under the joint spon-
sorship of Senator John L. McClellan, chairman of the committee,
Senator Hubert H. Humphrey, chairman of the Subcommittee on
Reorganization and International Organizations, and Senator Karl E.
Mundt, ranking minority member of the committee. Senators Norris
Cotton and Ralph W. Yarborough also joined as cosponsors.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20
CIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
CIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
zu ESTABLISH A COMMISSION ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Hearings were held on May 10 and July 24, 1962. In his opening
statement, Senator McClellan set forth the objectives as follows:
Ever since the Russian Government put sputnik into orbit,
the citizens of this country have become more conscious of
the need for an accelerated science program. In 1957,
President Eisenhower appointed the first science adviser to
the President in the hope that Government science programs
could be speeded up and better coordinated. At the present
time, President Kennedy is proposing to create an Office of
Science and Technology in the White House, which will be
headed by a Director who will have responsibility for co-
ordinating Government science policy.
We hope that those experts who appear before the com-
mittee will be able to shed some light on the overall problems
which we face. These problems have been outlined on
numerous occasions before this and other committees of the
Congress by various authorities who have stressed the urgent
need for improvement in effecting necessary reorganizations
and better coordination of existing programs. Emphasis
has also been directed toward the need for developing a pro-
gram for the elimination of duplication in science efforts,
where one agency of Government works on programs which
?are underway in other agencies, or where research is being
done on problems which have already been solved by other
scientists. There is reason to believe that this occurs ex-
tensively, due primarily to serious deficiencies in the science
information retrieval programs of the Federal Government.
We must also find ways and means of meeting our scientific
manpower needs, which President Kennedy described as one
of the most critical problems facing our Nation. There are
? probably many other critical needs which need study and
exploration.
The continued safety and growth of our Nation is the
prime concern of the committee. These hearings are being
conducted with the sincere hope that suggestions may be de-
veloped which will assist us, as a nation, in meeting the
challenge of world communism.
The committee received testimony from 10 witnesses. Officials of
the Federal Government and representatives of scientific, engineering,
industrial organizations, and technological research administrators
were included. Eight of these witnesses approved the creation of a
Commission on Science and Technology, four of whom opposed the
creation of a Department of Science until a study, as proposed by S.
2771, had been completed and the recommendations of the Commission
were available. In addition, statements were submitted for the record
from a number of others who expressed an interest in the bill.
The Deputy Director of the Bureau of the Budget and the Director
of the National Science Foundation, as in the previous hearings on a
similar bill proposed in 1959, opposed both the creation of such a study
commission or a Department of Science and Technology. Their
testimony was of the same import as that which their predecessors
presented in 1959; that the President's Office was fully qualified, with
the appointment of a Director of Science and Technology in the
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
CIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
IA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
21
Executive Office of the President, to cope with the disorganized Federal
science program. Three years previously the representatives of these
agencies maintained before this committee that the President's Science
Adviser, the Federal Council on Science and Technology, and the
President's Advisory Committee on Science and Technology could
bring about the necessary organization and coordination of Federal
science programs. They now contended that if action is delayed
another 2 to 3 years there would be no further need for the Congress
to concern itself with these problems, that they could and would be
reorganized and coordinated under the new Office of Science and
Technology.
The chairman of the committee, in response to this recommendation
for a further delay, pointed out to the Director of the NSF that, if
action is not taken at this time the Congress will continue to be denied
information essential to the legislative process, since the Director of
the Office of Science and Technology will furnish only such information
as he desires, or which the President permits him to furnish.
While the public witnesses expressed the hope that the Director of
the Office of Science and Technology might be able to bring about the
necessary improvements in Government operations in these areas,
most of them took the view that a study should be made by qualified
experts in these fields, as proposed by S. 2771, which study and
resulting recommendations should prove to be of great benefit and
assistance to the President, the Congress, and to other officials of the
Federal Government, including the Director of Science and Technol-
ogy. No evidence was presented to the committee to indicate if any
study had been made of the plan establishing the Office of Science
and Technology, in the Executive Office of the President, or what
actual changes or improvements, if any, would result from its
operations. (See comments of the Director, p. 4.)
The committee strongly- urged the Congress to approve S. 2771, in
order to obtain essential information to enable it to enact legislation
required to develop a properly coordinated program for the efficient
and economical administration of Federal programs operating in the
fields of science and technology. The Senate approved tie bill,
under unanimous consent, on August 8, 1962, and it was referred
to the House Committee on Science and Astronautics which took no
action.
CONCLUSION
In the view of the committee there is a real need for a comprehensive
study to be made into Federal activities in the fields of science and
technology, in order that the Congress and the President may be fully
informed as to the status of these activities, the deficiencies which
continue to exist, and prepared to take appropriate steps to bring
about better coordination of these important functions.
The continuing annual increase in Federal expenditures for research
and development programs, totaling more than $10 billion in fiscal
year 1962, 812 billion in fiscal year 1963, and budget requests for $15
billion for fiscal year 1964 makes it imperative that every possible
action looking toward the elimination of waste and extravagance in
the administration of these programs must be taken without further
delay. The committee therefore recommends the enactment of S. 816
as a necessary and important step toward the advancement of the
S. Rept. 16, 88-1--4
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
.7,1A-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
CIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1 N SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Government's obligations to the national security and looking toward
the promotion of peace throughout the world. This bill is being
reported favorably in the Senate in the sincere belief that its enact-
ment into law in the present Congress will greatly contribute toward
the improvement of Federal programs in science and technology, thus
insuring that they may be better coordinated and more rapidly
developed so as to insure that we, as a nation, will successfully meet
the challenge of world communism.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
CIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
CIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
APPENDIX
On February 18, 1963, Senator John L. McClellan, chairman of the
Committee on Government Operations, in introducing the subject
bill, S. 816 (Congressional Record, pp. 2263, 2264) stated, in part, as
follows:
Mr. President, on behalf of myself, as chairman of the
Committee on Government Operations, and of Senators
Humphrey, Mundt, Gruening, Javits, Cotton, Yarborough,
and Ribicoff, I introduce, for appropriate reference, a bill
proposing the establishment of a Commission on Science
and Technology.
This proposed legislation was perfected after 6 years of
study by the committee and its subcommittees in an effort
to strengthen Federal programs in the fields of science and
technology, and to eliminate unnecessary duplication and
overlapping between Government departments and agencies
engaged in scientific and technological research.
The bill is the result of three separate hearings before the
committee, beginning in 1958. In T959 a somewhat similar
bill was reported to the Senate. Further hearings were held
on a revised bill, S. 2771, in the 87th Congress, on May 10
and July 24, 1962. These hearings reflected that there is a
steady and relentless increase in the cost of research and de-
velopment programs of the Federal departments and agen-
cies, amounting to $10 billion in fiscal year 1962, exceeded
$12 billion in fiscal year 1963, or more than the entire ex-
penditures of the Federal Government prior to World War
II, and is estimated in the President's budget to total $15
billion for fiscal year 1964.
The objectives of the proposed Commission provide for a
study of all of the programs, methods, and procedures of the
Federal departments and agencies which are operating, con-
ducting, and financing scientific programs, with the objective
of bringing about more economy and efficiency in the per-
formance of these essential activities and functions. De-
ficiencies in some of these programs and the problems relating
thereto have been outlined on numerous occasions before
various committees of the Congress by informed authorities.
They have stressed the urgent need for improvements in ef-
fecting necessary reorganizations and better coordination
of existing programs. Emphasis has also been directed
toward the need for developing a program for the elimina-
tion of duplication in science efforts, where one agency of
Government works on programs which are underway in
other agencies, or where research is being done on problems
which have already been solved by other scientists. There
is reason to believe that this occurs extensively, due primarily
to serious deficiencies in the science information retrieval
programs of the Federal Government.
In undertaking its studies the Commission would be
vested with authority to set up a Science Advisory Panel of
28
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
CIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
CIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
r.0 111151_11b1-1 i IA./NUN/1lb blU LN ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
outstanding science, engineering, and technological authori-
ties from all sections of the Nation to assist it in the per-
formance of the functions outlined in the bill. The Com-
mission is further directed to conduct a study of Federal
scientific and technical activities, such as the deficiencies in
scientific, engineering and technical information programs,
including acquisition, processing, documentation, storage,
retrieval, and distribution of scientific information; the
urgency for accelerating scientific, engineering, and techni-
cal progress in a number of Federal agencies which perform
some functions in these areas; and to recommend necessary
reorganizations of scientific and technological activities of
the Federal Government to improve their operations and
to better coordinate their activities.
Witnesses at the hearings held last year suggested that a
panel of experts in the fields of science and technology should
be set up to serve the committees of Congress which deal with
those problems. The enactment of the pending bill, and the
establishment of the Science Advisory Panel provided for
therein would enable the Congress to continue to call upon
the experts named to such a panel after the proposed Com-
mission has completed its work and submitted its reports
and recommendations.
One of the basic objectives of the bill is to provide a
medium through which individual Members and committees
of the Congress can obtain information which is not now
available to enable them to take appropriate legislative
action to establish definite Federal policies in the field of
science and technology. The reports and recommendations
of the Commission will also provide a basis for an evalua-
tion of programs which are presently in operation as well as
those which are being proposed.
Evidence was also submitted at the hearings on S. 2771 in
the 87th Congress which indicated that the Bureau of the
Budget has reported that a detailed evaluation of existing
science and technological operations of the numerous
agencies operating in these fields has been found to be too
difficult. The result has been that the agencies interested in
procuring appropriated funds are not required to submit an
evaluation of achievement under existing programs, but
merely attempt to justify further appropriations of funds.
Under this procedure, it was pointed out that Congress is
required to appropriate funds on faith alone, since the appro-
priate committees and individual Members of Congress have
no information which would permit them to evaluate the
programs or to take the necessary action to eliminate exces-
sive duplication and waste.
Should the Congress enact this measure, it will be provided
with a means of obtaining information and facts that will better
enable it to perform its appropriate constitutional function.
The Committee on Government Operations is firmly con-
vinced that there is a real need for a bipartisan commission
to study all of the science and technological programs of the
Federal Government as proposed by this bill. It is further
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
CIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
CIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
ESTABLISH A COMMISSION ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
convinced that its enactment will insure maximum utiliza-
tion of the resources of private industry and nonprofit
research organizations, including universities and other edu-
cational or technological institutions, in the formulation of a
properly coordinated program with the maximum utilization
of the resources of private industry, nonprofit, and other
technological institutions at a reduced cost.
The committee in recommending this legislation in past
Congresses considered it to be an essential first step in
achieving these objectives so that the Congress and the
President may have the benefit of the recommendation of
qualified experts in the fields of science, engineering and
technology upon which appropriate legislative action may
be taken to promote more efficiency in the operation of these
programs and to effect economies that are essential in con-
serving Federal funds and technological manpower.
In view of our current fiscal difficulties, I am sure all of
my colleagues are sympathetic to any measures which seek
a balanced budget. Nevertheless, our science and tech-
nological programs must not be hampered or neglected.
I submit that this measure should result in material savings
through a freer exchange of ideas and a better coGrdination
between the various Federal agencies dealing with science
and technology. It should eliminate much of the current
duplicity of effort. I, therefore, urge enactment of this
measure during the 88th Congress.
EXTRACTS FROM HEARINGS ON S. 2771
25
Hearings on the bill S. 2771, to provide for the establishment of a
Commission on Science and Technology, were held on May 10 (pt. 1)
and July 24 (pt. 2), 1962. At those hearings a number of prominent
representatives of the Federal Government and of the scientific
community were asked to comment on the organization of Federal
activities in the field of science and technology and, specifically, on
the creation of a commission as proposed in the bill.
Testimony received at those hearings is set forth, in part, as follows:
1. Elmer B. Staats, Deputy Director, Bureau of the Budget
MT. STAATS. It is not necessary to dwell with this Com-
mittee upon the impact of science and technology on our
lives and the programs of our Government. The evidence
is all around us. Federal expenditures for research and
development, for example, have been increased from $100
million per year in the late 1930's to over $12 billion per year
at present. The Federal Government's interest in and sup-
port of science and technology have affected nearly every
aspect of our national life, creating new relationships and de-
pendencies between Government and private educational and
industrial organizations. These influences have made them-
selves felt in the framing of national and international policies
and have become a matter of major importance to Govern-
ment administrators and the Congress. Correspondingly,
new and unprecedented demands have been placed on public
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
CIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
CIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
26 ESTABLISH A COMMISSION ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
officials to understand and deal with science and technology
effectively in its new dimensions.
The Senate Committee on Government Operations was
among the first to recognize the far-reaching implications
of the rapid changes in the nature and size of Federal scientific
and technological programs. The committee has made a
most constructive contribution by identifying and focusing
public attention on the varied and complex problems of
Government organization and management resulting from
the emergence of science and technology as major forces in
public policy.
The study prepared by the Subcommittee on National
Policy Machinery on "Science Organization and the Presi-
dent's Office" stressed the profound effects of these develop-
ments on the Office of the President and the need to provide
the President with adequate full-time staff advice on matters
involving science and technology. The study recommended
that an Office of Science and Technology be established in
the Executive Office of the President. Reorganization Plan
No. 2 which was transmitted to the Congress on March 29,
1962, would carry out this recommendation.
The Special Assistant to the President for Science and
Technology now gives the President advice on scientific and
technical questions. He and his Office function in much the
same way as other professional and institutional advisers to
the President such as the Bureau of the Budget and the
Council of Economic Advisers. The day-to-day working
relationships among the Office of the Special Assistant, the
Bureau, and the Council are extremely close. Many of the
responsibilities of the Special Assistant are much more like
those of officials in the Executive Office of the President than
of the White House staff. While moving science into the
White House was a necessary and desirable step in 1957, the
continued location in the White House inhibits the establish-
ment of satisfactory longrun arrangements for meeting the
President's need for professional staff assistance on matters
involving science and technology. The President, however,
would be free to designate the Director of the Office of Science
and Technology as a Special Assistant to advise him on a
wide range of matters and President Kennedy expects to
do this.
The present location of these responsibilities also has
raised problems from the congressional viewpoint. As a
personal Presidential adviser, the special assistant has not
been available for testimony before congressional committees.
We recognize that the Congress at times will desire the testi-
mony of an official who can speak authoritatively on the
Government's scientific activities from an overall, rather
than departmental, point of view. The Director of the Office
of Science and Technology, in the same way as the Budget
Director and the Chairman of the Council of Economic
Advisers, will be free to appear before congressional com-
mittees, thus meeting one of the major needs cited by the
sponsors of S. 2771.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
CIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
CIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
ESTABLISH A COMMISSION ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Establishment of a Department of Science or similar
agency would in no way alter or reduce the need for the staff
arrangements to assist the President, provided by Reor-
ganization Plan No. 2 of 1962. Science and technology are
aspects of the missions of 20 major Federal agencies, and of
scores of constituent bureaus within these agencies. No one
has ever seriously proposed that all of these science-related
activities be merged into a single all-encompassing executive
department. Under any conceivable organizational arrange-
ment, science and technology necessarily will be dispersed
widely among Federal agencies. No matter how extensive
the authority delegated to the heads of departments and
agencies, the President always must assume responsibility for
the decisions that are taken and the results that follow. It
is the President's view that an Office of Science and Technol-
ogy will provide the permanent staff resources which he
believes are necessary to assist him in carrying out his
responsibilities.
We are in agreement with the objectives sought by S. 2771.
We concur in the chairman's view that "the Nation must be
prepared to carry on comprehensive and advanced scientific
and technology programs if it is to successfully meet the
challenge of world communism." It is our hope and expec-
tation that the measures already instituted by the President
and the Congress will go a long way toward eliminating defi-
ciencies and obtaining required improvements in organization
structure. Great progress has been made in the past few
years in the coordination of national science policy. While
present organizational arrangements appear to be basically
sound, we cannot afford to be complacent. We recognize
that the search for improvements in Government organization
and operations must be never-ending, if our departmental
machinery is to function with maximum effectiveness. This
is a general responsibility shared by the President and the
Congress; it is a particular responsibility of this committee
and the Bureau of the Budget.
We believe that the most effective means for accomplishing
timely and constructive improvements is through the regular
processes of the Congress and the executive branch. Practi-
cable solutions to existing problems are most likely to be
found by those with the most intimate knowledge of current
programs and operations?the committees of the Congress,
the President, and responsible executive officials. We have
reservations, as you know, as to whether a special commis-
sion would make any major contribution to our knowledge or
suggest better ways of carrying out programs which cannot
be provided equally well through established agencies work-
ing closely with the Congress. If in the judgment of the
Congress, however, the present situation calls for special
measures of this type, such as the establishment of a Com-
mission on Science and Technology, we would be glad to
cooperate in suggesting the type of commission and the timing
of its establishment.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
CIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
27
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
CIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
ho .r.,'EAts.Lalb.ti. A CUMM.lb6.10.1N ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
I would like to comment on one particular section of
S. 2771. Section 2 (4) and (5) unduly restricts the objectives
of the Commission by requiring it to make a choice between a
Department of Science and Technology, or reorganization
through transfers of scientific and technological functions to
other executive departments. The possible choices are by
no means so limited. Proposals have been made for a De-
partment of Health, Education, and Technology,' another
proposal for a Department of Environmental Sciences, and
there are no doubt other possibilities.
The Congress has been generally very reluctant to estab-
lish new executive departments. This step in the past ordi-
narily has been preceded by the grouping of related activities
in a non-Cabinet agency. This was true with the Depart-
ment of Health, Education, and Welfare, and its predecessor.
The Commission should not be barred from considering such
an alternative, such as the one I mentioned.
In the United States, the organization and administration
of science is based on the premise that freedom of initiative,
flexibility, and diversification of support are indispensable.
In the long run, free science is the most effective and produc-
tive. The search for knowledge is the privilege of free men
At the same time, our acceptance of the Western tradition of
scientific initiative and excellence carries with it a responsi-
bility to create and maintain an organizational framework
within which the Government and the scientific community
can collaborate most effectively. We welcome the oppor-
tunity to cooperate with the Congress in this endeavor.
The CHAIRMAN. Do I understand that the administration
feels that with the adoption of Reorganization Plan No. 2,
that after it has gone into effect, you feel that there possibly
might not be a need for this character of legislation at this
time?
Mr. STAATS. I would stress the last part of your statement,
Mr. Chairman, "at this time." I believe our preference
would be to see what progress we can make in the next
several months in trying to deal with some of the problems
which I think both the committee, as well as we in the execu-
tive branch, recognize as important. I do not believe?I
think it would be quite fair and accurate to say that I do
not believe that we are persuaded at this point that a
special commission, with all it involves, may be really
necessary to accomplish what the Congress and we have in
mind. If we turn out to be wrong, then I think we would be
quite willing and happy to work with the Congress and
establish an appropriate commission.
The CHAIRMAN. In other words, there is not a firmed-up,
irrevocable conviction about it, you just feel that what is
now planned under the reorganization plan, when it goes into
effect, that there be opportunity given to see how this is
going to work, and that it may work so well that it will
obviate the necessity for the character of commission here
proposed.
'See S. Doc. 15, 87th Cong., pp. 7-10.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
CIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
CIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 29
Mr. STAATS. I think that is a very accurate statement.
The CHAIRMAN. You recognize that the Congress has a
need for information in this field that it would be able to ob-
tain through a department that it may not be able to obtain
through a representative of the President, in the Office of the
President. In other words, Congress cannot require the di-
rector of the office that is being designated in the reorganiza-
tion plan to testify before its committees with respect to any
information he might have, except by consent of the Presi-
dent; is that correct?
Mr. STAATS. No, Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that
would be quite correct. One of the principal points we have
made with respect to the need for Reorganization Plan 2 is
to make available an individual who would have responsi-
bility for science all through the whole Government, through
the entire spectrum of Government science activities, avail-
able for testimony to the Congress. He is not now available.
The CHAIRMAN. You do propose that this office created by
the reorganization plan, this office in the Office of the Presi-
dent, be made available to the Congress for all information
that it might have?
Mr. STAATS. Yes. The President in his message transmit-
ting plan 2 to Congress called particular attention to this.
The CHAIRMAN. That the administration will undertake
under the reorganization plan to overcome a deficiency that
the Congress has encountered heretofore?
Mr. STAATS. Yes. Mr. Chairman, I recall very well a
statement which you made on the floor of the Senate in which
you called attention to the fact that there is not now available
anyone in the executive branch who could speak before com-
mittees of the Congress on science problems and science ad-
ministrative difficulties. -We feel that this plan does meet
that need.
The CHAIRMAN. How would it be overcome if this com-
mittee then requested the Director of the Office of Science
and Technology to supply information pertinent to the legis-
lative process, or directed him to appear and give testimony
with respect to information that he had within his official
knowledge, would he be required to do so, or could the Presi-
dent exercise the Presidential privilege and withhold that
testimony?
Mr. STAATS. Normally, he would be available.
The CHAIRMAN. I am not talking normally, now. Let us
say it has happened. There would be no question about
normal. Would he be required to come or not?
Mr. STAATS. I think he would be available on the same
basis as the Budget Director or the Chairman of the Council
of Economic Advisers, both of which are in the Executive
Office of the President.
The CHAIRMAN. I would think so and I would hope so. I
am not questioning your statement that he would be avail-
able, but I would like to make a record here so that we will
know. As you can appreciate, this field has become so
enormous, Congress cannot possibly meet intelligently its
S. Rept. 16, 88-1-5
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
CIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
CIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
JN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
duties and responsibilities without having available to it all
information within the Government essential to its making an
intelligent judgment. I think that is what we are searching
for here, a way for the Congress to get this information, and
require the President to authorize its submission if need be.
Mr. STAATS. We agree that the Congress should have this
information.
The CHAIRMAN. Now, then, you say you think it is not
needed at this time, and you emphasize "at this time," that
such a commission here proposed not be established. Is there
any other real objection on the part of the administration to
the enactment of such legislation? What you are sayin,,,a is
that you do not think we need it, but I want to go further
now and ask you is there any real objection to the Congress
taking this action?
MT. STAATS. I would like to be very explicit in response
to your question. There are many areas of the Government
which are very important and represent very important
problem areas. Our general hope is that we have the means
within the committees of Congress and the executive
branch to deal with those problems without going to, we
think, a measure which is very time consuming; it is expen-
sive; it takes a lot of time; and it is difficult, as you know,
to control the end result of their report in the sense of when
they get their job done and whether the result is responsive
to the need. They should be independent if they are estab-
lished. I know that you have had great experience with
the Hoover Commissions, as we have had, and realize what
a tremendous undertaking it is to establish a commission
of this type. So I suppose, to the extent that we have an
objection, it is a desire to minimize the amount of Govern-
ment machinery that is needed to deal with this problem.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, all the way through you emphasize?
all the way through your prepared statement?the continuous
need for study and for finding methods of improvement.
- Mr. STAATS. I did; yes.
The CHAIRMAN. And the Congress, I think, shares that
view, and we have heretofore employed this means of
getting information and authorizing studies to guide the
Congress in Its deliberations and to effect proper judgment.
Since this field is so vital, a good many of us feel?and I am
not irrevocably committed to this procedure relative to this
measure?but I may say to you it does have a very strong
appeal to me and I think to some other Members of the
Congress, that the Congress ought to be doing something,
too, to keep itself informed. This is the means that seems
feasible and advisable for it to adopt, to establish a com-
mission such as this to? make the study and report back
to it with recommendations for its consideration.
When you speak of the expense ot it, we can only guess as
to how much it would cost. Even if it required the appropri-
ation of perhaps oneor two millions of dollars, it would not
be too great, considering the importance of the task. What
good will actually come out of it, whether it will make a
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
CIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
IA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1 N ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
report or studies that Congress will adopt in full or in part,
or whether it will remove question marks that appear before
us now, whether the Commission will find that arrangements
proposed here under the reorganization plan would be accept-
able for both the executive branch ,and the Congress, I do not
know. But I think there is going to be a question mark
before Members of the Congress, at least a good many of us,
that, until some study is made by such a proposed Commis-
sion, compased of members who are actually competent to
go into this field and come up with some answers, we will be
laboring under a serious handicap.
I was hoping there would not be an administration objec-
tion?I mean a serious objection.
Mr. STAATS. I think, Mr. Chairman, that your statement a
little earlier' in the questioning, does reflect very accurately
our view about the matter. Stated in other terms, we feel
that before we move forward and establish, in effect, a
Hoover-type commission to look at this area, that both the
Congress and the Executive ought to be persuaded that it is
really necessary to do that to achieve its objective. We at
this point have some doubts that that will be required, but
if later on, it appears that this is the best way to approach it,
I am sure you will find us willing to cooperate with the
Congress on it.
The CHAIRMAN. I appreciate that science activities in
Government are now scattered and spread in some?how
many agencies, did you say?
? Mr. STAA TS. Some 20 agencies. Sixteen of these repre-
sent most of the dollars in the budget, but there are 20.
The CHAIRMAN. It, Of course, will not be possible to pull
all of these together in one department, I appreciate that,
just in the case of the plan to create a Department of Urban
Affairs and Housing, you were not pulling all of the housing
activities into one department. That proposal certainly,
when compared to the importance and need for coordination,
there is hardly any comparison between the importance of
that and handling our problems with respect to science, to
handle them in the best way possible to serve our country.
I had thought?I could be wrong?in the course of these
hearings we would try to get information that will either firm
up my initial beliefs or point out the error of what I am
thinking. I had thought that possibly there should be, in
view of the vast importance of this subject, a Department of
Science and Technology.
2. Dr. Augustus B. Kinzel, past president, Engineers Joint Council
Dr. KINZEL. Three years ago, together with Mr. Enoch
R. Needles, then president of the council, I was privileged to
appear before the Subcommittee on Reorganization and
International Organizations of your committee, chaired by
Senator Humphrey, in relation to a bill to create a Depart-
ment of Science and Technology. At that time we suggested
that a broad study similar to the Hoover Commission study
be undertaken to expose all the facts relevant to the complex
science and engineering activities of the Federal Government,
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
CIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
31:
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
CIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
ON ?SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
and to make recommendations for optimum orderly reor-
ganization of these activities.
This suggestion was based on our opinion that more effec-
tive planning and coordination of the Government's scientific
programs could be accomplished by improved organization
of governmental functions.
We observed, however, that in any reorganization careful
consideration should be given to the need to maintain within
existing departments, engineering and scientific activities
which by their nature are directly pertinent to the mission of
these departments. This emphasized the need for an evalua-
tion of the overall governmental functions in science and
engineering. The bill which you are considering, S. 2771,
would essentially implement our suggestion.
Since that time certain changes have been instituted to
promote increased coordination of scientific activities of the
Federal Government, most recently in the Reorganization
Plan No. 2 of 1962 proposed by the President.
In our opinion, the changes made since our prior testimony
are all in the right direction, but the study proposed by the
Commission on Science and Technology would probe the
basic problems confronting our organization in science and
technology in greater scope and depth and would highlight
the fundamental facts that are necessary to arrive at sound
conclusions about the future needs in terms of overall organi-
zation of the governmental functions. The proposed Com-
mission properly integrates the interest and participation of
the executive and legislative branches of the Government as
well as provides for the advice and counsel of the scientific
and engineering communities.
Again, parenthetically, you have stressed the vital impor-
tance of science and engineering in our national effort. I
not only concur, but would add that the magnitude of science
and engineering in Government is now about 10 percent of
the national budget, if my reading of the published figures is
correct. This gives it importance in a quantitative sense as
well as in a qualitative sense.
? In summary, Mr. Chairman, we suggest that the rapidly
growing governmental responsibilities and functions in science
and engineering have created a vast complex of organizations
which cannot be best integrated and managed in the absence
of a high-level objective study which will permit the Congress
and the administration to consider the broadest approaches
to the overall organization. We believe that the proposed
commission would provide such an objective approach and
Engineers Joint Council would be pleased to cooperate in any
appropriate way.
3. Honorable George Meader, Representative in Congress from Michigan
Mr. MEADER. ? in my view, a bipartisan study commission,
similar to the Hoover Commission, offers the best hope of
grappling successfully with the problems involved in the
Federal Government's activities and expenditures in the field
of scientific research and development.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
CIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
CIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
ESTABLISH A COMMISSION ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
33
A commission composed of able members representing the
executive and legislative branches of the Federal Government,
the scientific community and the general public, adequately
funded and properly staffed, would possess the perspective
and prestige, the freedom from special interest, preconceived
predilections and possibly erroneous habits and commitments
to enable it to make a penetrating analyses and well-reasoned
conclusions. Its stature and the quality of its study would
lead to a sympathetic and receptive consideration of its rec-
ommendations by the Congress and executive branch of the
Government as well as the scientific community.
Of course, in the final analysis, the quality of the Commis-
sion's work and its usefulness would depend almost wholly
upon the capacity of its members and the skill and ability of
its staff.
In my view, the creation of this Commission is urgent.
Events are moving, and expenditures are mounting rapidly.
Mistaken methods may become congealed into the fabric of
the Federal-scientific community relationship. The bureauc-
racy may move rapidly to carry out the bureaucratic domina-
tion of scientific research envisioned by the April 30, 1962,
report of the President's Committee. The Congress may
proceed with hasty and ill-considered action such as the
imposition of a rigid percentage limitation on indirect
expenses of research grants and possibly extend it to research
contracts.
The need for knowledge to replace false, tacit assumptions,
for clarity to replace confusion and for enlightened progres-
sive leadership to promote efficient, effective, and unfettered
scientific investigation all indicate that time is of the essence
if we are to preserve, perfect and utilize intelligently one of
our most valuable national instruments in a rapidly develop-
ing civilization beset with conflicts and complexities.
4. Dr. Alden H. Emery, executive secretary, American Chemical Society
Dr. EMERY. In April 1959 it was my privilege to appear
before the committee, on behalf of the American Chemical
Society, and to suggest that a commission be created to
investigate thoroughly the merits of a proposal for a Depart-
ment of Science and Technology.
We also stressed at that time the need to have a competent
spokesman in the Government who could be responsible for
Federal research and development in science, particularly for
those scientific activities which are scattered among various
departments whose major interests are nonscientific.
Our recommendations were based upon a formal policy
statement, adopted by the society's board of directors in
1958, which was directed to the overall need to strengthen
our country's position in the fields of science and technology.
On March 24 of this year, the board again considered this
general subject. As a result, it voted to reaffirm the intent
of the 1958 recommendation. Hence, we are still in general
agreement as to the need for legislation such as S. 2771.
Since the introduction of this bill, however, the Congress
has been asked by the President to consider Reorganization
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
CIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
.01A-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
34 ESTABLISH A COMMISSION ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Plan No. 2 of 1962 to establish an Office of Science and Tech-
nology as a new unit within the Executive Office of the
President. Examination of this proposal shows that it
shares some of the general objectives of the committee's bill.
We believe both measures have, essentially, two broad pur-
poses; namely, (1) to coordinate Federal science activities
within the various operating departments of the Govern-
ment, and (2) to focus greater attention upon the importance
of science and technology to our country's welfare now and
in the future.
Both objectives are supported by the American Chemical
Society. It then becomes a question of determining whether
Reorganization Plan No. 2, S. 2771, or a combination of both,
offers the best approach.
S. 2771, for the establishment of a Commission on Science
and Technology, also holds promise of developing improved
procedures for upgrading Federal science activities. The
American Chemical Society was among the first to suggest
such a commission and still believes the idea has merit.
If the committee, however, envisions the end product of
the Commission's studies as a Federal Department of Science
and Technology, we would inject a note of caution. Since
the idea of a department was first advanced, it has become
evident to me that many scientists and engineers have devel-
oped serious reservations about the potential value of a large,
bureaucratic agency dedicated to science.
A few years ago, any approach which seemed hopeful of
focusing more attention on science would have been wel-
comed. Today, wise leaders in government have demon-
strated a better understanding of the importance of science
programs to our national welfare. Hence, I doubt that
many of my colleagues today would support the creation of
an agency the size and rank of a Federal department unless
an investigative commission had determined that such a
department is desirable and showed that it could be a means
through which Federal science programs might be made more
efficient and productive.
That, I may interject, is one of the purposes of this Com-
mission. Of course, also to be determined would be the
magnitude and scope of existing science activities, their im-
portance, and whether or not we ought to have a Department
of Science.
As you have said, this Commission might well reject that
idea of a department after it has made a thorough study.
If people are appointed to this Commission who are com-
petent in their particular fields, thereby getting a well-
qualified Commission to make this study, I think we would
all be inclined to follow its recommendation and it might well
eliminate the idea of a department. But, it might confirm
the need for it.
I mentioned the Department only because many people
feel that the desire for this study is primarily a desire for a
department. I wanted to make clear that such is not at all
our thinking on this matter. Our thinking would agree with
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
CIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
CIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
ESTABLISH A COMMISSION ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
35
yours; that is, let us see what the Commission has to recom-
mend.
The CHAIRMAN. I sure feel that way about it. I am not
wedded, actually, to any proposal. I think in a field where
we know so little, we had better marshal or mobilize the best
talents and minds we have to study it and give us some
guidance.
Dr. EMERY. Exactly.
Either independently or in conjunction with the proposed
Office of Science and Technology, we believe S. 2771 offers
a useful mechanism for obtaining a meaningful appraisal of
our existing national science program, and for providing
sound guidelines for their future development. First of all,
the Commission should be able to determine which Govern-
ment science activities are most likely to benefit from co-
ordination to minimize overlap, thereby improving our
technological posture. Secondly, the Commission should
be helpful in evaluating the potential of the proposed Office
of Science and Technology as a coordinating agency. Lastly,
the Commission would be in an excellent position to deter-
mine whether any other means might be desirable to support
the function of the Science Office.
We shall not comment upon the specific objectives and
operational details of S. 2771, all of which merit our full
support. In two areas, however, we are in a position to
offer assistance. First, if the Commission is formed, we
believe the American Chemical Society can make sound
recommendations concerning coordination of Federal sci-
entific information activities. Since its inception in 1876,
our society has been deeply concerned with the need to
handle effectively the mass of chemical knowledge gener-
ated by American scientists. Our experience in this field
has led to a vast publications program utilizing the most
modern mechanical techniques for the acquisition and dis-
semination of information. We shall gladly make this
experience available to the Government.
Secondly, the American Chemical Society can suggest able
and interested scientists to serve on the Commission or on its
Science Advisory Panel.
5. Dr. Wallace R. Brode, former president, American Association for
the Advancement of Science; former Associate Director, National
Bureau of Standards; and former Science Adviser to the Secretary
of State
Dr. BRODE. It is my understanding that this hearing is
concerned with two actions before the committee, Senate
bill S. 2771 on the establishment of a Commission on Science
and Technology and the Presidential Reorganization Plan
No. 2 of 1962 to establish an Office of Science and Tech-
nology in the Executive Office of the President.
In my opinion these two actions are not mutually exclusive
nor is action on either essential to the other. The objectives
of the McClellan bill, S. 2771, would appear to be the de-
velopment of procedures to improve our national science
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
CIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20
CIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
613 .E6TABLISH A COMMISSION ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
program. The President's reorganization plan has also the
same broad objectives of the improvement of our national
science program. The McClellan bill contemplates a careful
study from which recommendation for various actions may
be made. The President's plan for an Office of Science and
Technology is an action plan, which could be one of the
actions based on a study such as the McClellan bill proposes.
As an example of the kind of reorganization which might
be considered, one might note the article in this week's
Sunday Washington Star on a Department of Education in
which there is a suggestion that one might move Welfare to
the Department of Labor and place the National Science
Foundation, the National Bureau of Standards, and the
Weather Bureau in with Health and Education to form a
Department of Education, Science, and Health. Such a
department would encompass the Government's principal
basic research and fund granting areas for universities. This
is but one of many possibilities of change to consider, but it
certainly does not involve placing all of the Government's
science in a single department.
Several of the existing groups or agencies such as the
National Science Foundation or the President's Science
Advisory Office, if given the proper staff and authority,
could not only serve as a coordinating body for our science
programs but might take on the status of a Department of
Science. I felt, however, that the assignment of such co-
ordinating authority should not be made until a reasonable
study of adequate scope had been made. If such a study has
been made it would seem reasonable that such a study
should be provided to the committee for consideration and
also to the scientific community so that each can form a
considered judgment.
If such a study of adequate scope has not been made, or
if the results of such a study cannot be made available to the
Congress to guide its decisions, then it would seem highly
expedient that the Congress should authorize the study
proposed in the McClellan bill.
Unless an exhaustive study of sufficient depth has been
made to obviate further commission study, it could well be
that another, and perhaps different approach to the very
broad problem of our national scientific program, using dif-
ferent experts and concepts, and possibly done independent
of the executive branch, might lead to alternative solutions
to those proposed by the President. A combination of the
best concepts of both studies could lead to an improved
national program.
Without knowing the ultimate results to be obtained from
the proposed office, or its method of operation, it is not prac-
tical to express an opinion or make a direct comment,Ii
there are studies to indicate the reasons for the various rec-
ommendations contained in the President's proposal for an
Office of Science and Technology, then the release of such
studies to the Senate committee and the scientific commu-
nity would permit a much more direct and useful approach to
the proposal.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20
CIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
CIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
ESTABLISH A COMMISSION ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
The CHAIRMAN. In other words, you are not opposing
Reorganization Plan No. 2. You are saying, however, that
whatever study was made should be brought forward to indi-
cate how and why the administration came to that conclu-
sion, and that any study made upon which this proposed ac-
tion is based, should be made available not only to Congress
but to the scientific community. If no such study was made,
there still remains an even greater reason for the purposes of
this bill.
Dr. BRODE. And if a study was made, there still is reason
for a duplicate or another approach to the same problem to
see if we come up with the same answer, or if there are other
answers which might be combined. I heartily support that.
The CHAIRMAN. In either event, you think this legislation
is appropriate?
Dr. BRODE, Yes. I heartily support the legislation.
6. Dr. Alan T. Waterman, Directior, National Science Foundation
Dr. WATERMAN. In my opinion, the Office of Science and
Technology fills in several respects an important need in the
organization for science and technology in the Federal Gov-
ernment. In principle, the functions of this Office seem, in
the light of my experience, to contain provision for solution
of a most pressing problem which has faced the executive
branch with increasing emphasis; namely, an assignment of
the responsibility within the Executive Office of the President
to a statutory unit accessible to the Congress, which can
undertake consideration of broad far-reaching programs and
major issues arising in Government concerned with science
and technology as affected by and affecting national and
international policies, including the overall national security
and welfare and which entail large amounts of money and
effort. With inputs from the President's Science Advisory
Committee, the Federal Council for Science and Technology,
the National Science Foundation and individual agencies as
appropriate, this Office, through its Director, should prove to
be of great value in providing advice to the President on
such matters.
The Office of Science and Technology will be the central
authoritative body in the executive branch of the Govern-
ment to deal with important questions concerned with sci-
ence and technology and through its Director to advise the
President accordingly. It will be in position to utilize the
full-time services of a group of individuals of broad back-
ground and good judgment, highly competent in research and
development and representative of major sectors of the
economy. Being in the Executive Office of the President its
Director will be available to the Congress in a manner similar
to the Director of the Bureau of the Budget and the Chair-
man of the Council of Economic Advisers. Furthermore the
Director of the Office will have clear responsibility and au-
thority for recommending to the President means for resolving
major issues in which science and technology are concerned.
On other than major issues presumably the Director would
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
CIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
37
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
CIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
00 1ADJ1F1 ft l.A.71V11V111.01\1 uN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
only need to exercise the power of review, as appropriate.
Such an Office, in my opinion, will be able to serve a need
not fulfilled by any other group as presently constituted.
With regard to the proposed Commission on Science and
Technology, the matter of governmental organization for
science has received considerable study and analysis over
the past 5 years, indeed ever since World War IT. In this
connection, the Subcommittee on National Policy Machinery
of the Committee on Government Operations has rendered
valuable service in studying the problems of Government
organization for science and making recommendations
thereon; establishment of the Office of Science and Tech-
nology was one such recommendation.
I have doubts as to whether creation of a commission to
study these matters further would be desirable at this time,
particularly since the Office of Science and Technology has
just been established and we do?not, as yet, have experience
with its operation. Should such a commission be established,
however, I feel it should not be limited to a consideration of
whether a Department of Science and Technology is de-
sirable, but should address itself to the broad problems of
general Government organization for science.
I would say first it is very important to recognize the role
that is played by the existing agencies, which for the most
part are mission-oriented, such as health, atomic energy,
space, and going beyond that, commerce, and all the rest.
These agencies have definite practical missions which they
have to pursue and which serve the country. It is very
important that they make the maximum use of research and
development to serve the mission for which they were
created.
In other words research and development is a service which
each agency should have, and it should be the first duty in
the organization of science in the Government to see that
this responsibility is pinned on each agency, that they are
organized to do it and do it efficiently.
The CHAIRMAN. Would this bill and what it envisions?
the possibility of ultimately establishing a Department of
Science?supersede or supplant the real functions now carried
on in this field by the separate agencies like the Department
of Defense, Department of Commerce, and Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare?
Dr. WATERMAN. In my opinion?and I have given this a
great deal of thought, because I believe this issue of what we
do about science and technology in the country is among the
most important we will have to face in future years?there is
no question about that?in my view there is danger that the
research and development or the science and technology in
the individual agencies will be weakened if a department of
science and technology is established.
The CHAIRMAN. In your opinion it would interfere with
the functions of these separate agencies?
Dr. WATERMAN. Yes. You see, as industry well knows,
it has to get research information firsthand, it even has to do
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
CIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
CIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
T ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
some basic research to understand its problems better. If it
tried to depend only upon what was published by scientists
elsewhere it would be getting the information secondhand,
and that is not good enough. So my first requirement is
that each agency have a strong research and development
department.
The CHAIRMAN. Each agency have its own research and
development programs?
Dr. WATERMAN. Yes. Also, if you had a Department of
Science and Technology administratively it would be quite
difficult to determine to what extent it should supervise and
control research and development in individual agencies.
This would not be an easy thing to resolve. Take the Depart-
ment of Defense. Surely the Department of Defense must
be looked upon as the most expert in carrying out its mission
for defense of the country. As such it ought to know best
what sort of research and development it should do. And it
can't continually have someone looking over its shoulder
and saying: "You are not doing the right research, you
should do something else."
It should itself know, and the administration of the
Government should be sure that it does know how to accom-
plish its objectives efficiently.
The CHAIRMAN. In other words, a great measure of
independent judgment must be reserved like, say, in the
Department of Defense, which has the best knowledge and
upon whom we must rely for the final judgment in that
particular field?
Dr. WATERMAN. Yes. At the same time it is clear that
there must be some check on this, some power of review to be
certain that the agencies are doing an efficient and effective
job. I believe that the new Office of Science and Technology
should have as one of its major responsibilities, the power of
review of the research and development organization and
programs of the agencies to be sure that they are doing their
job well.
This does not mean that they need to ride herd on the
agencies all the time but, if something seems to be going
wrong, they should be in a position to recommend to the
President that steps be taken.
The CHAIRMAN. Now, have you studied this particular
bill? What conclusions have you come to and what recom-
mendations do you make with respect to this pending bill?
Dr. WATERMAN. My conclusion is that it seems premature
to start a study about the way science should be organized,
and in particular a Department of Science and Technology,
for the reason that we have the mechanisms to deal with the
requirements that I started to speak about.
The CHAIRMAN. You have used the word "premature"
now.
Dr. WATERMAN. Yes, premature because we don't know
yet how they are going to work, in particular the new Office
of Science and Technology just now started. Now, in
principle?I started to speak of these requirements. The
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
ICIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
39
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
CIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
hblABLIbli A WAINlibblUlN ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
first was to be sure that each agency had a strong research
and development department.
The second requirement is that there must be coordination
between the Government agencies. And this is taken care
of by the Federal Council for Science and Technology, both
in the coordination of current programs to be sure there is no
unnecessary duplication, and in projections for the future.
So coordination problems should be in their hands to study
and make recommendations to the President.
Third, there are other questions on very important critical
issues that come before the Government, the President in
particular, that call for the expert advice of the leading
research scientists and engineers in the country. And that is
taken care of very well by the present Science Advisory Com-
mittee which has a very fine record in dealing with matters
involving the national interest where science and technology
enter in an important way. That is the body which is avail-
able for this purpose. These are people outside the Govern-
ment, the best experts that can be found.
That leaves three more items, then, on my requirements
list. One is, what does one do about science itself and the
training of scientists? This is what the National Science
Foundation was created for, and I feel that we have made
a great deal of progress in handling that particular subject.
I believe that the National Science Foundation is very well
designed for the purpose and that its record shows that this
is the right way for the Government to back science and
science training.
As you know in the National Science Foundation we also
have a policymaking body, the National Science Board,
consisting of 24 distinguished individuals with backgrounds
in research, education, and public affairs.
Now, the National Science Board can also serve the
President in matters of policy relating to basic research and
training, and especially in Government-university relation-
ships, because we deal so largely with colleges and univer-
sities. That is one thing which in the long run we must
take full advantage of.
Now, what I have just said covers the major requirements,
I believe, except for two things. One is, communication
with the Congress on these matters. And the other require-
ment is for a body with the authority and responsibility of
overall review and evaluation of major issues that arise.
And that is why we in the Foundation, our National Science
Board, and others, strongly favored the establishment of the
Office of Science and Technology.
This will be the top authoritative body to deal with major
issues. I think it should really confine itself to major issues,
because otherwise the work would become unmanageable.
But this body can receive information, say, from the Presi-
dent's Science Advisory Committee, from the National
Science Board, and from the Federal Council on Science and
Technology. And it will be the body that can take these
things in hand and make recommendations to the President
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
CIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
CIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 41
about their disposition. At the same time the Director will
be available to the Congress so that as these plans come
along he may be able to explain them to the Congress. To
me this last move creating the Office of Science and Tech-
nology is the most important one of all. It is what we have
missed all along; namely, an authoritative body to take these
major issues and handle them systematically and thoroughly
and advise the President with regard to them.
The CHAIRMAN. That is the Executive Office of the
President?
Dr. WATERMAN. Yes. You see, it is hardly proper for the
? National Science Foundation to evaluate the work of a sister
agency. That is not the right position to be in. As I said
before, we are not in a position to understand the missions of
other agencies as well as they are. So this is a reason for
putting the evaluation function into the new Office accord-
ing to the reorganization plan. So now that function which
had been the responsibility of the National Science Founda-
tion has been transferred to the new Office of Science and
Technology.
The CHAIRMAN. I am serious about this, and I am not
trying to be too technical. You said it is premature.
That implies to me that there will be a time, an appropriate
time to do it, and you take the view that it is now premature.
Now, when do you foresee would be the appropriate time
to do this, to make this study?
Dr. WATERMAN. More correctly, it would seem to me
premature to make a decision to have a Commission. If
the present committees that I have spoken of and the new
Office succeed, then it would seem to me unnecessary to have
a study made.
The CHAIRMAN. SO, if I get your testimony?I am trying
to understand it?you say, well, "Now, since this has been
done, we ought to wait and see how it will work before we
do anything further," is that right?
Dr. WATERMAN. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. And so you would say, "Do nothing now,
Congress, sit down, wait a while," is that what you are
saying?
Dr. WATERMAN. I believe SO, yes, sir. And then if
things do not go well in 2 or 3 years, that would be the
time to make the study and find out what the records have
been.
The CHAIRMAN. Hold everything in abeyance, let's not
move, let's wait a while? I am not trying to put words in
your mouth, just to make the record so that I can under-
stand it.
Dr. WATERMAN. Yes, sir.
Senator JAVITS. I gather from the terms of the bill that it
might lead to the establishment of a Department of Science
and Technology as a Cabinet office. Do you feel that the
present office in the executive department would also lead in
that direction if the indications were that that is what we
ought to do; in other words, that you don't need a special
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
CIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20 :
DIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
jjs,ouN ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
commission in order to bring you to that point, if that point
should be the desirable national objective?
Dr. WATERMAN. It may be. If the Office of Science and
Technology can succeed in limiting itself to major decisions,
or rather major recommendations to make to the President
on the very important issues that arise, then with the other
mechanisms I should think that things would be in good
order. On the other hand, if this cannot be done, if the
Office has to grow markedly to do its job, this might con-
ceivably lead to the move toward a Department of Science
and Technology.
My position on the Department of Science and Technology,
however, is that this is a risky thing to try because it would
tend to take away the responsibility for science, for research,
and development from the existing agencies.
Senator JAVITS. Now, the virtue of a commission, of
course, is that it will expose research to the winds of dis-
cussion, controversy, argument, hearings, and the public's
impact. The problem, as I see it, since in a limited way we
have gone so far, is that it is all rather insulated in the Office
of the President. The science adviser reports to the Presi-
dent and the President hears him, and that is the end of that,
if the President wants it that way; whereas a commission is
likely to be somewhat more open to public discussion, perhaps
even tempestuous.
Now, in the field that needs more stimulation, as my dis-
tinguished colleague Senator Gruening says, maybe that is
the route we ought to take. What would you think about
that, the fact that this boat needs a little rocking?
Dr. WATERMAN. The commission has that great advan-
tage, of course, it gets a full debate on the issues involved,
and through study and opinions from all who are interested.
That is an excellent mechanism. But I would think that
one would want to be very sure that the system of organiza-
tion in effect is deficient before one goes through such a study,
because it does take a great deal of time. One thing in par-
ticular that should be remembered is that the Office of Science
and Technology is in the Office of the President and would
be accessible to Congress. I am setting a great deal of store
by that, because it seems to me that this is the way Congress
can learn about what is going on.
Senator JAVITS. It is accessible to us if the President
wishes it. He can limit its accessibility any time he wants to
in his executive departments.
Dr. WATERMAN. Of course, that is an Executive decision.
The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Waterman, you testified before a
subcommittee of this committee on May 28, 1959, I believe.
Senator Humphrey was chairman of the subcommittee.
And at that time the hearings were being held on S. 586, S.
576, and S. 1851. S. 1851, at least, was a bill comparable to
the present bill proposing the establishment of a Commission
on a Department of Science and Technology. You testified
at that time that you believed:
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
CIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
CIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
ESTABLIbti A UUNIIVI.LbW.U1C ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
"As a general matter a commission of the type proposed in
S. 1851 might be useful in assessing the need for such a
department"?speaking of a proposed Department of Science
and Technology?"I believe the creation of such a commis-
sion at this time would be premature."
Another paragraph or two later in your testimony you said:
"Under these circumstances I believe that the mechanisms
already in operation should be given an opportunity for trial,
perhaps for a period of 1 or 2 years, after which time the
matter of a commission might be reconsidered if it were felt
at that time that substantial steps had not been taken toward
the solution of the problems at which the proposed Depart-
ment of Science and Technology is aimed."
Now, it is more than 3 years later. Do you still feel, as
you have testified, that it is still premature?
Dr. WATERMAN. Yes, because we have not stood still in
the meantime. I believe that, for example, if we had not in
the meantime seen the establishment of the Federal Council
for Science and Technology, and if we had not come through
with an Office of Science and Technology, which to me is a
very critical Office, then this would have been very much in
order.
The CHAIRMAN. And since we have that now you think
we ought to wait another 3 years to determine what it does
or will not do, is that your testimony?
Dr. WATERMAN. It seems to me that we should have a
chance to see what it could do, but not just that particular
time.
The CHAIRMAN. How long do you think it would take?
Dr. WATERMAN. TWO Or three years.
The CHAIRMAN. You think we should wait that much
longer again?
Dr. WATERMAN. I should think so. Of course, if things
started going badly it would be another matter.
The CHAIRMAN. In your testimony I think Senator
Humphrey questioned you about the Federal Council for
Science and Technology which had already been established
some 3 months prior to the committee hearings, in 1959.
He pointed out that this Council never had made, nor was
likely to make, any report to the Congress, isn't that true?
Dr. WATERMAN. Yes, that is true.
The CHAIRMAN. And that is still the case, is it?
Dr. WATERMAN. I believe so. However, the new Office
would be able to report the activities of the Council, if this
seemed to be desirable to the Director.
The CHAIRMAN. I notice Senator Humphrey expressed his
views rather strongly at that point. And Senator Gruening
also asked if that wasn't your position there?if it wasn't
part of the "trickle-down policy." And Senator Humphrey
commented that "it sure is."
Do you have any comment about how that operates at
the present time; whether this, as they termed it, "trickle-
down policy" has been working effectively?
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
CIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
43
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
-2,1A-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Dr. WATERMAN. I am not sure what is meant by the term.
Do you mean carry on and not really come to grips with
something?
The CHAIRMAN. According to the views of members of
this committee, the Congress obtained from this source just
what little information they wanted it to have. I under-
stand that is what is meant?that Members of Congress
didn't have any control over it, except to take whatever the
Council or the President wanted to make available to them.
Dr. WATERMAN. I feel strongly myself that Congress is
entitled to know about these matters when the time is
? appropriate.
The CHAIRMAN. How do you suggest we go about know-
ing more?
Dr. WATERMAN. To establish good contact with the Di-
rector of the new Office.
The CHAIRMAN. Not by any law that would require him
to do anything, but we should just keep up a contact with
him and get what he will let us have, or what the President
permits him to give to us?
Dr. WATERMAN. Yes; contact on both sides. As a
scientist, I like the idea of experimenting now that we have
the Office, to see what it will do.
The CHAIRMAN. You mean that the Congress should make
contact with the Director and see what he will let us have?
Dr. WATERMAN. Yes; this is the experimental approach,
and see if this doesn't take care of the situation. In the
meantime, of course, the individual agencies can always be
called before the committees. And we,? for example, will
always be glad to talk about our problems.
The CHAIRMAN. I don't know whether we can call him or
require him to come before committees of Congress or not
in this particular Office, since the Office of Science and Tech-
nology is under the direct control of the President.
Dr. WATERMAN. I would assume so.
The CHAIRMAN. Wouldn't he be subject to executive priv-
ilege if the President so ordered?
Dr. WATERMAN. To the extent that the President ordered.
But I would think it would be quite similar to the situation
of the Director of the Bureau of the Budget who does appear
before Congress regularly. As far as I know, the White
House has indicated that the Director would appear before
Congress.
7. James Rand, president, Rand Development Corp.
Mr. RAND. The first point I would like to make is that I
disagree strongly with Dr. Waterman. I think that it is
later than we think. I think that we can't afford to wait to
have 3 or 4 years pass by. I don't think we will know any
more than we do now. My personal impression of the varied
Government organizations for research and advisory pur-
poses is that they are so many and so manifold in their pur-
poses and intent that it is impossible for any comprehensive
view to be had by Members of Congress or the Senate on
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
CIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
CIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
ESTADLISH A COMMISSION ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
exactly the status of science and technology in the United
States or in the world, for that matter.
If we look at the development, now, of retrieval reading
machines, information machines, in Russia a few years ago
the head of the Academy of Science told me that he con-
sidered the information retrieval machine as more important
than atomic physics, because for the first time you will be
able to press a button and 50,000 or 100,000 abstracts read
in an hour by a machine and then brought out automatically
so that you don't have to look for them. At the present
time most of our scientists spend more time in the libraries
than they do in the laboratories. What a tremendous thing
that is.
The problems of satellite Telstar?this is an enormous
thing. How do we get our information now? How do you
people find out what is going on, and the significance of these
various things, unless you can have a commission for science
and technology, and have them have an open ear to each
of the branches, each of the scientific groups, so that they
in turn can be heard?
So I think that this Commission on Science and Tech-
nology is a must. I don't think it is going to interfere in
any way with the existing bodies that we have, but I think
it will be a translating body for you, and also make it possible
for scientists in one branch to hear those in another branch.
The CHAIRMAN. This Commission is only a temporary
Commission, it is designed just to make a study and report
back to Congress, this would not be a permanent agency or
function.
Mr. RAND. Well, it could be
The CHAIRMAN. I am not saying it couldn't be, I am trying
to find out, Is that what you are recommending?
Mr. RAND. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. You want something permanent?
Mr. RAND. I am in favor of the experimental approach
like Dr. Waterman said, let's see what can be done to
translate these things into everyday English.
The CHAIRMAN. One of the purposes of the Commission
was to determine whether we should have a Department of
Science and Technology.
Mr. RAND. I am in favor of that. But I don't know the
form of it. I think you have to have a study before you can
have it.
The CHAIRMAN. YOU think the Commission is vital and
that it ought to be established without further delay and
start its study?
MT. RAND. Yes, I do.
The CHAIRMAN. Whether it finally leads to the establish-
ment of a department or some other agency or permanent
commission or a director of science and technology or some-
thing else, the study, you think, should begin now?
Mr. RAND. Yes, sir. If we don't do it we will never know.
The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Waterman has suggested that we wait
another 2 to 3 years. Let me ask you, what do you see that
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
CIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
45
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20
CIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
4b ESTABLISH A COMMISSION ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
could develop in that time that would obviate the necessity
for a study in this field?
Mr. RAND. I can see nothing. And I can't see any
interference a study can make on what we are doing now.
The CHAIRMAN. In other words, the study might proceed
along with the experimentation?
Mr. RAND. Why certainly. And it would be an experi-
ment in itself.
Senator MUSKIE. In your judgment, Mr. Rand, as I
understand it, you think that at some point we are going to
have to have a permanent central agency in this field for the
purpose of coordinating, translating, and interpreting the
advances in science and technology that are constantly
emerging at such an accelerated pace?
Mr. RAND. Yes, sir; I definitely believe that. I don't
know what form it should take. That is the reason I am
wholly in favor of a study to determine what form it should
take. But we must have a way of telling people what is the
significance of nucleic acids or sleep machines or surgical
instruments, and so on. It makes sense. And also different
groups of scientists in different departments and different
bureaus can have a place to go if they have their back up in
the department they are already in.
Senator MusKIE. Since you feel, then, that in your judg-
ment the results of this study probably will be some form of
central agency, what questions do you think are unresolved
that ought to be answered or at least researched by such a
study commission?
Mr. RAND. I think one of the main things is how to make
known the significance of frontier discoveries, so that the
average person can understand it.
Senator MUSKIE. You don't have any idea, I think it is
implicit from what you say, that the central department of
science and technology ought to bring under one roof all of
the research activities of the Federal Government in the
science and technology field?
MT. RAND. Absolutely not.
Senator MUSKIE. I thought that was your point, but I
think it ought to be clear in the record. So that this possi-
bility would not be an appropriate field of study by the study
commission?
? Mr. RAND. That is right.
Senator JAVITS. Now, is another function that you would
like to see, sir, the question of priorities and the relationship
of one field or research to another? I was struck with what
Dr. Waterman said, that the theory of pure research is that
you let people just go ahead in their own fields with what
they think is important, and if they think it is important,
then you assume that it will ultimately perhaps make some
contribution, or at least the utilization of the resources will
be worthwhile in terms of national interest. Now, is there
anything in your views which relates to priorities and the
coordination of one field of research with another?
Mr. RAND. I am in research for profit. I have no use for
what we call wheel spinning, which is just groping in the
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20
CIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
CIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
ESTABLISH A COMMISSION ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 47
dark on basic philosophies, and so on. I think we have to
have practically a priority, and it has to be reviewed from
day to day and month to month. And I think that is one
of the functions, to find out what we need, is an anti-missile
missile of top priority or isn't it? I think we know the
answer. But there are things much less distinct, and these
require careful review.
And we should keep on adjusting and reviewing as we do
in industry, research and development, what are we trying
to do? If we were in the typewriter business we don't want
to make shoe polish.
I have been trying to find, for example, Rus sian space
literature, and I have gone to several agencies, and I find that
there are about a half dozen different agencies translating
Russian technical literature. But I can't find out what
percentage of available technology is being translated.
It might interest you to know that the Soviet Union has
just created a science advisory group to coordinate all science
in the Soviet Union with a representative on the Council of
Ministers. This happened in the last year.
Senator GRUENING. I just want to ask Mr. Rand, you
think rather poorly of what you call wheel-spinning basic
research. Haven't there been a lot of important discoveries
made by just this wheel-spinning process?the discovery of
penicillin, for instance?by accident?
Mr. RAND. I don't think this was the wheel spinning, he
was doing something else at the time he considered important,
and it was an important piece of work, and he made a chance
observation.
Senator GRUENING. But it was incidental to his other
work?
Mr. RAND. That isn't wheel spinning, but if you pay a
man month for month regardless of what he does you lose
control of him. And if he can't explain what he is doing or
why he is doing it, forget it, as far as the commercial aspects
of the thing are concerned. I think in the university when
he is performing a fundamental teaching job, then it is not
necessary to control him, because he is being paid for some-
thing else. But if he has got an important part of his time
devoted to research, he should be able to explain what he is
doing and what the significance is, if there is any.
8. Dr. Roger M. Lueck, chairman, Research Committee, National
Association of Manufacturers
Dr. LUECK. There can be no question of the importance of
science and technology in our economy today. This is
reflected in the threefold increase in the Nation's research
and development expenditures during the last 10 years?a
growth, incidentally, that exceeds the rate of increase in the
gross national product. In 1953 the total research and de-
velopment expenditures in the United States were $5,150
million; in 1962 the total will approach $16 billion. From
70 to 75 percent of this research and development is per-
formed in the laboratories of industry and is under the
direction of the administrators of industrial research.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
CIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20
CIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
48 ESTABLISH A COMMISSION ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Now, there has been some reason for concern over the in-
creasing participation of Government in the support of the
research and development effort. In 1953 the Government
financed 53 percent of the total research and development
effort; in 1962 its support will approach 75 percent. In 1961
approximately 58.5 percent of the research performed in in-
dustrial laboratories was supported by Federal agencies and
it is likely that the percentage will be higher in 1962. This
changing situation seems to warrant a closer examination
and study of Federal programs than have been given hereto-
fore. The Commission, as proposed in S. 2771, can, there-
fore, perform a useful service.
Now, the NAM Research Committee supports the prin-
ciple underlying S. 2771. We feel that a study of the diversi-
fied Federal scientific programs will be worthwhile if only
to point up the incidence of programs in one agency which
overlap others supported by another Federal agency or which
can be supported by private funds. I have little doubt that
a report from such a Commission will disclose numerous ex-
amples of duplicating programs within the different Federal
agencies, as well as several for which there exist the incentive
for industry to support with private moneys.
However, I wish to be crystal clear that our support of
the principle of S. 2771 in no way predisposes the NAM or
its Research Committee as to the need for, or lack of need
for, a reorganization of Federal departments leading to a
Cabinet-level Department of Science and Technology. Our
comments and suggestions concerning such a Department
would be forthcoming only after a review of the Commission's
report.
Although, as I have said, we support the principle of the
bill in question, we believe that certain amendments to it
would not only clarify its intent, but also would lead to a
stronger Commission that could be expected to issue a more
meaningful report.
The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Lueck, in principle your group sup-
ports the bill. We heard testimony from Dr. Waterman that
the establishment of such a commission would be premature.
He feels that we should wait 2 or 3 years, to observe the
intent and operations of the Office of Science and Technology
before making a study of this type.
Do you disagree with his judgment?
Dr. LuEcx. Well, as you recall, Dr. Waterman made that
same recommendation 2 or 3 years ago. We don't feel that
the situation has changed sufficiently in that period of time
to alter our feeling about the matter. And we feel that there
should be some positive action of this kind taken to really
make a study of this thing. We doubt if the Office of Science
and Technology as it is currently constituted is fully capable
of doing this job.
The CHAIRMAN. Do you think a study along with or
simultaneous with the initiation of the functions to be per-
formed by that Office, would necessarily cast any shadow of
doubt upon it? Could it be done without doing that, but
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20
CIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
I Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
CIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
ESTABLIS1-1. A UOIVINlibblOIN ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
with the idea of implementing it in studying and observing
its work?
Dr. LUECK. We don't see how the Commission if properly
constituted could interfere at all with the work of the Office
of Science and Technology.
The CHAIRMAN. In other words, that Office could go on
and function?
Dr. LUECK. And some of the information developed by
the Commission in its study might turn out to be very useful
to this Office of Science and Technology.
The CHAIRMAN. As I understand it, you withhold judg-
ment on whether a Department of Science and Technology
should be created, you are not saying it should, and you are
not saying it shouldn't.
Dr. LUECK. That is correct. We feel that determination
should be made after the results of the Commission study are
made.
The CHAIRMAN. In other words, the facts should be as-
sembled and made available for consideration before? judg-
ment is made with respect to the establishment of such a de-
partment, or as to what other machinery is necessary and
needed to handle this problem?
Dr. LUECK. That is right. We do not feel that at the
present time we have got the facts before us that would en-
able us to make an intelligent decision as to whether we need
a Department of Science and Technology or not.
Senator MUSKIE. Getting back, Dr. Lueck, to the ques-
tion I asked you earlier, this prepared statement appears to
have one sentence which is responsive to my question. And
I read:
"I have little doubt that a report from such a commission
will disclose numerous examples of duplicating programs
within the different Federal aggncies, as well as several for
which there exist the incentive for independent industries to
support with private moneys."
I wonder if you are prepared to give some illustrations of
both of these. I think that such illustrations in the record
might very well be an important argument for the creation
of a commission to research other examples.
Dr. LuEcx. In relation to the overlap between Federal
agencies, one comes to mind. The Department of the In-
terior has been supporting a great deal of research on the de-
salinization of seawater to produce fresh water. In the
course of time the laboratory facilities at Oak Ridge, Tenn.
(Oak Ridge National Laboratory) which are operated by
the Atomic Energy Commission, have apparently sort of
run out of work in the atomic energy field. That laboratory
performed a very useful service, obviously, during World
War II and right after when an attempt was being made to
develop some of the peacetime uses of nuclear energy. But
apparently they have run out of good applied research proj-
ects in that field, and are now suggesting that they institute
a lot of projects in the area of water desalinization.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
DIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
49
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
DIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Not only that, the suggestion has been made that they
convert that Laboratory into a Federal university. Appar-
ently they have got a staff there built up of very competent
people that they hesitate to disband because of their compe-
tence, and yet they do not have enough work to go around
for them in the field for which it was intended that the Labo-
ratory should work. And yet at the same time we are run-
ning in a situation where the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, which is carrying on this very important
work in space exploration, is running out of highly skilled
technologists and scientists; in fact they are getting to the
point where they are making appropriations- for the educa-
tion of these people.
I see no reason why the excess personnel in Oak Ridge
couldn't be transferred to NASA and utilized. But there
is a tendency, once a facility has been set up in, the Govern-
ment, to keep it indefinitely.
Senator MUSKIE. So you have struck another point,
it seems to me. The commission could undertake this as
another avenue of study, increasing the mobility within
Federal agencies of scientific personnel.
Dr. LUECK. That is right.
Senator MUSKIE. On this question of duplication, should
not we make a distinction between actual duplication on the
one hand and, on the other hand, the exploring of a problem
from different points of view? I am thinking now, for ex-
ample, with respect to desalinization?and I don't know
what the facts are?that the Interior Department people
may be approaching it down one road, and the other group
down another road, and these two efforts are not necessarily
duplicating, one may be productive of results and the other
not, but it is a little difficult to predict in advance.
Dr. LuEcK. I will agree with that; providing the approach
of the new group is entirely different.
Senator MUSKIE. And so this commission could study that
too.
Dr. LUECK. That is correct. I think you will find cases
where their approach may not be entirely different, it may
be just a further development of some idea that had already
been researched.
Senator MUSKIE. Now, on the second point that you
make, that is, that there may exist an incentive on the part
of industry to support some research projects that are being
undertaken in Federal agencies, can you illustrate that? I
am? all for this if we can get private money to support some
of these efforts.
Dr. LUECK. Well, I ran into a project the other day in the
Department of Agriculture, a project aimed or oriented to
the conversion of wheat to adhesives. To me that is a case
of applied research that ought to be undertaken by industry,
and I am dead sure that industry would undertake, if it is
going to be economic at all, to produce a new adhesive out
of wheat or an adhesive out of wheat that can't be produced
in anything else, I am sure that industry would undertake
that if the Government didn't.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20 :
CIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
?
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
CIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
ESTABLISH A COMIVIIbblUA ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
51
Senator MUSKIE. Do you know whether or not industry
is undertaking that particular
Dr. LUECK. I can't tell you for sure about that.
Senator MUSKIE. Well, suppose that a Government agency
such as this one conceives that this project is useful, now
what steps could that agency take to solicit activity by
industry in research? We couldn't direct industry to do it,
that wouldn't be the answer.
I note that in one of your suggestions you, have expressed
the opinion that this commission should undertake to study
only Federal activities in the field and not private ones. It
seems to me that this point that you make would require
that the commission consider to some extent' at least the
ways this incentive could be provided for industry to under-
take research projects which Government agencies might
otherwise undertake.
Dr. LUECK. We have given this matter quite a little
thought. We have found it a little difficult for private in-
dustry to come down here to Washington, to go to the
agencies- and get a clearcut picture of what projects are in-
cluded in their programs.
Senator MUSKIE. As a matter of fact, I suspect it is ar little
difficult for a Government agency to find out what projects
are included.
Dr. LUECK. That may very' well be. If there were some
kind of a provision set up whereby' at least for the non-
classified projects, an abstract could be made of the intent,
and the objective of the project and this made available to
industry, I think there would be many cases where industry
could come back and report they are already doing that work,
or they are willing to undertake it.
9. Dr. John H. Heller, executive director, New England Institute for
Medical Research
Dr. HELLER. I have the impression that this bill derived
from the feeling in the Senate that perhaps everything was
not going as smoothly or as well as it might in science and
in technology, and that this bill is, in effect, an effort to try
to put together a commission in order to make recommenda-
tions to the Senate so that it may act more effectively in the
area.
I would concur with that philosophy without question.
There are certain major areas of Federal research, all under
the executive branch, that need scrutiny. Indeed, there are
some areas wherein I feel that the national security is being
severely compromised. A large variety of Federal agencies
is handling science, but the Senate seldom knows whether
they are doing a good, job or not until very egregious errors
come to public notice.
Where is our system of checks and balances in this? We
have a budget of over $9 billion for science that you gentle-
men must approve. This is a large amount of money.
i
Furthermore, not only is science monetarily significant?it s
a matter of our security, and, indeed, affects, every segment of
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
.01A-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
CIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
t? tvo.u10/1. A UV.I.V.U.V1.1.1.U.LN ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
our economy. Agriculture, mining, transportation, health,
and even the clothing we are wearing now have been proc-
essed by scientific and technological methods. Science has
an impact on practically every congressional committee and
every bill which comes to your consideration.
But science isn't a uniform whole; it is divided into many
sections. It would seem to me that perhaps the best way
the Senate could be completely informed is to have its own
senatorial scientific advisory group, responsible to it alone.
Scientists serving on such a group should be free of any
political pressures from the executive branch. These pres-
sures exist, whether real or implied; I know of several cases
where scientists felt that very serious errors were being com-
mitted but were afraid to come forward and say so, because
they feared reprisals in terms of not getting grants in the
future.
This is why I think it is very important that such a group
be responsible only to the Senate.
In a system of checks and balances, if one is to check or
balance something one must have as much knowledge about
the subject as the group one is checking or balancing. Now,
the President has an Office of Science and Technology, which
has a Scientific Advisory Board. Why cannot the Senate
and/or House have the same kind of group, one which is inde-
pendent and one which the Senate can have recourse to in
order to ask, "Is this right?" or "What is the real situation?"
or "Is anything vital being overlooked?"
As you pointed out, Senator McClellan, if the President
does not wish the man or men in the Office of Science and
Technology to testify before you, they will not so do. But
if you have recourse to your own scientists even if they do not
have access to all classified material they can give you some
very shrewd opinions as to whether or not everything is
functioning as it should or whether or not there should be
changes. The problems of duplication, overlapping, waste,
failures, or omissions you cannot effectively check upon now.
I have no objection to an investigative commission as
proposed in this bill. I am a little worried about the composi-
tion of the commission, because it seems to be heavily loaded
on the executive side, which is the very branch to be checked
and balanced. I would be a little disturbed by the fact that
the commission would only be in existence until 1963.
The CHAIRMAN. That, of course, is a matter that could be
easily corrected, the life of the commission. You say it is
heavily balanced on the side of the executive.
DT. HELLER. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. I would like to point out that Congress
appoints two-thirds of the Commission.
Dr. HELLER. Well, the President appoints four, and the
Vice President appoints four, two being Senators. I think
you would have a preponderance of scientists chosen on this
basis who, in effect, might be chosen because of their known
synpathetic attitudes toward the executive. This might
not be as dispassionate a group as you seek.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
,CIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
CIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
ESTABLISH A COMMISSION ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Heller, let us think in terms of your
suggestion. If the Senate set up an agency just to report to
it?when you say Senate of course you mean the Congress.
Dr. HELLER. Surely.
The CHAIRMAN. If the Congress set up an agency to report
to it only, and as you have stated, it did not have access
to all of the information available to the agencies under the
executive departments, it couldn't very well be as effective
as we would expect. I appreciate your viewpoint, but what
we are trying to do is find a way to coordinate all of this so
that the Congress will have the information about all science
and technology development.
That is what I think we are trying to do. It was pointed
out here in some remarks that I read from Dr. Waterman's
previous statement and from Senator Humphrey and Senator
Gruening at the hearing in 1959. Today the Congress is in a
position of receiving information that is trickling down to us.
It has been screened, and we receive only what the executive
branch wants us to have.
And maybe that is not adequate. Maybe we are not able
to get the facts upon which we can make the checks and .get
the balances Operating that are intended. That is the point.
Dr. HELLER. I agree completely with this point. I believe
that if the Senate had three or four scientific advisers, in
effect acting as agents of a senatorial committee, they would
probably have access to a significant amount of material
on work done or proposed in the executive branch which
the Senate does not now get.
Now, let us assume that a certain amount of that infor-
mation would be classified in one way or another, and that
that very information might be critical in order to reach a
certain decision.
Now, a cardinal point is that science holds very few
secrets. For instance, if congressional scientific advisers?
say a group of nuclear physicists are asked by you to con-
sider some proposed bomb technology?even if the group does
not have direct access to all that is going on in the Govern-
ment, or classified material?they can make pretty shrewd
guesstimates as to the state of the art and what could or
should be done, and then present recommendations to a
Senate committee.
The CHAIRMAN. On the basis of that we might be able to
reach out into the executive branch of the Government and
get the information.
Dr. HELLER. Exactly. And if the Senate group of science
advisers was about to make recommendations based on
insufficient or wrong data, the executive branch would
suddenly say, "This is catastrophe." Then, in effect,
they would most likely have to give the correct data to the
Senate group.
All this would, I think, offer a continuing stream of in-
formation, as opposed to the present trickle, directly to you
on all conceivable phases of science as it impinges on the
Senate business.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
CIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
53
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
CIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
LbTABLIS1-1 A COMMISSION ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
I would agree with the declaration of purpose in S. 2771
completely. These things need investigating. They need
shoring up. Grievous errors are being committed, of both
omission and commission, some directly to my own knowl-
edge. I think they should be looked at. I disagree with
my old friend Dr. Waterman that you should wait. We
are in a scientific and technological explosion which won't
slow down or wait. And therefore I do not think the
Senate should wait.
It never hurts to question. It never hurts to get informa-
tion. It never hurts for the Senate of the United States to
get reliable information.
The CHAIRMAN. Then you wouldn't oppose the Com-
mission?
Dr. HELLER. No, sir. But I would prefer to have it as
independent as possible, responsible only to the Congress.
If such a Commission needs participation of people in the
executive branch, call upon them or have them testify.
But if you have in the Commission a group of Government
scientists or others recommended by them, I think that
the psychology of man is such that there is a tendency not
to throw rocks lest a rock be thrown back.
I am always happier in a situation such as this if an
independent and autonomous group?without fear of hurting
the feeling of friends and colleagues?can be the investiga-
tors. An independent group might agree item for item with
the programs which are now being carried out in the executive
branch. But if not, I would think the Senate would like to
know about it. And I would think that you would like to
have people who would be without prejudice or bias toward
the executive branch bringing you information.
The CHAIRMAN. Do you think a study by the Commis-
sion, as proposed in this bill, if the Commission is created,
might very well come to the same conclusions you have so
expressed here and suggest that the Congress establish its
own independent agency and source?
Dr. HELLER. Since I bring you this idea I must say of
course I hope so. I think it would be most useful to the
Senate.
The CHAIRMAN. Therefore the creation of a Commission
in no way conflicts with your position?
Dr. HELLER. In no way, provided it is impartial.
The CHAIRMAN. It could very well implement your view-
point?
Dr. HELLER. Very much so.
The CHAIRMAN. I just wanted the record straight.
Dr. HELLER. That is correct. I think the need for the
Congress to know is paramount. We are in a cold war that
we hope will preempt the next hot war. I think world war
III is being fought today in the laboratories. There are
scientific areas where our security is being seriously com-
promised, as I see it. And when that happens I become
very concerned. But to whom can I take this concern
today?
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
CIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
CIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
. .1A.1:51/1b1-1 A UtilVIIV11b1liiN ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
The CHAIRMAN. You have no source to go to to make the
complaint?
Dr. HELLER. I can go to an individual Senator or Congress-
man, but the subject is usually too complex for him without
scientific help. So ?he says. "This is pretty technical and
complicated, what do I do with it?" Then where can I go
with my concern or complaint?
In the previous hearings on a similar subject a statement
was quoted from an article in the journal, Science, which
asked: "Who speaks for science?" No one man can do so is
the correct answer.
There is not a unified single entity called science, anymore
than there is one entity called law. Just as there are many
branches of law, so there are many branches of science. So
I hope the Congress will not try to deal with a single unit
called science. Science is active in agriculture, and in that
area may be quite far away from space and nuclear physics.
That is why I feel the Congress sends a top level cadre of
scientific advisers representing many different disciplines.
This leads to my final point.
I would be violently opposed to a cabinet level Department
of Science and Technology. Of the many reasons, I will
cite only one at this time. There are numerous agencies in
the Government that have sole cognizance over a certain area,
such as the Atomic Energy Commission. Do you truly be-
lieve that the Atomic Energy Commission or its scientists
have never made a mistake in a decision? I do not, and I
think they will agree.
Yet, to research proposals brought to such an agency its
scientists must say either: "No, we will not support this
area," or "Yes, we will support the other one." There is no
recourse from their decisions. If you, as an outsider, still
wish to do research which they have decided not to support,
you "have had it." But with multiple agencies such as we
now have in most areas a good project can go to agency A
and be turned, down but then go to agency B and be
accepted. This often happens. Unify, and a single refusal
can be tantamount to total blockade. This is serious.
I would rather have duplication than any bureaucratic
dictation of science of any kind. Freedom, I think, is des-
perately important in this area.
The CHAIRMAN. Doctor, is this the compromise area you
spoke of a while ago? Or is that something different? You
spoke of being compromised.
DT. HELLER. Compromise for security? Yes.
But I also refer to work in certain areas, completely non-
classified, where there is a particular enthusiasm of a small
group in an agency that has sole cognizance, to push a certain
project. Perhaps it isn't a really brisk idea, but they push it
because it is their baby. Yet, in another equally promising
area where proponents are not vocal or powerful politically,
a project may be killed.
As you know, we were late in getting into the rocket field.
Long before we did so, a group begged for a green light
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
CIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
55
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20
CIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
00 hb1AISLIb1-1 A UULVIIVIthblUIN ON SCIENCE AND TECENOLOGY
on rockets, but it stayed red within a "sole cognizance"
agency which almost blocked the building of the hydrogen
bomb. Many other projects have never come to light, I
can say, because they were barred by an agency having sole
jurisdiction in a certain area, and I am sure that some of the
buried ideas had merit.
In contrast is an experience in one of the novel and most
exciting areas of research in electronics, one with which I
am intimately familiar. In this area various agencies exist
which might reasonably sponsor such a project. It was
turned down by three Federal agencies as being practically
on the border of the ludicrous. But a fourth agency sup-
ported it. Today this research is not only being carried on
in numerous universities, but is also a top priority project
within the Defense Department itself. But this is only
because there were alternative sources to turn to. Otherwise
it would have been aborted.
Whenever you are on a frontier, anything you do that is
novel is going to cause raised eyebrows. People in a position
of public trust, as you are well aware, tend to be conservative,
because it is usually much safer than daring to risk failure
with something new.
In science you must not be afraid to dare. If you do not
dare to explore the unknown or unfamiliar, you will seldom
uncover basic new knowledge.
Senator MUSKIE. Mr. Chairman, I think Dr. Heller has
made two important points. The first one that he has just
discussed I think has been made very clearly, and that is the
importance of multiplicity of alternatives of research; and
the second one, the suggestion that the Congress ought to
have a sort of watchdog agency. And I wonder if that sug-
gestion might not be incorporated in the appropriate language
in section 1, the Declaration of Policy of the Commission.
It may be implicit in what is already stated there, but I
think it is so important that we might very well consider such
language. This is just a spontaneous reaction to Dr. Heller's
suggestion. He has a good one.
10. Dr. Mortimer Taube, chairman, Documentation Incorporated
Dr. TAUBE. I am a strong supporter for this bill for the
creation of a Commission on Science and Technology. I find
myself also in strong disagreement with Dr. Waterman's
statement, with his description in particular of the gulf be-
tween basic research and technology.
I think that he is fostering a myth about modern science,
the myth of the man working quietly in his laboratory, dedi-
cated solely to the pursuit of truth, working alone, you see,
in terms of basic research. I think the universities which
promulgated this myth, the Government institutions and
granting agencies which act upon it, in a sense, have ceased
to function as responsible administrative bodies in the field
of science.
Science in our time, following Alvin Weinberg, director
of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, is more properly de-
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
CIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
CIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1 ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
scribed as "big science." And I think just as big business
needed and necessitated the growth of new. Federal agencies,
so big science makes necessary a reexamination of our admin-
istration of science.
Now, the interesting thing is, just as in the 1920's and
1930's big business fought against Government regulation,
not in their own terms, but in terms of the Jeffersonian stereo-
type of small, independent farmers, merchants, manufac-
turers, and a free, mobile labor force, today big science is
fighting against reorganization of the Government structure,
not in its own terms, you see, but by fostering the myth of the
scientist, alone in his laboratory, who needs absolute freedom
from Government bureaucrats in order to get done what he
has to get done.
I am not saying that big science is bad per se, any more
than big business is bad per se. But both big business and
big science necessitate, I think, a look at the administration
and structure of science in the Nation and the Federal
Government.
The designation "big science" is not an exaggeration.
The Federal budget that may be mentioned here for research
and development science is $12 billion. It is sometimes not
realized that this is as much as the total Federal budget
before Pearl Harbor.
Now, I don't think you can run a $12-billion program on
advice from advisory councils, the National Academy, and
the 15 or 20 interlocking advisory bodies who really don't
have responsibility for the program.
Dean Don K. Price of the Graduate Staff of Public Ad-
ministration at Harvard University, had an article recently
in Science in which he used the curious phrase "The Scientific
Establishment." Among other things he noted: 'The plain
fact is that science has become the major establishment in
the American political system; the only set of institutions
for which tax funds are appropriated almost on faith."
I don't think Congress can do its duty if it continues to
do what Dean Price of Harvard said it is doing, namely
appropriating money on faith rather than knowledge. And
I don't think you can run $12-billion business on advice from
committees who have no responsibility for determining that
the Nation gets value for this expenditure.
One of the things which indicates how serious this problem
is, and which many of you may have noted, is that a couple
of months ago, a number of articles appeared in newspapers
and journals on conflict of interest in science. We used to
talk about conflict of interest in business, and conflict of
interest with reference to lawyers. What was happening
was that scientists unwittingly or not, were getting caught
in advising the scientists,
on hugh expenditures which
perhaps benefited the organizations for which they work.
A defense of the scemtist was made in many of these
articles on the ground that the conflict-of-interest laws were
outmoded; they were laws which were written during the
lifetime of the Civil War to protect Government procure-
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
CIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
57
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
-2,1A-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
t,0 GOIADLIO rl A UULVIIVIlbblUiN ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
ment; and that it was too bad that the scientists had gotten
caught in these outmoded laws.
But what none of the papers said or none of these defend-
ers said was that the National Academy of Sciences was also
founded at the time of the Civil War. In every major crisis
there has always been a need to reorganize science. In the
First World War you had to have the National Research
Council, because the Academy couldn't function. In the
Second World War you had to have the Office of Scientific
Research and Development because the National Research
Council couldn't function. And after the war, we had to
have a National Science Foundation and finally, the Office
of Science and Technology.
I don't think that these improvisations are the answer to
this problem. And therefore I am strongly in favor of this
Commission.
Finally, in terms of checks and balances, the basic problem
and the most difficult problem is the problem of the evaluation
of results of research; namely, answers to the questions: "Is
this a worthwhile research program?" and "Is the Govern-
ment getting what it is paying for?"
I represent an organization which contracts with the Gov-
ernment for research. We are proud of what we do, and we
would like to do more of it. On the other hand, we object
when the Government contracts out its evaluation function,
when it gives up its sovereignty for determining whether it is
getting value received for its funds.
And many of our agencies do that. They contract out
their evaluation function because there is no place in the
Government where they feel competence exists for this
evaluation.
The CHAIRMAN. What is the remedy for that?
Dr. TAUBE. One of the remedies, as of course has been
said, is better salaries. But this is not enough. You may
raise Government salaries, but the contractor will hire away
the people and raise the salaries all over again. So there is
no remedy this way.
There are two remedies which I would suggest. One is
that any nonprofit organization that exists solely on Federal
funds, without any capital investment or risk, like Rand, or
any other such nonprofit, nonrisk organization should not be
allowed to pay its people more for a job than the Govern-
ment pays them for the same job.
The CHAIRMAN. In other words, the Government in con-
tracting with them will make that a condition of the contract?
Dr. TAUBE. That is right. I believe in the profit system,
but these are nonprofit agencies that do not risk capital.
The CHAIRMAN. Do you mean that that would apply only
to the nonprofit industries?
Dr. TAUBE. Yes. The nonprofit organizations who don't
risk anything. They are, in a sense, extensions of Govern-
ment. In many cases they have been set up to defeat the
Government salary limitations. So it doesn't do any good
to raise salaries inside if every time you do that you create
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
CIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
CIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
ESTABLISH A COMMISSION ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
other nonprofit agencies which can leapfrog those salaries
and pull these men out of Government. Much of the
shortage of scientists in Government, I feel, is artificial; it
is competitive, based upon this type of situation.
The second remedy relates to my interest in a science
department. I think we need a science career service in
Government. We have such a career service in a number of
special agencies, and the Government can well be proud of
what it has done in its Bureau of Standards, its Coast and
Geodetic Survey, and its Geological Survey, its Public
Health Service, and its military services, and so forth.
These agencies have done great work, and there is no
reason why this great work cannot be extended.
I would like to return for a moment to this word "estab-
lishment." Dean Price said?and this is very revealing to
me?that the scientist "is a member of a new priesthood
allied with military power."
Now, one of the basic reasons why we ought to have a
science department is that it will furnish a counterbalance
to military control of science. Today the military budget
is so large that it dominates your science. But a science
department could be a counterforce against that, returning
science to a civilian agency in the Government, which it no
longer is.
The CHAIRMAN. Why do you state in your prepared state-
ment that "a large part of the Government expenditures for
research and development represents sheer waste"?
Dr. TAUBE. This is a field in which I am an expert. I have
studied the expenditures in this field, and I am conscious of
a great deal of duplication. And this is not knowledgeable
duplication; this is sheer waste of expenditure and funds.
Now,
as I say in my prepared statement, a number of months
ago, I did suggest informally to the Bureau of the Budget
that what was needed was a method of evaluation. And the
answer that I got was, "Evaluation is difficult."
But that doesn't mean it isn't important. In fact, I think
one of the purposes of this Commission should be to study
how you evaluate the results of the expenditures for the re-
search done.
The CHAIRMAN. You mean how Government should evalu-
ate what it gets?
Dr. TAUBE. If you buy an airplane and it flies, you can
tell you have got a good product, and if you buy so many
miles of road you can tell you have got a good product, and
if you buy so many buildings you can tell whether you have
got a good product. But when you buy research and de-
velopment, how do you know what you have got?
The CHAIRMAN. They say it is difficult.
Dr. TAUBE. All things rare are difficult.
The CHAIRMAN. How do you overcome the difficulty, that
is the point?
Dr. TAUBE. One of the things that I would do is measure
the performance in terms of objective, even in a research
project. In Government, because of the length of time be-
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
.01A-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
59
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20 :
DIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
? ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
tween the preparation of a budget and the presentation of it,
everybody Is always interested in justification of estimates.
There are always proposals presented to Congress. And
the Budget Bureau evaluates a promise only, before they get
it to you. But there is no agency in the Government that
looks back and says, "This is what you said you would do
with this million dollars. Did you do it?"
The CHAMMAN. I believe you would support my proposal
for a joint Committee on the Budget, where the CongTess
could have a staff of experts of its own and follow up on these
appropriations and evaluate the results.
Dr. TAUBE. I did a job once in a different field in which
something very much like this situation emerged. Once the
Ford Foundation, which was getting ready to do some work
in Latin America, asked us to do a study of evaluations of
the Point 4 program. Here money had been spent for years
and there was a desire to know what had been accomplished.
We looked through the total record and we couldn't find
any evaluations. All we could find were justifications of
estimates, justifications of proposals, arguments about
certain things. But an evaluation didn't exist.
The CHAIRMAN. The Government had no evaluation?
Dr. TAUBE. In the State Department files, the Archives,
in reports to Congress, and in printed material there were a
few minor comments that this man that you sent down wasn't
very good, or this one. But as to an answer to the question,
"Did the program actually accomplish what you appropriated
this money for?" that was no place. We couldn't find it.
The CHAIRMAN. In other words, you didn't even have a
progress report on it?
Dr. TAUPE. That is right other than that the next year
they justified the estimates.
The CHAIRMAN. Other than an attempt to justify further
expenditures?
Dr. TAUBE. Further expenditure. And this is true, I feel,
in science.
The CHAIRMAN. Then you think this commission might
make an objective study and get constructive results?
Dr. TAUPE. I do. As I said, sir, I don't think this is an
easy problem. If it were an easy problem it wouldn't need
a commission. You see, we could sit around the table and
figure it out. But because it is so difficult and so important,
this commission is vitally needed for our welfare and security.
Statement by Carl S. Stover, director of studies in science and technology,
Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions 2
As the committee knows well, science and technology are
now of central importance to the Nation, not only for defense,
national security, and economic growth, but in all aspects of
our national life. Where past societies were dependent on
agriculture for their survival, we have become dependent on
the continued advancement of knowledge and refinement of
technique. In the nature of things, we are overwhelmingly
s Author of "The Government of Science"; the Fund for the Republic, March 1962.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
CIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
CIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
ESTABLISH A COMMISSION ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
committed to the pursuit of new knowledge and technibal
innovation.
At the same time, we recognize that with the power of
modern science and technology we have achieved great au-
thority over nature. If we use this authority badly, in ways
that bring social change too rapidly or destroy natural eco-
logical balances, we can do terrible harm. If we use it wisely,
we can do much for the enrichment of human life. This
situation places significant burdens on those responsible for
guiding the growth and use of science in both public and
private life.
Although the Federal Government has always been
modestly involved in the protection and support of science
and technology and in their use to accomplish public pur-
poses, its role has grown significantly since World War II
in response to the increased importance of science in national
affairs. Instead of simply aiding science and technology,
it is now guiding them. Their future has become dependent
on the wisdom of Federal action.
In the past, Federal programs for science and technology
have grown in response to practical needs. Government
has exploited science for its purposes, and the organizational
arrangements and policies that have grown up have largely
been directed to this end. Now, its powers and those of our
scientific technology having enlarged considerably, it is
necessary for the Federal Government sometimes to protect
science and to guide its use carefully, with due regard to the
dangers as well as the opportunities it presents.
In the face of this situation, established policies and organi-
zational patterns, most of which were highly pragmatic
responses to particular immediate needs, are not always
adequate. There is a need for the kind of fresh thought that
a properly conceived and directed Commission on Science
and Technology can yield.
It has been argued that such a Commission would be
premature. My own conviction is that we must act while
there is time for deliberation, not after we reach a crisis that
would make it difficult if not impossible for a Commission
to do a sound job. In an age of such rapid change and in
an area of such profound importance, it is essential that
we proceed early, in order to forestall the crises that could
develop and might then prove impossible to correct.
The establishment of the Office of Science and Technology
within the Executive Office of the President and the strength-
ening of the Director of the National Science Foundation
were salutary steps. Yet I know of no one who regards these
modifications as the final answer to our problem. Certainly
we will do a better job as a result of these changes. But the
more fundamental questions of what our long-range science
policy ought to be and what patterns of organization will be
most likely to serve that policy remain to be answered. On
these issues, the experience under the new administrative
arrangements will be helpful, but the deliberations of the
proposed Commission would also be of inestimable value.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
CIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1
61
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
.01A-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1 ,
J. k./M.I.KLIV.11001l-P.LN
ON-SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ?
It is apparent from the record that muchf of the growth of
Federal programs for science and technology has occurred in
response to the initiative of the executive branch. Because
these programs are highly specialized, it has not always been
possible for the Congress to be as well informed about them
as would be desirable under our system of government. One
of the most important benefits of the proposed Commission
would be the opportunity it would provide for congressional
involvement and for the Congress to satisfy itself on a great
many questions that are now open. It is also vital that in
the future Congress have a larger role in setting policies and
shaping programs for science and technology. If it is to do
so, it must try to educate itself about science and technology
and it must insure that the organization patterns in the
executive branch and the Congress will make this larger role
possible. The Commission could make a contribution to
both of these ends.
There are some who believe that any effort to put greater
efficiency and effectiveness into the Federal Government's
programs related to science will result in greater restrictive
control. To me this appears as a specious argument,
especially when it is applied to the proposed Commission
and the recommendations it would be likely to make. In
the first place, any commission made up of men of the
caliber indicated in the bill would recognize the importance
of freedom for science if science is to have any integrity.
They would have this as a fundamental principle underlying
their work. In the second place, the argument assumes that
more reasonable arrangements must yield more restrictions.
Actually, the reverse could just as easily be true. It might
even be argued that one of the fruits of the proposed Com-
mission's studies should be the development of programs of
support for science that would give outstanding scientists
the opportunity to pursue fundamental research with even
greater freedom than they now enjoy from the need to dem-
onstrate the practical significance of their work.
My professional judgment is that the proposed Commis-
sion would make an important contribution to the improve-
ment of democratic government and to the enlargement of
the Nation's scientific and technical capabilities.
0
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/20:
CIA-RDP66B00403R000300220005-1