SUMMARY OF HEARINGS BEFORE THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT RESEARCH

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 221
• Document Creation Date: December 16, 2016
• Document Release Date: February 25, 2005
• Sequence Number: 41
• Publication Date: January 1, 1968
• Content Type: OPEN

Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
SUMMARY OF HEARINGS
SELECT COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT
RESEARCH
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
EIGHTY-EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST AND SECOND SESSIONS
UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF
H. Res. 504
PART 3
INCLUDES SUMMARY AND INDEX OF HEARINGS HELD
NOVEMBER 18, ,19, 20, 21, AND 22,1963; DECEMBER 11 AND 12,
1963; AND JANUARY 22, 1964
Printed for the use of the
Select Committee on Government Research
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
SUMMARY OF HEARINGS
SELECT COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT
RESEARCH
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
EIGHTY-EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST AND SECOND SESSIONS
UNDER TIIE AUTHORITY OF
H. Res. 504
INCLUDES SUMMARY AND INDEX OF HEARINGS HELD
NOVEMBER 18, 19, 20, 21, AND 22,1963; DECEMBER 11 AND 12,
1963; AND JANUARY 22, 1904
Printed for the use of the
Select Committee on Government Research
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
26-666 WASHINGTON : 1064
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Washington, D.C., 20402 - Price 60 cents
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
SELECT COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT RESEARCH
CARL ELLIOTT, Alabama, Chairman
JOHN E. FOGARTY, Rhode Island CLARENCE J. BROWN, Ohio
GEORGE P. MILLER, California JOHN B. ANDERSON, Illinois
MELVIN PRICE, Illinois JAMES C. CLEVELAND, New Hampshire
PHIL M. LANDRUM, Georgia PATRICK MINOR MARTIN, California
ROBERT L. IIoPPER, Staff Director
MICAII II. NAFTALIN, Deputy Staff Director and Counsel
STEPHEN P. STRICKLAND, Chief Clerk
EDWARD T. Pogo, Star Assistant
ANNELLE K. MURRAY, Staff Assistant
RUSSELL SAVILLE, Staff Assistant
LEO S. TONKIN, Staff Assistant
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
APRIL 17, 1964.
HOn. CARL ELLIOTT,
Chairman, Select Committee on Government Research.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN : There is submitted herewith for committee
use, "Federal Research and Development Programs, Summary of
Hearings Held Before the Select Committee on Government Re-
search, November 1963-January 1964."
This summary was prepared, upon your request and under the
direction of the staff, by the Legislative Reference Service of the
Library of Congress. Dr. Dorothy Schaffter, senior specialist in
American oovernment and public administration, in coordination
with Mr. G . Edward Wise, Jr., senior specialist in science and tech-
nology (acting as a consultant to the committee), headed a group of
Library staff members who collaborated in its preparation. This
group included Mrs. Dorothy M. Bates, analyst in American gov-
ernment and public administration, acting as principal assistant to
Dr. Schaffter, and four other staff members who analyzed the testi-
mony.
ROBERT L. HOrrER, .Staff Director.
III
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
CONTENTS OF SUMMARY
[See Introduction on following pages for guide to HEARINGS and
SU1bMMARY]
Page
Letter of transmittal------------------------------------------- Iu
Introduction------------------------------------------------------
---_____ __ VII
I. National It. & D. policies and objectives; R. & D. program planning
and evaluation-------------------------------------------- 1.079
A. Status of science and technology in the United States _ - _ _ _ 1079
B. National objectives___________________________________ 1.081
C. National policy, formation of___________________________ 1083
1). Resources, problems concerning allocation --------------- 1086
E. Areas of R. & D. which should receive Federal support---- 1087
F. Program planning and evaluation_______________________ 1089
G. Program planning------------------------------------ 1089
H. Program evaluation ----------------------------------- 1000
I. Criteria for evaluation of R. & D. activities-------------- 1091
IL Financial support of R. & D__________________________________ 1097
A. Adequacy of present support for R. & D _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ 1097
B. Distribution of support between basic and applied R. & D_ 1100
C. Basic research, adequacy of present level________________ 1103
D. Alternative sources of support__________________________ 1108
E. Financing, specific problems____________________________ 1109
III. Organization and administration of Federal R. & D. programs----- 1113
A. Favorable evaluations of the present system _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1113
B. Suggestions for attaining greater efficiency and economy,
and better organization______________________________ 1115
C. Specific problem areas______________________________ 1119
D. Fragmentized versus centralized organization of Federal
R. & D.functions ---------------------------------- 1121
E. In-house and external research facilities, choice between
use of--------------------------------------------- 1124
F. Grant and contract processes --------------------------- 1126
IV. Duplication and coordination of R..& D________________________ 1129
A. Nature of duplication and its control-------------------- 1129
B. Undesirable duplication_______________________________ 1136
C. Need for better coordination of It. & D. activities -------- 11.39
D. Dangers of excessive coordination______________________ 1142
B. Coordination of multiagency R. & D. programs----------- 1142
V. The universities and education________________________________ 1140
A. Relationships with Federal Government_________________ 1.149
B. Benefits resulting from Federal research support---------- 1151
C. Adverse effects of Federal research support--------------- 1154
D. Effects of Federal research support on the educational pro-
gram---------------------------------------------- 1161
E. Role of the universities in basic research----------------- 1164
F. Federal support of educational research__________________ 1166
G. Universities' responsibilities____________________________ 1169
11. Academic freedom and independence -------------------- 1172
I. Federal agency-university relationships ------------------ 1174
J. Continuity in Federal Government-university relationships_ 1177
K. Institutional grants versus project grants---------------- 1178
L. Indirect costs of federally supported research_____________ 1182
M. Distribution of Federal research funds among universities,
defense of------------------------------------------ 1187
N. Distribution of Federal research funds among universities,
proposals for wider__________________________________ 1188
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
VI CONTENTS
V. The universities and education-Continued
0. Smaller universities and colleges, effects of Federal research Page
support-------------------------------------------- 1193
P. Geographical distribution of Federal research funds ------- 1194
Q. Centers of excellence, establishment of new-------------- 1195
VI. Basic research and distinction between various types of R. & D---- 1199
A. Commentaries on various aspects of basic research -------- 1199
B. Distinction between various types of R. & D------------- 1201
C. Basic research in particular Government agencies --------- 1205
VII. Research in the social sciences, the behavioral sciences, and the
humanities------------------------------------------------ 1207
VIII. Research in medicine and related fields------------------------- 1213
A. Medical research-------------------------------------- 1213
B. Pharmaceutical research------------------------------- 1216
C. Optometric research----------------------------------- 1217
IX. Research in specific areas----------------------------------- 1219
A. Economic problems----------------------------------- 1219
B. Miscellaneous---------------------------------------- 1222
Socio-medical------------------------------------ 1222
Materials---------------------------------------- 1222
Water pollution---------------------------------- 1222
International assistance--------------------------- 1222
Resource environments---------------------------- 1222
Political science---------------------------------- 1223
X. Government-industry relationships in R. & D. activities ---------- 1225
A. Government-industry relationships--------------------- 1225
B. Government contracts to industry---------------------- 1229
C. Patent policy---------------------------------------- 1232
D. Byproducts of Government R. & D--------------------- 1232
XI. Manpower, scientific and engineering--------------------------- 1235
A. Allocation and utilization of manpower------------------ 1235
B: Competition for manpower----------------------------- 1237
C. Developing manpower--------------------------------- 1239
D. Scientific freedom------------------------------------ 1241
E. Shortage of manpower-------------------------------- 1242
F. Conflict of interest------------------------------------ 1244
XII. Information and publication---------------------------------- 1247
A. Information storage, retrieval, and sharing--------------- 1247
B. Individual Government agencies------------------------ 1249
C. Scientific and technical publications--------------------- 1251
XIII. Congress and the select committee----------------------------- 1255
A. Role of Congress------------------------------------- 1255
B. Legislative-executive relationships---------------------- 1256
C. Review of Federal R. & D. programs by congressional
committees---------------------------------------- 1257
D. Role of the select committee--------------------------- 1259
B. Suggestions for consideration by the select committee----- 1262
Alphabetical list of witnesses appearing before (or filing statements with)
]louse Select Committee on Government Research------------------- 1265
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
A Summary of Hearings Held Before the Select Committee on
Government Research, November 1963-January 1964
INTRODUCTION
During the period from November 18, 1963, through January 22,
1964, the Select Committee on Government Research received testi-
mony from 75 persons each of whom either appeared personally before
the committee or submitted a written statement. (An alphabetical
list of these persons is found on p. 1265 of this report.) The com-
mittee has published this information, presenting it in the chrono-
logical order in which the witnesses appeared, followed by statements
from other persons who submitted them in writing.
The information in the hearings constitutes an extremely valuable
source book on the subject of the Federal Government and research,
since the participants were authorities, respectively, on the various
aspects of the subject, chosen to represent the Government, the uni-
versities private foundations, industry, and professional organiza-
tions. Is a source book however, the published hearings have one
defect-it is very difficult to trace statements of all or several wit-
nesses concerning any single subject (as, for example, duplication in
R. & D., or the effects on the universities of Federal research pro-
grams). Recognizing this difficulty, the committee determined that
a subject matter analysis of the hearings would make the information
more usable by the committee, Members of Congress, and the inter-
ested public. The Legislative Reference Service, at the request of
the staff and under its direction, has prepared such an analysis.
Examination of the Table of Contents will reveal the results of the
analysis in the simplest possible: outline form. The 13 major headings
and their subheadings, indicate the subjects which the 75 individual
witnesses considered to be those to which the committee should direct
its attention during the present year. These subjects are very similar
to those named in various statements by the chairman and to the sub-
jects named for future study in the first progress report of the com-
mittee, February 17, 1964.
A brief explanation of the form used in presenting the analysis of
testimony in the present report : (1) under each subheading (A, B,
etc.) are collected statements on that subject by every witness who
dealt with it; (2) each such statement has been given a title, and the
statements under each subheading are arranged alphabetically by these
titles; (3) following each title is the surname of its author, and a
complete alphabetical list of these author-witnesses is found at p. 1265
of this report; and (4) following each statement are the page num-
bers in the printed hearings on which the statement is based or
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
VIII
from which it is quoted verbatim (the smaller type indicates direct
quotation).
The analyses included in the present report were prepared on the
basis of the texts of (1) the prepared statements presented by wit-
nesses, and (2) the transcripts of testimony taken at each session.
This permitted preparation of the analyses before the hearings were
published. For this reason the quoted material in the present report
may not be identical to the edited version in the printed hearings,
although the content is substantially the same.
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
1. NATIONAL R. & D. POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES; R. & D.
PROGRAM PLANNING AND EVALUATION
A. Status of science and technology in the United States
B. National objectives
C. National policy, formation of
D. Resources, problems concerning allocation
E. Areas of R. & D. which should receive Federal support
F. Program planning and evaluation
G. Program planning
II. Program evaluation
1. Criteria for evaluation of R. &, D. activities
A. STATUS OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY IN 'riIIC TJNI ED STATES
The current status o l science and technology in the United States
(Killian)
There are evidences of growing complacency about our scientific and
technological strength. In spite of our steady growth in these areas
we are still short of realizing our full creative potential or of putting
science fully to work for the national welfare. It appears that we
are on the threshold of greater achievement and this is not the time to
slow down our scientific effort. In the same way we must not slacken
efforts to advance technology, both military and industrial.
The evidences of increased competition from abroad, measured by
various indicators, indicate that, if we slacken our effort, the center of
gravity of science may again shift, this time away from the United
States. We cannot afford to take this risk.
(pp. 750-751)
E ff ectiveness and e fjciency of Government-supported research
(Ileald)
There is no question that some Government-supported research has
paid tremendous dividends. By and large administration of Govern-
ment research programs has "been good from the important stand-
points of fiscal honesty and scientific integrity, considering the great
sums involved." There is a high degree of uncertainty in research,
but "the imponderables and uncertainties" surrounding it should not
deter efforts to understand the process better and to improve the
framework in which research is undertaken, including the support by
Government.
I have no specific suggestions on the construction of such measures, except to
suggest that the job might be facilitated by the existence of a Federal research
policy.
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
1080 FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
A part of the study of efficiency involves the problem of duplication
of research efforts among Government agencies, some of which is no
doubt unwarranted. Some duplication is "intrinsic, normal, and rea-
sonable." Some waste is also inevitable.
(pp. 382-383, 400)
Evaluation of end results of research (von Braun)
It is difficult to pick out the research areas that will produce new
technology, methods, or insights in the future. There is a certain
amount of guesswork and gambling involved. If you look at the
entire spectrum of research obviously it has produced a very high
return on the money-"probably still by all odds the best investment
the country could have made."
(pp. 526-527)
Evaluation of state of our national science and technology (Haworth)
In summary, Mr. Chairman, I believe that our national science and technology
is in good health, that the funds and other resources supporting them are well
spent, and that the coordination of our national effort is good and constantly
improving. To maintain and improve the present state, we must take care to
continue the support of basic research all along the line, to encourage, foster, and
assist the education and training of new, vigorous and able scientists and engi-
neers and to support on a carefully selective basis those developments which
contribute significantly to the reaching of our national goals. Despite the com-
plexities and the increasing costs, continuing success is well within our
capabilities.
(pp. 17, 31)
Evaluation of the stability of the Nation's R. cf; D. effort (Waterman)
The Nation's effort in research and development has been a "remark-
ably consistent one in its distribution of funds and technical man-
power for the past decade." In view of the increasing apprehension
in recent years over the large increases in the Federal budget for
scientific research and development, attention should be called to the
facts (1) that the increases "have been quite effectively matched by
the increases in contributions from the other sectors of the economy",
and (2) "that the. Federal Government is not acquiring a, monopoly or
control over scientific and technological activities any more than it
has beea exercising for the past decade."
In view of this stability in distribution of effort, it would seem that one should with Federal participation. caution in Othe bviously such1 coof any radical uld lead to serious change oin the usly such could lloss of valuable time and effort in the process. Besides one must never forget
that we live in a highly competitive world, and the modern key to successful
competition lies in science and technology.
(pp. 81.0, 8t8-819)
General iaupaet of present Federal R. t i D. programs ( Harris)
We may be entering a very complex period of transition due to
decreasing research efforts in weapons development and in the space
program. "The country could well now be in a period of declining
utilization of scientists and engineers."
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved r nE T}e A 0R/N1~5 fl P"4NRQQ01 aQ .0041-9
The Federal Government will determine whether the national level
of R. & D. support drops or continues to grow. Possibly measures can
be adopted leading to greater utilization of science and engineering
by private industry.
* * * The studies of EJC [the Engineers Joint Council] and other groups
have led to the identification of continued national objectives that will lead to
the greater utilization of science and engineering by private industry. These
objectives are certainly not yet fully accepted by the Government.
The national decisions that will determine whether United States will continue
will
to be the leader of the world in R. & D. Appro-
priations Committee and other committees of the Congresebe made by the (pp. 831, 835-836)
Limitations of the overall R. ~& D. effort (Waterman)
(a) Financial limitations
* * * Insofar as funds alone are concerned, it seems reasonable to me to
assume that the country can certainly carry on an undertaking of the present
or greater magnitude, provided its objectives are sound and fully endorsed
by the Nation.
(b) Availability of necessary manpower and training facilities
If the trend in the production of scientists and engineers "which has
remained the same for 40 or 50 years" continues, the number of scien-
tists and engineers employed by 1970 will be doubled. "This gives
us some assurance that the future situation will be satisfactory.
But, and it is a large "but," we have fallen badly behind in providing the
facilities for this training. Badly needed at our educational institutions are
teachers, increases for teachers' salaries, laboratories, classrooms,. and opera-
tional funds. Unless we can come to grips with this situation, and do so
promptly, the requisite manpower will not be forthcoming, or what is very bad,
the quality of training will deteriorate.
(pp. 811, 820-821)
B. NATIONAL OBJECTIVES
Definition of objectives (Haller)
If the committee concludes that some confusion and unnecessary
duplication exist, a significant service could be performed by defining
overall goals and objectives for Government-sponsored research and
exploratory development. The committee should continually ask it-
self: What are the legitimate interests and obligations of the Govern-
ment in underwriting research, and what are the Government's
objectives?
established.
When the objectives are clear, individual programs can be viewed
as they fit into the total picture.
(pp. 331, 334-335, 336)
Evaluation of R. cPc D. programs on basis of objectives to be achieved
(IIollomon.)
R. & D. must be considered in terms of the objectives which it seeks
to fill: (1) addition to the total fund of knowledge through basic
scientific research; (2) furtherance of specific national objectives (e.g.,
Research is most productive when clear and well defined objectives have been
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 A pproy8g for Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
F DERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
military and space objectives) ; (3) improvement of services Federal
Government renders to the public; (4) support of technical work to
develop the Nation's natural resources; and (5) support of some types
of technical work that are important to industry and to the improve-
ment of the economy.
One of the yardsticks to be used in fixing objectives is whether we
can afford the cost and whether the cost is justified in terms of the
benefit.
(pp. 290-291, 295)
Objectives and role of the Federal Government in science and tech-
nology (Haworth)
* * * The first should be to assure that the scientific and technological health
of our country is first rate; that is, that we have a vigorous and healthy base to
our science and technology, upon which the whole social and economic progress
of our Nation is dependent.
A second objective is to develop, or have developed, end items-hardware,
processes, etc.-that the Federal Government needs directly for its own pur-
poses. These fall mostly, at the present time, in the areas of defense and space.
Thirdly, I believe that the Federal Government should foster and encourage
and, as appropriate, assist in practical developments that are in the general
public interest, for which the public as distinguished from the Government is
the customer. These include public health, agriculture, and developments con-
tributing to our general well-being and economic health in such fields as energy,
water, transportation, etc., where, for one reason or another, the private sector
cannot or does not carry out the developments by itself.
[Discussing the first point, he said:] The future state of our scientific and
technological health rests primarily on two factors : the maintenance and con-
stant augmentation of a fund of scientific knowledge derived through research,
especially basic research, plus a vigorous program of education in the sciences,
with particular emphasis on higher education, to be sure that we have a con-
stant stream of new vigorous young scientists and engineers to carry out the
various programs that are so essential to us. [This was followed by a discus-
sion of the various types of research, particularly basic.]
I do not believe that I need dwell particularly on the other two objectives
that I named, on the one hand the development of products for direct use by
the Government * * and on the other hand developments directed primarily
at the civilian sector. These are, I believe, well understood and, of course, will
be described to you by representatives of the various mission-oriented agencies.
I do wish, however, to make two points. First, the agencies responsible for
such developments should have comprehensive programs, not only of applied
research in appropriately related fields but also of basic research, both to keep
the agency and its laboratories knowledgeable in the front-running fields of
science and to provide an attraction for scientists with the ingenious types of
minds that are attracted by the opportunity to carry out such work. * * *
Secondly, whereas the results of basic and of much applied research are un-
predictable and prudence dictates broad fields of coverage, development is
directed at very specific and predictable ends and hence can be carried out on a
highly selective basis dictated by the ultimate aims as related to our national
goals. Since development is the most costly element in our program, the selec-
tions should be made with great care and deliberation.
(pp. 5-8, 17-19)
Purpose of Federal programs (Calkins)
Federal programs "are not so much intended to advance knowledge
generally as to make use of knowledge for particular purposes that
serve the Government."
Federal policy now recognizes that research is in the national in-
terest. I heartily approve the support of R. & D. by the Federal
Government.
(p. 911)
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100 0041-9
FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS LO
Relation of scientific research to national objectives (Berkner)
The program of scientific research should be viewed in the perspec-
tive of national needs and objectives. Why should we spend tax money
to support broad programs of scientific research? Is the return worth
the cost? What would be the effect of reducing these expenditures?
First, what is our national objective?
One can reply that it is to maintain a free and peaceful society under our
constitutional system of free choice-a society that encourages the full diversity
inherent among our citizens in the development of individual opportunity, with
economic growth sufficient to reduce poverty continually, and to satisfy ever
more fully the needs of our people.
There are five points of impact of scientific research on our national
situation :
(1) The innovation derived from an ever-growing knowledge of
nature. This allows man to increase his effectiveness in the control
of his environment, to be in reach of abolishing poverty, and to grow
in productivity.
(2) The part scientific research must play in the graduate training
of scientists. Creative scientists cannot be trained without practice,
and research cannot be conducted without a sufficient body of highly
trained scientists.
(3) Impact of scientific research on our national situation influences
public attitudes toward new ideas, products, and services. The focus
of public interest in scientific research orients the public to ac-
ceptance of the new products and services that the new economy can
provide, and accustoms them to ideas of change and progress.
(4) Advancement of knowledge lifts civilization in the cultural
sense, and provides an ever-higher richness of living.
(5) Relationship of scientific research to defense.
Only when we are at the forefront of science in every sector can we be cer-
tain that an enemy cannot immobilize our posture by some surprise discovery.
(pp. 419-420, 423-424)
The role of science in today's national life (Dickey)
* * * this Nation today requires absolutely first-rate scientific resources and
activity in every sector of our national life. a< * Our society is now dependent
upon the quality of its science for both its survival and its well-being. * * *
First-rate scientific resources and activity in a society such as ours must em-
brace both the private and public sectors of our national life. 4` * *
(p. 1075)
C. NATIONAL POLICY, FORMATION OF
Adequacy of a national research policy "dictated by a succession of
crises" (Aderhold)
Should the national commitment of research be "dictated by a
succession of crises, or is it one that should be for all seasons"?
My personal belief is that because research is so closely related to higher
education, and because of the rapidly advancing technology with all the com-
plexities that it brings, we should look at our resources and programs for re-
search in terms of orderly and comprehensive development in the future.
(pp. 903, 907-908, 909)
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
1084 FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
Consensus between the Congress and the scientific and engineering
community on several fundamental questions (McConnell)
The presently somewhat vague consensus that R. R; D. is necessary
and desirable for the national good must be sharpened. There have
been unfortunate misunderstandings and confusions arising from the
lack of a coherent national policy under which the Congress, agencies,
industry, and the universities might move forward toward commonly
accepted goals, and these must be cleared up.
The critical issues are :
(1) What is the appropriate total level for R. & D. expenditures in terms of
national objectives?
(2) What is a reasonable anad/or necessary proportion of this total for basic
research, applied research, and development?
(3) Where and under what conditions should these several activities be
carried on, e.g., to what extent should in-house basic research be con-
ducted by the Federal departments and agencies, how much of the effort
is to be assigned to muvor,sitios, and how much done in industry?
(4) Where responsibility has been given to many departments and agencies for
the same area has there been effective coordination or is effective co-
ordination possible?
(5) Is duplication of effort where it exists justifiable in terms of cost, the
need to know and time urgency'?
(p. 865)
Deterni4ination of proper national responsibility for R. & D. (Hollo-
moin )
Let me emphasize that research and development involves a large variety of
technical activities that cannot all be evaluated in the same way nor are there
any general rules that can be specified for the whale of this activity. One of the
great misunderstandings is the identification of the $17 billion of research and
development now going on in America as a single activity that can be thought
of, evaluated, and controlled by a single set of decisions.
There is no easy way to determine the proper national responsibility and
policy except to insure that adequate processes for decisionmaking are available
within the Government and that policy with respect to the relative participation
of the private and public sectors is established.
(pp. 294, 299)
National research policy (IIeald)
illy principal suggestion is for a national research policy.
The Federal Government is a major influence, if not the preeminent influence,
in the character and direction of American scientific research. A policy alone
will not guarantee that this vast enterprise will be free of confusion and waste-
fulness. But it is safe to predict that without a policy uncertainties and am-
biguities will grow.
The formulation of such a policy must consider the role of Government it-
self. Government-supported research ranges from highly specific problem-
oriented research to general research concerned with the extension of
knowledge. * * *
The question a national research policy should confront is the proportion
in which Government should support these two functions and those in between.
If Government is to be purely a regulatory agency, then its research should be
highly specific. If Government tends more and more to be concerned with the
welfare of its citizens, then its research functions become broader.
Within the framework of this basic decision, the policy
-may provide a measure for new and existing research efforts ;
-may provide means of eliminating unnecessary overlapping and duplica-
tion ;
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved Fg ~ sfu
_q,D 1 QFi?? 449A10O ,941-9
399i /j
--should transcend the view of the Government agencies, for Government
research takes place in a network of competing forces, including the politi-
cal, the commercial, the academic, and the military ;
---might fruitfully go beyond rationalization of current and proposed re-
search by providing means of maintaining a total agenda of research as
it affects the public welfare, sand establishing priorities since resources are
limited ;
--might elucidate the relation of research to education, along the lines sug-
gested above, to insure that research does not become self-defeating by
weakening the educational base on which the Nation's future depends,
including its potential for research itself.
(pp. 386-387, 402)
National scientific policy (Furnas)
* * * As a nation, we may let the situation continue to grow, like Topsy, or
we might try to plan our future more rigorously. The trouble with rigorous
planning is that it often leads to rigor mortis. It is easy to plan things to death.
The Office of Science and Technology is commissioned to establish
and enunciate national scientific policy. It is to be hoped that when
the statement of national scientific policy is given it will be in the
form of guidelines rather than detailed recommendations. When and
if such a policy statement is forthcoming, it should serve as a very
valuable guide for future congressional action.
(p. 1009)
Need for a philosophy of research (Calkins)
A mature and perceptive philosophy of the Government's role with
respect to research, viewed as a national enterprise, should be de-
veloped.
* * * Such a philosophy would recognize the vast social importance of a
balanced research program designed to advance knowledge in all important
fields; it would recognize that research is best promoted in a great number of
diverse establishments, for there is no one best type of organization for all
branches of research; it would recognize the importance of strengthening these
universities and research organizations as a national resource ; it would recognize
that research is always uncertain, that there are bound to be significant numbers
of failures, but that even negative results are often important and useful; and
it would recognize that the function of Government is not just to buy research,
but to foster research as a national enterprise for the benefits it can yield in giv-
ing man knowledge and understanding of himself and his universe, no less
than in giving him material benefits. Such a policy and program would be worthy
of the great Nation that we are in this era of our leadership in the world. I see
no extravagance in such a program ; instead I see it as a confident investment
for the future of this Nation. -
(pp. 914-915)
Unanswered questions in the future national P. cC D. program
(Furnas)
Universities constitute the most important element in the basic structure
of the present and future national research and development program but
they are only one element in the total scene. There is a long array of un-
answered questions which trouble every thoughtful citizen, as well as Congress.
Here are a few.
[The questions were stated under the following headings : Defense,
Space, Human Health, Natural Resources, Technical Assistance, Basic
Research, and Proliferation of Supporting Agencies.]
(pp. 1008-1009)
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
1086 FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
D. RESOURCES, PROBLEMS CONCERNING ALLOCATION
Allocation of Federal funds among various fields of science (Berkner)
This problem is related to the problem of duplication and involves
two major facets:
(a) Allocation of funds for new facilities. Proposals for new
facilities are now well evaluated before they are submitted to Con-
gress. Congress has the right to expect that interagency evaluation
of major facilities will be available to it when congressional action
is sought.
(b) Neglect of new areas of scientific activity. The following are
some of the difficulties to be overcome in activating new areas of scien-
tific activity:
(1) In new areas of scientific activity there are few protagonists
in the beginning, so granting agencies must apply imaginative fore-
sight to insure that promising avenues are not closed before they have
been explored.
(2) While granting agencies have well-developed offices to study
proposals in recognized areas, there are no special offices to study
proposals outside the mainstream of scientific activity, and such pro-
posals may be shuttled from one office to another.
(3) In budgeting for Congress, budgets are established for recog-
nized activities but no money is requested for exploration outside the
mainstream.
(4) Agencies fear criticism for support of proposals which cannot
be clearly identified with their responsibilities, and initial investiga-
tions in a "far out" field are difficult to identify with agency objectives.
Congress should encourage the granting agencies to examine this
problem thoroughly and report the measures that will be taken to
protect the national interest in developing new areas of science.
There will. always be a good deal of discussion about the relative
balance of research allocations to the various fields. This is natural
and healthy, but in such public discussions scientists themselves must
bear a certain minimum responsibility for their statements, particu-
larly for informing themselves rather fully about the full consequences
of their proposals.
(pp. 434-435)
Allocation of national I?. e D. resources (Harris)
One of the important issues which the committee should consider
relates to the allocation of R. & D. resources.
Is our current allocation of research and development funds and manpower
reasonably consistent with our stated and implicit national goals and objectives'?
There are other critical nonmilitary problems facing the Nation :
oceanography, high energy physics, materials, transportation, water
resources, water pollution, and the economic growth rate, for example.
(pp. 828-829, 832-833)
The Government's method of allocating resources to support Federal
scientific and technological activities (Wiesner)
In the past, most of the Federal P. & D. effort was concerned with
security. Ten years ago there was a close relationship between mili-
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS 1087
tart'-oriented D. & D. and civilian needs. Major contributions to
science and technology resulted from this relationship.
Now, we face a general stabilization of the turbulent scientific-mili-
tary revolution of the past decade.
Weapons research and development can no longer pace our progress to the
same extent and new and possibly more conscious ways of ensuring long-range
scientific and technological advances are now required.
There is also a need to apply our knowledge to problems of short-
ages, pollution, foreign economic competition, and to adjust imbalances
in our economy created by technology itself.
* * * we have not progressed to the point in this Nation where we can make
the same hard-boiled determination to drive hard because we want a better coun-
try that we make because we want to defend ourselves. I think this is a basic
problem here.
(pp.259,283-284)
Need for balance in support of various areas of research (Stever)
This need is for balanced support over the broad spectrum of basic
research in science and engineering, as well as its application to tech-
nology. The Government has the greatest power, through monetary
decisions controlling the field, and consequently the most responsibil-
ity for maintaining the balance. R. & D. in some fields of engineer-
ing particularly need more support. Support of graduate education
in engineering should be expanded. Part of the funds for P. & D. in
every technical area should be for the support of undirected research.
(pp. 1068-1069)
E. AREAS OF R. & D. WHICH SHOULD RECEIVE FEDERAL SUPPORT
Areas of P. c D. appropriate to Federal support (Jones of Esso)
At the present time and in the immediate future, it is desirable that
the Federal Government underwrite the cost of the following research
areas:
(1) Research directly connected with the national defense.
(2) Research designed to establish standards for public health and safety,
and to develop the means for insuring public health and safety in those business
areas not susceptible to the private enterprise approach.
(3) Research in areas, such as meteorology and space exploration, which in-
dustry would be unable to justify.
Government financial assistance will also be required for major ad-
vances in science and technology if it is desired to exploit them more
rapidly than is warranted by private efforts-for example, the de-
velopment of nuclear power.
The recommended division of responsibility may be summed up as
follows :
* * * Much depends upon the social and economic values attributed to ex-
ploitation of the scientific development, and these can only be evaluated properly
after long study, careful consideration and exploratory research by Government,
private industry, and other interested groups. But once the outlines of the prob-
able benefits to society have been established, we believe further development of
the new technology should be financed first, by private industry, and only by
Government if it can be clearly demonstrated that the placement of research
manpower on this development (and withdrawing it from other employment)
is in the overall national interest.
(p.782)
26--666-64-pt. 3-2
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
1088 FEDERAL RESEARCII AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
Kinds of research which should be supported (Berkner)
Any problem of nature about which a scientific question can be
phrased and studied in a way that will yield a scientific answer is
worthy of pursuit. Although the attempt may lead to failure, un-
less some tries are made there will be no successes. The qualifications
of the investigator must be considered to determine whether he is
qualified to develop the proposed problem and to comprehend fully
the implications of his results. The more fundamental a problem, the
greater the reward to society for a successful solution, although also
the greater probability of failure. The fear of failure sometimes pre-
vents the granting agency from supporting some of the really great
problems of science. Finally, some measure of duplication is im-
perative, certainly in graduate education, but more especially in the
investigation of difficult scientific problems.
(pp. 424-425, 431-432)
Priorities in scientific research (Weinberg)
In a sense, this is the most basic of all questions facing the Government in
its support of research.
The establishment of priorities in science differs from other areas
in which choices must be made because the subject matter is often
remote, and Congress and the public are less confident of their judg-
ment and less experienced in exercising it.
Constructive debate on scientific priorities, such as is appearing in
scientific journals (Science and Nature), will help to clarify the issues
of choice. The presentation of the article, "Criteria for Scientific
Choice," which appeared in Minerva, winter 1963, contributes to the
debate. (See "Criteria for Scientific Choice.")
(This is followed by a very brief statement of the contents of this
article.)
Reasonable bases for making choices in priorities exist, but the or-
ganizational structures for making the choices are inadequate, and the
Nation has not until this year faced up to the fact that choosing is an
economic necessity.
(pp. 316, 328-329)
Priorities in the Federal program of P. & D. (Wenk)
A member of the committee asked whether there was any list of
priorities established against which the national effort could be meas-
ured. The witness replied :
There is no master list.
(p.253)
Research policy as a basis for establishing priorities for research
(Calhoun)
Priorities for research can only be set after a sound research policy is
developed by agencies and by Government. Basic research should be supported
and encouraged as a matter of national and departmental policy. Beyond this,
research for the mission * * * should be evaluated in relation to national need.
There is probably no better way than for departments to set priorities in broad
fields, in concert with the Bureau of the Budget and Office of Science and Tech-
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS 1089
nology. The scientific experts should then determine the research program itself.
In the Interior Department, priorities of research programs are developed
on a bureau by bureau basis, so far as their own programs are concerned * * *
there is no, shall we say, manager of research for the Department of Interior.
* * * There is no line administration of research above the bureau level that
is separate from all other lines of administration.
Within the Bureau of the Budget, the Office of Science and Tech-
nology, and the Federal Council of Science and Technology there is
sufficient machinery for achieving interdepartmental and interagency
coordination. However, the overall priorities for research should be
determined by the legislative arm as well as the executive arm.
(pp.119-120,124-125)
F. PROGRAM PLANNING AND LA VALUATION
Planning the program and evaluating the results of Government-spon-
sored research (Flanagan)
The weakest areas in Government-sponsored research are planning
the program and evaluating the results. For contract programs, plan-
lung is the greatest need. For grant programs, improved evaluation
is the greatest need.
Contract programs
* * * In contract programs there is frequently inadequate use of experts out-
side the agency for planning and selecting problems and for evaluating the out-
comes.
In planning a program and in assigning priorities, the staff of the agency is in
effect saying, "These are the most urgent problems which fall within our area of
responsibility ; these are the problems for which research solutions must be
devised."
Surely this task deserves the serious attention of our best minds. At least,
however, in contract programs, the staff is responsible for performing these
functions. * * *
Grant research programs
* * " On the other hand, the typical grant research program has no one re-
sponsible for either planning or evaluation. Grant programs now spend most of
their administrative funds on evaluating not research, but research proposals.
For effective research administration, a systematic program of eval-
uating all types of Government-sponsored research is essential.
Knowledge of outstanding successes and failures could influence not only de-
cisions regarding subsequent proposals from the specific research groups involved,
but could establish policies and principles regarding the relative effectiveness of
various types of research teams, research administration, and research organi-
zation.
Both types of Government-sponsored research programs are
needed--(1) those which provide planned attack on urgent national
problems, and (2) programs which encourage imagination and in-
sights of individual researchers where they are not required to conform
to a central plan of research.
(pp. 930-931, 934-935)
G. PROGRAM PLANNING
Identification of goals and problems (Ilalaby)
Long-term objectives and goals should be set for the operating
agencies, and the congressional branch should share in setting anq
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
1090 FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
working toward these goals. More work, including the attention of
Congress, should also go into refining problems and programs.
More often than not, we rush into research and development without having
defined the problem with sufficient precision to know what we are really re-
searching for, what is the purpose, what is the aim?
And then a program, I think, needs definition, and within a program comes
the project.
I have found, to my surprise, that we had several hundreds of projects coming
in, and that we had not developed a program into which these projects were
component parts. I am not sure we have yet. But I feel it is very important
what we have defined a goal, then a program, and then within a program,
projects that lead toward the accomplishment of the whole program and the
goals.
(pp. 128--12 )
In.itird cost, and schedule estimates in development contracts (Haber)
(If the estimates are confined to) relatively short steps within the established
state of the art, time, and cost can be reasonably measured. But when we take
a very long; step requiring applied research as well as development and produc-
tion, then the uncertainty of initial cost and schedule estimates must be
acknowledged.
Crucial decisions involving national security will have to be made,
providing
a majority opportunity to make advantageous use of the Government-industry
partnership.
In this connection, we would like to endorse the current trend toward in-
creased participation of industry in defining the technical objectives of new
programs. We believe it is important to employ all appropriate forces to refine
the definition of programs at the outset, because good program definition can
help reduce unnecessary cost and schedule overruns.
(pp. 60'1-408)
Planning and objectives of development (Getting)
It is in the area of development where there is the need for clari-
fication of objectives, realistic estimating of costs (within the frame-
work of possibility), and proper placing of management responsibil-
ities. It is vastly important to decide what we want and what we
need to accomplish and to determine whether we can and at what
cost. In the past projects were decided upon without hard knowl-
edge on whethe!c we could succeed, how long it would take, and how
much it would cost. Things have been changing, and the Department
of Defense has become more hardheaded about taking on new proj-
ects or continuing old ones.
(pp. 1012-1013)
H. PROGRAM EVALUATION
(,valuation of Government research efforts (Jones of HEW)
The effectiveness, efficiency, worthwhileness, and general impact of
Government rer;carch are to be measured in terms of scientific achieve-
ment.
With particular reference to health research, the advances being
made today are possible because of basic findings which took place
a.s much as 15 to 20 years ago.. Similarly, "the dimensions and di-
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
versity of this present effort will underlie the even greater achieve-
ments of the next 10 to 20 years."
It is the richness and scope of these present efforts and their promise for the
future that is the best measure of the effectiveness and meaning of these pro-
grams. A special time perspective in measuring scientific achievement is, there-
fore, a necessity. Not only is there a timelag between fundamental advances in
new knowledge and the practical application of such knowledge to health prob-
lems, but there is also a timelag between research in process and the possibility
of applying the criterion of scientific achievement.
The concept of efficiency means maximum output with minimal expenditure
of resources. It is difficult to extend this concept to research activity because
of the inherent uncertainty of output in terms of quality, quantity, and value.
A more practical criterion is prudence. * *
(pp. 538-539, 550)
Evaluation of research programs (Bush)
It is impossible to calculate the efficiency of a research program. * * * I
would, for effectiveness in basic research, rate universities and research insti-
tutes first, commercial laboratories second, Government laboratories third. * * *
When scientific programs are judged by popular acclaim we inevitably have
overemphasis on the spectacular. That is just what we have today. The deeply
important scientific advances moving today are not easy to understand. If they
were they would have been accomplished long ago. * * *
In any broad program of research the key word in regard to any one aspect
of the program is relevance. It is a good word to have in mind in examining
any research program. * * *
A person engaged in basic research should have an idea of what he
hopes to find out, but it makes no sense to ask him how, when or at
what cost his work will be done. "If he know the answers it would not
be basic research."
"We need to use care that our American love of gadgetry does not
lead us astray" at the expense of neglecting important but less spec-
tacular projects.
(pp. 461-462)
Evaluation of the efficiency of military and space R. d D. (Killian)
Considerations of "optimum efficiency" are most important in the
military and space programs which are the largest users of Federal
R. & D. money, exerting a major impact on R. & D. budgets and on
manpower utilization.
(p. 757)
I. CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION OF R. & D. ACTIVITIES
Bureau of tine Budget criteria for review of proposals for R. m DA
programs (Staats)
1. Relationship of the R. & D. program to demonstrated needs.
2. Scientific or technical merit of the program as evidenced by criti-
cal evaluation procedures in the agencies.
3. The relative emphasis to be given particular fields of science.
4. Special factors of timing and opportunity for maximum research
impact.
5. The current assessment of R. & D. values.
6. Relative urmency, in the context of budgetary limitations on the
one hand and a demonstrated national need on the other.
(pp. 563-565)
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
1092 FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
Categories under 'which R. d D. programs should be reviewed (Water-
man)
(1) Organization of the Federal Government for R. & D.-orga-
nization of executive branch and legislative branch.
(2) Expenditures for science and technology by Federal Gov-
ernment,
(3) Examination of programs themselves.
(4) Examination of how programs are actually carried out and
managed.
(p. 815)
Criteria for contracts and grants (Heald)
The Government must set some standards in awarding and evaluat-
ing research grants and contracts. Better criteria for measuring re-
search "output against input" would be valuable.
The combination of urgent needs and large sums of money may
encourage impulsive and arbitrary granting or research contracts, and
may lead to dissipation of funds on fragmented and sporadic projects.
(p. 384)
Criteria for distribution of R. c D. (Brown)
(1) How much R. & D. should be distributed-
(a) By geographical area?
(b) To in-house laboratories?
(c) To private industry?
(d) To universities ?
(e) To special corporations set up to do Government R. & D.?
(2) What are the proper ground rules for deciding the above?
(pp. 178-179)
Criteria for establishing types of research to be supported by Federal
funds (Bailey)
* * * I commend for your consideration the criteria suggested recently by
Dr. Alvin Af. Weinberg, Director of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
Second, and in a sense an extension of the same subject, I suggest you give
attention to the criteria and procedures used presently in selection of individual
projects for support to determineif these can be improved as great emphasis is
given to our long-range goals and objectives.
(p. 876)
Criteria for evaluation of R. & D. programs (Waterman)
An R. & D. program can be reviewed from two standpoints :
(a) Program content:
(1) What are its objectives and what are their relative priorities?
(2) Will the program, if successful, meet these objectives?
(3) Is the program technically feasible?
(4) Is the estimated cost of the effort justifiable, in dollars, manpower, and
facilities?
(b) Management and organization:
The operating agency should be held strictly responsible for carrying out its
mission ; for this purpose it should have adequate authority and funds.
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS 1093
Fundamental to this kind of review are the following considerations :
(1) Competence of agency leadership and staff, and its organization;
(2) Selection of objectives toward carrying out its mission;
(3) Selection and use of experienced and competent consultants and advisory
committees ;
(4) Planning of programs to further objectives;
(5) Efficiency of management and administration.
* * * If an agency has experienced and competent leadership, and if it selects
and heeds advisers of the highest qualifications, then in scientific and technical
programs, caution should be exercised against attempting to find higher authori-
ties to make findings on the same technical points and plans.
(pp. 810-811, 819-820)
Criteria for evaluation of support for programs other than basic
research (Iollomon)
Different and much more pointed questions can be asked about
It. & D. activities supported for objectives other than conduct of basic
research.
I would suggest that to be sure that we are spending the Federal funds wisely,
we must first examine the program objectives which applied research and devel-
opment are intended to serve. The most significant question : Is the program
itself, that It. & D. aims to serve or improve, necessary, desirable, and in the
public interest? If so, to what degree should it be supported? Is it a program
which should be wholly supported by the Federal Government, or locally by the
States, or by the private sector, or by some combination of these? Having made
these fundamental decisions, the problem reduces to one of evaluating the con-
tribution of the R. & D. to that program. This contribution must be measured
with respect to the costs that will be incurred in prosecuting it, which in turn
is determined by the efficient management of the R. & D. as well as the likelihood
that science and technology can contribute to the program itself. [This is
followed by an example : application of the criteria to It. & D. in improvement
of the national transportation system.]
(pp. 291-292,296)
Criteria for formulation and execution of sound programs and related
R. c6 D. activity (Hollomon)
1. Assuming the objectives are worthy, the single most important criterion is
that of the competence and ability of the people that are involved. * * *
2. With respect to programs other than those aimed at broadly increasing
understanding, is management constantly considering the benefits with respect
to the costs of the technical work? * * *
3. Sound technical management requires continuing program review. * * *
4. When management is fully aware that the program no longer serves the
initial purposes, does it have the courage, the willingness to stop the technical
activity?
(pp.293-294,297-298)
Criteria for judging the merits of scientific work in terms of expendi-
tures (Thomas)
The criteria for judging the merits of scientific work in terms of
wise expenditure of funds will be the phase of the committee's inquiry
that will produce the greatest amount of controversy because "ex-
perts seldom agree with each other."
* * * Not every scientific research project is successful. In fact, success may
be a rarity, but the good scientist learns more from his failures than he does
from his successes. 'N .,. *
If a research project ends in failure it is easy to condemn it after the fact.
Actually the only fair judgment is one based on the question of whether it was
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
1094 FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
well planned and well executed-and possibly the one of whether or not failure
could have been predicted.
It is also dangerous to condemn research because of its apparent triviality or
lack of apparent usefulness. * * *
There is one remaining point * * * I believe in very earnestly. This is the
social impact of science. I do not know how this committee can go about an
investigation except to make it a subjective part of the judgment of the com-
mittee members themselves. How does one go about evaluating in a quantitative
sense the social value-and the consequent economic value-of the space pro-
gram, for example? * * * Who can weigh the economic value of having the
conquest of space a stated objective for our aspiring minds? But what thinking
person can deny that we are greater because of it?
(pp. 412-413)
Criteria for scientific choice (Weinberg)
In my article [copy furnished for the record] "Criteria for scientific
choice", in Minerva, winter 1963, I argued that the merit of a proposed
work in science can be judged by internal criteria (how competently
the work is done) and external criteria (how important the proposed
work is to the rest of the world-technological merit, scientific merit,
and social merit.)
having set forth the criteria for choice, five different scientific and
technical fields were assessed: (1) Molecular biology was rated of
highest priority; (2) nuclear energy also rated highly and deserves
strong support; (3) high-energy physics; (4) behavioral sciences;
and (5) manned-space exploration. The latter three were rated as of
lesser priority for reasons stated.
The matter of choice is not so important so long as the level of
support remains small. It is only when science really does make
serious demands on the resources of our society-when it becomes
"big science"-that the question of choice really arises.
(pp. 316, appended article as cited at pp. 321-328, 329)
Criteria used by industrial research in, evaluating a specify research
project (Jones of Esso)
* * * T. do not mean to imply that these specific techniques are applicable with-
out modification to evaluating Governmental research projects, but criteria of
this type should be very helpful.
(a) We carefully estimate our research costs for the successful technical
completion of the project. In addition we estimate the amount of further im-
provement research that would be required in the event of commercial applica-
tion of the new idea. Costs are estimated for developing a suitable market for
the new product or process. * * *
(b) We calculate, in as detailed and precise a manner as possible, an economic
balance sheet for the commercial exploitation of the research result. * * *
(c) Finally, before a research project is undertaken, we consider whether there
are alternate ways of accomplishing the desired result. * * *
(p. 784)
Policy of reviewing R. c9 D. programs (Waterman)
This common mistake is made I think and here is a chance to improve. If a
program is outlined and the agency concerned, whether it is private or public,
gets the best people in the country to advise them on that program * * * then
there is no use trying to get a second group which is a second rank and mediocre
group to pass judgment on it first, on the same points ; that is, on the technical
points. This is a pure waste of time and there is no point anyway.
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15: CIA-RDP66B00403R0001Q 0041-9
FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRA
It seems to me the reviews that come should add something to the first review.
The first review might be a scientific and technical one in the hands of experts.
Be sure you get the best experts.
The next review should take in more than just the scientific and technical
point of view. Talk about the objectives and whether it is going to meet them.
A third may be whether it is in the national interest, and so on.
(p. 825)
Validity of "cost-effectiveness" as a test of development projects
(Kistiakowsky)
Since development projects have as their objectives new, practical, useful
things and processes, each can be judged not only by scientifically trained people
on the basis of its technical feasibility but also by others on the basis of what
the DOD [Department of Defense] calls "cost effectiveness." I * * * would em-
phasize that the principle of the method is absolutely sound. Since the results of
developments are practical, useful things and processes, the benefits to be ob-
tained from a given project and the costs thereof must and can be weighed
against benefits accruing and costs involved if another project or projects were
undertaken. Or sometimes the soundest decision is to leave earmarked funds
unspent if, for instance, available devices are adequate. The costs of develop-
ment projects being usually very high and the variety of possible new devices
very large, it is imperative to be highly selective in the choice of development
projects if our national resources are not to be dissipated.
(p. 609)
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
II. FINANCIAL SUPPORT OF R. & D.
A. Adequacy of present support for R. & D.
B. Distribution of support between basic and applied
R. & D.
? C. Basic research, adequacy of present level
D. Alternative sources of support
E. Financing, specific problems
A. ADEQUACY OF PRESENT SUPPORT FOR R. & D.
Adequacy of expenditures for P. ct D. (Weinberg)
Although we spend $15 billion per year on research and development, we can-
not properly argue that this is all our society can afford when at the same time
we have 4 million unemployed.
(p. 317)
Adequacy of Federal Government's expenditure for R. & D. (Ha-
worth)
[The witness described these expenditures, remarking that the sub-
ject was "very complicated since many variables are involved."]
In the face of the rapid growth in research and development expenditures the
question has been asked: "How much can we afford to spend for such purposes"?
Sometimes the question takes the form: "What percentage of the GNP [gross
national product] is appropriate?" It is sometimes said that research and
development accounts for a significant fraction of the so-called controllable part
of the Federal budget. I should like to make a few comments on these points.
Development accounts for the major fraction of the expenditures.
Thus the R. & D. "package" covers a broad spectrum running from
the most abstruse research to many activities that are hardly technical
at all.
I personally do not believe that this should be looked at as a package, espe-
cially when considering budgets. Rather, I believe that one should look at the
individual parts. Essentially all of the development and much of the applied
research is directed at specific national goals : defense, space, public health, agri-
culture, etc. Our first concern, therefore, in these areas should be the relation-
ship of such research and development to these national goals. * * * Research
and development for defense should be thought of in the context of defense.
Its financial costs should be in competition with other defense expenditures not
with, for example, research for public health or basic research in general.
Similarly with space, and other national goals.
(p. 12, 20)
The adequacy of the Federal investment of approximately $15 billion
in R. c D. (Wiesner)
The questions naturally arise whether this magnitude and percentage are
approximate levels for Federal involvement in research and development and
1097
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
1098 FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
whether these sizable amounts are being wisely spent. There are no simple
answers to these questions. * * *
I~ederal R. & D. is an all-inclusive term which includes a diversity
of functions and interests, involving both research and development,
and including expenditures on facilities. Relatively little of the total
expenditure on R. & D. is devoted to basic research.
Development, and to a major extent, applied research, are pointed
toward well-developed objectives.
* * * The total level of support and balance between different alternatives
are decided by the American people through their legislative and executive
representatives in terms of some assessment of their contributions to achieve
national goals. litre it should be possible to set priorities. Development plan-
ning is comparatively straightforward and quantifiable and the conduct of pro-
grams is subject to normal management principles and control over cost and
quality.
Choices in research are often far more complex. * * * it is clear that we must
preserve and protect this portion of our technical enterprise as a vital hedge
against the unknown. In fact, I believe that we must be prepared to allow an
increasing level for this purpose.
(pp. 257, 281-252)
Adequacy of Federal support of research (Brown)
I think that the United States is spending money [on research] with the right
principle. The right principle, it seems to me, at the level that we are at now,
and I think there is even some room for that principle to be exercised as the
level increases. [The principle] is to support all the people who are good at
basic research * * * so that maximum use is made of their talents.
That will cease to be the case if research becomes 10 percent, 20 percent, 30
percent of the Federal budget, but it is not. Research and development is, but
research is not.
(p. 181)
The adequacy of the overall level of allocation of national resources
to R. c D. in both Federal and non Federal sectors (Wiesner)
From 1961-1963, there has been a leveling off, at around 2.9 percent
in terms of gross national product., of the combined public and private
R. & D. effort. National choices will reflect the consensus reached
about the importance of particular national goals that can be.ad-
vanced through R. & D. If national security and/or military expendi-
tures
lessen, for example, more expenditures can be directed toward
P. & D. and/or civilian needs. In the private sector some industries
already show clear signs of decay for want of innovative effort about
which, as a Nation, we cannot be complacent.
(pp. 258-260, 281-282)
Effects of increased expenditures for research (Vickers)
Present-day expenditures for basic research are not excessive. The
amount should be increased and Government policy should encourage a
Neater preparation of participation by industry.
Also =appears to be no excessive amount of endeavor in the
segment of applied research.
The enormous increase in recent years in the quantity of new, useful
products becoming available, and in the rate at which they are being
generated has been aided (1) by a tighter coupling between the per-
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/115 : P9,~OA4H(~xR 010.1041-9
FEDERAL RESEARCH A D D+ A
formance or pioneering research and the initiation of manufacturing
and sale; (2) by the enormous increase in the amounts expended for
R. ?& D, both by the Government and by industry; and (3) by greatly
improved management in both areas. There is still much to be done
in the last regard and the "committee will certainly examine these
possibilities thoroughly."
(p. 1065)
Increased Federal support for research (Hutchisson)
* * * The Federal Government should support research at a gradually increas-
ing level as our gross national product increases.
Increased Federal support of research will strengthen the part re-
search plays-
(a) in enhancing the economy and general standard of living.
(b) in strengthening national defense, and
(c) in increasing one of our most important national resources, our supply
of competent manpower in science and technology.
(pp. 1018-1019)
Portion of the Federal budget to be spent on research (Bachman)
* * * At the present time we spend approximately 15 percent of our national
budget for research. Is this a correct percentage or should it be 20 percent or
10 percent or some other figure? And why? If your committee should find it
advisable to make some such. percentage recommendation to the House in its
final report, you should undoubtedly submit with it a modus operandi for author-
izing the research funds through existing committees, and how these funds could
be altered year by year as indicated by the necessities of our Nation. With an
overriding structure of this sort controlling the total amount of funds, the re-
search activities of one agency could only grow at the expense of the research
activities of another agency, except for such increases as would occur from
increases in our. Federal budget, by growth or by design. This could also be a
controlling mechanism covering new research programs. This discussion as-
sumes, of course, that the maximum. funds would be appropriated only if there
are a sufficient number of valuable programs to be undertaken. In arriving at
such decisions of what, why and how much, competent scientific evaluators
should be of paramount importance to the members of committees of Congress
who, in the long run, must make the decisions.
(p. 778)
Size of R. & D. budget (Getting)
* * * I do not hold to the thesis that all fruitful work in research and devel-
opment has been accomplished, nor that this country lacks the intellectual capac-
ity for a continued expanding scientific research effort. Certainly the R. & D.
budget should not be larger than the Federal agencies can intelligently manage-
but this is not, in my opinion, an immediate or serious limitation. In fact,
as a minimum, the Federal support of It. & D., in all forms, should go up at
least in constant ratio to the gross national product.
We must provide scientists and engineers with challenging oppor-
tunities; industry supported by the civilian economy can absorb
only a relatively small fraction of our scientific and engineering po-
tential. Today the Federal appropriations are being managed bet-
ter than ever before.
As long as we recognize the dominant role of scientific progress to our Nation-
in defense, in advancing our economy, in furthering public health and wel-
fare-as long as we have a national resolve to lead and not to be led-as long
as we can attract scientific leadership to high levels in Government to give
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Appra1vFor Release 2005/03/15: CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
the programs meaningful policy and guidance-eo long should we be willing
to bear the costs of scientific research and technological development,
(pp. 1014-1015)
Total expenditure for 8oience as compared with expenditures for other
purposes (Weinberg)
The question is: Should we spend more on science and less on foreign aid
or housing or civil defense? This sort of choice gets confused because we lump
science done for its own sake together with science done to achieve a particular
purpose such as improving our military posture.
(p. 317)
B. DISTRIBUTION OF SUPPORT BETWEEN BASIC AND APPLIED R. & D.
Balance between Federal expenditures for basic research and for
applied R. c D. (Seaborg)
Figures cited showed that in comparison to the ratio of 1 of every
10 R. & D. dollars which the Government as a whole spends for basic
research, the Atomic Enemy Commission devotes between 3 and.
4 of every 10 of its civilian R. & D. dollars (or 2 of its overall R. & D.
dollars) to basic research.
I would urge that a trend toward a similar balance between the dollars de-
voted to basic research and those expended for applied research and develop-
ment would be a desirable adjustment for Government-sponsored science as a
whole.
(pp. 68-69)
Balance of Federal support for basic and applied research (Calkins)
There needs to be balance between basic and applied research in
both the physical and social sciences. Most governmental and indus-
trial emphasis is now on applied research and technology, and contri-
butions to basic research come mainly from universities and research
institutions. Only about 10 percent of total national R. & D. money
is spent for basic research.
(pp. 912-9.13)
Balancing financial support among the sciences (Calkins)
It should be determined whether some areas of science are getting
too much money as compared to others. Balance should be achieved
among all of the sciences, not only between the physical and the social
sciences.
Policymakers and administrators need better procedures for getting
the scientific advice on which to make decisions as to how support
should be apportioned to these areas.
(pp. 912-913)
Costs of various types of research (Bush)
In speaking of "scientific" research, "engineering" research is often
included.
tit directingna team and operating an expensive array of apparatus Im. The
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS 1101
costs of research go up very rapidly when one gets into hardware. When money
comes easily there is a tendency to rush into use of complex equipment too fast
and too far. We may be making this mistake.
If the country pours enough money into research, it will inevitably support the
trivial and the mediocre. The supply of scientific manpower is not unlimited.
(p. 461)
The different support of three areas of P. ct D. (Teller)
The three areas are pure science, applied science, and development.
The emphasis and activities in pure science and in development present
a fairly good record, but this is not the case in the area of applied
science.
* * * We have often fallen down in spending the millions of dollars in applied
science in those pilot-plan operations which require cooperation of many experts,
but which do not yet involve the really big money that production and the final
phases require. [The witness used the evolving science of weather prediction
as an illustration.]
(pp. 939-942,940)
Maintenance of balance between expenditures for development and for
research (Ilutchisson)
A balance must always be maintained between effort spent upon development
and that on research. Unless this is done, the Nation as a whole will not reap
the entire advantage of the new knowledge gained. Over the years a ratio of
expenditures of about 10 to 1 has proved to be suitable and probably should be
maintained. This is particularly important in connection with the sponsorship
of research and development for national defense.
(p. 1019)
Means of measuring the adequacy of Federal support of basic research
(Killian)
The relatively small support (currently about $500 million annu-
ally) furnished by the Government to the universities for basic re-
search, has an importance out of all proportion to its size.
There is no ready yardstick for measuring how much should be appropriated
for this purpose. Clearly the Government cannot or should not make unlimited
funds available. How can a wise level of expenditures be determined? I sug-
gest the following rough measures:
(a) The talent capable of conducting basic research is limited, and
under present conditions we should seek to make it possible for this
small group to use its talents to the fullest. We should try to do this
and no more.
(b) Congress should continue to recognize that basic research should
be an integral part of the process for educating scientists and engi-
neers. Perhaps the increasing of graduate students in these fields is
"the most telling and persuasive reason" for further increasing sup-
port of basic research.
(c) Additional funds are needed for costlier instrumentation and
"big machines." It is true that some existing instruments are inade-
quately supported and are not therefore producing the results in-
tended. It is also true that the universities' facilities, including build-
ings, are gravely deficient.
(d) We are not at present fully using the available creative talent
for high-quality basic research, and additional private and public
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
1102 FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
funds can be used in the national interest. The rate of growth in
expenditures for basic research should not be as great in the next
5 years as it was in the preceding 5 years.
(e) Congress should appraise the procedures, the methods, and the
quality of management used by Federal agencies which recommend
appropriations for basic research. When these appraisals are on the
plus side, Congress should "feel reasonably comfortable" about the
projects the people selected to receive support.
Congress itself cannot easily select these people and projects but
it can expect a good selection procedure.
The Federal budget should contain a more detailed presentation of
the R. & D. programs of the various agencies, including differentiation
between the several categories of research-basic, et cetera.
(pp. 752-754, 762-763)
Overemphasis on large research undertakings (Kistiakowsky)
Too much emphasis on glamorous large research undertakings en-
dangers funding of the individual scientist who has been the strength
of American science. In recent years an increasing fraction of the
Federal research budget has been allocated to special large installa-
tions and national laboratories. Progress of research in some scientific
areas does necessitate construction of ever more elaborate and costly
research facilities; and scientific situations exist in which a large
team effort is necessary to achieve objectives, but perhaps the balance
] gas swung too far in this direction.
(p.612)
Possible imbalance between expenditures for basic and for applied
research (Haworth)
[In reply to a question from a member of the committee as to the
possibility that such imbalance exists, the witness said:]
I don't have that feeling. I have heard that feeling expressed by a few people
from industry, for example, but I have heard the opposite feeling expressed
perhaps more often.
* * * one must remember that the better the job basic research does, the more
easy is the job of applied research.
As more basic research is accomplished it becomes less necessary to
single out a single aspect and work hard on it for reasons of a particular
application.
(pp. 50-51)
Relationship between anbount of expenditure and research results
(Bush)
You cannot assure results in research merely by devoting large
numbers of men and amounts of money to the effort.
The best way to proceed is to be sure that really inspired scientists have
what they need to work with, and then leave them alone.
[Iii reply to questioning the witness stated:1
I think we are spending too much money period.
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved F9E IAas ?? 5J93/1~g 9 P?f?00APAN9A100 41-9
Too much money is not going into basic research, but the great bulk
of money is going into applied research, engineering research, and
hardware, and that is where we may be overdoing it.
(pp. 462, 470)
Size of expenditures for applied R. & D. (Weinberg)
Since applied research takes almost 90 percent of our research and development
dollar, it is here that your committee ought to focus most of its inquiry.
Ideally, the committee ought to review the purposes of applied
research, establish priorities, and allocate funds for various purposes,
as space, military, nuclear energy, public health, etc. Since this
"grandiose exercise may be quite impractical if not impossible," the
maximum feasible review will be an attempt to determine whether
the R. & D. expenditure for a major purpose-military, nuclear
energy, public health, etc.-is in correct proportion compared with
expenditures for other aspects of the purpose, e.g., whether the amount
spent on P. & D. for the military is right compared with the amount
spent on transportation for the military, etc. The choices should not
be made, for example, between R. & D. for one major purpose, like
public health, and R. & D. for another, like the military.
(p. 318)
Suitability of distribution of funds between basic research, applied
research, and development (Ilaworth)
[The witness charts indicated the total expenditures on a national
basis were 10 percent for basic research, 22 percent for applied re-
search, and 68 percent for development.]
Thisbreakdown may well be reasonably satisfactory at the moment,
but it could change with time.
(pp. 51-52)
Suitability of distribution of funds between basic research, applied
research, and development (Si:itz)
[In reply to a question from a member of the committee as to the
suitability of the presently existing distribution of funds between the
three areas, the witness replied:]
I think our pattern as it has been up to this point is quite sound. Essentially
all the good proposals for basic research are being supported. * * * we could
spend a great deal more than we are doing on developmental programs. * * *
but I think the balance so far has been excellent.
(p. 64)
C. BASIC RESEARCH, ADEQUACY or PRESENT LEVEL
Adequacy of Federal support Of basic research (Bailey)
A broad base of competence and knowledge, derived from basic
research, is necessary to support the highly productive development
program required for an expanding economy.
Most scientists consider that the less than 10 percent of the total
It. & D. budget of the Federal Government which is devoted to basic
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
]104 FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
research is inadequate. When retrenchment is required, that part of
the R.. & D. budget which is for basic research seems to be easily
sacrificed in favor of work with more immediate apparent application.
Basic research projects which appear to be of purely academic, interest
frequently open up new vistas. Pure research which appears of value
only in satisfying scientific curiosity and adding to the general store of
scientific knowledge frequently proves to be of great ultimate benefit;
as in the case of penicillin, the control of screwworm, et cetera.
(pp.872-873,876-877)
Adequacy of national effort in the area of basic research (Ilaughton
and Smelt)
No scientist would agree that there was enough effort in basic research. I
think that there is certainly room for as much effort as the country can put into
it. But it is a matter of a balance between that and the other claims on the com-
pany's resources, and certainly we have to arrive at a balance between basic and
applied research which is almost self-balancing in the sense that if there is no
outlet for this basic researchin the applied area, it tends to slow down.
[The above statement refers to the corporation's attitude as the
witness saw it. In answer to a general question about across-the-board
efforts in all areas of science in ba.sice research, this answer was
offered:]
No, I think there are areas in the research field that are not having enough
atthis time. I am thinking particularly of some of the areas mentioned * * *
some of the areas which approach more closely the humanities, some of the areas
which are not defense oriented. I think that you could look hard at these and
decide at this time that they were not in balance with the other side.
(p. 111)
Adequacy of support for basic research (DuBridge)
The national budget for basic research in universities is adequate
only when "every competent research scholar in our universities is find-
ing adequate support for the significant research program he is able to
carry out." This is not true today; all over the country there are able
research scholars with worthy projects who are not finding adequate,
stable support for their investigations. The funds should be increased,
not cut back.
(pp. 306-307, 311)
Adequacy of support of basic research (Teller)
* * My impression is that the effort we are directing toward pure research is
by and large a reasonable effort. * * * that the amount we are spending and even
the way in which we are spending it, that these are reasonable. Whatever is
reasonable can be and should be criticized for further improvements.
I believe that the scientific revolution has not yet run its course. I believe
that applications and possibilities will multiply, and while we probably are
spending enough now, what is enough today probably will not be enough in 1970.
But with these reservations, I would give a simple answer to your question.
My answer is yes.
(p. 942)
Anwun-tt of re.sea-rch support (Berkner)
* * * Perhaps the gravest danger in the congressional deliberations may be
that, those responsible for reaching the answers to current dilemmas will over-
emphasize the short-term advantages of support for applied and development re-
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS 1105
search (now taking $14 billion of the total) to the hazard and potential reduc-
tion of support for basic science and the search for fundamental knowledge
(which still receives less than 10 percent of the total). Yet it is the latter on
which all of our future technological advances will depend in the long run. * * *
Further multiplication. of support for basic research will be re-
quired in these directions :
(a) New areas of science not yet funded.
(b) Extension of scientific strength to the half of the Nation now
deficient in it.
(c) The enlargement of programs and facilities to radically enlarge
our body of graduate and post-doctoral training.
It Is not too much to expect that 1 percent of our gross national product-
that would be about $5 billion, or some three or four times the present level of
support, will be necessary to fire our national boilers for the optimum develop-
ment of our new resource-innovation out of science.
(pp. 422, 438)
Amount for basic research (Berkner )
The funds for fundamental research, as compared to that for engi-
neering, development, test and evaluation should be carefully weighed.
Less than 10 percent, a, little over $1 billion, of the research funds now
goes for true research, the remainder going to hardware. The basic
research, this billion dollars, is the seed from which the enlarged econ-
omy must grow. It should not be destroyed but should be multiplied.
Cuts in basic research funds will be reflected in losses to the national
economy.
(pp. 422-423, 438 )
Areas of basic research not now adequately supported (Seaborg)
Although an insufficient amount of our national research effort is
going into basic research, without being able to describe this on a per-
centage basis, it is possible to list some underdeveloped areas : organic
chemistry; low energy nuclear physics; the biological sciences and the
general applications of research to the study of disease, heredity, life
processes and things of that sort ; and anthropology, archeology and
areas like that, "just to mention a few that sort of come off the top of
my head."
(p. 72)
The cost of basic research (Seitz)
These costs include (1) minimum laboratory and other expenses,
(2) expensive equipment in certain types of research, and (3) extraor-
dinary costs for space research.
Research in the first of these three categories lies at the heart of a very large
part of the progress of science, and is absolutely indispensable for the evolution
of both science and technology in the future. Essentially all areas of good sci-
ence pass through the corresponding phase as they develop. Many fields never
move into a more expensive range. * * * For a long time to come, our Nation
should be sufficiently wealthy to support all of the good work that can be done
in the first of these categories. * * * I think it is safe to say that as long as
our Nation aspires to a position somewhere near world leadership in science
and technology, we cannot afford not to support all scientific work at the first
level of expenditure that our good scientists can propose and carry through. * * *
[In the second and third categories] the high unit cost implies that principles
of selection may be necessary.
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
1106 FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
It will be increasingly difficult to select research programs involving
costly equipment. A selective process will be necessary to determine
what equipment should be purchased, and priorities established within
the framework of the economy. The judgment of working scientists
in their respective fields will be necessary for purchasing of equipment
because programs sometimes have more "superficial glamour," derived
from spectacular hardware, than scientific merit.
(pp. 59-60.)
Federal support of basic research (Kerr)
The case for Federal support of basic research has been made many
times, but I feel that it cannot be made too often or too emphatically.
There is no real danger of undesirable duplication in basic research,
except when work cannot be published for reasons of security. Some
duplication is desirable and beneficial.
I agree with many recommendations that the present Federal sup-
port-less than 10 percent of the R. & D. budget-should be substan-
tially strengthened. Support for basic research should not be con-
fused with the massive activities in engineering, testing, and develop-
ment that make up the other 90 percent.
(p. 1020)
Importance of understanding and protecting basic research (Wiesner)
Basic research adds to our reservoir of knowledge about the universe around
us, on which all technology rests. * * * we must preserve and protect this por-
tion of our technical enterprise as a vital hedge against the unknown. In fact,
I believe we must be prepared to allow an increasing level for this purpose.
Within basic research, priorities must be set largely by the scien-
tists themselves in contrast to priority setting for development.
* * * Although the principal purpose of the almost $1 billion in Federal re-
search funding that flows into universities is justified in terms of the relevance
to the sponsoring Federal agencies, this work is nonetheless intertwined with
education in a major way. Federal support for university research * * * con-
tributes in an important way to meeting future manpower needs even while
providing for vitally needed research.
* * * We make a very bad mistake in lumping this all together and calling
it research, because this year, for example, what you would really call research
amounts to something under a billion and a half dollars in the $15 billion budget.
(pp. 257-258, 279)
Increased support for basic research (Furnas)
More money should go to basic research, even if this means small
reductions in some expensive development programs, because :
(a) Directly and indirectly this is the best way to increase the supply of top
scientific and engineering talent.
(b) Good basic research findings, if produced in time and properly needed,
can prevent many very costly errors in development projects, particularly in
complicated weapon systems and space vehicles.
(p. 1009)
Reduction of funds for basic research (Seitz)
At the present time good basic research tends to be squeezed out in
times of budget pressure.
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved F?i Release 200~5/03/n1N5v: CIA-RDP66B0040o3R000010013000 41-9
DERAL This is really false economy because--
(1) Only a relatively shall amount is involved in basic research, and
therefore little is gained by reducing it;
(2)e Cutting basic research means a loss of basic knowledge needed
for velopment programs and thereby makes the developmental pro-
grams more costly [in repl to a question from a member of the, com-
mittee, examples were cited j; and
(3) A cutback of research in academic institutions leads to a down-
grading of graduate and postgraduate education and a consequent de-
crease in the number of quality of trained research available to, the
Nation.
The cuts of the budgets of the National Science Foundation and the
National Institutes of Health are not justified if we are to maintain our
growing scientific strength. They endanger the basic research carried
out by independent scientists, many of whom are primarily supported
by the above institutions. This will endanger our future stature in
the world of science and technology because it strikes at the core of
scientific strength.
There is national danger if funds for good basic research do not
grow annually at a rate of 15 or 20 percent per year.
The reduction in funds for the National Science Foundation will
seriously affect scientific education in about 5 ,years or sooner.
(pp. 61, 63)
Size of the basic research budget (Weinberg)
The size of the basic research budget must be judged on its own
merits-it must stand by itself against foreign aid or defense. The
merit of one kind of basic research can only be judged in relation to
other basic research.
I can offer no external criteria for determining the overall size of the basic
research budget.
I would therefore suggest that we gear the basic research budget
to the gross national product. We ought to commit a certain fraction
(say 0.5 percent) of our GNP to this purpose. This formula would
provide funds for all really competent researchers and would curb
the exponential growth of expenditures for basic research. Neither
will basic research wither as it would if its budget remained a fixed
number of dollars.
(p. 318)
Support of basic research (Long)
The total cost of all Federally supported basic research is by no
means large when compared to the job it has to do. The amount is
about $1 billion per year. Basic research done with all other funds,
public and private, in other facilities costs roughly the same amount.
The total is less than one-half of 1 percent of the gross national
product.
4 * * The basic research accomplished by these funds is the underpinning on
which our great technical industries rest. It is essential to the very much larger
amounts spent in developmental work. And its plays a Major role in the train-
ing of our scientists and engineers as well as of scholars in many other fields.
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
1108 FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
Considering what we get from this support of basic research, I firmly believe
that it is a great bargain.
(p. 484)
Value of basic research (DuBridge)
The 3 percent of the total Government budget for research and
development which is being used for basic research in the universities
is
the most important segment of the total, has been the most fruitful of all ex-
penditures, has been subject to the least waste, and is, above all, the one segment
of the R. & D. budget that should be expanded and not contracted.
Federal support of basic research was essential if the United States
was to seize scientific leadership of the world after the war.
One criticism of basic research, that Federal support has driven
out private and State support of research, is false. Private and State
support have also grown rapidly, and in fact Federal support has
stimulated a higher level of expenditure from private sources than
would otherwise have been possible in the postwar period.
Another criticism of basic research, that it is growing too fast to
be healthy, is also false. Growth must be rapid at the present time
because science in American universities has been in its childhood and
adolescence; as it is older the growth rate will slow down. Part of
the rapid growth rate can be attributed to inflation which has affected
all prices since 1946. It is essential that budgets would rise and that
the period of rapid rise should continue at least for a few more years.
The results of increased expenditures are shown in the assumption
by the United States of world leadership in science. The Nation has
benefited in many specific ways, and these benefits have been extended
to the universities, to the economy, and to our national security.
(pp. 1305-306,308-310)
D. ALTERNATIVE SOURCES OT SUrrOnT
Centralized control over research (Calkins)
Centralized research and centralized control over research funds
are not desirable. There should be "alternative sources of support"
for research.
(p. 014)
Pattern of organizations carrying out R. & D. tasks of the Nation
(Furnas)
* * * Over the course of years, a pattern has evolved whereby four classes of
organizations are utilized to carry out the research and development tasks of
the Nation. This pattern was not arrived at through any grand design or master
plan. Rather, it was the result of a pragmatic American approach of trial and
error.
The four classes are universities ; nonprofit organizations other than univer-
sities ; industry ; and Government in-house laboratories. Each type of organiza-
tion has some positive and some negative characteristics when measured against
the overall requirements of the national research and development needs. My
own analysis of these characteristics is as follows :
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS 1109
Note that the quadrilateral approach to handling our defense research and
development problems has evolved under the motivation of finding the best way
of accomplishing a very difficult and extremely important task. Taken all to-
gether, the positive and negative characteristics of the four types of organiza-
tions balance out to produce an extraordinarily effective pattern of action.
Elimination of any one type would be truly deleterious. Hence, improvements
to one segment of the operation should not be accomplished by seriously weaken-
ing or eliminating one of the others. We greatly need them all.
The very diversity of the four types of organizations carrying on the Nation's
research and development represents an inherent virtue which, apparently, is
seldom realized. * * * In a free society * * * the allocation of talent is more by
individual preference for the opportunities offered than by command. Hence,
the greater the variety of choices afforded by [the four types described above],
the greater the probability of the Nation acquiring the best talent for solving the
national problems.
(pp. 1005-1007)
Possible relaxation of effort by industry and the educational institu-
tions, in the support and conduct of research., as the Government ex-
pands its role (Wenk)
The Office of Science and Technology has not as yet devoted a great
deal of attention to this problem, although the OST is exceedingly
interested in the total national activity in It. & D. There appears
to be a
leveling off of the percentage of our gross national product which is being de-
voted to research and development, both from the Federal Government as a
source and from the private sector. We are endeavoring to understand this. It
is a phenomenon in which, for example, one cannot establish an arbitrary limit
or target of support for research and development.
We do not, for example, as yet see clearly how research and development con-
tribute directly to economic development, although we know in the aggregate
that this has happened.
* * * speaking personally, I would say that I have great concern that the
contribution by the private sector shrink no more,
(pp. 251-252)
Sources of support for research (Furnas)
Support of the national research program should come not only
from the Federal Government, but from States, foundations, indus-
try, and individuals.
(p. 1007)
E. FINANCING, SPECIFIC PROBLEMS
Adequacy of present Federal support of P. dd D. in Department of
Commerce (Hollomon)
[Discussing support of the agencies for which he has responsibility,
in reply to questioning from a member of the committee, he said:1
I do not believe, however, that we are spending a sufficient amount of Federal
funds or State funds to meet major civilian economic requirements such as
urban development, such as transportation and such as support for the basic
technology related to industry, particularly to that industry which isn't so
sophisticated; i.e., textiles, building and construction, those industries that
serve the basic needs of society.
What I am trying to say is that for the support of technical activities of the
missions of the bureaus for which I have responsibility, I don't believe these
R. & D. activities are out of line. On the other hand, for the activities that aim,
for which I do not have responsibility. which aim at what might be called the
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
1110 FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
basic technology, related to our civilian economy, I do believe these are out
of line.
(pp. 303--304)
Amount of research needs of different activities (Denney)
Although no quantitative answer is possible
we hope that the committee will be able to throw some light on the question of
detecting the incidence of diminishing returns, trying to find the point where
the cost of a research effort ceases to be justified by the result.
Some useful exploration can be accomplished which will shed light
on these two points :
(1) What are the relative research needs as among different kinds
of activities, e.g., military, health, foreign affairs ?
(2) Are there guides to the point where the cost of a research effort
ceases to be justified by the result?
(pp. 184, 193)
Continuity of financing of R. c D. (Furnas)
Stop-and-go financing is very harmful to national R. & D. programs.
Assurance of continuing support is necessary to effective R. & D. Con-
gress can have substantial influence in remedying the present situation.
(p. 1010)
Determination of R. cO D. requirements (Brown)
It is difficult to determine what R. & D. requirements are for the
Department of Defense. There are many factors involved which have
to be considered : technical inputs, and the inputs of military ex-
perience, fiscal situations, and international considerations.
(p. 177)
Difficulty in avoiding wasteful expenditure (Brown)
Sometimes a great deal of money is spent on developing a weapons
system that at completion is not deployed. When a development de-
cision is made, it is not known what the future situation will be at the
time the development is completed. About half of big developments
probably will not become deployed weapon systems. However,
it is desirable probably to err on the side of having them when they are un-
necessary rather than not having them when they are necessary.
(p. 177)
Funding of R. & D. (Haller)
Stop-and-go funding is wasteful and distracting in performing
R. & D. research for the Government. A stop order breaks the
rhythm and continuity of creative thought, people must be reassigned,
and if the project is started again the startup costs are expensive and
new people may have to be found. Interruptions in funding also
frustrate and discourage scientists.
The Government agencies procuring research and development should be able
to plan so that the funding and decisions are timely. We hope Congress will
take steps to enable the timely commitment of funds.
(pp.332-333 335-336.338)
Approved For F~elease 200 /03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS 11
The justification for "crash" programs of R. & D. (Teller)
When the real need arises, I am not against a crash program. My main criti-
cism is that we do not anticipate the difficulties to a sufficient extent, and that
therefore the argument, the apparent needs for crash programs do arise. What
we are now doing in space to my mind is not so wrong. What we neglected to
do in the early 1950's and the late 1940's, that is where the criticism should
rest.
* * * * * * *
* * * I also think that a crash program should be very well justified before
it is adopted. [Examples from the space program were cited.]
(pp. 945-946)
Olean of achieving economies in R. cfe D. programs (Waterman)
There are several ways in which one can save large amounts of money. One
is to look carefully at a large program before it begins, to be sure that it is
feasible to do.
A second is to watch out for crash programs. Crash programs have to be
started fast. They have to do things quickly, which is a costly way of doing it
and they make more mistakes too.
(p. 824)
"Overspending" on research (Heald)
"Overspending" on research can lead to "subsidy of mediocrity"
and resulting damage to the quality of research.
Certain fallacies have gained widespread currency.
The fallacies are that all problems are capable of solution, that the solutions
lie in knowledge resulting from empirical research, and that the research can
be produced by saturation staffing and saturation financing.
The successful forced-draft projects (for example, the Manhattan
project) of World War II are largely the cause of these fallacies.
(pp. 383-384, 400-401)
Relationship of funds available for research to research output (Jones
of HEW)
To appropriate more money for an agency than it has requested in
the expectation of obtaining more research is not always successful.
Other factors besides money determine what can be accomplished.
Among these are the availability of research projects which conform
to the criteria of quality which have been established, and the avail-
ability of competent researchers.
NIII is. a case in point. Although Congress has appropriated funds
in excess of the Department's budget request, all the money has not
been spent because of the limiting factors mentioned above.
[Because] the quality of research supported by NIII relatively has continued
to go up, * * the percent of projects proposed that have not been funded be-
cause they did not meet the criteria of quality, has remained about the same level
through the years, about 48 percent.
* * * * * * *
[with respect to shortage of personnel] as to NIII, its problems are related to
a lack of competitive situation with even educational institutions now for the
services of competent scientists who are available.
(pp. 553-554)
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
1112 FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
Stable financing of research (Rose)
Funding of research programs within the confines of the Federal
fiscal year funding pattern makes it difficult to carry out research
programs in the university. More stable financing is needed.
A great deal of what appears to be unnecessary effort on the part
of Government and university officials is required to meet the require-
ments of the paperwork necessitated by reports and renewal proposals.
(p.792)
The tinning of congressional action on the funding of research pro-
grams (McConnell)
The single largest deterrent to the proper conduct of research has been in the
timing of the actions of Congress itself with respect to authorizations and appro-
priations for both ongoing and new programs. To be successful, research pro-
grams must be planned and scheduled well in advance. It is unfortunate that
the usual university academic year and the Federal fiscal year are badly spaced
relative to each other for this purpose ; however, when Congress, fails to act on
appropriation bills prior to the beginning of the normal fiscal year, the estab-
lishment or continuation of projects and programs which often begin in the
summer are seriously affected and valuable research time is lost.
Personnel on projects which have received formal or informal approval but
are not funded must make alternative plans. Between June 1 and July 1 each
participant on a project has to make his own final decision based on the likeli-
hood that the Congress will act in time. * * * Delay in appropriations causes
research to suffer not only for the summer but for the entire year and possibly
for the following year as well, for it takes time to build a good research staff.
Longer term grants and contracts would mitigate this problem to some ex-
tent. * * * An additional benefit * * * would be a reduction in time and effort
spent by institutions and agencies in handling the proliferating paper work assso-
elated with annually funded grants and contracts.
(p. 864)
Validity of the rapid increase in public support of R. & D. (IIarrar)
Questions as to this validity are being raised by this committee and
others.
First, I believe the principle of gradually increasing public support of research
and development is sound and the satisfaction of the demands for the well-being
of society can be accomplished only with the aid of a vigorous, intelligently
planned and continuous program of research aided by both public and private
funds. Within our democratic system, it is to be expected that public funds
will continue to be the major source of support.
If decisions to press research in space, atomic energy, defense, health, nutri-
tion, and many other disciplines are valid, I do not think that the amounts of
money presently being applied to research are out of proportion to need. * * *
In our society, needs of many kinds will continue to exceed available resources
so that decisions must be made with respect to the most efficient and productive
use of public funds. This I understand to be one of the principal goals of this
select committee. I would submit that it is possible to supersaturate both chem-
ical and social solutions. This latter undesirable condition could occur if exces-
sive funds are provided for research without a sufficient body of qualified investi-
gators to insure optimum benefit from the investment. The balance between the
size of the research community and the demand for scientific competence is a
delicate one even under normal conditions. If new support enters the field in
increments beyond the capacity of the scientific community to respond, the quality
of performance must necessarily suffer.
(pp. 1016-1017)
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
III. ORGANIZATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF FEDERAL
R. & D. PROGRAMS
A. Favorable evaluations of the present system
B. Suggestions for attaining greater efficiency and econ-
omy, and better organization
C. Specific problem areas
D. Fragmentized versus centralized organization of
Federal R. & D. functions
E. In-house and external research facilities, choice be-
tween use of
F. Grant and contract processes
A. FAVORABLIi EVALUATIONS OF, TIIR PRESENT SYSTEM
Adequacy of organization for science and technology in the executive
branch (Waterman)
Thus the executive branch of the Government has taken what seem to me to be
important and logical steps to assist the President in improving the coordina-
tion, planning and degree of overall supervision of the Federal contribution to
the national effort in science and technology. These steps have been taken only
comparatively recently. But I believe them to be soundly conceived and to have
adequate promise of dealing efficiently and ably with the major problems in the
executive branch that are the present concern of this committee.
(pp. 815, 822)
The efficiency of Government research programs (Murray)
These programs are certainly getting maximum return in contract
research, for several reasons : (1) our Government agencies make cer-
tain that the best talent available is selected to do the research; and
(2) there is intense competition today for Federal research funds and
this competitive atmosphere further assures us that the best talent
will be available. "Cost comes after competence in research considera-
Lions."
(pp. 456-457)
Evaluation of the Federal R. c D. effort (Harris)
Many charges are made of waste and inefficiency in the present
P. & D. programs. There have been commitments to programs that
have not reached maturity, and "without any doubt some of these
criticisms are entirely warranted". No large program of the urgency
of the national P. & D. effort could be flawless. If there is to be
sufficient boldness in the national program there certainly will be
failures in the future.
In general, however, R. & D. has contributed to our overwhelming defense
and atomic emergency competence, to a dynamic space program, to our national
1113
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
1114 FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
agricultural productivity, which is the marvel of the world, and it has con-
tributed to the highest standard of living and individual help in the world.
These accomplishments cannot excuse waste and inefficiency, but they can
speak to the general effectiveness of research and development.
(pp. 820-830, 833-834)
Evaluation of the Federal system of support of research (Kistiakow-
sky)
[The witness briefly described the growth of Federal programs of
research.]
Except for Government-operated and the privately-operated but
Government-financed large establishments, most of the Federal re-
search funds are spent in nonprofit institutions of higher learning,
largely through the medium of research project grants and fixed-price
contracts. The agencies which use this system rely on scientifically
qualified consultants to rate research proposals of scientists seeking
Federal support of their work, and most agencies accept such ratings
in allocating their funds, thus avoiding the danger of excessively bu-
reaucratic decisionmaking.
It is my considered judgment that this system of research support has been
outstandingly successful. From a definitely secondary status before World War
II, American science has now reached a position of world leadership. The proof
of this statement is manifold. * * * I attribute the relative rise of American
science in the face of this competition [fromn U.S.S.R., Great Britain, etc.] to
the project grant system and to the diversification of research support among
several executive agencies. Both factors act in the same direction : the pre-
vention of overcentralization and of too heavy dependence on decisions by men
who, because of their administrative activities, are not able to maintain their
scientific competence. * * * I believe that both the U.S.S.R. and Great Britain
suffer from overcentralization of research support. * *
(pp. 610--611)
Executive branch organization of R. c D. functions (Staats)
At the present time Federal R. & D. is undertaken in response to
the program responsibilities of the department and agencies, and it is
conducted in the agency responsible for administration of the par-
ticular program.
* * * These are the facts of life, and while these arrangements at times may
raise the spectre of unnecessary overlapping and duplication, we do not believe
that these criticisms are generally valid. To attempt to produce a neat organiza-
tion chart by simply consolidating research and development in one or a few
agencies would, in our judgment, obscure the purposes for which research and
development is conducted, and make our decisionmaking less rational in the long
run. We believe that we should not alter the present basic organization of re-
search and development activities, but instead concentrate on improvements in
coordination of planning and communication.
(p. 565)
Government as one element of the national R. c D. effort (Harrar)
* * * any discussion of Government support of research and development
should be based on the total spectrum of national requirements regardless of their
source of support. Although Government is the greatest single contributor to
scientific research, the entire research pattern within our Nation is inescapably
interrelated through mutual interests and the many common goals to which these
efforts are directed.
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS 1115
In our country there are four great forces which interact to move the frontiers
of science forward. These are in descending order of magnitude : Government,
business and industry, the sector represented by private philanthropy and volun-
tary agencies, and the individual donors who in the aggregate contribute mightily
to the support of our educational and scientific institutions. This pluralism is,
I think, exceedingly healthy and guarantees broad and continuing investigation
and competition in the best sense of the word toward increased excellence.
(p. 1015)
The role of the science administrator (Harrar)
* * * Much of the accomplishment of science derives from the continuous in-
dividual efforts of career investigators who depend upon others to interpret their
roles and support their research. In recent years, due to the burgeoning growth
of the national scientific effort, there has of necessity been increasing attention
given to the place of the science administrator in the complex pattern of scientific
research development. We have been fortunate in the caliber of individuals
who have been attracted to this critically important service although we have
perhaps not always realized the full significance of their contributions.
I believe that the role of the science administrator must be to apply critical and
impersonal judgment to the area or agency for which he has responsibility;
that it is incumbent on hint to increase the efficiency and broaden the communi-
cation within and between agencies and, finally, that it is his responsibility to
present cases before appropriate bodies with confidence that the position is sound
and consonant with the public interest.
(p. 1016)
Study of successful programs as a contribution to understanding pro-
grams which failed (Harris)
This general category deserves attention. There have been several
very important success stories (development of the ICBM and the Po-
laris program, for example). A study of these successes might con-
tribute to an understanding of failures in other cases. The executive
branch has faced up to its responsibility for management and coor-
dination of research with increasing effectiveness, and has devised
effective methods and procedures.
(pp. 831, 835)
B. SUGGESTIONS FOR ATTAINING GREATER EFFICIENCY AND ECONOMY,
AND BETTER ORGANIZATION
Attainment of maximum efficiency and economy in space program
(Webb)
[These measures were suggested:]
(1) Consistent support of vigorous, effective and strong administration in this
program.
(2) funding the program at a rapid rate, rather than on a stop-and-go basis
or on a crash basis. I think that the cuts made this year in our budget will cost
the country between $2 and $3 billion to do the same amount of work.
(3) Now, I think also you cannot spend the money if you think it is not wise
to spend it that year.
(p. 85)
Balance between research and operations (Denney)
One question is whether there may be some ideal balance between
research and operations. Although research and operations are obvi-
ously mingled, where is the point at which it is profitable to break out
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
1116 FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
a research specialist to take over a reasonable portion of the research
job, in order to leave the operator free to concentrate more on his
action responsibilities? Division of labor is more efficient if there is
enough separable research work, and if the separation from the oper-
ator is not so wide as to make the research of no effect. The balance
between research and operations will probably vary with different
activities.
(pp. 184, 193-194)
Contracting and auditing procedures in Government research pro-
grams (Dickey)
Simplification and standardization of procedures would make it pos-
sible, more frequently than at present, to use a given set of documents
in relations with a number of awarding agencies.
Each institution might be assigned a single cognizant governmental.
audit agency which would handle governmental procedures for all
Government-sponsored research at the institution. This would not im-
pair the -usefulness of existing multiagency awards procedures.
(p. 1077)
The degree of association between research, and operational programs
in a department. (Calhoun)
[This problem has two sides:] (1) Some mission programs have no support at
all for a better elucidation of the science underlying their operations and the
factors that control them. * * *. (2) A parallel to the use of research is the
need for the problems and experience of operations to work their way to the
attention of the research laboratory.
Several questions may be raised in connection with this situation :
(1) How well are research results woven into operational decisions?
(2) Research results are not automatically used. Is this a matter
of timing or of substance? There is need for continuing attention to
procedures that will insure use of research results.
(3) Is the laboratory working on the most pertinent problem or one
of secondary usefulness?
(4) Could not management and operational, as well as research,
needs be enhanced if manpower flow exists from research to opera-
tions, or if there were an exchange of personnel between research
establishments and operations even on a short time basis ?
(p. 120)
Evaluation of management and productivity of Federal research pro-
grams (Peyton)
An examination and evaluation of the management and conduct of
successful research programs and of those -which have fallen short of
desired objectives may be helpful. An attempt should be made to
determine wily large variations exist in the productivity of research
projects, even when supported by the same agency, let alone by dif-
ferent agencies. It is possible that administrative and operational
improvements in research programs and research contracting will re-
sult ingreater economies than would have been obtained through mere
elimination of overlap.
(p. 1033)
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R00010023004 9
FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS 111
li-fanagement of Federal research and development (Sc'hairer)
It is my belief that the Federal program in the area of research and develop-
ment is well managed, effective and worthwhile. Of course there are many
areas that can be improved. In my experience, the civil servants administering
the Government research and development program are able and dedicated and
seldom are motivated by interagency rivalries. I have always found a very
healthy climate of cooperation between Government agencies at the working
level. My greatest concerns about the management of Government research and
development relate to the very great dangers which are inherent in permitting
any one agency or individual too much authority over what should not be done.
In research it is axiomatic that anything new will start as a minority viewpoint
and will have to fight its way for many years against more popular viewpoints
before its value is -recognized. We must not make it too difficult for new ideas
to emerge and come to fruition. Presently there are very great pressures in our
(,overnment to reduce the number of competing programs and to make it diflcult
for new ideas to be tried out, I am sure we will get more return for our money
with less unification of decision machinery.
In concluding, I would commend to you that the civilian advisory committees
in the many special areas of Government activities are probably the best possible
way of ensuring that Government activities are coordinated, well managed, and
have progressive goals. -
(p. 1037)
Management of Government research, with particular reference to
applied R. & D. (Weinberg)
(a) Need for competent managers is of prime importance and
deserves serious consideration by the committee.
I cannot stress how much the competence of our research and development
managers influences the effectiveness of our research and development. With
competence in technical management we will, on the average, get our money's
worth ; without competence we will waste our money. It is as simple as that.
(b) Improving the caliber of managers:
(1) Pay them more.
In my opinion, this is probably the most important single action that Con-
gress can take to improve the efficiency of its vast applied research and devel-
opment effort.
(2) Devise a scheme whereby managers from contractor estab-
lishments can be utilized by Government agencies for an indefinite
period.
What is needed is a much freer back-and-forth flow between the Govern-
ment and at least-some of its contractor establishments than is now possible-
a restoration if you will of the spirit and style of research during World War II.
I realize that today there are many difficulties in achieving this relation; yet
I believe it is ever so worthwhile, and that the Select Committee ought to
address itself to figuring out how to make this possible.
(pp. 318-319)
Management problems in research programs (Rose)
Because our research programs are as vital as they are, how they are
"managed" becomes very important. The -philosophies on which they are based,
the guidelines and principles flowing from these philosophies, the establishment
of "requirements" for research by agencies, the allocation of research funds,
the forms and methods of day-to-day administration, the ever-growing problems
of exchange of scientific information resulting from research, and the need
for continuous evaluation of research findings are some of the broad aspects of
management that are of crucial importance.
(1.788)
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
1118 FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
Means of achieving maximum effectiveness and minimum duplication
in R. & D. programs (Haughton)
(1) Good communication among all involved groups, within the
company and in Government agencies
The role of the technical and scientific societies here is important and the
committee may find it valuable to examine their part in the general communi-
cations problem in more detail.
* * * more complete communication with other research workers in universi-
ties, government, -and industry has an important consequence in lack of dupli-
cation. Our own research can be integrated with that of the other laboratories
so as to make a coordinated attack in a new technological area, with important
gains in economy.
The results of our research are widely and openly disseminated. We pub-
lished over 500 papers in scientific and technical journals last year.
(2) The rapid recognition of applications of basic research
Our large number of small independent research and development projects
is aimed at rapid recognition of applications of basic research.
The Russian sputnik showed us how easily we can be caught napping by
a country which is obviously capable of recognizing and making the most of a
technical advance.
We should remember that the United States does not have a monopoly in
research. * * * Our one important asset is the rapidity with which we can
recognize and utilize the fruits of research, made possible by close ties between
industry and government research teams. I regard this as a significant national
asset ; and I believe that this committee will perform an important service by
setting as an objective a streamlining of its functioning, a more rapid and ef-
fective application of research discoveries to national needs.
Our European friends are showing a recognition of this same need for rapid
research application * * * strongly supported by their national laboratories.
* * * it points up a major problem in research management for this committee's
consideration-how to obtain the most immediate advantage from our research
programs.
(pp. 101-103)
Need for reexamination of Government administrative procedures
(Calkins)
Government administrative and audit procedures need to be reex-
amined to see that they do not inhibit the independence and flexibility
which must be conditions of creative research. Government research
policies should not be so cumbersome as to multiply the administra-
tive and financial burdens of the research establishment that seeks to
make a contribution with Federal funds.
(p. 914)
Policy on termination and redirection of research programs (Haber)
Both Government and industry should develop a policy of encourag-
ing early termination or redirection of programs that become unprom-
ising rather than phasing them out over a period of time. Both
Government and industry management should announce and maintain
a policy of encouraging, as a sign of competence, timely recommenda-
tions to terminate programs for sufficient reason.
(p. 607)
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS 1119
The possibility of scheduling research (Collbohm)
In development you can usually establish schedules and have some
chance of meeting them. You cannot, however, schedule "inventions,"
and in exploratory development you may know what you want to do,
but since you may not know how to do, you may have to make un-
scheduled inventions.
(pp. 724, 730)
Role of the Government laboratories in management of applied re-
search (Weinberg)
I think that the large Government laboratories, such as the National Labora-
tories, of the Atomic Energy Commission, the National Institutes of Health, or
the Bureau of Standards could and should be drawn into the management as
well as the conduct, of Government applied research and development to a much
greater extent than they now are.
Since the establishment of these laboratories, they have been sep-
arated from their parent agencies and-
layers of functionaries have sprung up, for good and sufficient reason, between
the scientific competence in the laboratories and the Government agencies.
Their energies and talents are not now being utilized to the fullest
extent on Government research strategy.
I do not know in detail how to bring this about. I believe it is a matter that
your Committee can well address itself to.
(p.320)
Supervision of research (Haller)
Supervision by the procuring agency is necessary to ascertain that
Government funds are spent wisely, but the challenge is to find the
proper balance in directing and measuring the scientist's work without
unduly interfering in the scientific process. Primary emphasis should
be placed on the selection of the most qualified contractor, for if com-
petent people have been selected for the project, the researcher can be
permitted to work with a minimum of direct supervision and reporting.
Supervision should stop short of interference.
(pp.333,336,337-338)
C. SPnclrlc PROBLEM AREAS
Difficulty of fixing responsibility, particularly with respect to long-
range projects (Webb)
The Administration and agency which must see a project through
to completion, and sometimes failure, may not be the same ones who
made the initial decision to undertake the project. The Centaur
booster is a case in point.
It was started prior to the formation of NASA [National Aeronautics and Space
Administration], transferred into NASA with part of the control retained by
the Air Force for a certain period of time after the transfer, and there was
a period when it was very hard to determine exactly who was responsible.
(p.84)
26-665-_-64- pt. 3--4
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
1120 FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
D 8persal of rescarc^1L7?esou-ree. (Shaw)
USDA has found it difficult io effect greater concentration of re-
search at more centralized locations in the States, although in the past
5 years the Department has closed down 72 field locations.
..: * * We recognize that field stations manned by one, two, or three scientists
are likely to be less effective than if these same scientists were located in a
larger research community. Our Department leaders in cooperation with inter-
ested groups of Stale experiment station directors have, for the past five or more
years, devoted a great deal of effort to exploring the possibility for greater con-
centration of research at fewer locations. * * * We are hopeful that we can
work out plans for greater concentration of research. For the same money
now spent for research at scattered locations, we could develop centers in the
States where groups of scientists with more adequate support could do a more
effective job of research on regional and national problems, and at the same
time provide a valuable training ground for graduate students.
(pp.206-207)
Importance of good management and technology (Webb)
The General Accounting Office estimated a, loss of about $100 million
was incurred on the $500 million which National Aeronautics and
Space Administration has spent on the development of the Centaur
booster rocket.
All we have learned with the most unfortunate experiences related to this par-
ticular rocket, where a good job was not done in all of the management or the
technology, is a net gain in terms of the value. It will be worth more than we
paid for it.
Now, I think if I could make any suggestion, and I believe it is along the line
that you are thinking, we must. tighten up and make sure we make as few mis-
takes as possible, but still keep moving forward.
The GAO report, here referred to, was published about a year and
a half ago, and the mistakes listed in it had been corrected about a
year earlier as stated in the report.
(pp. 84-85, 91-92)
Lack of mode' n facilities (Shaw)
In both the Department of Agriculture and in cooperating State
institutions, the lack of modern facilities acts as a limiting factor to
research. To fully modernize these facilities will require very sub-
stantial sums. This problem is aggravated by the fact that the capac-
ity of many land grant colleges to accommodate cooperating Federal
scientht.s is declining, because of increased student loads on facilities.
Recent enactment, of Public Law 88-74, authorizing Federal grants
on a State matching basis for erection of research facilities at State
agricultural experiment stations affords possible relief; no funds have
yet been appropriated under this new authorization.
(p. 207)
1odifacation of the cxeculivc brancla organization for science and
technology (Killian)
The executive's scientific advisory body, which has been evolving and
growing, needs more senior scientific personnel if it is to function' acle-
quately. The duties of the President's Scientific Adviser may have to
be split up, and the recent appointment of a Deputy Director of the
Office of Science and Technology was a good idea.
Aptproved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R00010qjg041-9
FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
Problems involved in research based on a variety of disciplines
(Foster)
Unlike the research programs of many agencies, ours [Arms control and
Disarmament Agency's] involves a variety of disciplines. Our programs en-
compass not only the physical and biological sciences, but political science, eco-
nomics, social and behavioral sciences and, very importantly, most facets of
military technology. Many of our problem areas involve several of these fields
at the same time. These must be investigated on a multidisciplinary basis.
This fact creates significant difficulties in managing programs and in finding
qualified personnel or organizations to carry out the research. [Several ex-
amples are cited.]
(pp. 771-772)
D. FRAGMENTIZED VERSUS CENTRALIZED ORGANIZATION of FEDERAL
It. & D. FUNCTIONS
Centralization of Federal agencies supporting research (Long)
Most academic people believe that the multiplicity of agencies sup-
porting research is a good thing, because support by agencies interested
in what is done leads to better supervision and control and "just more
thoughtful administration."
(pp. 478-479)
Centralization of Government research programs (Dickey)
The arguments in favor of further consolidating Government re-
search programs are outweighed by the advantages of the present
multiagency approach which tends to promote breadth, flexibility, and
"openminded" competitiveness.
(p.1077)
Centralized direction of research (Teller)
We have a wonderful system by which both the Federal Government and
private institutions can support these activities [universities in the training
of scientists and making loans to students]. I see nothing wrong in principle
with this arrangement. At the same time I know that when support is given,
one should carefully consider the limitations that the support imposes.
The worst thing you can do to science is to try to direct it. If support
should mean centralized direction, then I am opposed to support.
[Support of specific areas of learning makes good sense.] The central direction
that I feel I must be opposed to is one which tries to predict in detail what
will come out from one and from the other field of endeavor. I know that
I am talking here about a difficult situation. You cannot give support without
some direction. You must not overdo the directive, and there is a human
tendency to overdo it.
The way to get out of this trouble is partly to be conscious of the danger,
and partly it is by a multiplicity of the supporting agencies.
[In reply to a question as to any examples of Federal Government controls in
areas of Federal support, the witness replied:]
My general impression is that so far the controls have been provided gently
and reasonably. It is however, a point which I would like to continue carefully
to watch. There have been arguments made in the name of efficiency of
gathering all these supports into a minimum o number of agencies, if possible
into a single agency. i ko
(pp. 951-952)
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
1122 FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
Centralized Federal control of research (von Braun)
* * * I do not recommend the establishment of a Department of Science,
or any other agency, that would exercise control over the Federal research
program. I agreed completely with Dr. Jerome Wiesner when he said his
most important job as Presidential Adviser was, as he put it, to protect the
anarchy of science. Pure science is one area that must regulate itself.
(pp. 518, 530)
Diversity of agencies administering grants and contracts for scientific
research (Berkner)
Experience has shown the current system best fitted for the United
States, and it is outstandingly successful. "Diversity is the essence
of our American system."
The impressive advantages of the system of diversity are :
(1) Each agency is kept close to the advances of science affecting
it and is influenced by participating in that activity. This counteracts
the tendencies toward obsolescence and produces youthful, virile atti-
tudes.
(2) Since each agency functions in its own areas of interest, it
comprehends the research it administers, and this ensures efficient
administration and effective evaluation.
(3) Since the form of regulation varies from agency to agency,
American science lias had the opportunity to experiment with various
forms of administration and, from this, steady improvement has oc-
curred and bureaucratic authoritarianism kept minimal.
(4) Diversity of administration is less susceptible to scientific "or-
thodoxy," and broader aspects of science are recognized for their
work. This gives us great national strength.
Of course, we must guard against dangers inherent in the diversity
of administration :
(a) Danger of unnecessary or unplanned duplication is enhanced.
(b) Since no one agency has responsibility for all science, serious
gaps in support planning are inevitable.
(pp. 435-436)
Executive branch organization for R. c6 D. programs (Furnas)
The best apportionment of finances and effort among the Nation's
many R. & D. needs is a perennial problem, and will never be finally
solved. The Office of Science and Technology is "the best source of
guidance in this very crucial matter."
* * * An often-proposed new Federal Department of Science is not the answer.
This would mean adding another major agency which would probably only hinder
progress.
(h. 1010)
The executive departments as agents for accomplishment of the Fed-
eral R. c D. program (Wenk)
It is important to remember that the authority, missions and roles and respon-
sibilities of individual departments constitute the predominant basis for accom-
plishment of Federal research and development programs, and should continue
to do so. Each department, with its own special and complex requirements,
must be free to sponsor imaginative and creative research if its development
programs are not to become sterile. Some diversity in administrative style
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15: CIA-RDP66B00403R0 100 R41-9
FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRA
must also be expected. To insist that Government processes in all agencies
be identical for the sake of administrative tidiness might seriously damage the
effectiveness of the R. & D. operation. Nevertheless, a continuing process is
required which facilitates integration of individual agency efforts under com-
mon policies, internally consistent and coordinated in execution.
In serving the President, the Federal Council on Science and Tech-
nology has this responsibility.
(pp. 219, 243)
Fragmentized versus centralized approach to Government organiza-
tion for research (Weinberg)
[In answer to an inquiry whether the Federal Council for Science
and Technology and the Office of Science and Technology did not seem
to be encouraging fragmentation of research effort, the witness stated
that] the present organization appeared to have the potential to
achieve most of the good things that you hope might come out of a single
Department of Science, without running the risk of bringing all of the difficulties
that would be attendant upon the establishment of such a Department.
(pp. 329-330)
Proposed centralization of all Federal science and technology in one
agency (Wiesner)
* * * We believe, however, that while some regroupings of Federal scientific
and technological functions may prove to be feasible, a comprehensive Depart-
ment of Science * * * would isolate science and technology from, intimate in-
volvement in the operating missions of the Federal agencies. Furthermore,
it is doubtful that any single agency could achieve the breadth of competence,
the mastery of detail, and the diversity of perspective that a single directing
mechanism for science would require.
The Office of Science and Technology has developed tighter plan-
ning, decisionmaking, management and coordination controls and is
following up on the recommendations of several studies with respect
to improved procedures and information sharing.
(pp. 264, 273-274)
Soundness of method of "fragmentizing" a research effort among
several departments and bureaus (Wenk)
(The witness replied affirmatively to two questions from a member
of the committee: (1) Is this method sound? and (2) is the concept
under review by the Federal Council for Science and Technology?)
There are several alternatives when a program or area is identified
as in serious need of stimulation : (1) A new agency can be formed, as
was done in the case of the space program. (2) In the case of a pro-
gram, such as oceanography, with a background of long historic de-
velopment, related specifically (as the space program was not) to
several different agency missions, a new agency is not established.
(3) Primary responsibility can, however, be transferred from various
agencies and vested in one department or bureau. While the effective-
ness of research might be improved under these plans (2) and (3), it is
probable that in the long run you would weaken the contribution of
that research to the accomplishment of the agency mission.
(pp. 253-254)
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 App QQ ed For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
~1L4 FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
B. IN-HOUSE AND EXTERNAL RESEARCH FACILITIES, CHOICE BETWEEN
USE OF
Balance between in-house and external research (Denney)
Another question concerns the balance between in-house and ex-
ternal research, which vary in cost and have varying advantages.
Clearly, tremendous benefit is to be gained from the interplay of re-
search within the Government and research under contract in private
hands. Is there some way of determinin in various fields how much
research should be allocated to each kind The need for security and
speed may require in-house research, whereas use of skills not avail-
able in the Government or difficult to retain in Government may call
for external research. Can these categories be broken down further?
(pp. 184, 194)
Choice of suitable research agency (bald)
The committee might inquire into the choice of agency to do re-
search. It should be questioned whether research is to be done by a
Government agency or contracted out, and, if the latter, to whom.
There is danger that channeling too much research through one
agency (either governmental or nongovernmental) will tend to make
research too uniform. Coordinated research among various agencies
might constitute a check against "an excessively homogenizing effect
on research."
(p. 387)
Division between Government and private research (Denney)
One field of inquiry should be whether some fields are particularly
suited to Government or particularly suited to private research.
There may be some subjects in foreign affairs research, for example,
into which the Government should not go.
Some people contend that basic research should be left entirely to
the openminded, unhurried, quieter ways of private research, but
others contend that basic research benefits from the purposeful drive
of Government programs. Speculation peering into the distant fu-
ture at first sight appears a task suited to the academic atmosphere,
but we can ask whether broad views and keen insight do not flourish
at least as well under the urge of operational requirements. While
generally historical research may be done more practically outside
the Government, even historical research sometimes gains substance
and sharpness when addressed to specific questions within official orga-
n izations.
(pp. 185, 194)
In-house and external research (Foster)
I strongly believe that any Government research program should be carried out
using both in-house capabilities and those available through contracts and grants.
The operation of the Arms Control Agency requires in-house competence in the
fields in which we must conduct research. This is necessary in order to use
intelligently the products of the research and to ensure that external research is
both competently carried out and responsive to Agency and overall governmental
needs. I believe that an organization gets out of its external research programs
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGR
no more than it puts in. The contracting out of a problem with little or no
supervision or contact between the Agency and the contractor until the finished
product is available will not produce much of value. Competence on the part
of those within an agency who manage research is absolutely essential.
In addition, internal research studies are needed to support, on a
continuing and timely basis, the current activities of the Agency.
Contractors are less capable of furnishing this sort of service than are
the Agency personnel. But the Agency, as a practical matter, cannot
carry out all, or even most, of its research in-house, because the staff is
too small. It would be absolutely impossible to staff the Agency
with all the expertise it needs in the wide variety of complex problems
with which it deals. Also, any organization requires stimulation
from without, as well as independent analyses. Such stimulation can
best be provided by research contracts or grants to academic or non-
profit institutions.
(pp.772-773)
Proper balance between research within and without the agency (Cal-
houn)
Another characteristic which I have noted is the high percentage of in-house
research in Interior programs. There is need for consideration of the balance
between research within and without the agency. How much of the necessary
research should be by contract? How much should be in-house'.!
Achievement of maximum efficiency and effectiveness will recognize that ideas
and contributions are to be sought from all creative sources that have a potential
contribution toward the research at hand. Research has become in fact an
industry of its own. Part of the excellence of this industry lies within the
Federal laboratories, part without. As with all other types of need, therefore,
research should be purchased where the gain will be maximum. Within Interior,
the legislative authority does not exist for all bureaus to do this.
(p. 120)
The purpose of the nonprofit, nongovernmental research corporation
(Collbohm)
[The witness replied to a question as to what makes such organiza-
tions more efficient than the same sort of organization located within
the Government.]
The Rand Corp. was set up because it was considered desirable for
the Government to have the kind of advice it had had during World
War II.
* * * It was determined at that time even that we could not set up the right
kind of environment in the Government, either Civil Service or in the military
departments, to attract the type of people that we thought were necessary. We
had to be able to set up an environment that was more attractive to these people.
There are many other factors. For example, in a nonprofit or nongovern-
ment institution, it is much more likely that studies can and will be made on
subjects that go counter to current positions or policies. Yet these are the very
things that need to be done. * *
(pp. 727-728)
The usefulness of private research institutes in the Federal service
program (Thomas)
[The question was raised whether the Government would be better
advised to conduct more of its basic and applied research through pri-
vate institutes, rather than as all in-house function within an agency]
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 App ?~gd For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
* * I earnestly believe that the research institutes * * * are extremely ef-
fectivo institutions for doing particular kinds of research. And, of course, I
think that their effectiveness is such that their work should be increased.
You asked me to say this * * * and this I think is true. To that extent I
think that the Government would be well advised to use these institutions more
than they do.
In addition to private research institutes, such as Battelle, South-
west, Stanford, and others, "I think that Federal funds spent in the
universities in general is very, very well spent. In addition to getting
information, it stimulates education, `a very important byproduct."'
(pp. 417, 418)
11,. GRANT AND CONTRACT PROCESSES
Adequacy of coordination in administration of extramural grants by
HE TV (Jones of HEW)
The term "adequate" is hard to define. I think we do have an adequate mecha-
nism for avoiding unnecessary duplication. I think we need to continually re-
view our administrative processes to improve. This is what has been going on
for the last few years with great effort. I think we have achieved in the last 2
years a great improvement in the administration of these funds.
(p. 555)
Effects of large "primne contracts" as used by certain Government agen-
cies (Steimke)
In writing this type of contract, it is the expressed hope that nu-
merous subcontracts will be awarded. The procedure itself is intended
to minimize the legal-administrative workload, but, in reality it "shifts
the responsibility and control off from the agency which should retain
responsibility." The extent of subcontracting is left up to the prime
contractor, who tends to make sure that his own inhouse research effort
is fully used or expanded, with the result that subcontracting is mini-
mized. More than this, the work done by all participants is produced
under the prime contractor's name, thus enhancing his prestige and as-
suring him of an even better position from which to be selected for
other prime contracts.
(p. 616)
Government regulation of R. & D. (Kistiakowsky)
The current trend toward more governmental regulation of grants
and contracts tends to restrict the freedom of action of the grantee
or contractor, and to put more detailed operational controls in the
agency staffs who are more remote from the actual research activity,
and who respond slowly.
Although certain reports have disclosed several instances of lax
administration of grant funds, there is no evidence of misappropria-
tion of public funds for personal gain in nonprofit institutions.
Rather than increasing agency controls a more sound reaction
would be to insist on
* * * a greater sense of responsibility and more effective self-policing meth-
ods by [lie institutions to which investigators belong and to which grants and
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS 1127
contracts are made. This is in the spirit of our great democratic tradition of
decentralization of control and should not be reversed because of isolated cases
of irresponsible actions.
(p. 612)
Imposition of rigid restrictions and regulations affecting the use of
grant or contract funds (Eisenhower)
* * * an institution (and the scientists involved) receiving support from the
Government must be strictly accountable for the proper expenditure of those
funds. * * * I do not challenge the need for a careful examination of present
practices and * * * such changes as may be indicated to assure the prudent
use of Government funds.
My fear is that reaction to recent efforts of granting agencies to correct iso-
lated abuses may cause the pendulum to swing too far in the direction of un-
necdssarily restrictive regulations.
I hope the sponsoring agencies will -adopt only those regulations and restric-
tions which are necessary to provide assurance that Government funds are being
spent wisely, economically, and in harmony with legislative authorizations.
If Government policies forced scientists to spend more and more
time and effort on "time records, inventories, periodic reporting, and
the observance of other regulations and correspondingly less upon pro-
ductive research," the losses would be greater than those which might
develop from a few minor loopholes.
* * * Doubtful situations should be resolved in favor of the freedom of the
scientist to pursue his inquiries in an appropriate academic atmosphere. * * *
(p. 996)
Modification of Federal administrative regulations (Rose)
There is need for standardization and abbreviation of administra-
tive regulations and procedures. Total consistency may be too much
to ask but progress toward consistency could be made through this
committee's work. Present detailed and widely varying regulations
waste the time of researchers and administrators in the university.
(pp. 701-792)
Need for improvement in administration of Federal funds for research
(Aderhold)
Criticisms of institutions receiving funds from Federal sources for
research are
* * * that processing of proposals and grants, and the administration of funds
are complex and time consuming, to the point of necessitating additional per-
sonnel.
[A] well-organized but flexible system of support must be devised if funds for
research are to be equitably distributed to produce the greatest effect.
* * * Again, I would cite the successful combination of State and Federal support
where our experiment stations are concerned as a guide in establishing policy
for cooperative research programs.
(p. 907)
Negotiation of contracts and grants (Heald)
The committee might study whether sufficient care and time are
spent in the initial stages of making grants and negotiating contracts.
(pp. 387, 403)
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
1128 FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
0 bligations in utilization of grant funds (Berkner)
Current concerns [arising from the occasional mismanagement of grant funds,
or their misdirection] place a heavy onus on the scientific community to recog-
nize and accept its obligations in the use of public funds. It is a tribute to the
dedication of scientists, and to the institutions of which they are a part that so
little mismanagement has occurred.
Over recent years the grant instrument has developed without ex-
plicit legal interpretations on its use, but with implicit understandings
between the Federal agency and the grantee. Research problems
have been formulated in broad terms to give latitude to the individual
scientists. The heart of the present debate concerns not whether, but
how far, an investigator can be permitted to change his directions be-
fore the original considerations which led to the grant award can be
regarded as no longer valid. This is the point of primary concern for
congressional committees and granting agencies as well.
Scientists and their administrations should recognize the need for
a common set of principles to be observed in the utilization of grant
funds, and see that these principles are promulgated, understood, and
endorsed by researchers throughout the Nation. This could avert
the need for restrictive legislative action and permit the necessary
flexibility. The scientific community, perhaps through the National
Academy of Sciences, could develop such a set of principles. The key
objective should be to define clearly a mechanism whereby scientific
responsibility is exercised by the scientists themselves and their insti-
tutions.
Overregulation would inevitably destroy the creativeness and the present
productivity of our science. The cost of administering more detailed regulations
might exceed the cost of a rare ease of mismanagement.
(pp. 432-433)
Procedure for making research grants (Kemeny)
The procedure used by the National Science Foundation is most
likely to put Government funds to the best possible use. This consists
of having experts in the field judge the value of the research and
letting NSF make the administrative decisions.
(p. 1069)
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
IV. DUPLICATION AND COORDINATION OF R. & D.
A. Nature of duplication and its control
B. Undesirable duplication
C. Need for better coordination of R. & D. activities
D. Dangers of excessive coordination
E. Coordination of multiagency P. & D. programs
A. NATURE or, DUPLICATION AND ITS CONTROL
Coordination in basic research (Waterman)
The measures by which researchers in the basic research field seek
to avoid needless duplication by keeping track of current work going
on in particular fields result in a "high degree of coordination in over-
all plans."
It would be my personal opinion that the basic research program of the Fed-
eral Government is about as well coordinated as any that you would find. *
(pp. 812, 821)
Control of duplication (Vickers)
There is a built-in self-control on the conduct of basic and applied
research. Scientists have no motivation to follow behind or merely
duplicate the work of others. Industry in a competitive economic
system can price itself out of business by conducting expensive re-
search and development that only duplicates and does not give it a
favorable position over its competitors. Properly managed duplica-
tion may be advisable in Government and in industry, for example, to
evaluate different solutions, to generate different ideas, and to test
relative rates of achievement. However, every effort should be made
to assure that what duplication exists is known and understood to be
advisable.
Self-policing effect is greatest when full communication and free-
dom to choose is present, and is least when secrecy is imposed and
outside controls instituted.
(pp. 1065-1066)
Duplication (Berkner)
Some measure of duplication is imperative. * * * All great scientific dis-
coveries have come as a consequence of the interaction of several great minds
viewing problems with different insights and skills. To eliminate duplication
would be fatal-the problem is to develop the delicate sense of how much dupli-
cation is enough, and, within this limit, how expenditures for facilities can
lead to optimum results.
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 ApprRvl FK~?se 2005/03/15: CIA-RDP66BOO403ROO0100230041-9
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
While Congress rightfully inquires into apparent and real duplica-
tion of basic research effort, if only a dollar yardstick is applied,
important opportunities for real breakthroughs could be stultified.
Duplication is the handmaiden of diversity with its natural selection
of the best, and, just as in business, competition in research is the
essence of excellence and of progress.
Some duplication is justified under each of three objectives:
(a) To permit a problem to be attacked in different ways by inves-
tigators with different skills. Scientific problems are usually solved
by the creative and competitive interaction of several individuals
working in different environments.
(b) To provide for graduate training of scientists in sufficient num-
bers. The novice must start on known ground before intelligently
probing the unknown.
(c) To bring into each community a sense of scholarship in each of
the major areas of science.
Our most serious failure, today, in capturing innovation as the
new resource, has been the failure to extend the scholarship underly-
ing this resource to about half of our population. This access cannot
be acquired by "book learning" alone, book learning distant from
major centers of research; it, is opened only by actual participation in
the research process itself. Only in this way can the useful concepts
of innovation emerge for the full benefit of all.
Of course, duplication can be pushed beyond the bounds of reasons.
If allowed to go beyond the fulfillment of the above objectives, it
results in waste of money or, more serious, the deprivation of more
justifiable research.
On the other hand, overcontrol of duplication can prevent the infusion of new
blood into the field when, through lack of competition, its participants can
deteriorate into a smug, second rate, and unimaginative "priesthood."
The problem is to develop a reasonably objective and sensitive
judgment, based on criteria of what is or is not improper duplication.
The judgment and the criteria may differ for different fields of
research.
On the whole, granting agencies have exercised excellent judg-
ment in the extent of justifiable duplication, and if they have erred
it has been mainly on the side of too much restriction, particularly
in encouraging scientifically underdeveloped metropolises to improve
their capability. Congress might inquire into this matter, for no
area can afford to remain isolated from the major resource of inno-
vation.
The President's Science Advisory Committee through panels, or
the National Academy of Sciences, might review the research activities
in the several scientific fields in the light of the agreed criteria to
ascertain whether duplication is sufficient or excessive, and report
to the Nation.
(pp. 425, 430-431)
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS 1131
Duplication. (Calkins)
Duplication occurs much more in development than in research.
Though instances of duplication in research may perhaps be found,
it would be surprising if they represented wasteful expenditure in
fact.
(p. 911)
Duplication (Furnas)
The best policing method to prevent unnecessary duplication is
through full interchange of information among scientists. The scien-
tific community is adequately self-policing in this matter.
(p. 1010)
Duplication (Haller)
Duplication is not necessarily bad because it may be helpful to
attack a given problem from several different approaches. The com-
mittee should be careful to identify the type of duplication which may
require a greater control; i.e., duplication of the same methods for
solving the same problem.
In examining individual programs, the committee will need to be
concerned with how they fit into the total picture.
The nature of scientific inquiry is such that many related aspects of a total
problem need to be studied separately. Very often this will lead the researcher
into areas of inquiry which are perfectly relevant, but which to the layman bear
no causal relationship, and therefore appear ridiculous. * * *
You cannot always learn the relevance of an R. & D. program. from its title.
I suspect that some of the criticism of various Government-sponsored research
programs results from a failure to fully understand their relevance.
Any group reviewing research programs should look at them in their total
context : in the light of objectives and relation to other work.
(pp. 331-2, 335)
Duplication (Haworth)
[In reply to a question concerning duplication of research, and "any
conflict, any waste, any extravagance that might be eliminated by bet-
ter administration," the witness stated:]
In research., especially in basic research, the problem of duplication is not one
that one really has to worry about, for the simple fact that [with] basic research
the results are fully published, and all scientists can see them.
Now no scientist wants to come along a little later and do just exactly what
someone else did and already got the credit, so that it is a self-policing thing.
* * * Oh, I don't mean occasionally somebody doesn't fail to know that somebody
else is doing something, but any duplication is trivial.
In development, one has to watch much more closely. There is not so
much general knowledge about the devices which are produced; many
of them are produced for special purposes and are not of general
interest to many people; for reasons op military security and of the
companies' need to preserve secrecy concerning their private develop-
ment results, the chances of duplication are greater than in the case of
basic research. There probably is some duplication but "I don't think
there is very much though with Federal funds."
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
[A member of the committee returned to the witness statement that
in the field of basic research there is self-policing which prevents du-
plication. He replied:]
The Government, the universities, and industry recognize that in
basic research the scientist must be allowed to determine his own course
of action in pursuing his objective. "No individual scientist is going
to waste his time duplicating the work of someone else."
[A member of the committee asked the witness, "In effect then you
are telling us that a private company doing basic research will collab-
orate and cooperate with other scientists in other private industries
with which they are in competition, and widely disseminate their views
among the scientists?" The witness replied:]
The results of basic research I think almost, if not entirely, without exception
* * * are published in the scientific journals, and are available to everyone.
Now as you move toward development through applied research and toward de-
velopment, this becomes less and less true, of course. I did say, you will remem-
ber, that there may well be duplication in the development of devices, and
maybe there is in * * * applied research.
We do basic research in order to get some application of it, and
that is
one of the reasons that an industry or the Federal Government supports basic
research. But it is not the reason that the man does basic research. * * *
In other words, we support basic research in a general sense because of appli-
cation, but we don't usually do specific basic research because it may have a
specific application.
(pp. 48-49, 54)
"Duplication" and "overlap" In Government Ii. & D. programs
(Harrar)
[If the term "duplication" is used to imply] that there are many individuals
or groups of scientists in different programs assigned to similar research projects,
then I think little duplication exists. To have many investigators working
independently on important problems * "I * is a healthy situation. * * *
If, on the other hand, "duplication" is taken to mean that there are perhaps
more agencies than necessary to accomplish stated tasks, then I would think this
possibility merits careful examination. Bureaucratic and other agencies often
manifest the primordial urge to proliferate. It is possible that, within a mam-
moth structure with a multiplicity of responsibilities, the organization may
get out of balance with purpose. Thus, I would think that it would be a healthy
exercise to carry out a detailed and competent examination of the Government
involvement in research and development to assure that there is a reasonable
balance between objectives and efficiency. This might result in the designation
of a high-level clearinghouse (e.g., the Federal Council for Science and Tech-
nology) with both responsibility and power in matters relating to the creation
of new agencies and the rate of growth of those already in existence. This body
might also function to determine where consolidation is indicated in order to
achieve greater economy and efficiency without loss of progress.
In my opinion, "overlap" is rather commonplace and is to a high degree in-
escapable in Government and, indeed, in other sectors of research and develop-
ment. Unless overlap reaches the point at which it results in unnecessary com-
petition, and, in fact, duplication of effort, I do not think it is unhealthy. On
the contrary, some overlap provides areas and opportunities for cooperation and
the exchange of ideas and information useful to groups with related interests but
different objectives. * * *
(pp. 1017-1018)
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved F%
D lf~~a t s ~AQt 3~ ' Dy&-f RM 0gJg3 qqq 109? J9041-9
Duplication and coordination of research (McConnell)
In general, I do not believe that a significant duplication of effort exists in
basic research. One stringent curb on duplication is obtained through the natural
process by which a scientist-teacher disseminates new knowledge and plans for
further studies, through oral presentations at professional meetings attended by
his peers and written treatises published in the scientific journals. Duplica-
tion of another's work, even though inadvertent, is not very satisfying to a
researcher.
* * * To be sure, some overlap, as distinguished from duplication, in the
investigation of many problems exists and is in fact unavoidable. This is true
because of the mutuality of interest by researchers in various phases of the same
general problems. In a few cases intentional duplication may be desirable,
primarily because of the expected importance of and urgency for a scientific
breakthrough in a chosen area. The basic question then is not so much the
cost of duplication per se but the cost of the effort in terms of the value of the
end result and the time when it is needed.
On the matter of coordination, it is my understanding that listings of all
proposals, grants and contracts are circulated among the various sponsors and
that research administrators in different agencies serve along with university
faculty on each others' advisory and evaluation panels.
One of the safeguards against unwarranted duplication of effort and research
on trivial topics which is built into the present system is the use of nationally
recognized faculty specialists on evaluation and advisory panels and as tem-
porary Government research administrators while on leave from their home in-
stitutions. Unfortunately, the number of faculty utilized for this latter purpose
appears to be declining, relative to the number of professional research admin-
istrators.
(pp. 863-864)
Duplication and waste in re$carch programs (Bailey)
Duplication does not necessarily mean-iii fact can hardly mean-waste in
the area of basic research when results are being communicated freely.
[This is true because] duplication in another laboratory is often a necessary
replication essential to establish definitely the truth of the first observation.
This is especially true of major contributions. Such duplication is not
wasteful. * * *
In the applied areas, duplication may also serve very useful purposes. Dupli-
cation of a type can be a very healthy competition which results in * * * vastly
improved products. * * *
Another obvious aspect of duplication with which you will be concerned is that
which might result in the overlapping of areas of interest and activity between
Federal agencies. In anything like our present structure-which we think is
basically sound-some overlapping is inherent. * * *
(p. 873)
Duplication in applied R. & D. (Schairer)
It is advisable to distinguish between duplication, competition, a.nd
progress. Sometimes different methods may be employed, all with the
same objective. The results may complement rather than duplicate
each other.
Sometimes parallel competitive effort results in savings and benefits
far in excess of the development costs.
In this connection I would reiterate the very strong belief of Boeing manage-
ment that the American public would get much more per Government dollar
expended in promoting the supersonic transport if two competing developments
were encouraged. It seems to me that governments whose policies support
competition always win over governments who have "chosen instrument"
policies.
(pp. 10:35 1036)
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Appjr r d Fi re ?I?aRpARRL{P3~IA : D - W0PR483Rp0100230041-9
Duplication in basic research (Getting)
In basic research, there are literally hundreds of scientists working
on some problems, and it is through their combined efforts that prog-
ress comes. The word "duplication" as it is often used in the govern-
mental budgetary sense has little meaning when applied to basic
research.
(p. 1012)
Duplication in basic research (Schairer)
I feel certain that you can satisfy yourselves that no basic research worker
would ever knowingly duplicate someone else's research except as a means
to verify it and progress to new knowledge.
(p. 1035)
Duplication in Government research (Haber)
Controlled redundancy is advantageous in that it affords different
approaches to a problem and thereby increases the chance of at least
one approach being successful. Yet it is useful only insofar as it
is recognized and controlled. An effective data retrieval system is
certainly needed in this connection.
(p. 607)
Duplication in Government research programs (Murray)
Any question of duplication should be considered in relation to the seri-
ousness of the problem being researched. It can be wise and even necessary
in urgent or dire situations to assign duplicate, or even triplicate or quad-
ruplicate, research teams to identical problems. * * * Another form of apparent
duplication, which isn't real when understood, is related to the old adage
of doing a job yourself if you want it done right. * * * This is why I think
it is logical and desirable that many of our Government agencies should
do research in the same broad areas or disciplines. Seldom, if ever, do their
efforts even approach undesirable duplication. * * *
[Considering the subject of duplication from the standpoint of the re-
searcher-] Scientists do not wish to repeat the work of others and take
great pains to try to avoid this. * * *
The publication of research is the means by which duplication
is prevented. Government can aid by increased emphasis on systems
for indexing, lending, and purchasing Government research reports.
Scientific meetings cover every field of science and technology. Such
exchanges of results and scientific information provide for prompt
availability of knowledge to all concerned, with little likelihood of un-
desirable duplication.
(pp. 455-456)
Duplication in R. & D. programs (Hollomon)
The problem of evaluating R. & D. that faces your committee is not one of
excessive duplication.
Duplication in technical programs is to be expected because
different people will take different tasks and research is generally expected
to be inefficient. * * * l7nrthermore, in certain instances, deliberate duplication
is desirable, especially in the early stages of exploratory research either to
reach the desired goal quicker or to save much larger sums that are required
for the development in the later design state.
(pp. 294, 299, 303)
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS 1135
Duplication in research (Bush)
Although duplication in research can involve waste, on really im-
portant problems duplication is both inevitable and necessary for
rapid progress. Competition among scientific groups produces out-
standing researchers.
(p. 461)
Duplication of research (Rose)
Finally, I strongly suggest that the committee approach the matter of dupli-
cation of effort in a cautious manner.
More important than the problem of unnecessary duplication of
effort is getting the "concentrated and parallel effort" necessary to
advancement in science.
(p. 793)
Duplication of research (Schairer)
Duplication should be considered separately for basic research, for
applied research, and for development.
(p. 1035)
Planned duplication in exploratory development (Collbohm)
In exploratory development (for example, development of air-cooled
and liquid-cooled aircraft engines) where we seek a solution to im-
portant problems, we cannot afford to rely on a single approach.
* * * Planned duplication may at times be desirable to be sure that we have at
least one solution. If more than one turns up, we can choose the best benefit
by the experience In arriving at each of them.
In some cases what might appear to be duplication, either planned or
unplanned, is really an evaluation of different programs, to determine
which is most beneficial.
It would certainly be desirable to make decisions earlier than we do,
before huge sums of money have been expended. One of the things
Rand Corp. does is to make studies to be used by decisionmakers.
(pp. 724-726,727)
Self-regulation of basic research, with specific reference to duplication
(Seaborg)
Duplication in basic research activities is not necessarily bad, and is, in fact,
often desirable. Confirmation of scientific work is essential, and enhances the
value of the findings. * * * When several groups are known to be active in the
same area of research, constructive rivalry sets in, analogous to competition in
the business world.
Clearly duplication of effort toward the "rediscovery of knowledge
that is already known" would not be long tolerated. Not only is there
"absolutely no incentive" on the part of tIe basic researcher "to indulge
in repetition," but also the detrimental effects of duplication upon the
researcher's reputation in the eyes of his peers provides him with a
"strong incentive * * * to avoid repetition of previous work."
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
1136 FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
At the present time the Atomic Energy Commission conducts very
little classified basic research and, consequently, is not faced with the
problem of duplication.
(pp. 67,78)
Waste and duplication in research (Peyton)
While unnecessary duplication and overlap in Federal research can-
not be condoned, duplication of research activity may, in some cases,
be desirable and necessary to gain objectives sought.
* * * Particularly in the case of Federal research, apparent duplication
may be the result of attempts to find differing applications of similar basic
knowledge, Thus, such duplication may be intrinsically desirable from the
scientific and technological viewpoint and for the successful accomplishment
of a variety of objectives. We suggest that the select committee look at dupli-
cation and overlap in this sense, rather than in a more restrictive sense.
(p. 1033)
Duplication (Thomas)
The committee has expressed concern about the matter of duplica-
tion of effort.
No one who has ever dealt with human enterprises would disagree
for a moment with Mr. Ell iott's statement that in a $14 billion enter-
prise wasteful overlapping and needless duplication are bound to
occur.
* * * I would like to observe, however, that I know of no important dupli-
cation of research effort, per se. In fact no scientist wants to duplicate an-
other's effort. * * * If such duplications exist, they arise out of the informa-
tion and communications problem which is itself a subject of research de-
signed to minimize these duplications.
There are, on the other hand, some obvious duplications that the committee
may wish to do something about. One of the more important ones arises
out of Government contracting procedures. I have pointed out that the Gov-
ernment controls the use of the available scientific talent through its expendi-
tures. It induces a very considerable duplication of effort if the usual system
of awarding contracts on the basis of competitive bidding puts scientists to work
writing proposals requiring a great deal of thought and preliminary analysis-
proposals that do not sell because perhaps a dozen others have written dupli-
cates and only one can triumph in the competitive process. I have no rigorous
method for estimating how much this duplication of effort amounts to ; but
if, as I surmise, it is more than 5 percent, we are, on the basis of a total budget
of $15 billion, talking about $750 million-a not inconsiderable sum. Quite
frankly I have no very constructive suggestions about how to solve this prob-
lem-except to make it the subject of a research investigation !
(pp. 411-412)
Duplication in applied research and development (Waterman)
Security restrictions in Government make it more difficult to detect
duplication of effort in development projects than it is in basic re-
search projects. Similarly, competition between industrial firms on
development projects results in reluctance to make public the work go-
ing on. Thus, in applied research and in development there is a
constant need to be alert to the possibility of undesirable duplication
of effort.
(pp. 823-824)
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS 1137
Duplication in applied research or developmental programs (Sea-
bor
Duplication becomes a more serious problem in applied research
and developmental programs because "hardware is expensive, and
duplication in its development-whether it be knowing or unknow-
ing-is bound to be costly.' Sometimes parallel efforts are deliberately
undertaken in order to "assure the attainment of an objective on a
short time-scale."
(p. 67)
Duplication in basic research (Waterman)
* * * One must realize at once that a certain degree of duplication is neces-
sary, since an important research finding must always be checked by other ob-
servers, preferably using somewhat different techniques. The proper word to use
for basic research is undesirable duplication, and again this is a matter which
the scientists are most competent to decide.
* * * To attempt to duplicate unnecessarily the work of another researcher
is to commit professional suicide. It follows that a competent research scientist
or a panel of competent scientists in a particular field of science will know re-
markably well the current work that is going on in the field, and will not under-
take or recommend projects which do not have this original quality. This fact,
which is commonly misunderstood, provides the greatest possible safeguard
against needless duplication.
(pp. 812, 821, 823)
Duplication of research (Brown)
Although duplication can occur in research, it is not a severe prob-
lem, because it tends to be self-regulating.
Industrial companies, however, may duplicate each other's research
and development and not be concerned over this so long as they are
getting paid for it by the Government. Good management and con-
trol on the part of the sponsoring Government agency is necessary to
avoid unnecessary duplication in such cases. Sometimes, of course,
you can have desirable duplication and development.
(pp. 175-176)
Duplication of research and substandard research (Seitz)
The risks of duplication of work and of substandard work in the
area of basic research are negligible so long as this work is published
at scientific meetings' and in reputable journals, exposing it to the
scrutiny of professional critics.
The greatest possibility of duplication of research and of substand-
ard scientific work occurs in areas where pertinent information is
buried in laboratory reports or contractors' reports and is not available
to be reviewed by competent scientists. This is especially true of
classified material.
(p. 62)
Duplication of research efforts (Ewalt)
Since the National Institutes of Health are set up to give the maxi-
mum amount of independence to researchers and there is no overall
play for forcing research in one direction,
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
1133 FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
* * * there is no efficient way to avoid duplication because if two men want to
work in different places on the same problem and both are good men and the solu-
tion of the problem is important, who is to say that only one of them shall be
given the grant.
Some of the questions which arise are :
Should research be coordinated at the national level?
Should the National Institutes of Health assess the needs for research, pro-
mote research in areas for which there are not applications for grants, and
eliminate duplication?
Who should help NIH make such decisions?
Will it be done by panels?
Who will decide the relative needs for research?
(pp. 366, 369)
Methods of avoiding overlap (Halaby)
Whenever you have more than one person doing anything, there is a danger of
overlap. I have heard it called uncoordinated duplication and unproductive
overlap and unwarranted duplication.
The agencies are learning how to avoid overlap and there is more
machinery than ever for coordination, but-
I am not in a position to judge whether it is adequate. I am sure you will be
when you have finished this work.
The machinery for coordination is elaborate and intensive, but re-
gardless of the superstructure the key is the individual public servant
starting the project. The primary reliance ought to be on him to
make sure that the project is necessary and has not been done before.
(pp. 130, 131-132, 136)
Possible duplication of skills already available in nonmedical pro-
fessions, as a result of Government training grants (Ewalt)
While three research requests for optometric training grants were
turned down recently, two training grants were given by the Neuro-
logical and Sensory Diseases Services Branch of the Public Health
Service to medical institutions for the purpose of training ophthalmic
technicians. These grants would cost $300,000 over a 5-year period
and train 20 people at most. There is a serious question as to what
these trainees could do, and the curriculum-
modeled in some respects after that of the schools of optometry as they existed
25 years ago, would not qualify the graduates to function other than directly
under the supervision of a licensed physician or optometrist. It would appear to
be the height of folly for the Government to embark on this type of training
program and at the same time deny funds for postgraduate training of optome-
trists in fields of vision research.
(p.369)
Undesirable duplication (Seaborg)
The important thing to remember-in basic as well as in applied research and
development-is that undesirable "duplication" occurs only when plans and
results are not freely communicated.
(p.67)
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS 1139
C. NEED FOR BETTER COORDINATION or, R. & D. AcrivrrBEs
Adequacy of overall coordination of research and development
(Waterman)
[In response to a question whether the present organizational struc-
ture for coordination was sufficient and proper to insure against over-
lapping, the witness replied:]
We have the agencies to do it now * * * but they have not been in existence
very long, and their agenda today is badly crowded.
I mean the number of things they have to look at is so large that ways will
have to be found, I believe, to try to do things more systematically and have less
coming to a given committee. It is just a crowded schedule.
(p.824)
Cooperation in decisions relative to Federal support of fl. & D.
(Bailey)
My last major point is that the various participants in the difficult decisions to
be required in the future must find some way or ways to achieve a greater degree
of cooperation and mutual confidence.
During the period of rapid growth of our research and development since
World War II many of our decisions have been based on immediate needs or at
the very best, short-term objectives. The present widespread concern, of which
your investigation is just one manifestation, is evidence that we must base more
of our decisions 'on other criteria. Many difficult decisions will be required as
we define more clearly the long-range objectives and goals for the Nation, for the
respective disciplines, for the Federal agencies, and for the universities-indi-
vidually and collectively.
We commend your committee for the contribution you are making in providing
a clearer picture of our present position and in establishing guides for our
future course.
(p. 876)
Coordination and review of Federal research programs (Peyton)
A reexamination of present methods of coordinating and reviewing various re-
search programs of the Federal Government is important and timely. We would,
however, caution against attempts to establish an unwieldy and cumbersome
superstructure or centralized agency to manage research and development.
The chamber suggests that the select committee concentrate its investigation on
achieving better means to coordinate planning and communication and to im-
prove existing systems.
(pp. 1033-1034)
Coordination of Federal research (Smith)
It is generally agreed that Federal research activities are uncoordi-
nated both in planning and in operation. Agency activities are not re-
lated to one another, and they are not related to the Nation's overall
research effort.
There should be proper coordination of research activities within the Federal
Government to keep to a minimum unnecessary duplication of research and to
minimize support of unnecessary projects.
(pp. 1039,1040)
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
1140 FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
Coordination of Government research programs (Heald)
There is not enough coordination by the Government in the execu-,
tion of the research programs of its various agencies or in communi-
cating the results of research programs. More than just budgetary
scrutiny is needed.
Coordination is needed to prevent the Government from competing
against itself for the same services, thus spiraling the costs of research
and delaying progress in the projects deprived of necessary personnel.
(pp. 387, 402)
Coordination of Government-wide R. c D. program and policy
(Haworth)
The several administrative mechanisms [which Haworth had de-
scribed in his testimony] perform a coordinating function, although
they do not direct the departments and agencies. Through these
mechanisms the people in the White House have a very good idea of
what is going on in the Government, guarding against undue dupli-
cation and discovering gaps.
Leaving the work itself and its close direction in individual agen-
cies is "a great advantage," because it is carried out by those which
"know the requirements for the missions, which are best able to judge
how to go about the work, who can put it in competition with other
facets of their work," while the various mechanisms furnish coordina-
tion. "I think it is much better than to try to have it
centralized * * *."
The complexity of science and technology * * * makes it increasingly neces-
sary to have continuous coordination. The Federal Government's programs are
no exception. In the first place, one is always confronted by the limitations of
manpower, of facilities, and of fiscal resources. Secondly, one has to guard
against fragmented research efforts where pooled resources would accomplish
much more than merely the sum of the individual items. Thirdly, many scien-
tific activities transcend the responsibility or interests of a single agency's
mission. Then, too, one must safeguard against any unwarranted duplications
or important omissions resulting from peculiarities of Government organiza-
tion or of agency jurisdiction. Finally, the increasing knowledge of science
and technology means that problems are never completely resolved, but must
continuously be looked at from new vantage points.
(pp. 14-15,29,46)
Coordination of research (Brown)
Better intergovernmental coordination is needed when two or more
Government agencies are sponsoring developments in the same area
so that each can inform the other of its activities. An intergovern-
mental policing agency or coordinating agency is needed.
Coordination is difficult because research is so fragmented.
In the area of large developments, in the million- or billion-dollar
range, it is inevitable that there is going to be intergovernmental coor-
dination, even if it is imperfect coordination. In smaller projects,
coordination is less certain, less complete, and much less good, al-
though it still tends to happen. Intergovernmental cooperation is
perhaps less needed in research than in large developments because
smaller sums of money are involved.
(pp. 173-174,179)
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Rellease~20055/03/AND IA-RDP66B004 03R001010 1 41 41-9
Coordination of research (Ewalt)
There should be more effort at the national level for supporting
conferences concerned with the status of research in various areas and
formulating statements of needs for research. The conferences
could be supported by national professional associations or academies,
and this should include support of international conferences.
Coordination of research also might be achieved through a profes-
sion's official organization, or through arrangement for coordination
at the university level.. The National Institutes of Health could
have the department chairman sign applications for research and ex-
plain how the proposed research fits into the departrrient's overall
program; this would keep the research effort related to the teaching
program.
(pp. 366, 370)
Coordination of research effort among Government agencies (Sea-
borg)
[After a review of coordination of R. & D. effort within the Atomic
Energy Commission and among other Government agencies, the wit-
ness said:]
* * * that the administrators of research and development in the Federal
Government keep well aware of each other's programs, problems, and plans,
and form a gratifyingly well-informed community. Nevertheless, this matter
of coordination is such a vital responsibility of ours that we are continually
striving to improve our mechanisms and practices.
(pp. 69-70)
Coordination of research programs (Denney)
An area deserving consideration is the effective coordination be-
tween research programs in widely separated agencies. Coordination
in the physical and life sciences has been better than in the social
sciences, so the latter may learn something from the committee's work.
The committee may wish to study the applicability to the social
sciences of coordination and information-handling experience in the
physical and life sciences.
(a) Dissemination of research products
I wonder how much of the total Government-sponsored research output in this
field is being neglected by potential users simply because its existence is not
more widely known. I wish that we in the State Department had better ways
of taking advantage of other agency research programs in order that we could
get more direct benefit from studies which parallel our interests.
The External Research Staff of the Bureau of Intelligence and Re-
search in State is a little-known but effective step in the right direc-
tion.
(b) Coordination on contracts
Improvements are necessary in the reporting of contracts let. The
quarterly publication, "Government-Sponsored Research on Foreign
Areas," does not include research on international affairs sponsored
by such major domestic agencies as Agriculture, Health, Commerce.
These programs have not been registered and reported by State be-
cause of lack of funds.
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
1142 FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
There seems to be general agreement that some sort of interdepart-
mental mechanism is needed for better coordination on planning of
research contracts. Representatives of other agencies have suggested
that the State Department take the lead in establishing an interde-
partmental coordination committee for contract research on foreign
areas, cross-cultural studies, and international affairs studies, and ex
ploratory discussions on this idea are now being held.
(pp. 191, 192, 196)
Correlation of Government research programs (Bush)
There is a lack of correlation among the various programs and
agencies, and a lack of overall direction. This has an adverse effect
upon efficiency and economy in the conduct of our research activities
in Government.
(p. 468)
Interagency coordination in the Department of IIEtiV (Jones of
IIEW )
There is, presently, effective coordination among diverse research
programs administered by THEW, to prevent unnecessary duplication
and waste, but improvement would be possible.
However, I might say we are never quite satisfied that we can't do this
kind of thing better. We are shorthanded at the policy level in the Department
of Health, Education, and Welfare. We need additional help there.
The Secretary and the President have asked for additional help. It has
not yet been forthcoming. We are hopeful that we can have the policy echelon
of the Department strengthened in order that we may do these coordinating
jobs better.
(pp. 550-551)
D. DANGERS OP EXCESSIVE COORDINATION
Coordination of research (Calkins)
If the committee should find reasons for some greater coordination of
development effort among different agencies seeking common or related objec-
tives, it is to be hoped that it will be conscious of the parallel dangers of un-
necessary coordination and of the delays and red tape that so often accompany
such coordination between departments and agencies.
As for research, better communication is desirable, but the diverse and in-
dividual approaches to research make coordination extremely difficult. Further-
more, each agency has different interests and objectives for the research it spon-
sors. Highly centralized research is not desirable. Nor is a centralized control
over research funds. It is in the national interest that the research establish-
ment have alternative sources of support.
(p. 914)
E. COORDINATION OF MULTIAGENCY R. & D. PROGRAMS
Areas of overlap (I3alaby)
The committee should look at the interstices, the areas between
agencies in research and development, because it is in those that often
the overlap and duplication is found. The principal areas of overlap
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R00010023 41-9
FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS 1143
with the work of the Federal Aviation Agency are the Department of
Defense and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
a. Aeronautical and electronic work
FAA, NASA, and DOD all work in this area, and
we believe through the law and through the practice we have eliminated un-
necessary duplicating work. But no man can sit here and guarantee that, in
agencies as large and as complicated as these three agencies.
b. Weather research and development
FAA does some, the Weather Bureau does most of it, and the
Department of Defense does some. For years several agencies have
been working in this area.
.And I don't believe any one of the last three or four administrations have
quite worked it out so that we are getting the most weather research and
development for our money.
(pp. 130-131,137,148-149)
Coordination and duplication of research (Foster)
In a research program of such breadth as that of the Arms Control
and Disarmament Agency, there is a potential for duplication, both
within the Agency, and between the Agency and other agencies with
related research responsibilities and with an interest in all eov-
gone
ernment-sponsored research in this area. The Agency has
considerable effort to minimize duplication. [The Agency's proce-
dures are described in some detail.]
I believe that our coordination efforts are working well. I know of no
instance where there is significant duplicative effort. Naturally, we are con-
stantly trying to improve our procedures. At the moment we are working with
other agencies to coordinate objectives, as well as actual research. .F * * We also
plan formalized procedures to make certain that the results of research are
known and utilized by all agencies that might have an interest or need.
(pp. 774-775)
Coordination of Federal P. e D. programs (Ifollomon)
When R. & D. programs are formulated for various pur uses they
frequently have certain elements which are closely aela example. ms
having to do with the atmosphere
grams are found in at least six different departments and agencies.
Obviously, then, there is a problem of coordinating and relating' the activities
that have to do with atmospheric sciences, to determine whether there is over-
lapping, whether the program is meeting the objectives effectively, whether the
costs are justified in terms of the benefits, whether the program is of sufficiently
high quality.
These tasks are resently performed by the Interagency Committee
for Atmospheric Sciences which
is undertaking special analyses to determine the reasons for the atmospheric
science research, its extent, its degree, whether it is effective, whether they are
overlapping and whether new institutions are required.
(pp. 293, 297)
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
1144 FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
Coordination of Federal R. d D. Program through the budget (Wenk)
At the present time we have no way of dealing with the science and
technology budget as a whole. There are two reasons for this :
In the first place, I do not think we feel we are wise enough to do this. But,
in the second instance, the purposes of the conduct of research and development
are so varied that at least as far as the development side is concerned the spon-
sorship * * * is linked much more closely to the direct purpose than it is * * *
vertically * * * to defense or to public health or to transportation or to some
other particular end application than it is with regard to the relationship hori-
zontally as between the different components.
We do, for accounting purposes in order to understand the total research
and development activity, in order to understand the demand for manpower,
which is common, to understand the fraction of this total that is devoted to
basic research versus applied research and development, for these purposes, we
do combine all of the research and development activities that we can, so as to
identify in one package which we call, and which is published, incidentally, by
the Science Foundation and called "Federal Funds for Science."
[Question : But you do not make any effort to stay within an overall
limitation?]
No, sir; we do not.
(p. 251)
Coordination of research (Staats)
There is need for better coordination among department and agen-
cies interested in the same area of research. In the past few years we
have made headway on this problem. Joint working groups made up
of representatives from agencies working in the same area have been
set up under the Federal Council for Science and Technology (for
example, oceanography and atmospheric research). Similar proce-
dures could be applied in other areas. Examiners on the Bureau of the
Budget staff work with the Federal Council committees to facilitate
a coordinated review within the Bureau of particular fields on a Gov-
ernment-wide basis. In some cases responsibilities for a particular
field are clarified by vesting leadership in one department or agency,
without encroaching on the operational responsibilities of the respec-
tive mission-oriented agencies.
The Office of Science and Technology in the Executive Office of the
President is-
a flexible, selective mechanism for dealing with policy problems arising out of
research and development, and for providing a framework of coordination which
stops short of interference with the immediate responsibilities of the depart-
ment and agency heads.
* * * * *
*
We feel that this is all the topside machinery we can effectively employ in
clarifying Government-wide research and development objectives, identifying
priorities, and improving interagency coordination. * * * For the immediate fu-
ture, at least, we do not see a need for additional coordinating machinery in
the executive branch. * * *
(pp. 566-567, 592)
Duplication and coordination of research (Calhoun)
* * * We [Department of the Interior] operate really on three levels. Each
of the staff members keeps close contact with counterparts in other agencies.
And I believe that at the staff level these people are very much aware of what is
going on in some other agency or department.
In the second place, all of our research will be reported by January 1964 to
Science Information Exchange * * * which places our research projects on record
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS 1145
and other research projects on record, so that your research people can take
advantage of this.
* * * since I have been in the Department * * * so far as I have been able to
examine the question, I have not found anything which I would call unwarranted
duplication.
* * * within these agencies [the Bureau of the Budget, the Office of Science
and Technology, and the Federal Council of Science and Technology] and their
mechanisms there does exist all that is needed in order to achieve this coordi-
nation and cooperation. I can think of nothing that cannot be handled within
this structure.
(pp. 123-124)
Duplication in Government research projects (von Braun)
Many recent articles have called attention to "X" number of Gov-
ernment agencies conducting research in some scientific field-such
as meteorology. Although the interest of each agency can be tx-
plained on the basis of the primary missions of these agencies, the
articles fail to do this and
* * * the innuendo creeps in that the Government is busily duplicating its
research projects at the expense of the taxpayers. To the discerning reader,
such as members of this committee, such a statement is immediately put into
its proper focus. But to the less informed public, such a statement, plus the
innuendo, unfortunately may stand as fact.
But today the nature and the complexity of our great scientific
projects require contributions from all parts of the scientific commu-
nity.
These facts of life illustrate the point that the uncomplicated world of the
solitary scientist * * * is a thing of the past. * * * 'Today the interdisciplin-
ary approach is a must-it cannot be fragmented. * * * technology gets more
sophisticated. The engineer, like the scientist, can no longer work alone. He
must have an interdisciplinary capacity of his own.
Thus the legitimate interest of more than.one Government agency in the same
research field is apparent. * * * this condition will continue.
* * * I want to make clear that I am not advocating unnecessary duplication
of research projects. Nor am I recommending that any agency with a super-
project to manage put blinders on and proceed merrily on its way, totally oblivi-
ous to the research efforts of others.
"Unnecessary duplication" does not preclude "desirable duplication"
in those instances where confirmation of results of a research study
is required. Existence of duplication does not automatically consti-
tute a case of waste and mismanagement.
(pp. 516-518, 522-523, 525-526, 530-532)
The establishment of national programs in various scientific areas
(Kistiakowsky)
Such a national program as the one for the study of oceanography
* * * a valuable step forward and it is any hope that such programs will extend
to many other scientific areas. These programs insure that several agencies
involved in each area act in a coordinated fashion, eliminating duplication.
filling voids and still preserving adequate agency initiative to insure that good
sccientific bets will not be missed. From the congressional point of view such
.programs should also be encouraged, since they will provide Congress with a rela-
tively concise source from which one can better evaluate what the Government
as a whole is aiming to achieve in a given technical area, rather than dealing
with bits and pieces in the budgets of different agencies.
(p. 611)
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
1146 FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
Executive coordination of Federal agencies' R. ~c& D. programs (Wenk)
[Considerable testimony was devoted to a discussion of the phil-
osophy, the method of operation, and the objectives of the Federal
Council for Science and Technology within the Executive Office of
the President, as a mechanism for planning and coordinating Govern-
mentwide R. & D. programs and policies.]
To date the criteria for selecting multiagency programs to be re-
viewed and coordinated include the following :
a) Programs deemed to be national programs ;
b) Fields of research whose growth and stimulation are deemed
urgently needed in the national interest;
(c) Multiagency performance of programs, whose components are
undertaken within the statutory authority of a number of different
agencies; and
(d) Specific Presidential requests to develop national programs.
The Federal Council for Science and Technology is a relatively new
experiment to meet the problems of interagency coordination. It is
having a good record of achievement as a pioneering tool in science
management.
[Neither the Council nor any] single organizational device can be a panacea
for interagency ailments. * * *
The Council was proposed as an experiment to meet growing problems of
coordination, but in no way is it expected to encompass all activities in the
domain of science and technology.
We must remember that the events and circumstances that surround the
birth and growth of our individual departments may not foster any great in-
centive for cooperation. * * *
(pp. 236, 250)
Government advisory committees as coordinating devices (Schairer)'
* * * These committees serve as a forum for the communication of, discussion
of, and coordination of Government research and development programs in the
areas of the particular competencies of the members of the committees.
Conflict of interest has never been a problem in properly run committees. I
believe you will find on investigation that these committees are the most power-
ful and effective means possible for coordinating the Nation's research both
within the Government and with outside agencies. These committees prevent
unknowing duplication and materially raise the sights of all research groups in
the country.
I recommend that your committee become aware of the nature of these ad-
visory committee activities and satisfy yourself that all Government agencies
have an adequate activity of this type.
(pp. 1036-1037)
Governmentwide R. & D. programs adopted or endorsed by the Fed-
eral Council for Science and Technology (Wenk)
Even when a program has been identified or developed as a national
program, reviewed, evaluated, and coordinated, dislocations are likely
to occur primarily because of the following problems :
(a) The most serious of these is the preservation of budget integ-
rity both within the executive branch and within the Congress where
different committees review the program on an agency-by-agency
basis.
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
(b) The stimulation of new activities essential to completing the
balance of a broad program but new activities which do not fall within
the jurisdiction or historic interest of any single agency.
(c) There is a serious problem involved in staffing the various com-
mitteos of the Council. Additional administrative staff for the Coun-
cil is needed largely because of intensified public interest in its work.
(pp. 239-240, 249-250)
"Governmentwide" or "national" programs as the basis for future
action (Wiesner)
There is not enough assurance that a multiagency (often called a
governmentwide or national) program based on a balanced plan
worked out in the Executive, will become the basis for future action.
Reasonably successful efforts (for example, the 10-year program in
oceanography) have been made recently in developing agency support
for such programs, worked out by the Federal Council.
Problems facing these planned and balanced programs stem from
such factors as :
(1) new research which indicates new opportunities and a need for
revision of the plan;
(2) the annual budget process as it affects interagency programs;
and
(3) the review of pieces of a coordinated program by more than
one congressional committee, without the overall perspective devel-
oped in the original planning.
* * * the committees in Congress who have responsibility for these agencies
haven't the same determination to hold a national program together that the
Space Committee has, for example.
I think we are in a better position to manage the executive part of the oceanog-
raphy or any interagency program than we are the congressional part.
I think that what we must be doing is working out between the executive
branch and the Congress the most appropriate way to keep these vital programs
going in the way both of us desire.
* * * At this time I should. not venture either to diagnose or to propose solu-
tions to the problems that the Congress may perceive in its own procedures for
dealing with scientific matters, although I emphasize that your interest in the
problems of receiving and utilizing scientific and technical advice and informa-
tion is familiar to those who have observed and participated in the long process
of evolution of Executive machinery for exactly these purposes. The number
and extent of programs involving multiagency participation can be expected to
grow if the agencies are to realize the full potential of science and technology
for the fulfillment of their missions without unnecessary duplication. * * * In
the interest of economy, in the use of funds and manpower, these intrinsic bene-
fits should be recognized through all our Governmental procedures, congressional
as well as Executive.
(pp. 262, 265, 274-277)
Nongovernmental professional associations as coordinating devices
(Schairer)
* * * These professional societies offer excellent forums for the exchange
of information and communications concerning what is going on in the fields
of research and development. Although these professional societies need
very little direct Government support, they operate best when the Government
recognizes the great importance of their activities and cooperates in the ac-
complishment of their programs.
(p. 1037)
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
V. THE UNIVERSITIES AND EDUCATION
A. Relationships with Federal Government
B. Benefits resulting from Federal research support
C. Adverse effects of Federal research support
D. Effects of Federal research support on the educa-
tional program
E. Role of the universities in basic research
F. Federal support of educational research
G. Universities' responsibilities
$. Academic freedom and independence
I. Federal agency-university relationships
J. Continuity in Federal Government-university rela-
tionships
K. Institutional grants versus project grants
L. Indirect costs of federally supported research
M. Distribution of Federal research funds among uni-
versities, defense of
N. Distribution of Federal research funds among uni-
versities, proposals for wider
0. Smaller universities and colleges, effects of Federal
research support
P. Geographical distribution of Federal research funds
Q. Centers of excellence, establishment of new
A. RELATIONSHIPS WITH FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
Rasie di ff erences between Federal Government and universities (Rose)
There are problems that ,arise because the Federal Government and
the universities differ as to how the Nation's research needs can be met.
Federal agencies working with the universities surely must present a dis-
cordant chorus of opinion to Congress ; the universities also offer a multitude of
opinions. The best cried needs are not necessarily the most important ones.
The apparent lack of clear national policy vis-a-vis either universities or research
compounds Congress' problem.
The Federal Government is organized to support mission-oriented
research, not to support universities.
A university is not organized to administer Government funds for research,
to identify and pursue its research administration problems, to exert leadership
in the formulation of national policy on research administration.
(p. 791)
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
1150 FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
A council of advisers on education (Kerr)
A council of advisers on education would provide an overall view of
education as no single agency can do it. This could present a more
coordinated view to the Federal Government.
Such a council could draw up a manpower budget indicating supply
and demand of skills depending upon higher education. This would
be nationally useful as an indicator of human resources.
(p. 1026)
Dependence of national preeminence upon quality of education
(Stiles)
* * * It is futile to spend large amounts to discover scientific knowledge and
to produce technical equipment for defense and peacetime industrial production
while failing to develop the human resources essential to its use. Manpower
supply requires more than the few highly gifted and specialized scientists and
engineers-vital as such are. It involves the total educational development of
the wide ranges of human talent that are necessary to implement ideas, manage
operations, operate equipment, supply services and to make the citizenship de-
cisions that mean the difference between success and failure. Education is the
instrument by which skilled manpower is produced. The Nation dare not permit
its schools to grow obsolete or to function below proper quality levels. Ad-
vances in scientific knowledge and space technology, particularly, will be both
retarded and poorly implemented if our program of education is not brought
and kept abreast of the intellectual requirements of the times. Quality in
education, as in other fields, is directly related to the investment made in educa-
tional research and development.
(p. 1060)
Federal Government-university relationship (Seaborg)
So far as basic research is concerned, the Federal Government-
university relationship is a partnership-"each necessary and neither
one sufficient."
The functions of universities are of absolutely critical importance to the na-
tional welfare, and the Federal Government will be a major factor in determin-
ing whether the quantity and quality of basic research and graduate education
in the United States will be adequate or inadequate.
The standard of excellence of our top-rate universities must be
maintained and extended to more institutions.
Equally important is the encouragement of an increase in the num-
ber of universities in which first-rate basic research and graduate
teaching go forward together.
Universities must insure that their own standards of freedom and
excellence are maintained in a period of growing connection with the
Federal Government.
Better relationships between the Government and the university,
directed toward strengthening the university as a whole, is in the
Government's best interest.
(pp. 67-68, 70)
National research policies as related to universities (Rose)
It is suggested that the committee lead in determining national pol-
icies concerning (a) universities in general, (b) research in general,
and (c) universities in research in particular.
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 PM ~O qyj00 ?941-9
FEDERAL RESEARCH AND A J
In this determination agency-mission-related research and research
directed to national goals will have to be considered to accommodate
and facilitate Federal research.
(p. 792)
Role of the Federal Government in solution of education problems
(Kerr)
In solving problems of U.S. education, the Federal Government
"need not and cannot do everything."
(p. 1024)
Use of the universities as instruments of national R. cf, D. policy
(1-larrar)
The universities constitute the greatest pool of brains and ability in
existence and-
their collective accomplishments in research and in the training of scholars
and scientists represent one of our most important national resources and one
of incalculable value to society.
For this reason their use as instruments for national benefit should
be continued. The effort might be two pronged.
* One direction would be freely to take advantage of the best the uni-
versity community has to offer in the service of society in ways which would
make the university a better training center and a more powerful research en-
tity. The other prong would be directed toward the reinforcement of institu-
tions not so far advanced, with the purpose of broadening the base of high-quality
training and research. This would greatly help the institutions, their staffs
and student bodies and would add new resources to the scientific and educa-
tional community in the service of the Nation.
In thus reinforcing the educational system the universities should
be free to develop their programs in accord with their own judg-
ments. Also, the art of teaching must be given greater recognition
and never become subservient to the practice of research.
(p. 1017)
B. BENEFITS RESULTING FROM FEDERAL RESE ARCII SUPPORT
Arguments supporting Government support of scientific and engineer-
ing research in universities (Steimke)
Government support of research and graduate fellowships and
traineeships is desirable, is in the best national interest, and is a neces-
sary and rewarding investment of Federal funds. It contributes to the
Nation's pool of highly trained engineers and scientists and to the
national research effort.
It is fitting and appropriate that the Federal Government support
research activities because (1) only the Federal Government is capable
of taking the long-range view which best serves the national interest
for the future; (2) research leads to the production of suitably trained
manpower; (3) research leads to new knowledge, which has been the
timeless responsibility of institutions of higher education; and (4)
Government-sponsored programs of scientific and engineering research
in universities are a real bargain to the Government, since graduate
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Ap~~%V~d q &~e %16> (401110 :D ) fflI.opiP 6P0 04o03nR000100230041-9
students, working in these programs for a nominal salary, are pro-
fessional people selected from the top of undergraduate classes and
capable of making professional contributions to the projects on which
they work.
(pp. 613-614)
Benefiits to the University of Alabama from Federal research funds
(Rose)
The three major areas of benefit, discussed below, are apart from
the usefulness of the results to the agency supporting the research, or
the contribution of the research to general knowledge. It is clear
that the benefits resulting from availability of these funds definitely
outweigh the problems they create.
(1) Divisions within the university carrying out federally spon-
sored research have been greatly strengthened in terms of staff, num-
bers and quality of graduate assistants, and equipment.
(2) Our graduate research and teaching programs have been able
to produce more and better-trained graduate students.
(3) The climate that has been created by the Federal-supported re-
search programs has made possible an exchange of information and
visits and other leading scientists in relevant fields.
(pp. 788489)
Effect on universities as result of Federal research expenditures
(DuBridge)
On this question various assertions have been made.
Thus, some say, higher education has been ruined because our campuses have
become military or industrial research centers.
This, I insist, is false. Many universities are, of course, performing valuable
services for national defense-but mostly this is being done in off-campus centers
which have in no serious way degraded the scholarly atmosphere or the educa-
tional excellence of the campus itself.
Quite the contrary-by building up campus centers of basic research, the
educational excellence of our fine universities has been improved. Leading
scholars no longer need to go to industrial laboratories to get adequate salaries
and research facilities. They can get them on the campus-and help teach a
new generation of scholars besides.
(pp. 306, 310)
Effects of Federal support of research at University of New Hai ap-
.shire (McConnell)
Limited to State funds and tuition, and without Federal support,
this university could not have reached its present level of excellence
and competence. Beginning with the Government's support of re-
search in the life sciences areas of the College of Agriculture in the
1890's (Hatch Act), support in the physical sciences and engineering
areas from various Federal departments and agencies' programs has
been added. This financial support has made it possible to undertake
previously impossible tasks of significant research and education.
Some of the results have brought national and international recog-
nition, which in turn has attracted highly competent faculty who
have developed and trained young scientists and engineers to per-
form the R. & D. of the future. 6urricula have been expanded and
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100~ 41-9
FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
departments have grown as the result of federally funded operations.
For example, in 1955 the physics department was only an under-
graduate operation; in 1963, it offers the Ph. D. with 25 graduate
students enrolled.
The general impact of the past and continuing research support
programs cannot be measured at the time of the effort.
(pp. 858-859,863,868,869-870)
Justifeation for Federal involvement in university research (Fawcett)
It must be clear to all that there would be no substantial research effort in
American universities today without Federal support. This is true if for no
other reason than the cost of research in many fields today. This applies with
special force to basic research, the type for which the universities have unique
competence but also the type for which there is seldom any immediate com-
mercial application and, consequently, any commercial or industrial sponsors.
Furthermore, our culture, our civilization, our economy are today
national in scope and orientation. Our most important economic
units extend across the country. Our future sources of talent are like-
wise dispersed across the Nation. Therefore,
We must think in terms of national interest and national involvement when
we consider the need for a substantial research program.
There is, further, no other source of funds that is adequate to the magnitude
of research effort that is vital to the maintenance of a highly complex, highly
industrialized democracy. * * * Only Federal assistance has made university
research on a significant scale possible; and if this assistance is reduced or with-
drawn, the research activity will of necessity be materially reduced. There
simply will be no other choice for the universities.
The importance of this fact cannot be minimized. It is basic research-
university research, if you will-that has given this country its position of
world leadership, and without university research, that position cannot be
maintained. * *
The record of accomplishment brought about through university
research confirms the above statement-as, for example, in the virtual
elimination of hunger in one part of the world; the new and almost
unlimited source of energy from the splitting of the atom; cures
and preventions of most dreaded ills, and others. Most of these ac-
complishments came about through basic research carried out in uni-
versity laboratories assisted by Federal funds.
(pp. 997-998)
Measuring recent research accomplishment supported by Government
funds (Bailey)
An extensive catalog could be prepared of the tangible benefits that
have accrued as the result of R. & D. activities supported by the
Government during the past two decades. In addition to new knowl-
edge and new ways to use existing knowledge, the universities con-
sider the development of new scholars and research workers to be of
equal, or sometimes greater, value.
At the graduate level, research and instructional programs of
excellence are inseparable. We have long recognized this in the area
of basic research and it is also true of much applied research and some
of the development work now being done in our universities.
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
1154 FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
Graduate students who have participated in contract research pro-
grams are proving to be of greater value to industry and Govern-
ment than those who have not had opportunities for development
work.
We are aware that overemphasis on research can ultimately. detract
from the overall instructional program. It is in this area that the uni-
versities have the responsibility to determine the proper balance for
our respective institutions.
(pp. 873-874)
Relative advantages to the Federal Government and to the universities
of federally financed research in the universities (Scheps)
* * * substantial benefits come to the universities through Federally sponsored
research.
We believe, however, that the advantages are even more important to the
Federal Government because research and trained manpower are acquired at far
lower cost than could otherwise be possible. [Information on relative costs for
the Federal Government, industry, and the universities was cited.]
The partnership between the Government and the universities in the conduct
of this research program has been a productive one. We believe that the
partnership should be expanded. Such a partnership :
(1) Provides the best arrangement for encouraging basic research at the low-
est possible cost.
(2) Is the most efficient method of increasing the number and quality of
scientists to meet the ever-increasing Federal need.
(3) Enables larger numbers of institutions to improve their science curriculums
and, through research, to stimulate the emergence of new ideas, new techniques,
and new concepts.
(4) Places at the Nation's disposal a pool of trained personnel to solve prob-
lems that may become urgent in periods of national emergency.
(pp. 918, 920-922)
Support of nonscience fields in universities (Wiesner)
* * * we are coming to the situation where we need to face how to rationalize
these vast expenditures that go into the universities so that there is a more
uniform treatment of schools.
Practically, no modern university could exist in its present state without the
support it now receives from the Federal Government in the scientific fields, and
I am sure that this has an impact on the nonscience fields. We don't help sup-
port the nonscientific programs in universities that are in just as much trouble,
so this breeds other distortions. The administration education bills have tried
to create some things which would try to redress this balance, and I think the
Congress is moving forward with many of them. *
(pp. 288-289)
C. ADVERSE EFFECTS OF FEDERAL RESEARCH SUPPORT
Diversion of universities from their primary task of education (Bush)
The extensive reliance by the armed services since World War II on
universities "to manage great programs of research and development,
involving secrecy, and often calling for business judgment" is a
"strange" and "dangerous" development. Some of this c if eulty has
been avoided by creation of independent nonprofit organizations. The
proper business of universities is education and this concept should be
adhered to.
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100 J JQ941-9
FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS ,
Every research program placed in a university should be so ordered that its
product is not only new knowledge but skilled educated men.
(p. 463)
Effect of Federal research grants, contracts, and scholarships on uni-
versities (Peyton)
Another serious problem * * * is the impact of Federal research grants, con-
tracts, and scholarships on colleges and universities. Studies to date * * * indi-
cate that highly questionable priorities are being given to placement of student
scholarship funds, faculty duties and salaries, and construction of facilities as
a result of large increases in Federal research expenditures. Federal programs
are in competition, not only with each other but also with the private sector
of the economy, for talent, the supply of which is not inexhaustible. Related to
this seems to be the impact of federally financed research on competition between
the sciences and the humanities for youthful brainpower. This would involve
consideration of whether or not an imbalance is developing which might lead to
permanent distortion in the faculty, curriculums, and career planning of students
of our colleges and universities.
(p. 1034)
The effects of Federal research aid on the finances and administration
of universities (Kerr)
Federal support has been of great benefit to universities but it has
not been without its costs in money and effort.
Overhead allowances vary greatly from agency to agency but sel-
dom cover all indirect costs as well as the direct costs of the sponsored
research.
Matching construction grants often force a university to change its
building priorities to secure the Federal money, and thus the Federal
area of interest tends to be favored at the institution. This is a further
cause of imbalance.
Great new administrative burdens have been added to the faculty,
department heads, deans and presidents. New administrative offi-
cials-the contracting officer and the research project manager-have
had to be created.
(p. 1023)
Effects of Federal research aid on undergraduate education (Kerr)
Federal research support has strengthened graduate education
because graduate work involves research. Undergraduate education,
however, has suffered in the process.
Teaching loads and student contact hours are reduced. Faculty members are
more frequently on leave or temporarily away from the campus. A greater amount
of the teaching falls to teachers who are not members of the "regular" faculty.
The best graduate students prefer fellowships and research assistantships to
teaching assistantships. Postdoctoral fellows who might fill the gap usually do
not teach. Average class size has been increasing.
The problem was growing in the universities before they received
Federal funds, but this assistance has intensified it. A big problem
of the "Federal grant" universities is that a superior faculty results
in an inferior concern for undergraduate teaching.
(pp. 1022-1023)
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
1156 FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
The grant-contract- f ellowshii mechanism of distributing Federal
research assistance to the universities (Fawcett)
The discussion of this subject applies to basic research-"that type
for which the universities have unique competence and for which they
provide unique conditions." This type constitutes only about one-
tenth of Federal expenditures for R. & D. A large percentage of this
assistance is based on a purchase-of-service and an agency-to-individ-
ual contract mechanism that "served admirably the urgent applied-
research needs of World War II."
But, even though the philosophy and mechanism have not changed materially,
both the magnitude of the effort and the type of research needed have changed.
The growth of the magnitude of the effort is well known and advertised. The
significance of the shift in the type of research required, however, has not
received sufficient attention.
During World War II we used our stock of basic knowledge, mak-
ing little effort to replenish it. Since the war i e have redirected part
of our effort to basic research. The establishment of the National
Science Foundation and the National. Institutes of Health are exam-
ples of this new effort. This is the type of research for which the
universities have unique competence.
The purchase-of-service, agency-to-individual mechanism does not always serve
well this type of research. It is difficult-sometimes impossible-to organize a
long-range exploration of basic phenomena in a particular area within neatly
packaged 1-, 2-, or 3-year projects, each with its own unit justification. The
mechanism tends to drive a wedge between the instructional and the research
functions of the university, to the eventual detriment of both. It discriminates
in favor of the established scientist and against the newcomer. It contributes
to the concentration of research competence within a few institutions, making
it difficult for others to maintain and develop the resources needed in order that
their ability to serve the Nation might be strengthened. The submission of pro-
posals, the review-board mechanism, and the institution-to-agency liaison activ-
ity that are integral parts of the system are expensive in terms of the large
amounts of money and the great number of individual projects now involved.
Most important of all, the mechanism largely bypasses the institution itself and,
in doing so, tends to deny to the institution the fiscal and administrative author-
ity it needs to discharge its responsibilities for the programs.
Even though the approval of the institution must be attached to each proposal
and each contract or grant, this approval amounts to little more than veto
power, which if exercised, may result in the research worker taking his project
with him to another university. Because of this, the system erodes the ability
of the institution to direct its own development in research, especially in the less
affluent, less prestigious institutions. Further, it makes it more difficult for the
university's financial officer to exercise careful fiscal supervision over the project.
In this situation, the university itself tends to be forced into a middle-manage-
uient liaison role, providing career stability for prospective grantees and lending
the prestige of the institution to the proposal.
(pp. 998-999)
Imbalance resulting from Federal support to research at the Uni-
versity of New Hampshire (McConnell)
A university must grow and develop in a balanced way. In the
decade of the fifties, primarily because of Federal support, the
master's degrees awarded nationally in the sciences increased by about
28 percent and doctoral degrees by 33 percent. However, during the
same period, the number of students enrolled for and obtaining the
bachelor of science degree in the sciences (from whom future ad-
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS 1157
vanced degree candidates are drawn) decreased by 9 percent. This
illustrates the necessity for a university to achieve a vertical balance,
in the sense that a reasonable proportion of its efforts and numbers be
distributed from the undergraduates, through the graduate student
group, to the postdoctoral fellows and faculty research programs, in
order that there be a downward movement of knowledge and en-
thusiasm which permeates the total academic scene. This vertical
balance has been partially restored by the National Science Founda-
tion programs supporting the highly talented undergraduate.
These superior undergraduate students mentioned above are fre-
quently selected in graduate school as project assistants under a re-
search grant or contract, or they receive the excellent fellowships
available from Government agencies. Such opportunities are highly
desirable from the student's viewpoint, but they also have the effect
of leaving the less able graduate students to fill the salaried teaching
assistant positions. Perhaps some equalizing of salaries between re-
search and teaching assistants would create a better distribution of,
qualified people.
More assistance for young faculty members needs consideration. A
young Ph. D. may decide to teach while pursuing research he started
in his late undergraduate years. Unless he is in a university depart-
ment where the senior members hold grants or contracts in the areas
of his interest, he must survive as best he can for about a. 5-year period
until he can earn some reputation as a researcher.
The result of research support in the science and engineering has
accelerated improvement of the quality of science education at all lev-
els, but such improvement has not been achieved in the social sciences
and humanities. The. result has been a lopsided educational offering
from which the student must choose.
There is unbalance in the university physical plant. Research pro-
posals aro -enthusiastically prepared by faculty and administration
without thoroughly examining in advance where the research will be
conducted, as well as how to fit it into the total academic program.
Overindulgence in sponsored research may bring conversion of class-
room for research use, cramping of course schedules, and reduction in
growth space for other discipline. On-going research may create seri-
ous physical space. needs on a campus, as it has at the University of New
Hampshire.
* * * we have reached the state in a few of our disciplines, and are rapidly
reaching it in others, where we must curtail further expansion of our research
efforts, even though we have the faculty and graduate student capability to do
more, until such time as we can augment our physical plant.
(pp. 859-861)
I 'tbalanees in the university produced by large amounts of money
(Rose)
Imbalances; produced by the availability of large sums of money to
universities, occur between the natural sciences and the humanities and
!oocial sciences, among the various sciences, between branches within.
-a single science, between pure and applied science, and between re-
search and other, duties of at professor.
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
1158 FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
Solutions to the imbalances depend on decisions at the national
level, although the university can work on the problems.
Most States, including Alabama, are already overburdened simply
to meet the present, inadequate educational program. Hence, there
is no great hope for balancing funds other than those provided by the
Federal Government.
(pp. 789-790)
Impact of Federal regulations and procedures on universities (Rose)
Federally-sponsored research brought burdens to academic and busi-
ness administrators at the University of Alabama because new prob-
lems were produced for which adequate internal policies were late in
being evolved. Understanding the many Federal regulations and
keeping current with them was a serious problem.
Administrative relationships with faculty have been strained at
times because some academic administrators looked upon the research
program as a "bothersome supplement" to their routine responsibili-
ties and they have felt their freedom was impeded by research poli-
cies and procedures. Recent requirements of some agencies for
monthly and quarterly "effort reporting" have complicated the situa-
tion. Faculty members have not always understood and sympathized
with the desire of administrators to obtain full-cost reimbursements
for research. Not comprehending the necessity of the university's
seeking reimbursement for indirect costs, the professor-researcher has
objected to having a portion of his salary allocated to a research
agreement.
(pp. 789-790)
Impact of Federal research programs on universities (Wilson)
The general impact of research programs on universities has on the
whole been highly beneficial, and "it is this positive note which I
would stress."
It is my hope, however, that during the course of your study, you will also
consider some of the problems, for they are real.
High on the list of problems is the one concerning the strain that
sponsored research places on the unrestricted funds of universities.
This strain derives from the difference between what the Government
allows universities for indirect costs and their actual indirect costs,
which difference amounts to about $35 million a year. While small
when compared with the Government's total outlay on research, it
is a substantial--even large-sum in terms of university resources.
* * I do not believe that the Government can or should subsidize all fields
of learning which universities are committed to support. But I do believe that
it should be concerned with the imbalance that now exists among the disciplines.
To the extent that the universities' free funds must be channeled off into the
support of Government research, to that same extent the imbalance between
science on the one hand and social science, the humanities, and the arts on the
other will grow worse.
* * * The role of the Government in what is obviously a growing partnership
for the public good is on the one hand to provide support for those activities
that are determined to be in the Government's interest and on the other tQ pro-
vide that support in a way which strengthens rather than weakens one of our
most valuable national assets, the American system of higher education,
(pp. 510-512)
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS 1159
Impact of Government-supported research on higher education
(Heald)
Government research has had a tremendous impact on higher education. The
effects have been beneficial in many ways. In other ways, they have produced
some pressures and distortions that give some educators and others considerable
concern.
Among the positive results for universities are (1) vastly increased
capacity to pursue the discovery of knowledge; (2) enhancement of
the main mission of the university-the transmission of knowledge;
(3) possibility of retaining on their staffs highly competent scientists
and teachers; and (4) provision of better equipment and laboratories
than they could otherwise afford.
Under the heavy demands made on the universities by the Govern-
ment, at the time of one of the most dynamic periods in American
higher education, "higher education is strained to maintain an essen-
tial equilibrium" between the primary mission of the university and
factors that tend to distract the universities unduly. The extramural
demands of Government research (1) draw great numbers of faculty
away from their primary mission of education and research; (2) also
influence the content of education and the attitudes of researchers;
and (3) even control graduate enrollments, favoring students in the
fields of natural science and engineering in comparison with those
in humanities and social sciences.' The committee might consider
whether Government-supported research, or support for problem-solv-
ing research, are in any degree impairing the universities' ability to
train more and better personnel.
Problems which the committee might consider include :
Is research keeping too many faculty members away from the classroom too
long? * * *
Is the concentration of Federal research funds in one group of universities
disadvantaging the ability of other universities to serve well?
Particularly, are the undergraduate liberal colleges * * * handicapped?
[Scientific personnel is drawn off elsewhere]
Is the concentration on some research fields leading to the neglect of others
that in the near or distant future are likely to be as vital to the national interest
as currently emphasized fields?
If the graduate student is, in effect, an employee of a specialized team work-
ing toward an applied-research objective, is he also receiving the broad and
free scholarly experience that will enable him to cope with less specialized
problems and with the philosophical and scientific principles underlying his own
field ?
Greater dispersion of Federal funds, rather than concentration at a
few institutions, would help strengthen higher education nationwide.
Direct Federal aid to education may help remedy the imbalance pro-
duced by grants and contracts under the Federal research program.
There is danger that research can become self defeating by weaken-
ing its educational base through deterioration of teaching.
(pp.384-386,401-402)
Nonuse of Government-financed research facilities in the universities
(Steirrike )
The Government should utilize a new 5-megawatt research reactor
recently put into operation at Georgia Tech. This reactor was built
at a cost of $41/2 million, paid for mostly from State of Georgia funds,
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
1160 FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
but with a substantial investment by AEC and NSF. It is a unique
facility in its capabilities and is designed for research in many areas,
including basic studies of materials and medical research. Some
Government agency should probably establish research programs
centering around this reactor, but to date, in spite of vigorous efforts
to secure such support, none has been forthcoming.
(p. 616)
Problems arising in connection with Federal expenditures for basic
research in universities (DuBridge)
Now, I do not pretend that the Federal expenditures for basic research in uni-
versities have not given rise to difficulties. There have been some mistakes
here and there in fiscal management. Some universities have had trouble in
finding funds to build their nonscience departments at a rate comparable to the
expansion of the science departments. There have been misunderstandings and
disagreements as to allocation of faculty salaries and the calculation of proper
overhead or indirect costs.
I insist that all of these problems and difficulties constitute but a minor
blemish or difficulty on an otherwise healthy situation-and on an undeniably
valuable national scientific effort.
Suggestions for curing these difficulties are :
(1) Universities should get together to discuss the problems and
solve their own disagreements.
(2) The Government should adopt a more effective policy for pay-
ing the full costs of the basic research. If the universities must divert
other funds to support science projects, the nonscience activities suffer
further. It is unfortunate to impose an unrealistic figure like 20
percent as the indirect cost of research; the true costs are generally
much higher and the payment of the extra costs by the universities
weakens them. The total costs to all universities runs to many
millions.
(3) Budget appropriations to such agencies as the National Science
Foundation should be made more adequate. This would stabilize
research programs, allow grants on a longer, more stable basis, give
support to research institutions and individuals now not able to make
their maximum contribution, and be an investment in the Nation's
future.
(pp. 307, 311-312, 313-315)
University-Federal Government relationships in basic research pro-
grams (Long)
The procedures for awarding and supervising contracts and grants
could be improved. For example :
(1) It is more efficient if the research grants are made in large
units rather than small. This makes for efficiency in the purchase of
equipment, in accounting procedures, and in the research operation
itself.
(2) Continuity of research is an important contributor to increased
efficiency of the research and in permitting universities 'to plan.
(3) Granting a modest amount of research support to a university,
to award as it chooses, would enable the university to aid areas of
research which are relatively neglected.
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS 1161
(4) Simplified accounting procedures by Federal agencies would
reduce the cost of administering contracts and decrease thereby the
administrative overhead. Accounting procedures used to apply to
purchase of equipment are not necessarily appropriate to accounting
for personnel costs.
(5) The present overhead cost allotments for research in universi-
ties (25 percent is typical of National Science Foundation and some
other agencies) causes difficult financial problems for the universities,
many of which now have to find other sources of aid for research.
The current proposal to reduce this to 20 percent will seriously ag-
gravate the problem.
I would not, however, like to close this discussion on a note of pessimism.
The facts are that the cooperation between universities and the Federal Gov-
ernment for the conduct of the Nation's basic research has, in my judgment,
been extraordinarily fruitful and effective. It has benefited both the univer-
sities and the Nation. I am confident that Federal support of basic research
will continue and that the procedures for managing this support will become
increasingly effective. The universities are as eager as the Federal Government
to be sure that this research support is wisely used and that the research ac-
tivities interact in the most favorable way with the teaching operations of the
universities and with the overall economy and welfare of the country. I am
confident that cooperation between the Federal agencies and the universities
will continue to be excellent, and I see no problems which cannot and will not
be solved.
(pp. 484-485)
D. EFFECTS OF FEDERAL RESEARCH SUPPORT ON THE EDUCATIONAL
PROGRAM
Assistance to undergraduate research and teaching (Dickey)
Advanced research cannot be better than the fundamental quality
of undergraduate preparation. Increasing recognition should be given
to encouragement of research activity in undergraduate teaching.
(p. 1076)
Distinction between research projects and projects to improve educa-
tion (Kemeny)
It is impossible to draw a sharp line between the two types. The
article entitled "Once the professor was a teacher," from the New York
Times Magazine, June 2, 1963 pp. 1070-1074) discusses the adverse
effects upon the university's teat ino, function of the professor's work
as a researcher or consultant, and Mrs some suggestions for remedy-
ing the situation.
The growing unity and interdependence of research and teaching in the work
of higher education should receive greater recognition in the administration cf
Federal support. The division of support as between education and research is
increasingly artificial and it pressed unduly will do harm to both the teaching
and research functions.
(pp. 1069-1070, 1074)
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
1162 FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
Effect of research on the teaching function of universities (Levin)
Increased attention to research may result in devoting less time to
teaching duties, particularly at the undergraduate level.
This is one of the things we are paying for in a sense for the wonderful bene-
fits we are getting from this large national research program.
That is why I say I think we should think long and hard before we try to
convert every or most colleges to research institutions, because I think we would
lose something thereby. We would gain other things.
(p. 598)
Effects of Government grants and contracts on the universities
teaching programs (Haworth)
[A member of the committee asked the witness to comment on the
criticism that in the universities and colleges which have received
Government grants and contracts the Government work has absorbed
the faculty with resulting adverse effects upon the teaching program.
The witness replied:]
I do not subscribe to that belief. I have heard it expressed many
times. I firmly believe that "to be a really vital educational institu-
tion in the sciences it is essential that there be active programs of
research, and that the very people who are doing the teaching must
do the research." Both graduate and undergraduate teaching is in-
cluded in this belief.
I think, therefore, that the support of the Federal Government to research in
the universities has been a very great thing that has made the universities far
better than they otherwise could be.
(p. 50)
Effects of Federal support of science on the teaching function of the
universities (Kirk)
The obligation of the university, in terms of the national interest,
is just as great in the field of research as it is in teaching, and both
should be encouraged in proportions that are properly balanced. The
charge is often made that the best teachers become absorbed in re-
search, reducing their effectiveness as teachers.
* * * These generalizations, I think, are dangerous. The most effective uni-
versity scholar is a man who combines teaching and research. * * * I don't
believe that there is any danger that our major universities will be transformed
into research institutes. Their current research commitments are more of a
positive aid than a detriment to teaching.
(pp. 341, 350-351, 356)
Federal aid for curriculum reform (Kerr)
Federal support should be given to aid universities in their efforts to
reform curriculum, in response to recent changes in knowledge. The
National Science Foundation currently supports such programs in
reform of the physical sciences curriculum.
The National Institutes of Health, however, cannot now support
the much needed reform of curriculum in biological sciences.
(p. 1026)
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS 1163
Stimulation of advanced education (Berkner)
* * * Our whole Nation is suddenly awakening to the imperative need for
training our men and women to advance levels in science and technology ; to
building up our graduate schools in every major metropolitan area; to creating
opportunities for postdoctoral training, and really advanced research ; so that
our industrial growth can remain competitive.
In stimulating education at the doctoral and postdoctoral levels,
Congress should give mature consideration to the effects of present
educational restrictions on grants to research. Research and graduate
education are closely identified at many points :
(a) Graduate teaching is sterile unless the faculty participate
actively in research. Without research, teachers at graduate level
become stereotyped and outmoded.
(b) A graduate student must be trained in methods and procedures
of scientific research by actual participation under scientific leaders.
He.can no more become a scientist by merely reading books than can
an airplane pilot learn to fly while sitting on the ground.
(e) Some of the most significant now insights into scientific prob-
lems come from fresh new minds in early contact with their problems.
Therefore Congress should encourage, not discourage, the affiliation
of graduate students and postdoctoral "interns" with all programs of
fundamental research. Research programs can train new scientists at
little additional cost.
The shortage of doctoral candidates in many parts of the country
is critical, and Congress should address major attention to this problem
with the purpose of defining new ways in overcoming the deficiency.
At least 1 great graduate institution is needed in each of our 100 great
metropolitan areas. Moreover, the great national laboratories should
be encouraged to take a more active part in graduate education.
(pp. 436-437)
Teaching vs. research (Kerr)
To aid the teaching function of universities during the years of
swollen enrollments ahead, Federal agencies in the future should allow
postdoctoral fellows and research professors to teach one-quarter or
one-third of their time without cost to the institution.
Research career professorships may not be necessary to good research
and it is not necessarily good for an institution to have professors out
of normal academic life. Further creation of such professorships
might well be examined.
Universities should make teaching assistantships competitive with
research assistantships and fellowships.
(pp.1025-1026 )
Universities' responsibility to their educational function (Killian)
Universities must not dissociate research from scientific education,
and education must not be 'neglected because of attention to research.
Research must be conducted and controlled to fulfill its educational
function. Especially important is the use of research to strengthen
undergraduate education, rather than permitting it to facilitate ne-
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
1164 FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
glect of undergraduate teaching. "Teaching must not become a poor
relation of research."
(p. 756)
E. ROLE OF THE UNIVERSITIES IN BASIC RESEARCH
Basic research as the purpose of Federal research aid to universities
(Scheps)
* * * the Federal Government's approach to research in the universities
should be recognized for what it is-investment by the Government in research
activities that are predominantly basic in their orientation, conducted by insti-
tutions naturally and heavily involved in education.
Funds directed to university research, we believe, cannot always be regarded
as cash outlays for specific purposes. Except incidentally, such funds cannot
be regarded as "aid to education."
Research funds placed in the universities must be used to solve problems, to
provide special facilities for inquiry, to provide graduate training, and to stimu-
late the growth of the research impulse.
(pp. 918, 922)
Basic research in the universities (Long)
Some countries, particularly on the continent of Europe and the
U.S.S.R., have favored separate research institutes but, implicitly, the
United States has made the decision that the very large fraction of
the expansion in basic research should occur in the universities.
There are many reasons why this decision was made. One was that
the universities were "tremendous reservoirs of scientific and scholarly
talent." A much more important reason is that there is a most im-
portant favorable interaction between teaching and research. For
these reasons
* * * it seems to me that the active kind of Federal sponsorship and support
now existing is correct and should be continued and indeed expanded.
(pp. 475, 478-479, 482-483)
Competition for Federal R. c0 D. money (Kerr)
Industry, the universities, and Government laboratories are becom-
ing involved in competitive struggle for R. & D. works. Universities
should be given preference for basic research and for research related
to graduate education.
(p. 1025)
Effect of Federal support of science on basic sei-enti f e research in the
universities (Kirk)
The charge is made that Federal funds divert the universities from
their true function, which is pure or basic research, to an undue em-
phasis upon applied research. So far as Columbia University is con-
corned, 80 percent of the Federal funds expended in support of re-
search goes to basic research.
* * * it is my judgment that if any institutions have unduly sacrificed their
primary commitment to basic research, this is not the fault of the Federal pro-
gram which has always recognized the value to the Nation of encouraging
universities to concentrate their work in the basic research fields.
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS 1165
This is as it should be because basic research is the thing university
people want to do, and do best. Often such research suddenly develops
practical applications of great merit.
(pp. 342-343, 351-352)
Relative roles of the Government, universities, and industry in basic
research (Haber)
We believe that some Government in-house research is necessary, chiefly to
maintain a base of competence from which to guide the research of universities
and industry. We would like to commend and support recent efforts to improve
the administration of in-house Government research. At the same time we see
no need for the Government as such to build up its own research industry beyond
the present ratio that it maintains with universities and private enterprise.
(North American recognizes the universities') role as a foundation of our
national bank of knowledge. We are also dependent on them as the only source
of the new technical talent that is so crucial in our operations. * * *
Government-supported basic research in the universities is in the national
interest and is necessary to their educational role. We are concerned over any
factor tending to dilute this role.
Granting major R. & D. contracts to universities can hamper their
educational function and turn them into nonprofit businesses. The
aid which universities get from funds from these contracts should be
furnished in some other way.
* * * (North American) believe that it is extremely important to conduct our
own basic research for two primary reasons : First, * * * we can emphasize
areas of basic research that are closely related to our overall activities. * *
And we also need to have an in-house capability which can be relied upon to
translate and communicate new scientific advancements directly to the other
portions of the research and development spectrum in our company. Secondly,
when the scientists conducting basic research are aware of our engineering needs
and problems, an environment is created in which basic phenomena can be directly
applied. * * *
(p.606)
The university as the primary center for basic research. (Wilson)
The modern university should be the primary center for basic re-
search, rather than new federally owned and operated research centers
divorced from university campuses.
The modern university exists for three purposes: (1) To serve the
needs of the community and Nation; (2) to discover new knowledge;
and (3) to transmit existing knowledge to and train the next genera-
tion. The first two purposes are served by other institutions than
universities, but the universities
have an almost absolute monopoly on the third. Research institutes divorced
from university campuses are virtually sterile in terms of producing the next
generation of scholars, and they can be staffed only by draining away from
university campuses many of those best qualified to teach.
Thus it is often a mistake to separate the research process from the
educational process.
(pp.508-509)
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
1166 FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
The universities as the principal source of basic research (Haughton
and Smelt)
I think we think in our corporation generally that basic research is for the
universities, and we feel like they are more capable of pursuing it oftentimes
than we are. This does not mean that we may not do some of it, but not very
much of it.
[In response to the question of whether it is entirely fair that pri-
vate industry should take the position that they have no responsibility
in the field of basic research taking into account that the use of basic
research leads to applied research and then to corporate profit, and
that a lot of the basic research is in fact subsidized by the taxpayers
through various forms of aid, this answer was given:]
I think we have responsibility, and I hope we fulfill this in our taxes, in our
grants to colleges and our taxes for State-supported institutions and in our
scholarship programs.
We are hard and fast on this definition that basic research is pursued for its
own end and out of natural curiosity. We tend to just do a very small amount
of that because automatically in an organization like Lockheed one asks im-
mediately one has a research result, "Well, that is fine, what can we do with
it," and it automatically becomes applied research.
[Further discussion developed the idea that] the basic research pro-
grams are inevitably a part of the overall public educational system,
and that there is no way to avoid having it as a part of the educational
structure which is supported by the taxpayer. Further, there seems
to be no way to effectively disassociate the cost of basic research in
order to say that industry should contribute this and the public should
give that. The public would appear to be the general beneficiary of
its results.
(pp. 107-111)
Validity of emphasis on basic, as distinct from applied, research as a
use for Federal funds (Kirk)
By their nature and commitment the universities are the best agen-
cies for basic research, although great contributions have been made
by industrial organizations and Government research agencies.
* * * The Federal Government has no reason to be apologetic for its support
of this university activity. Were it to do otherwise it would be derelict in its
duty to our people.
(pp. 347,353)
F. FEDERAL SUPPORT OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Adequacy of Government support for research in education and related
behavioral sciences (Flanagan)
There have been insufficient Government funds to support all of
the promising requests received for research in education and the
related behavioral sciences.
The amount of support being given to research on educational
problems is only about one or two-tenths of 1 percent of the total
budget for education, which now exceeds $20 billion a year. The
effectiveness and efficiency of schools and colleges is a matter of great
national importance and requires much more research to provide a
sound basis for improvement. Policy statements and recommendations
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved F9n ns QQl?( 3/J?ij CaVk4NftfiW0 100OM41-9
by the CED (Committee for Economic Development) and the White
House Conference on Children and Youth have underscored these
needs.
Certainly a review of Government research such as that being undertaken
by your committee should give careful attention to the balance of our Nation's
research and development efforts. There are many who feel that education and
the study of human problems in general have not been given an appropriate share
of Government support.
(pp. 929-930, 933, 935)
Federal support of research into the educational process (Killian)
I stress the urgent importance of more research on the educational process
itself. Education represents a. national expenditure of the order of $30 billion ;
yet the amount of research we do to make education better is minuscule-per-
haps only a few million dollars.
Additional support, particularly from the National Science Founda-
tion, should be made available.
(p. 756)
Need for Federal support of educational R.& D. (Stiles)
While the education quality gap has been widely publicized and
deplored, there is a basic fact involved which seems not to have been
so well understood.
* * * educational obsolescence will not be overcome by public edict and exhorta-
tion. Nor is there time to permit schools to test their traditions against a new
generation living in this age of rapid change. Closing the education quality
gap in time to guarantee continued national progress requires immediate and
substantial investments in educational research and development. Federal sup-
port for research and development to improve schools is an imperative of the
times. It represents, perhaps, the soundest type of assistance to education. * * *
Certain research and development programs supported by the Federal Gov-
ernment have made significant contributions toward improving education in
elementary and secondary schools and colleges.
These programs include the National Science Foundation's work
in reorganizing curriculums and re-training teachers of science and
mathematics; NASA's basic research; the research on programed in-
struction of the Air Force; and other smaller programs.
The Federal investment in the above programs have been modest
indeed, while the improvements which have come to education in
recent years may be attributed in large part to these efforts by the
Federal Government and philanthropic foundations.
Evidence indicates that investments in educational research are producing
knowledge and its applications to improve schools at a rate substantially higher
than has been experienced by research expenditures in certain other fields.
(pp, 1060-1061)
Requirements for Federal support of educational R. c0 D. (Stiles)
Under the Cooperative Research Program of the U.S. Office of
Education funds have gone to the projects and researchers judged
by impartial experts to be the best. Because of inadequate appro-
priations, many worthy projects have .been bypassed. The limita-
tion of funds has likewise made it impossible to support certain types
of research that might have been of great value to education in the
26-065-64-pt. 8----T
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
1168 FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
future. Curriculum projects showing the greatest promise and basic
research closely related to rather immediate educational gains have
received highest priority. CRP projects are jointly supported by in-
stitutions and State education agencies, and studies have shown that
$1 of Federal money invested in educational research has produced
$2-$3 of State, local, or other monies-thus demonstrating that Fed-
eral investments for research in this field attract investments from
other sources.
* * * With the sound and successful experience that has been gained, the
need now is for substantially increased support to permit research and de-
velopment to go forward on a broader front. Curriculum updating and reor-
ganization and teacher retraining are needed in the social studies, humanities
and technical fields as well as in the sciences. Substantial research support
is required to mount programs of field testing and demonstration to dis-
seminate the results of basic research to local school systems. * * * to improve
the scientific talent of the Nation, the total education quality gap must be
closed.
To close the education quality gap the Federal Government should move in
the next decade to investing a minimum of $200 million annually on educational
research and development. This amount represents only about one percent of
present yearly expenditures for education at all levels-elementary, secondary
and collegiate. It would need to be supplemented by local, State, and institu-
tional funds, as well as grants from industry and philanthropic agencies, to
bring it to the 5-percent level-$1 billion annually-to offer hopes of the kinds
of educational breakthroughs that will make and keep the United States a
world leader in education-and, hence, in all fields.
Educational programs are frequently characterized as being from 25 to 40
years behind the life of their times. * * * Recent advances * * * have greatly
accelerated the rate of educational obsolescence and, consequently compounded
the contrasts between what the schools teach and what students need to know.
* * * Teachers prepared, courses developed, and textbooks written this year
will be obsolete in 5 years unless provisions are made to keep them abreast of
new knowledge * * * The simple fact is that evolution in education is not ade-
quate to keep pace with the revolution in science. The need is for scholars-
academic as well as pedagogical-to press forward the persistent task of bring-
ing and keeping educational programs and instructional services abreast of the
rapidly changing times. It is for this mission that Federal support for educa-
tional research and development is needed-in substantially greater amount,
for research, bolstered by adequate programs of demonstration and implemen-
tation, is the key to closing the education quality gap. * *
(pp. 1061-1063)
Research and pilot programs in counseling, guidance and training;
also research on educational processes in general (Biemiller)
If science and technology are not to be allowed to run amuck, this fundamental
imbalance in our research effort must be corrected. We need research and pilot
programs to improve our counselling and guidance and training efforts and to
help high-school dropouts, older people and those who have never acquired
sufficient literacy to adjust to the new technology. We need more research on
educational processes in general at a time when education has become more
important to economic success than ever before.
(p. 958)
Under-ex enditure on research to improve elementary and secondary
school educational programs (Stiles)
Despite sizeable appropriations for research and development in various fields,
the amount of Federal funds appropriated for research to improve educational
programs in our elementary and secondary schools is woefully inade-
quate. * * *
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS 1169
Should the entire amount of $42 million of the National Science
Foundation budget allocated to the strengthening of science and
mathematics tealing, be added to the $11.5 million appropriated to
the Cooperative Research Program of the U.S. Office of Education,
and to other Federal funds available to support educational R. & D.,
"the total would still be less than one-half of 1 percent of annual
congressional appropriations for research."
The amount of the Federal research budget allocated to, discover and dem-
onstrate ways to improve elementary and secondary schools is so? small, in fact,
that it usually is ignored by those studying Federal expenditures for research.
It is hoped that the Select Committee on Government Research will call the
Nation's attention to underexpenditures on educational research.
(pp. 1059-1060)
G. UNIVERSITIES' RESPONSIBILITIES
Abuses in universities in use of Federal money (Kerr)
There have been some abuses of the use of Federal money at the
universities, due partially to the fact that, universities often do not
have actual control of the funds of the Government-supported re-
search programs.
Funds are sometimes diverted from the project intended by the
granting agency to another not so intended.
Faculty members often exchange consultancies on each other's proj-
ects and thereby accumulate a substantial income.
Abuses may be compounded by the fact that often faculty members
are on the panels that choose grant recipients.
Often unnecessary amounts of expensive equipment are purchased
with Federal money.
Some universities recruit personnel by promising income, addi-
tional to their salaries, from Federal grants.
In a small minority of situations self restraint has not been restraint enough ;
as one result, greater external restraint will be imposed via increasingly spe-
cifle agency controls in the large majority of situations. Universities will have
to exercise more stringent internal controls in a process of centralization of
authority, particularly through the audit process. I earnestly hope, however,
that ways can be found to preserve the flexibility that is so essential to creativity.
The price for administrative tidiness can be too high.
(p. 1023)
Administration of large nonprofit laboratories by universities (Kil-
lian)
In the future some way, other than by the universities, should be
found to sponsor or administer the large nonprofit laboratories. These
are burdensome to the university, and are not a, part of its academic pro-
gram. Considering the particular period we are in, the university
has been called on because it has special skills and climate and atmos-
phere that make research flourish, and the, big laboratories have been
managed successfully.
* * * we need to give more thought down the road in the future as to how
future establishments of this sort are going to be handled in this country without
always turning to the universities to do this kind of jolt.
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
1170 FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
* * it might be well if we found another kind of sponsorship or administra-
tion. If we cannot, then I think the universities have no choice but to continue
to do it.
(pp. 766-767)
The effects of Government support of research on the personnel poli-
cies of universities (Killian)
The universities have the responsibility to keep their own house in
order and not to misuse nor misrepresent the aid received from the
Federal Government. Extreme practices of this sort are the excep-
tion, but the universities, not the Government, should take responsibil-
ity for eradicating them. Problems of conflicts of interest on the
part of faculty members should be taken care of by the faculties.
(pp. 756--757)
Eetent of universities' participation in the national research effort
(Wilson)
The universities' part in research and development activities is small
in terms of dollars while of the utmost importance in terms of the con-
tribution to our Nation's future.
Of the $15 billion currently earmarked for Federal R. & D., only 7
percent is expended in colleges and universities. However, their con-
tribution should not be underestimated. While it is true that not more
than $1.5 billion of the 1063 expenditures is going into the search for
new knowledge (basic research), "it is to this search that the univer-
sities' efforts are and should be devoted."
(p.507)
Federal aid to campus building (Kerr)
Federal aid furnished by the FHA for building residence halls,
student unions, and parking facilities for universities should be con-
tinued and expanded, as should the programs under the National De-
fenseEducation Act. Almost all colleges and universities in the coun-
try have benefited from these programs.
(p. 1026)
Government support of universities (Feldmann)
When Government supports university research programs, primary
responsibility for carrying out the research should be in the hands of
the university.
The most desirable form of Government assistance to universities is
provision of building funds so the university can use its own funds to
conduct and supervise research and those facilities.
(pp. 881, 885)
Institutions of higher education as national centers of education
(Levin)
* * * There are no State or national boundaries to knowledge and informa-
tion, and we at Brandeis, for instance, get students from all over the country
and from many parts of the world, and then they go back to where they came from
or wherever they wish to go.
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For bes,2OO Oi[1 rC}&4igRQ, 0 RQQI00213 41-9
And so we are not just serving Waltham, Mass., by any means. We are serv-
ing the whole Nation. I think I would like to see institutions of higher education
more and more become national centers of education rather than strictly local
ones.
(p. 599)
Proper basis for the charge of research salaries on federally financed
research (Scheps)
* * * research salaries should be charged on the basis of effort expended to
research agreements and the charges reviewed at appropriate intervals to make
certain that they are correct.
* * * these reviews should be conducted at the ends 'of normal academic terms,
rather than on rigid periods of the fiscal calendar, so that reports of efforts ex-
pended on research agreements may be made on normal institutional schedules.
(p. 920)
The proper spectrum of research in the universities (Bailey)
Basic research (meaning a search for new knowledge) has been the
traditional function of universities and should be so continued. How-
ever, there is also justification for engaging in applied R. & D. in order
to offer instructional programs of excellence in certain areas.
As we move along the research and development spectrum, we find the profes-
sions increasingly concerned with and active in applied research and development.
This must be true if they are to provide the proper education and training for
the future practitioners in these professions.
These applied activities not only serve as an essential function. in the education
of undergraduate and graduate students; they provide a constant flow of new
and improved products and procedures for man's benefit. And they do even
more ; they identify new problems and point the way to new approaches in basic
research.
(pp. 872, 873, 874)
Responsibility of the university in the administration of research pro-
grams (Bailey)
There should be appropriate machinery for review of proposals to assure
that all support accepted is for work directly related to the university's objectives
as an educational institution.
Second, the university should resist the temptation to expand research pro-
grains--regardless of their inherent value-beyond the level where there is the
proper balance between teaching and research in the participating department.
Third, the university should be as careful in the fiscal management of grant
and contract funds as it is with its own appropriated funds or direct contribu-
tions. * * *
(pp. 875-876)
University officials administering Federal research programs (Jones
of HEW)
There is a very considerable amount of detailed administrative work
fora university in preparing applications for grants.
[The universities] need more of them, because it would be tremendously ad-
vantageous to the institution, to the investigators and to the Government if
there was more attention to the administrative details of the presentation
on the part of the institution.
(pp. 556-558)
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15: CIA-RDP66B0040100230041-9
1172 FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT P 0
II. ACADEMIC FREEDOM AND INDEPENDENCE
Control over research vs. academic freedom (Foster)
There is a problem of maintaining balance between the responsibility
of the Federal agencies to see that Government money is wisely spent
by the universities, and the need of the universities to maintain their
freedom to pursue new ideas.
(p. 776)
Diversity of support for universities (Killian)
"In the most ideal of worlds," there might be an important degree
of freedoms if all funds came from private sources. But in our kind
of society, it may well be that we gain from having a mixture of these
funds.
* * * But I also feel that we must be very certain that our private institu-
tions remain strong in the sense of having enough private funds to maintain
their independence, and to reject any kind of proposals coming either from the
private sector or the public sector that tend to encroach upon their independence.
There is no more freedom in selecting subjects for research under
Federal moneys or under private moneys. There is growing recog-
nition in this country that the universities need to have unrestricted
funds, and there is a recognition in Government that this is important
(pp. 768-769)
Effect of Federal research assistance to universities on private con-
tributions (Killian)
There is no drying up yet of private sources of funds. The oppor-
tunity for private sources of funds to supplement what the Govern-
ment is doing is tremendous, and there is a growing recognition that
the diversity of private and public support is an important combina-
fion for maintaining this independence and balance of activity in our
universities and colleges.
(p. M)
Effect of Federal research programs on academic freedom (Wilson)
There is the possibility that academic freedom may be abridged by
the increasing flow of Federal funds into university research projects.
* * * There is always this possibility. I think it has to be guarded against.
I think in terms of the past record, though, we can be very much reassured.
I have been associated with both public and private institutions where funds
have come from a variety of sources, and my personal observation has been
that Federal funds carry as little interference and attempt at control and
restriction, and so on, as any source of funds that you may get from founda-
tions or from State legislatures, and so on and so forth.
The red tape of accounting for expenditures by universities receiving
funds, while necessary, should be kept at a reasonable minimum.
Although it does not involve the principle of academic freedom
in the traditional sense, there is a possibility that university recipients
of Federal research funds may feel a certain restraint in criticizing
fire program.
(p. 512)
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100ffn41-9
FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
Effect of Federal support of science on the independence of universi-
ties (Kirk)
It is charged that, at times, universities may lose their independence
because they have accepted such large Federal grants and contracts.
The issue in my experience is largely a strawman.
In the past 10 years I can recall no instance when Federal agencies have used
this financial lever to try to influence educational policy at Columbia.
It is well recognized, as fully in Washington as in the academic
community, that the independence of our universities is a precious
national asset.
* * * I see no evidence that this independence is being-or is likely to be-
impaired, simply because our Government has recognized that it can enrich
and secure the Nation's future if it helps the universities carry on work which
they want to do, which Government agencies are not well staffed to do, and
which the universities could not do if Government funds were unavailable. I
do not lose any sleep at night because nearly half of my university's gross
operating budget comes from Federal research support.
(pp. 343-344, 352, 355-356, 357)
Effect of Government research contracts on outside institutions
(Denney)
How is independence of mind in foreign policy research to be
protected? What are the conflicts of interest in research upon which
the Government can have some effect one way or another?
The impact of Government requirements is now of a size which
influences the whole Nation's research effort. We rely on the outside
institutions for the experts the Government recruits, and tempt the
scholars with contracts. At the same time, the Government supports
programs and investments which the private institutions could not
otherwise undertake.
(pp. 185, 194)
Effects of Federal research aid on university autonomy (Kerr)
Because of Federal programs, universities have lost some control
over their own affairs. Because negotiations are carried on between
an individual and a Federal agency, the research funds obtained do not
enter the university's normal budget review, even though this funding
does commit some of the university's funds, influences the assignment
of space, determines distribution of teaching and research time, and
determines areas where the university grows fastest. All this sets up
an imbalance in the institution.
(p. 1022)
Federal control and influence on universities (Kerr)
Federal control of universities is not a roblem, but Federal influence
is. For example, a university can seldom turn down an offer of a
project from a Federal agency, because, if it refuses, it is in danger
of losing the faculty member who negotiated the grant.
(p. 1022)
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
1174 FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
Preservation of traditional university freedom in research (Killian)
Individual researchers should not be overburdened by Government
requirements for accounting, reporting and recordkeeping. They are
usually not qualified to do this and it diverts them from creative work.
The time-tested environment of the university has been, and must
continue to be, protected. Government policing of funds should not
reduce the freedom to pursue research, nor damage the special environ-
ment created for education and research. "This special environment
is a national resource that needs vigilant protection."
[The question was asked-How can we compromise the plea to
respect the university's freedoms, and at the same time give the uni-
versity more money and also discharge Congress' responsibility?]
There is no easy answer to this question. However, there is very
little evidence of any real encroachment on academic freedom.
* * * I am not one of those who is pessimistic about having the kind of admin-
istration and the kind of conditions governing Government funds that insures
their being spent in the public interest, but also protects the academic freedom
of the university. I think it can be done.
(pp.754-755,767-768)
Wide range of support for university research (Heald)
It is important that universities continue to havesome wider range
of choice in the sources of support, including private foundations, busi-
ness and industry, and State and local governments, as another guaran-
tee of their independence.
(p. 387)
I. FEDERAL AGENCY-UNIVERSITY RELATIONSHIPS
Broader panels to evaluate research proposals (Kerr)
Panels which review research proposals should be made up of repre-
sentatives of related fields, not just representatives from the field under
review, to insure greater impartiality and judgment of a proposal in
relation to the rest of science.
(p. 1025)
Centralization of Government research support to universities (Kirk)
The ' Government should avoid having research to universities
channeled through too few agencies. Further centralization would
lead to a decline in the quality (if not the quantity) of work because
problems are too diverse to be filtered through a single granting
agency. Decentralization will lead to better technical decisions.
The present situation may at times appear to be confusing, but I think it is a
very productive confusion, and I think it is to be preferred.
(pp. 347, 353-354)
Tstablishment of a national foundation for higher education (Kerr)
A national foundation for higher education might make grants in
areas where Federal support is needed, but which are not now covered
by the National Science Foundation. The new foundation might sup-
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved Fo gg?eRZQQ? f1&IF p> 4.> ugggtD02 1-9
port regional library resources with union catalogs made available
to other institutions of higher learning in the area.
(p. 1026)
Evaluation of Federal research administrators (McConnell)
In general we have found the specific programs directed by the var=
ious Federal departments and agencies to be "well thought out and well
managed." So far as our experience is concerned the (government re-
search administrators are "able, dedicated men, well respected by their
peers."
(p.863)
Need for uniformity in accounting procedures of different Govern-
ment agencies in contracts with universities (Kirk)
Universities could devote more time and energy to research and
teaching if there were uniform accounting and reporting procedures
used by the different Government contracting agencies, instead of the
variety of procedures now used.
Contracting regulations relating to basic scientific research should be
more flexible than the regulations for other types of research.
(pp. 345, 353, 361)
Present pattern of operation between universities and Federal agencies
(Eisenhower)
A valuable store of experience exists in the history of Federal-univer-
sity research relations.
The improvisations of World War II evolved into fairly uniform practices
which, with minor variations, have persisted. I urge your committee to take
account of the painstaking and detailed studies which have produced the present
relationship. * * * They are no longer a matter of improvisation ; they have been
carefully tested over the years and gradually modified in the light of experience.
There is much in the present pattern of operation that is good, and which should
not be discarded without persuasive reasons which are surely not evident to me.
(p.994)
Problems in direct relations between Federal agencies and universities
in sponsored research (Pose)
Such problems no doubt exist in the general situation, but they have
been minor at the University of Alabama.
* * * There has been little evidence of any desire on the part of agency
representatives to attempt to "tell" university personnel how. research should
be carried on. Administrative problems that arise in the conduct of research
generally are solved with little effort. In fact, agency representatives con-
sistently are people who know their jobs and display a remarkable understanding
of problems confronting the university, both technical and administrative.
(pp. 7,90-791).
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
1176 FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRA S
Proximity of Federal research centers to universities (Kerr)
Federal research centers should be near to and identified with a uni-
versity. The university atmosphere is favorable to research, and the
centers will provide research opportunities to faculty and students.
(p. 1025)
Relationships between National Science Foundation and State depart-
ments of education in placing grants for research (Haworth)
[A member of the committee stated that he had received communica-
tions alleging the NSF did not consult with the State departments nor
take their wishes into consideration. Dr. Haworth asked the Deputy
Director of NSF to answer the question.]
This probably is a complaint against the science education program
of NSF. NSF has
* * * had a working understanding with the Office of Education programs
where the science education programs from the Foundation come into meeting
with the science education programs that are funded from the Office of Education.
Generally speaking, we have tried to divide the point of contact by having the
Office of Education work through the State departments of education and we
have been working through the science departments of the universities, so that
I think it really has been a matter of coordination and division of labor.
(p. 53)
The role of the National Science Foundation (Wiesner)
The National Science Foundation is moving to fulfill such a role for Federal
policies in many important areas of science and education that diverge from. the
primary interests of mission-oriented agencies and to serve thereby as a special
guardian within the Government of the health of American science. In this
effort, the NSF must assume a_greater role in the support of fundamental re-
search focused on national needs.
* * * In its fiscal 1964 budget request, NSF sought to meet these important
needs and thereby rationalize somewhat the current pattern of multiple support.
Cuts in the NSF request are jeopardizing this important objective. Surely one
should recognize * * * the importance of overcoming the differences of perspec-
tive * * * that characterize the congressional and executive approaches to
Government-wide science programs.
The Science Foundation has been an extremely important element in the con-
tinued development of our research programs in the Nation, but in my opinion it
has never been adequately supported when one puts it up against the other
Governmental agencies that have been supporting science. It has been touch
easier to get money for the mission-oriented activities and to carry a fair element
of basic research along with that than it has been to support basic research or the
educational activities related to them in the Science Foundation.
(pp. 264-265, 268-269)
Varying policies and procedures of Government agencies supporting
research projects in universities (Steimke)
Universities performing Government-supported research are discon-
certed by the many different policies and procedures in the various
Government agencies.
* * * Researchers are frequently encouraged to submit proposals for the per-
formance of a piece of research to several different agencies, on the theory that in
this way the proposal has a better chance of coming to the attention of someone
who feels it is appropriate for his agency to fund the work. Because of differ-
ences in allowable overhead charges by the different agencies, this results in an
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS 1177
offer to do the work for one agency at a total cost which is different from that
proposed to another agency. It is difficult for us to understand why such varia-
tions exist.
(p. 616)
J. CONTINUITY IN FEDERAL GOVERNMENT-UNIVERSITY RELATIONSHIPS
Continuity of sup support to universities where basic research is being
undertaken (Eisenhower)
* * * Basic research-the kind which universities do best-is a continuous
undertaking. This fact is recognized by sponsoring agencies which, year after
year, have extended support to scientists in whose abilities they have confidence.
Yet grants must be renewed frequently, often annually, and funding is, of
course, dependent on annual congressional appropriations. * * *
Delays in processing-grant renewal applications or failure by the
Congress to provide the necessary funds by a certain date, frequently
frustrate the intentions of sponsoring agencies to provide long-range
support to projects.
When these situations arise the universities are faced with hard decisions ;
they may cut off expenditures and dismiss supporting staffs, * * * or they may
advance the funds necessary to carry on the work in the hope that eventually
they will be reimbursed.
In all probability, universities have chosen the second alternative--
that of advancing funds, with perhaps no more serious loss financially
than the lost interest on the advanced funds. However, the uncer-
tainty does have adverse effects on the research program and the insti-
tutions where they are being conducted.
I strongly urge that Congress attempt to find a means of correcting this
situation so far as it is possible to do so. The objective should be continuity of
support when such support is justified. To this should be added a mechanism
for providing adequate advance notice if termination is contemplated so that
the investigator and the institution can make necessary adjustments in their
plans.
(pp. 995-996)
Effect on the university of termination of Federal research aid
(Steimke)
Established research programs can be, and frequently are, termi-
nated, leaving a group of people to be supported from Georgia Tech
funds until they can obtain Federal funds for another project.
* * * A sizable research organization such as ours develops competence in
certain areas by assembling groups of qualified people and by providing them
with the facilities and space which they need. Such teams of competent people
work closely with scientific persons in the sponsoring agencies. Sometimes a
program is supported by a Federal agency because some single individual in
that agency is interested in the program. * * * If that individual leaves the
agency, his interest in the program may not be picked up by some other person.
In such an instance, it may be difficult for the institution to secure funds to
carry on the work. This may mean that much of what has already been done
will have been lost.
(p. 615)
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
1178 FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
Effects of Government policy, changes on university research per-
sonnel (Steimke)
Sometimes changes in policy affect university personnel adversely. A case in
point is the recent decision, by the National Science Foundation Board, limiting
to 2 months the time that a faculty member can be engaged during the summer
on an NSF project. Only in the most unusual circumstances will more than 2
months employment during the summer be authorized. i'any faculty members
find it necessary to work the entire summer in order to meet their financial
obligations. This action by NSF will encourage qualified researchers who should
be engaged in research to seek summer employment of a different type.
(p. 616)
Federal research grants to universities must be maintained at least at
present levels (Hutchisson)
To assist the universities in training the number of scientific per-
sonnel which the Nation needs for teaching, for industry, and for the
Government,
the Federal Government must provide help with research grants to universities,
at least at the present scale, but probably an increasing one as the numbers to be
trained increase.
(p. 1019)
Maintenance of continuity in Federal research projects in the univer-
sities (Steimke)
There is a. need for better assurance that worthy programs will be sustained.
This calls for a careful evaluation of programs before they are initiated and an
establishment of priorities within the sponsoring agencies to assure that the ef-
fort is being placed where the need is greatest. Georgia Tech is doing an appre-
ciable amount of research for * * * the Department of Defense in areas in which
we have competence beyond that which could be found anywhere else. This
research is performed under contract. Generally, the contract period is 1 year.
It is continually necessary that research personnel in these groups seek sources
of funds for continuing their programs. This is a time-consuming and costly
procedure. It usually takes many months to locate appropriate Government per-
sonnel and arrange for funding to accomplish even the most critical short-term
program required to evaluate the plausibility of a novel idea which has arisen
as a byproduct of a piece of contract research. There is need for improved
flexibility in funding for defense-oriented research.
* * * much calendar time and the talents of scientific managers and researchers
can be conserved if funds could be provided to a competent research team each
year, based on a percentage of that team's previous annual income or expenditure
from contracts for Department of Defense research. * * * it would seem to be in
the best national interest to permit them to pursue military-oriented programs of
their choice. Precedent for this philosophy and procedure is contained in the
institutional grant support authorized for and partly implemented by the Na-
tional Institutes of Health. * * *
(pp.615-616)
K. INSTITUTIONAL GRANTS VS. PROJECT GRANTS
The block or institutional grant to the university vs. the project grant
(Flanagan)
The institutional grant program may be a more beneficial form
of assistance to the universities than the project grant.
There certainly is a place for helping the individual researcher [through
project grant] * * * to help the person in an institution which is not Itself
sufficiently strong to get a block of funds but who has a good idea and needs
some help.
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For gl e 1 R /H15ANgI~ PEo,f %4%R0 RR~100239%1-9
On the other hand, I entirely agree that the big progress in educational re-
search in the next decade or decades is going to come through the larger pro-
granzs, that is, the little project only very occasionally really moves us very
far ahead. One needs a substantial effort over a period of years to really get
solutions to problems and get them into educational practice. * * *
(pp. 932, 934)
Broader research programs for educational institutions (Rose)
Educational institutions should be given broader responsibilities
and. broader research programs in order to produce better research.
The present practice of awarding grants to an individual on the basis:
of a proposal submitted is inadequate. The capabilities of univer-
sities and colleges should be used more often for broad research
programs.
(p. 792)
The categorical grant versus the institutional grant (Eisenhower)
* * * One may argue strongly on either side of the issue, but I believe it would
be a serious mistake at this time to shift radically from categorical grants to
institutional grants. Such a shift would entail difficult administrative problems
for both the Government and for the universities. * * *
More experimentation with the two methods, as initiated by NIII
and NSF, and close observation of their results might suggest a proper
balance between project and institutional grants methods.
* * * Although I oppose supplanting project grants with general assistance, I
by no means oppose supplementing project grants with institutional grants.
I * * * see real merit in general Federal assistance to colleges and universities
for programs and, particularly, for academic facilities. * * * it is definitely in
the national interest for the Federal Government to give substantial financial
support to American higher education in general. * * *
A program of general support, as suggested above, would require
careful thinking, and
to be most effective should involve the States significantly and require them to
increase their allocations to higher education.
(p. 995)
Combination of institutional grant system and limited-term project,
system of distributing Federal research funds to universities.
(Fawcett)
We believe that the interests of the country require support of basic research
through an institutional-grant system as well as through continuance of the
limited-term project system. Excessive reliance on the project system involves
the difficulties and expense of attempting to manage thousands of individual
projects through central staffs, review panels, and the like. More importantly,
it involves the centralization of the function of judgment of what is and what
is not likely to constitute an important and fruitful line: of research. The whole
history of research shows that it is unsound to place in the hands of any group
"` * * the all-important responsibility of deciding what individuals, what projects,
what institutions, should be selected to carry on virtually all of our research
effort. * * *
There is an urgent need for attention to the largely missing component of our
research effort: A program designed to strengthen institutional competence in
research in a wide variety of institutions.. * * *
We believe that a provision for a program involving both broad institutional
support combined with a continuance--for some time to conic at least of indi-
vidual support, would be in the best interests of the country.
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
1180 FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
The Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges sup-
ports the general-grants and the cooperative-fellowship programs of
the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of
Health, and other programs of the NSF and of the National Aero-
nautics and Space Administration which give the universities a greater
degree of authority than they had in the past.
(pp. 999-1000)
Contrast between broad grants to land-grant universities and specific,
categorical grants and contracts from other sources (Eisenhower)
The partnership in the conduct of research between the land-grant
colleges and universities and the Federal Government has been long,
fruitful, "eminently satisfactory," notably lacking in fiscal abuses,
and of indisputable benefit to the Nation. The imposing partnership
of today began early in World War II, grew to larger proportions
during the Korean emergency, continued to develop since then, and
may now, I think be considered a permanent policy of the Federal Government
and of the universities.
One major change has occurred in the relationship. Whereas an-
nual Federal grants to land-grant colleges and universities have con-
sistently and continuously been broad in nature for the promotion of
agriculture and the mechanical arts, with broad discretion left in the
hands of the universities as to the best methods of implementing the
NIH ram, all other contract research presently sponsored by
general prog
, NSF, AEC, DOD, and other agencies, is specific and cate
gorical in nature. Grants or contracts spell out the administration
of thousands of current specific research problems. This change in
the sponsored research mechanism has brought attendant problems for
the agencies and the universities.
(p. 994)
Desirability of "block" grants to universities (Killian)
The Government should use more "institutional or block" grants to
give universities more flexibility in handling the research programs.
(p. 754)
Graduate fellowship program (Kerr)
Graduate fellowship programs should be expanded as there are
capable graduate students to fill them.
These could be widely distributed throughout the country, to avoid
tying them to a few universities.
The Federal Government should copy the practice of the Rockefeller
and Wilson Foundations in making an institutional grant to cover
part of an institution's expenses for these fellowship students.
(p. 1026)
The institutional grant as a means of Federal support of research,
(McConnell)
The research and graduate-education support programs of the
Federal Government may be divided into two segments, although
these overlap and interlock : (1) those oriented toward direct assist-
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 :CIA-RDP66B0040 00 002 1-9
FEDERAL RE, SEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT P
ante of faculty research with support and training of graduate stu-
dents as a byproduct; and (2) fellowship and other direct student-
support programs with research a normal and expected part but not
the immediate primary objective of the aid.
Allotments to institutions to datehave been on an individual 'basis-
either faculty member or graduate student-without real reco ition
or development of the institution's overall need and responsibility.
I would urge an increased consideration and implementation of support
through institutional grants-with proper safeguards for maintaining quality-
analogous to the Hatch Act approach. *
There are additional arguments for the institutional-grant concept. A na-
tional concern exists that the big grow bigger at the expense of the small who
grow smaller and that the centers of research become more and more
concentrated.
Dr. Paul M. Gross, chairman of the Board for the American Association for
the Advancement of Science, recently expressed * * * this concern and recom-
mended expansion of institutional grants in order to develop many centers of
excellence having better geographical utility and effect. We subscribe to his
position on this issue.
The institutional grant, in contrast to the mission-oriented agency
grant, appears to promise more freedom of direction for university-
conducted research, as well as greater stability for continuing research
projects.
* * * I should point out that there are researchers who have turned their
backs on large-scale Federal support for their projects even though it meant a
considerable delay in the attainment of their goals. The reason is * * * what
has happened to some research projects supported by mission-oriented agencies
which have suddenly changed orientation. * * * Similarly there are many
institutions which refrain from hiring additional faculty and staff for research
simply because they do not wish to be in a position of letting these people go or
of having to support unneeded * * * faculty from their own funds. * * * The
recent hold-the-line action of the Congress in regard to the National Science
Foundation budget will probably produce a noticeable retrenchment in the con-
duct of research by faculty.
In summary the justifications for the institutional grants concept are:
(1) The provision for more institutions to improve their quality and seek to
achieve excellence.
(2) Responsible freedom for each university for the direction of its research
and for the improvement and development of instructional capabilities in keep-
ing with its academic objectives.
(3) The opportunity for the development of a university's various programs
with continuity and without fear of withdrawal of support for causes other than
nonproductivity and incompetence.
(pp. 861-863, 867-868)
The project system of awarding Federal research funds (Kerr)
Federal grants to universities should continue to be awarded pri-
marily on the basis of projects, rather than on an institutional basis.
In the future, with expanding Federal research budgets, this should
result in spreading out project grants to more institutions, rather than
having them largely confined to a few as in the present case.
Institutional grants should be assigned as some percentage of proj-
ect grants, these latter to be assigned on merit.
It is suggested that 75 percent of funds to universities go for project
grants, 25 percent for free institutional grants. The latter would give
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
1182 FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
flexibility in using money for new, small projects, support of young
faculty, and for neglected fields.
(p. 1025)
Provision for "general purpose grants" (Berson)
I would also urge that the Congress provide general-purpose grants to the
institutions in which Federal agencies are supporting research projects and pro-
grams.
The recent development, of "general research support awards" by
the National Institutes of Health and "institutional grants" by the
National Science Foundation has been "extremely sound and helpful."
If a significant portion of the funds for the support of research-say 30 per-
cent-were made available as institutional grants clearly intended for the sup-
port of the institution, it would be less necessary for Federal agencies and
institutions to attempt the impossible task of drawing sharp lines between what
is "research" and what is education, service or administration, when they are
all closely related and mutually supporting. It would also diminish the danger
that large research projects and programs would produce a poor balance within
the institution. And I believe that, in many instances, further strengthening of
the research program would be a direct result. More importantly, the institu-
tion's ability to strengthen those portions of its total program most appropriate
at a given time would help insure the soundness of the institution and its ability
to make future contributions to the national research program.
(pp. 798, 803-804)
Unrestricted funds for universities (Calkins)
Universities need adequate unrestricted funds to plan effective re-
search programs and to give their programs more flexibility and con-
tinuity. "Program financing" should be emphasized to counterbalance
"project financing."
(p. 913)
The unrestricted institutional grant (Bailey)
* * * This type grant is highly effective in certain areas of major im-
portance in our long-range objectives : providing opportunity for "seed" re-
search, especially by promising young workers ; supporting basic research and
training of undergraduate and graduate students who participate in the re-
search work. We feel strongly that this type program should be expanded
considerably. It should not, however, entirely replace the competitive-grant
program.
(p. 875)
L. INDIRECT COSTS or FEDERALLY SurroRTED RESEARCH
Adequacy of reimbursable costs on Federal contracts (Levin)
[In response to a question concerning the adequacy of the 20-per-
cent limitation with respect to Federal contracts, and whether the uni-
versity lost money because of this limitation, the reply was-]
We certainly do lose money. Let me say to you very quickly that it is not
only this differentiation in overhead but the university loses money if you want
to call it that by establishing a research program, because when you estab-
lish a research program such as the one I described for you in biochemistry this
costs the university a great deal of money. We pay all the salaries or prac-
tically all the salaries of these people. We get very little of this from the
Federal Government. You have to maintain buildings. You have to provide
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS 1183
a great many things which cost a lot of money, which are not included or in-
cludable in any calculation of overhead.
And so we lose not only on the differentiation in overhead between that which
is allowed and that which is true overhead, but also on these others.
But I don't like to use the term "lose money," because it is part of the obli-
gation of a university to support research, and we agree to this, and we want
to share in these programs.
We would like to have a little more help from the Federal Government in
this total sort of overall support, because what one has to be very careful
of is that if one is worrying only about science and expanding science, this
can take away from all the other fields of the institution, and get a very un-
balanced and uneven institution.
(pp. 601-602)
Allowance for indirect costs in Government contracts with universities
(Kirk)
There is need for uniformity in the Government in determining in-
direct cost allowance rates to enable the universities to administer
funds more effectively. There should be a greater centralization
within Government of decisions that control the treatment of our in-
direct costs. Universities now have to deal with hundreds of projects
funded under separate programs by many different agencies, operat-
ing under different rules and negotiating procedures, and having dif-
ferent methods of determining indirect costs. This makes manage-
ment difficult.
(p. 348, 354)
Allowances for indirect costs in grants by the foundations to wniver-
sities (Kirk)
The foundations, which grant money to universities and other
agencies to pursue research, are unwilling to make substantial arrange-
ments for reimbursement of indirect costs incurred by the recipient
organization.
(p. 346)
Federal provision of space and equipment (Kerr)
Federal agencies should provide space and equipment for their post-
doctoral fellows and research career professors and for their contracts
and most grants without the requirement of matching funds.
Space and equipment are both difficult for the university to acquire
because neither their endowments nor State-support funds are ade-
quate, nor are they entirely appropriate for the purpose.
(p. 1026)
Full reimbursement to universities for indirect costs of Federally
financed research (Scheps)
* * * indirect costs-the costs for normal administrative and academic serv-
ices and materials-should be reimbursed in full to the institutions on a basis
as fairly determined by the Government and the institutions jointly. * * * it
is impossible for the Government, in fairness, to try to separate the indirect
from the direct costs of the research, leaving the institutions to grapple with
these and other costs assumed to be educational in nature. The costs of re-
26-X665-64-pt. 3-3
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
1184 }FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
search to the institutions are true costs and the university should be reimbursed
for them * * * because these are necessary to university operation and the
universities could not operate without these services.
(pp. 9'18 -919)
Imdireett cost a.lloevance (Killian)
A way has to be found to cover all indirect costs or the university
will be seriously damaged.
(pp. 760-761)
Indirect cost allowance (Stoats)
It is questionable whether there should be uniform percentage al-
lowed to universities for indirect costs. If uniform, some get more
than actual overhead costs, others get less.
If the established percentage is uniform, there should be special pro-
vision allowed wherea hardship is worked.
Congress should view this problem as a general legislative problem,
not as an appropriations program-by-program matter.
We believe that where it is desirable for the Government to pay the entire cost
of research done at a university, it should pay for all allowable indirect as well
as direct costs. Congressional action to place a 20-percent ceiling on the payment
of indirect costs may create a hardship for the universities that is contrary to the
national interest. A thorough study by this committee of the effects of Federal
support on the universities could make an important contribution to better under-
standing of the facts and policy issues involved.
(pp. 569, 590-591)
Payment of costs of Federal research by universities (Berkner)
One of the most troublesome problems of Government-sponsored
research at present is the. current limit of 20 to 25 percent on indirect
costs recovery imposed on academic and nonprofit research institu-
tions by most Federal agencies. Similar limits are not imposed on
contract research. Such unrealistic restrictions decimate the univer-
sities' own resources and divert the research capabilities of scientists
to activities that can more efficiently be (lone by others. In particular,
the small moneys available should be used as "seed" money to de-
velop "long-shot" ideas at a stage where a granting agency would
have difficulty justifying a project, or to develop new scientific per-
sonnel. Moreover, with a restriction on overhead costs, an institution
seeks ways to save administrative expense, whereas supervisory ex-
penditures are really needed to insure sound administration of public
funds.
Congress would insure more return for its investment if it allowed
up to 35 percent overhead expense against direct costs under research
grants. This would :
(a.) Release seed money for new research projects from funds now
used by institutions on reimbursed overhead;
(b) Encourage institutional support for newly emerging scientists
who are desperately needed;
(c) Encourage better internal administration of public funds; and
(d) Permit more freedom of action and an increase in productivity
by the scientist.
(pp. 433-434)
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 41-9
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100??99
FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
Payment of overhead costs in connection with Government-sponsored
research (Dickey)
The question of how to deal fairly with overhead cost to institutions
is still certainly not wisely settled. Dartmouth has not made money
on Government-sponsored research, and we do not believe that we have
even covered its full cost to us. It might be worthwhile to investigate
having an upper limit on the amount paid by the Government to any
single institution for certain types of overhead cost. Up to now the
arguments about overhead have not taken sufficient account of the real
needs of the strongest research centers and of hundreds of other insti-
tutions striving to establish themselves as strong centers.
(pp.1076-1077)
Recovery by the university of the full cost of Federal research (Rose)
The sponsors of research should pay to the university the full costs,
direct and indirect, for the research which they are financing Cost-
sharing in the long run would defeat the major objectives of Federal
research and definitely is not in the national interest.
Educational institutions in which Federal research is carried out
"cannot remain strong if they are progressively forced to divert their
already inadequate funds."
(P.791)
Reimbursement to universities for indirect costs relating to Federally
financed research projects (Kirk)
Universities must be reimbursed for research supported by Federal
funds, on a full-cost basis for indirect costs. Reimbursement for
direct costs is simply a matter of bookkeeping. If a deficit is incurred
in carrying out Federal research contracts, universities will have to
cut back research. Universities could not derive any profit from
research operations nor can they undertake much research involving
actual out-of-pocket loss.
Partial reimbursement for indirect costs is impossible because uni-
versities simply do not have at their disposal any considerable amount
of free funds which they could use for matching purposes.
(pp. 344-347, 352-353, 358-360)
Relations between Government and higher education (Furnas)
The lack of a generally accepted, clear understanding of the interrelations
between research and higher education has led to some muddy thinking and
perhaps some unwise legislation.
There is an erroneous idea that Government should buy research
from universities at a low price and give only little support to the
concomitant educational process.
Because of current restrictive legislation, sufficient overhead on
Federal grants to universities is insufficient to cover indirect costs.
This is very harmful and dangerous to these institutions.
Only a few wealthier universities can carry out the amount and kind
of research necessary to advanced education in science and engineer-
ing. Result-"the strong get stronger and the weak get weaker * *",
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
1186 FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
which is exactly the opposite effect to that which the Congress desires
to achieve.
However, even the richest institutions will not be able to continue to
be inadequately reimbursed for indirect costs, nor are they in a finan-
cial position to carry out the necessary large and expensive research
programs unless the major financial burden is carried by the Govern-
ment or other outside sources.
(pp. 1007-1008, 1009)
Responsibility for payment of indirect costs involved in Government-
financed research programs in universities (Steimke)
This problem revolves largely about the procedure and system of
assessing what percentages of indirect costs for overhead are made
allowable under Federal contracts and grants.
Under contracting agencies
Research performed under contract carries a charge to the sponsor for in-
direct costs based on a percentage of those personal services charged directly
to the contract. Our current fixed negotiated rate is 65 percent. For last year
the Army Audit Agency verified' our actual indirect costs for research to be
about 80 percent. Overhead rates are not a measure of efficiency of operation.
They are affected by several factors, most significant of which is the manner of
distributing direct and indirect charges. * * * We sometimes find * * * that
the persons with whom we are dealing in some of the Federal agencies consider
a high overhead rate to be indicative of high total costs, of inefficiency of opera-
tion, or even as an attempt to make a profit on the research.
Under granting agencies
Certain Federal granting agencies * * * have statutory or other limitations
on the amount of reimbursement for indirect cost which they are permitted
to pay. At present, either 20 or 25 percent (depending on the agency) of the
total cost for direct charges may be paid under such grants provided the indirect
costs are actually equal to those percentages or exceed them. At Georgia Tech
we have found that we actually receive only about half of our real indirect
cost of performing research under such grants. This means that we must use
institutional funds to make up the difference, and this in turn means that the
amount of research we can perform for the Federal Government is dependent
upon how much institutional research support we can afford. * * *
* * * one result of low allowable percentages for overhead will be to cause
the universities to revise their methods of charging so that more of the appro-
priate charges are made directly to projects. In the long run the net effect to
the Government will be an increase in the cost of research rather than a decrease
because of the resulting greater complexity of record keeping. * *
(pp. 614-615)
Sharing of direct and indirect costs between the universities and the
Federal Government (Eisenhower)
C believe strongly that the Government should pay the full costs, both direct
and indirect, of research programs it establishes in universities. The universities
should not be required to supplement Government funds with their own scarce
resources in order to maintain a governmentally sponsored research program.
(,n the other hand, universities should receive no financial profit through the
Government research they conduct, of this the Government should have positive
assurance.
Such a balance can be achieved only if the sponsoring agency
assumes all direct costs, and if indirect costs are determined by a
standard formula applicable to each individual participating institu-
tion. Budget Circular A-21, while not the perfect document for de-
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS 1187
termining indirect costs properly attributable to Government research,
has the attribute of applying equally to all institutions.
* * * This element of equal treatment is lost when the Government establishes
indirect costs as a fixed percentage of direct costs. In many cases this fixed per-
centage necessitates subsidization by the university of governmentally sponsored
research projects. In others, institutions may receive more than their actual
overhead costs. I urge, therefore, that the Congress require all agencies sponsor-
ing university research to adopt Circular A-21 as the basis for determining in-
direct costs.
Uniformity in the determination of costs, both direct and indirect, does not
imply that the Government should consolidate all the funds which it appro-
priates for university research in the hands of a single Federal agency. Indeed,
this would be a grievous mistake. * * *
The diversity of needs, interests, and objectives of various agencies
demonstrates the inoperability of having the many specific areas of
research supported intelligently by a single agency. Not even the
National Science Foundation, embracing as it does a broad spectrum
of scientific interests, could conceivably be expanded to encompass
all of the research currently sponsored by all other Government
agencies.
(pp. 994-995)
Uniform limitations on indirect costs for grants and contracts
(Scheps)
* * * limitations on indirect costs imposed by the Federal Government under
Federal grants are placing unfair burdens on the colleges and universities. * * *
* * * if limitations are necessary * * * they should be calculated as percent-
ages of the salaries and wages of research programs and thus in the same man-
ner as indirect costs are determined on Government contracts. Such determina-
tions would eliminate the kinds of misunderstandings that arise when an, agency
attempts to adjust the direct cost base for determining the indirect cost allow-
ance.
* * * * The indirect costs of a university are incurred in the management,
maintenance of buildings and equipment, heat and light, maintenance of libraries,
and so on. The sum of these costs must be compared to a base to calculate a
proper indirect cost reimbursement. We believe that the salaries and wages base
reflects more equitably the universities' obligations.
(pp. 919-920)
Uniformity in cost reimbursement to universities for federally
financed research (Selleps)
* * * the time * * * must come when the Government and the universities
reach a common understanding on the entire question of cost reimbursement.
We believe that the Bureau of the Budget Circular A-21, a document evolved
over a number of years of experience with cost reimbursement problems, should
be accepted by all agencies of the Government for the determination of costs
of research supported by contracts or grants.
(pp. 919, 921-922)
M. DISTRIBUTION OF FEDERAL RESEARCH FUNDS AMONG UNIVERSITIES,
DEFENSE OF
Determination of policy of Federal support to medium sized and small
educational institutions (Waterman)
A criticism frequently heard is that Federal support goes in in-
creasing amounts to the large universities, and that more public funds
should go to medium sized and small institutions.
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
1188 FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
The following factors must be taken into account in deciding upon
a policy of broadening the base of Federal support through increased
Federal support to medium sized and small institutions.
(a) * * * there are a large number of small institutions which do not wish
to encourage graduate work or research, but which concentrate their attention
upon undergraduate teaching. Surely this is a matter of their own decision.
(b) Furthermore, it is highly questionable, in my opinion, whether the 1,000
institutions that do not now provide a bachelor's degree in science and engi-
neering should at this stage be considered for research support ; their immediate
problem is the extension of their teaching to include science and engineering.
(c) * * * The support of high-quality work is the major consideration.
* * * My view, therefore, is that the policy adopted by the National Science
Foundation is the proper one, namely, to provide for the needs of the highest
quality research and the most competent investigators wherever they may be
found. As one approaches the limit of available funds, one then has to
choose from among a large number of projects, approximately equal in merit
and quality, coming from large and small institutions, from all sections of the
country and from experienced and youthful scientists. Under these circum-
stances, with similar quality, one can furnish preferred support to young inves-
tigators, to small institutions, and to improving geographic distribution.
If smaller institutions wish to get into the field, the Government
should consider institutional support which would enable them to
strengthen their science, "and not attempt to put research money into
inexperienced hands."
Under the policy I have outlined, a broadening of the base of support can
be accomplished automatically by providing more total funds.
(pp. 813-814, 821)
Distribution of research funds among universities (DuBridge)
Charges that distribution of research funds are made in unfair
fashion, ,and that the rich universities get richer as a result, are not
in accord with the facts. No school gets rich doing research, and the
research must be done by those schools which have built up the neces-
sary staffs and facilities to carry on research and graduate studies.
Funds are allocated in very close proportion to the graduate student
population of a State, and this is closely proportional to total popula-
tion, according to an analysis made by the National Science Founda-
tion. Obviously, you cannot place a $5 million cyclotron at a small
college which has only a couple of physicists on its staff. You can
give the two physicists a few thousand dollars for their research, but
large expenditures must go to places that have staff and facilities for
them.
(pp. 306, 310-311)
N. DISTRIBUTION OP FEDERAL RESEARCH FUNDS AMONG UNIVERSITIES,
PROPOSALS FOR WIDER
Concentration and distribution of Federal funds for research (Wilson)
There is concern about the heavy concentration of research funds
in a few institutions and a few geographic areas, and a more broadly
based distribution is advocated.
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS 1189
Institutions
* * * In 1962, 38 percent of all research sponsored by the Federal Government
on university campuses was concentrated in 10 institutions . . . this concen-
tration seems to me to have been inevitable. The Nation had many goals and
commitments to be achieved quickly. Agencies responsible for reaching these
goals had no choice but to turn to the institutions which had already demon-
strated their competence. * * The 10 institutions where 38 percent of the
research activity was concentrated in 1302 were 25 years ago: producing 42
percent of all the Ph. D. degrees awarded in the fields of mathematics, physics,
and chemistry.
Geographic Areas
* * * In 1962 there were over 100 universities in this country conducting re-
search for the Government at a rate of more than $1 million each annually.
Of the top 100, 27 are in the Northeast, 29 in the Southeast, * * * 24 in the
Midwest, 8 in the Southwest, 4 in the Mountain States and 8 on 'the west coast.
That a broadening of the base is taking place is indicated by the fact that the
proportion of Ph. D. degrees produced by the 10 institutions mentioned above
has dropped from 42 to 31 percent. I doubt whether it could have been forecast
prior to the war that in this short span of time 100 universities could be so
strengthened as to be capable of launching, manning, and carrying through re-
search programs of this magnitude. Their ability to do so has led to a concomi-
tant ability to train young scholars.
Degree of balance
I am not suggesting that we have reached an ideal balance in this conutry ;
what I am suggesting is that * * * our quite legitimate concerns over imbalance
should not obscure the substantial progress already made. The committee will
doubtless wish to consider many of the programs now in 'existence or in the
planning stage which are designed to bring even greater strength to institutions
now at the threshold of high competence. * * *
The various traineeship, fellowship, general research support, in-
stitutional grants, science development, and other programs already
launched or contemplated by various agencies, "all seem to me efforts
to achieve more balanced strength in all regions of our Nation."
From time to time it is suggested that the quickest way to achieve this bal-
ance is simply to redistribute existing funds. * * * We have never in this
Nation * * * accepted the concept of weakening the strong in order to strengthen
the weak. I hope we never shall. * *
(pp. 509-510)
Distribution of Federal research funds among the universities (Kirk)
The question is-should such funds be distributed more widely than
they are at present?
The Federal research program is not really an "aid-to-education"
program, but is rather an investment in our Nation's scientific future.
If this is the case, then there need be no apology for concentration of support
for research in those institutions, public and private, where the quantity and
quality of scholarly manpower is such as to give the greatest promise of pro-
ductivity.
The present concentration of support has been necessary at a time
when the urgency for progress is so great. When the existing "centers
of excellence" have been sufficiently implemented, new centers can be
developed.
(pp.348-349,354-355)
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
1190 FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
Distribution of Government R&D (Kistiakowsky)
An attempt to spread the Government's research activities more
evenly among the majority of our 2,000 colleges and universities would
lead to a "total collapse of scientific effort." To take care of shorter
range needs and yet to prepare for longer range future it is essential
to maintain the strength of the universities which are presently strong
and at the same time to increase the number of strong institutions by
a highly selective process. The cutting of funds for the National
Science Foundation for fiscal 1964 by the House Appropriations
Committee will stop an NSF program to help strengthen a few se-
lected institutions which are genuinely ready to become strong and
need only financial help to achieve it, and then to give them con-
tinued support.
(p. 611)
Imbalance in distribution of research support to educational institu-
tions (Aderhold)
There are several unfavorable consequences of the policy of concen-
trating research support to those institutions which already have
strong research programs and outstanding scientists :
(a) * * * a few strong, wealthy institutions have become stronger, wealthier,
and larger in terms of funds and human resources.
(b) Developing programs attract other programs and funds, and other faculty
and research men are drawn in from weaker and poorer institutions. In turn,
better qualified graduate students are attracted.
(c) * * * economic growth and development slows in those areas not favored
by Federal. funds and speeds up in those areas which have been favored.
(d) * * * research and educational opportunities, already unequal in various
parts of the country, are diminished because of the flow of Federal funds to a
few institutions.
A careful appraisal of the effects of Federal research and develop-
ment on the total educational and research needs of our country should
be made. There should be a reexamination of the policy in certain
Government agencies of offering grants on a geographic and State
basis, and consideration of the application of this policy on a broader
basis.
(pp. 904-905, 908)
Imbalance in support of higher education (Harris)
* * * are our programs of basic research and our programs of support of uni-
versity and graduate education compatible with the long-term needs of the
country?
At present these research programs are given to the institutions
with greatest competence. "Unequivocal educational support" should
be used to strengthen other institutions to help distribute national edu-
cation and excellence.
(pp. 829, 833)
Lack of design in the development of national research program in
the universities (Kerr)
The "Federal grant" university has developed in the past 20 years
more by force of circumstances than by conscious design. It may be
helpful to survey the current situation briefly as a preliminary to
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS 1191
making some suggestions about the future relationships of the Gov-
ernment and universities.
For about 20 years, Congress has been deciding in which general
areas the Federal-university partnership should be developed. Deci-
sions have not been made on the basis of thorough study of national
priorities, but rather in pragmatic response to felt needs-atomic
energy, national defense, health, and space, for example. Congress
reacted quickly to each of these realities by authorizing programs of
research.
As Congress authorized research, Federal research money went to
institutions not "on the basis of any general review of institutional
capacity or potential capacity" but on the basis of location of individ-
ual scientists who could do the job at hand. Most of these scientists
were concentrated in a few institutions.
As the process has gone along, universities, accepting research cen-
ters and projects as proposed by faculty members and Government
agencies, have made day-to-day piecemeal adjustments. They have
reacted to situations, not made a studied response and as a result have
been "profoundly affected."
Federal research money has been heavily concentrated in relatively
few institutions. In one recent year 6 universities received 57 per-
cent of the funds given for project research and research centers.
Twenty institutions now make up the primary group of Federal
grant universities. If project funds continue to increase, it will be
possible and necessary to extend more of them to universities beyond
those in this primary group.
(pp. 1020-1022,1023-1024,1025)
Maintenance of a healthy relationship between the Federal Govern-
ment and the universities. (Wiesner)
It is of special concern that the cut in the NSF budget and the no-new-starts
policy required by the House will hurt one 'of the most important interests * * *
that is, the effort to expand the geographical distribution of centers of excellence
with all the economic and intellectual progress that this effort promises.
The NSF's proposed new science development grants program to
strengthen nuclei of quality scientific faculties, and programs for
undergraduate equipment and for graduate and undergraduate fa-
cilities, and the institutional grants program will be severely ham-
pered.
Institutions must be identified which have high-quality potential
all around the Nation. These institutions must take steps to develop
themselves, in which process Federal assistance should be forthcoming.
The importance of maintaining a healthy relationship between the
Federal Government and the universities must be emphasized. In
addition to its unique capability to conduct basic research, the uni-
versity is the resource for producing increased scientific and engineer-
ing manpower for Federal programs.
The Government must insure that its sponsorship of science does not corrupt
the educational process by distorting its balance, values, and objectives. This
requires as a minimum that the Government remain alert to meeting the full
and fair costs to the universities of their own involvement in Federal activities,
so as not to cause diversion of limited university resources from the educational
functions to carry out federally sponsored programs.
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
1192 FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
* * * Based on extensive studies by the NSF and my office, this limitation
[limitations of overhead to 20 percent in the grant authority of several agencies]
should be removed in order to avoid severe distortions in the programs of colleges
and universities. * * * I hope you will give particular attention to this problem
during your study.
* * * I think that we have imposed in some instances much too strict control
on the use of some of the research funds.
* * * We need to face how to rationalize these vast expenditures that go into
the universities so that there is a more uniform treatment of schools.
(pp. 258, 265-266, 287-289)
Need for Federal assistance to develop additional top quality gradu-
ate institutions (Aderhold)
Although the States have become more conscious of their obligation
for higher education and have redoubled their efforts, they cannot
alone develop the additional top quality graduate institutions which
the country needs.
To develop these top quality institutions,
* * * we must have a partnership with the Federal Government, and appor-
tionment of research funds is one way in which this partnership can be developed.
(pp. 906-907, 908)
Need for investigation of method and philosophy of awarding con-
tracts and grants (Rose)
It is suggested that the committee appoint a task force to study
the methods and philosophy by which Federal agencies award con-
tracts and grants to educational institutions.
The basic criterion for judging research proposals made to Federal
agencies-the scientific quality of the experimenter-is questionable in
terms of the overall national interest.
This method, which results in the distribution of contracts and
grants to 25 institutions which receive 59 percent of all Federal
research funds, is questionable. Approximately 2,000 colleges and uni-
versities receive relatively little Federal money. Academic and stu-
dent talent tend to become centered in a few areas and a few institu-
tions, adversely affecting others.
(pp. 792-793, 793-794)
Need to strengthen higher education throughout the country (Killian)
High-quality education needs to be spread throughout the Nation.
There has been a concentration of effort in strong institutions and
this has been, and still is, a sound policy; but -the Government should
now have a. policy of building strong new centers of education through
use of research grants.
More first-rate graduate centers are needed, and they should be
better distributed throughout the country. Both liberal arts colleges
and universities should be helped. This is not done by building on
weakness, but rather by identifying those institutions which have
shown the initiative and mobilized the support to strengthen them-
selves.
(p. 755)
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved Fob- Nel@@ase 2005/03/15: CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230Q41-9
E RAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS 1993
0. SMALLER UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES, Ei4 FFECTS OF FEDERAL
RESEARCH SUPPORT
Effects of Federal research aid on other than first-rank universities
(Kerr)
Federal research has concentrated in a few universities best equipped
to handle it, because they possess adequate advanced training and
facilities. This has strengthened their facilities and faculties, but
may have hurt the second- and third-rank institutions by drawing
away potential faculty to carry out the research in the first-rank in-
stitutions. "The good are better; the poor may well be worse."
(p. 1022)
Effects of Government research policies on small universities (Bald-
win)
Less than 10 percent of the 2,000 institutions of higher education
receive more than 90 percent of the funds distributed by the Federal
Government, and almost none of this amount goes to small universi-
ties. This reflects the policy to give funds to those best equipped to
conduct research, and, in general, it produces the best direct benefit
to the public in terms of research results. However, it has a side ef-
fect which is not in the public interest.
This adverse side effect is that, while current policies increase the
capabilities of the favored institutions, they have the reverse effect on
the small universities. Teachers in the small universities do not have
adequate opportunity for research, and good teachers are attracted to
the favored institutions and to industry.
Two alternatives suggest themselves :
One is to offset the advantages to the top institutions by supporting
the small ones. This smacks of charity, and would not be in keeping
with the spirit of most small universities.
The other is to give all institutions of higher education the same
opportunity, and this would be more satisfying and workable.
* * * It could be accomplished by increasing tax deductions or by giving tax
credits in sufficient amount to encourage private and corporate donors to sup-
port research and faculty development in universities.
Administrators of small colleges have considerable experience in soliciting
funds. In this respect, at least, they would suffer no disadvantage, and a cli-
mate of free competitive negotiation would be established.
It is my belief that both the educational institutions and potential donors
would make this plan work without slowing the pace of research, indeed the
number of individuals and institutions developing higher standards of excellence
in research and teaching should markedly increase.
(pp. 379-380)
Manpower emigration from small colleges (Levin)
A. complaint heard from small colleges is that they are unable to
keep good research people. Once they develop a reputation, these
people tend to want to go to a center where they can come in contact
with other people of like interests.
(p. 601)
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP 00403 000100230041-9
194 FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPM A
Support for research in small colleges and independent research units
(Ewalt and Baldwin)
One of the most, serious problems is how to deal with the smaller
colleges and independent research units. It is important to support
these so that they may attract and train personnel. Otherwise there
is a vicious circle in which the schools cannot attract adequate Federal
funds for research because they do not have enough trained personnel,
and they cannot attract and train the personnel because of insufficient
funds. While the problem of obtaining funds for research is difficult
in a State university, it is impossible at a private, nonprofit institu-
tion. It is in the public interest to have a healthy mixture of research
and teaching in the, institutions of learning.
(pp. 367, 370, 379-380)
P. G--.OGRAPiEICAL DrsrrIBuTioN or FEDERAL RESEAT.CII FUNDS
Geographic distribution of research funds (Bailey)
Wide geographic distribution of research support in land-grant col-
leges has demonstrated a highly successful record in agricultural re-
search, and might wisely encourage the further allocation of research
funds on a geographical basis in other areas of research. Some part
of development funds should also be distributed geographically.
* * * there are in many universities * * * faculty members with outstanding
competence, who, when provided with even modest support for research and de-
velopment activities, will meet the challenge and produce not only things of
practical, tangible value but also provide a much better education for their stu-
dents in the process.
(pp. 874-875)
Geographical distribution of Federal research funds (Fawcett)
During the legislative process establishing the National Science Foundation,
the Association [of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges] vigorously sup-
ported attempts to get a provision calling for a geographical distribution to the
States of a portion-perhaps 25 percent-of the funds made available to the
Foundation. We based that attempt on the tremendous record made by agri-
cultural research through just such a mechanism. That attempt failed, as you
know. We strongly feel that experience with the grant-contract-fellowship
system provides still another demonstration of the merit of this suggestion for
partial geographical distribution of research funds, and hope that this committee
will give it serious consideration and study in its deliberations.
(p.999)
Geographical dietributlion of funds for general purposes of higher
education (Levin)
The distribution of support for the general purposes of higher
education, to universities throughout the country on a geographical
basis, is desirable. However, this money should not be attributed to
research, but rather to support of higher education.
We would like to have a little more help from the Federal Government in this
total sort of overall support, because what one has to be very careful of is that,
if one is worrying only about science and expanding science, this can take away
from all the other fields of the institution, and get a very unbalanced and uneven
institution.
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS 1195
I think that our fate in this country depends not only on science but it depends
on strong institutions of higher education, because the future of our people,
the development of their capabilities and capacities, depends directly on this.
I consider institutions of higher education one of our most precious re-
sources. Therefore, we should not weaken some aspects while we are strength-
ening others.
(pp. 509, 602)
Geographical distribution of research funds (Seitz)
It is difficult to decide whether or not geography should play a
role in distributing research funds. Some say no; others say that if
they are not so distributed good scientific work will be restricted to
certain regions of the country to the impairment of national scientific
strength.
The primary consideration for distributing funds is that they be
spent on good work, wherever located. Some reasonable attention
should be given to geographical consideration.
The National Institutes of Health and the National Science Founda-
tion have shown "reasonable wisdom" in supporting centers of
strength throughout the country, wherever they exist.
(pp. 62-63)
Q. CENTERS OF ExCELLENCE, ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW
Action to broaden the scientific community in the universities (Dickey)
More awards should be made to young scientists seeking to estab-
lish themselves. Federal assistance to research scientists has tended
to be heavily concentrated in established centers and in grants to
established scientists.
* * * The future health of scientific activity will require a considerable
broadening of the scientific community throughout our colleges and universities.
(p. 1076)
Additional centers of excellence in the field of high energy physics
(Levin)
Existing centers with facilities for research in high energy physics
are sometimes overcrowded, and may be located at a considerable dis=
tance from some of the persons desiring to do research in that field.
It may well be you need new ones. * * * I can imagine in some parts of the
country where people who wish to work on high energy physics it would be very
desirable to have an appropriate accelerator closer by so they don't have to travel
all the way to Brookhaven, Los Alamos or Berkeley, or wherever they are
located.
(p. 600)
Effects of uniform distribution of research funds (Levin)
Centers of excellence cannot be established by just spreading money
around to all the institutions or all the geographical areas of the
country.
I think this is the shotgun approach and you might hit some, but you would
miss a great many others.
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
1196 FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
A better way would be to establish a program such as the National
Science Foundation has proposed.
Let centers of excellence or places which desire to be such centers of excel-
lence come forward and compete. Let them pick out those which seem most
promising, and let them support the start of these things.
(pp. 598-599)
Establishment of new centers of academic strength (Kerr)
In an effort to build new centers of academic strength the Govern-
ment will have to select institutions on the basis of their "general
health." This will be a notable departure from historical practice, ex-
cept in the field of agriculture. The ability to perform a specific proj-
ect, especially in space and defense, is very important and has histori
cally been the basis on which Government grants have been made.
In choosing an institution to support as such, not on a project basis,
it is difficult to determine how such an institution will be chosen, how
its merits will be assessed, and how to withdraw support from an insti-
tution if its performance is not good.
Selection of designated "centers of strength" assumes a single source
of designation-a single overall Federal agency or committee. This
means a single source of control, as against the current pluralistic
situation.
* * * a single source of control would turn an influential relationship between
the Government and the universities into a really "perilous partnership."
(pp. 1023-1024)
Factors other than finances essential to establishment of centers of
excellence (Levin)
A college has to have a will to become a center of excellence in re-
search, and this may involve a change in the educational philosophy
of the institution. It then has to take the action required to develop
and, very important, to continue to support a center of excellence.
This involves a large commitment for the future, and all the support
cannot be gotten from the Federal Government.
* * * I would guess that it would not be to the advantage of the Nation to
convert any major proportion of our liberal arts colleges to research establish-
ments. I think they are doing a wonderful job, and that we might in some
way exert some deleterious effects upon that job if we convert them to large
research or technological institutions.
(pp. 597-598)
Factors producing the development of centers of excellence (Wiesner)
Several factors are responsible for the development of existing
centers of excellence and technological growth. These include :
the presence of outstanding scientific schools and faculties, Government-spon-
sored research activities, a supply of skilled manpower, a diversified supporting
industry, readily available venture capital, good transportation, and pleasant
living conditions.
* * * similar background conditions exist in other areas around the country
where they can be catalyzed by the presence of high-quality institutions for
research and graduate education in science and technology. 'Although the Fed-
eral Government can assist in the strengthening of these institutions, the com-
munities themselves must accept the basic responsibility for their development,
support and encouragement.
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS 1197
There are identifiable industries in certain areas which have the
potential to become important to the area (for example, textiles, build-
ing, transportation, and coal). There is a need to create research
centers to provide technical support to such industries.
* * * The Government can in a variety of ways illuminate the basis of choice
through facilitating the availability of pertinent technical information ; by
promoting closer relations between industry and university faculties in science
and engineering; by the support of studies of potential technological contribu-
tions to selected industry ; sectors of especial national interest ; and through
selective support of research and development, basic to the growth of industries.
(pp.265-267)
The financing of development of centers of excellence (Levin)
Centers of excellence cannot be created through giving a few research
grants to an institution where there are, not many people who wish to
do research and who are of high quality. Centers of excellence can-
not be established through the research project system that now exists.
To do this, seed money, for a nucleus staff and for a facility for these
people to work in is necessary.
* * * The one thing that is lacking today in all our research programs spon-
sored by the Federal Government is this kind of hard seed money to start centers
of excellence wherever they may be appropriate, in whatever part of the country.
I was very saddened by the fact that the house Appropriations Committee cut
out of the budget request of the National Science Foundation this year an item
of $33 million which was exactly for this purpose, to start centers of excellence
at universities and colleges around the country which have a will and a desire.
(pp.595-596)
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
VI. BASIC RESEARCH AND DISTINCTION BETWEEN
VARIOUS TYPES OF R. & D.
A. Commentaries on various aspects of basic research
B. Distinction between various types of R. & D.
C. Basic research in particular Government agencies
A. COMMENTARIES ON VARIOUS ASPECTS or BASIC RESEARCH
Basic research as a preliminary to applied research (Bush)
As has been said many times you cannot have great advances in applied
research unless you have as a basis an extensive body of fundamental knowledge,
developed over years by basic research.
We once leaned on Europe for our basic research, but we are now
doing better. But we should lead in every important field of funda-
mental scientific knowledge.
(pp. 461, 464-465 )
Criteria for evaluation of support for basic research program
(1-Iollomon)
Does the research add to knowledge at the rate and to the extent that we
need to go forward and at a level we can afford? Is the research conducted
with reasonable efficiency by people with adequate competence? Are we strength-
ening the Nation's institutions of learning? Are we creating the climate that
will permit the eccentric genius, the maverick, to make his unique and valuable
contributions to knowledge?
(pp. 291,296)
Funds diverted from basic research (Seitz)
The basic research of the typical independent scientist is in danger
of being curtailed through diversion of funds to more expensive scien-
tific spectaculars. There is tendency toward such diversion in the
present session of the Congress.
(p. 60)
Government role in research (Smith)
There is an area within which governmental support can be of maximum
benefit to the public. This is the field of basic research.
Thus, the Government is the proper institution with both the mission and
the resources for large-scale support of the most basic research.
(pp. 1039, 1040)
1199
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Apprj%Bd For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
Maintenance and control of an adequate level of basic research
(Getting)
By its nature research is decentralized, and incompatible with
bureaucratic control, because research follows opportunity and cir-
cumstances and is highly individualistic. Basic research is an in-
alienable characteristic of a successful institution-a Government
agency, a university, or a private company, and control should be at
the lowest level practicable.
Under no circumstances should procedures, rules, regulations, or laws be
enacted which place the control of basic research either in one Government
agency, or even within Government agencies in one person or group of people. * * *
Complete centralization in the Federal Government would pose all the dangers
of a dictatorship.
Steps by the Federal Government to sponsor basic research in
healthy and diverse ways taken in the past are (1) substantial grants
to universities; (2) Air Force budgets for basic research in its major
in-house laboratories under the local control of the civilian laboratory
director; (3) Armed Services Procurement Regulation XV modifica-
tion to allow costs of a company's independent research in a cost-type
contract, provided the scope and amount are reasonable.
I would urge that Congress, in its traditional role, among many, of watchdog,
scrutinize carefully the administration of Federal funds in support of research
to make sure that the conditions for successful basic research are being enhanced.
(pp..1011, 1012)
Nature of basic research projects (Wilson)
The research projects of basic research scientists are frequently
regarded as absurd because they promise no definite application to a
national goal or current question, but "it is not only easy to ridicule
what we do not understand, but also perilous."
* * * It seems to me that it is the obligation of the scientific community, of
the agencies which sponsor scientific research, and of the universities where this
research takes place to find better ways of explaining their work to our citizens
and their elected representatives. * * * If one of the outcomes of this study on
which this committee is now engaged should be an underlining of the need for
better communication between the scientific and lay worlds, it will be an im-
portant contribution.
(pp. 507-508)
Need for basic research (Seitz)
Development programs are often too costly or are failures because
of a lack of requisite basic fundamental research. The success of
national technology depends in a highly critical way upon sound
systematic basic research.
(pp. 57-58)
Review of basic research by scientists (Waterman)
Any review of a basic research program should depend primarily upon the
advice of leaders of basic research. The consideration of prospective programs
must be largely a subjective process, depending as it does upon the judgment of
experienced individuals.
(p. 812)
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R00010023 1-9
FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS ]
Unpredictability of usefulness of basic research (Waterman)
Because the results of basic research cannot be predicted, there is no
way to evaluate their possible "usefulness." Atomic energy and radar
are cited as illustrations of engineering developments which "had their
origins in research so basic that it would never have been attempted
as applied research, much less financed."
These two familiar examples precisely illustrate my first point ; namely, that
capital discoveries almost invariably have their origins in basic research, but
which, since it explores the unknown, cannot foretell its findings, much less
whether they will ever be practical. Consequently the idea that one should
only undertake basic research which is sure to be useful is a most shortsighted
policy and, as a rule, will miss entirely the outstanding advances which science
may make possible. I had thought we had learned this lesson, but it seems we
have not.
(pp. 808, 816-817)
B. DISTINCTTON BETWEEN VARIOUS TYPES OF R. & D.
Analysis of the components of the Government budget for R. cQm D.
(Schairer)
(a) Need to distinguish between basic research, applied research,
and development, and to determine the division of Government spend-
ing between these three areas.
(b) Need to distinguish between development costs and production
costs in military weapons.
I suspect that possibly half the quoted growth of development costs comes
from changing definitions and not from a real growth.
(c) Need to distinguish between projects directed primarily toward
Government consumption such as military weapons and projects of
purely public interest such as those of the National Institutes of
Health.
(d) Need to distinguish between research activities in furtherance
of scientific objectives and those activities directed toward improving
education in the United States.
(p. 1035)
Analysis of components of national budget for R. cE D. (Waterman)
The large and rapidly increasing part of the Federal budget ex-
pended for R. & D. should be examined with great care.
* * * we should know what it is that we are examining and for what purposes
the funds are to be used.
It is necessary to distinguish between expenditures for basic re-
search "which alone is directed toward strictly scientific objectives"
and is the only portion "which carries out the scientists' own pro-
grams," and expenditures for developmental programs which go for
items "directly useful in the national and the public interest." Basic
research expenditures represent only 10 percent of the national R. & D.
budget; development expenditures account for 70 percent.
(pp. 809, 816, 817)
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
1202 FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
Balance between basic and applied research (Denney)
One question which should be explored is the balance between basic
and applied research. Each is indispensable to the other. Basic re-
search answers the question how things work, while applied research
answers the question how to do a specific job.
Are we sophisticated enough to realize that it is not a joke to say that basic
research which knows what it is looking for is not basic but applied research?
Is there danger that we are tending toward a poor balance between the two, as,
for example, by drawing too much into applied research the academic resources
on which we need to rely for basic support for research in international affairs?
(pp. 184-185, 194)
Complication of evaluation and classification of research programs
due to vast range of activities and projects termed "research"
(Haughton)
Under current Federal definitions, the entire cost of testing a new missile
such as Polaris, including the evaluation of all its components and the many
checks which are necessary to insure its reliability, are all included in the
research and development category.
* * * The committee should realize that work on a major system of this type
requires a different type of scientific and engineering personnel, different facil-
ities, and generally higher levels of expenditure than the research work which
is devoted to initial exploration of a new concept.
Major systems development such as Polaris are * * * not instantaneously
set in motion as full-scale programs. Neither we nor our customer agencies in
the Department of Defense or the National Aeronautics and Space Administra-
tion would be willing to invest an, effort of this magnitude without considerable
assurance of success. And it is important to realize that this assurance in
large degree comes from the multitude of smaller exploratory research pro-
grams * * *
* * * * * * *
To sum up, while recognizing the great diversity of activities which are cur-
rently included under the $14.9 billion dollar Federal research program, I be-
lieve that the committee can evaluate these as an orderly procession from the
dawn of a basic research concept to its final application as a valuable asset to
our defense posture, our national prestige, or our industrial well-being.
(pp. 100-102)
Confusion in use of terms "scientific research" and "basic research"
(Waterman)
The indiscriminate use of "scientific research" and "basic research",
and reference to national expenditures for research and develop-
ment as expenditures for science or research leads to the mistaken
impression that the terms are synonymous, and that all the expendi-
tures go to scientists for their research in science.
It does no such thing. Almost 90 percent * * * goes to Government and
industrial laboratories: whose mission is the development of useful equipment
and devices for production. * * * Only 10 percent is for basic research, which
alone is directed toward strictly scientific objectives. It is only this portion
which carries out the scientists' own programs.
The distinction between "science" and "development and tech-
nology" is important because the two fields have to be handled dif-
ferently. They are different in motive and in results so therefore
they should be reviewed and studied from different points of view.
(pp. 809, 815-816)
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For
-9
NMR? 20( 5/03/15: CIA-RDP66B00403R00010023PH
ARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS Definition of applied science and its relationship to pure science
(Teller)
* * * The activity when you work towards a reasonably clear defined goal, and
a goal which is motivated by a practical application, but where this goal is not
yet proven, you don't know whether it is feasible, and if it is feasible, you don't
know whether you will ever want to spend the big money that is needed to put
it into practice.
The study of the general question of turbulent motion is pure science,
and when I apply that to weather prediction it is applied science. The
applied science we are doing now is based on pure science. If pure
science does not develop, then in the course of time but not immedi-
ately, applied science will wither as well.
(pp. 949-950)
Definition of terms defining areas of R. dl D. (Bachman)
The committee should prepare a glossary of terms defining areas of
research and development.
* * * We suggest * * * that at the start, definitions be prepared for (1) basic
research, (2) applied research, (3) pilot plant research, and (4) prototype re-
search. If other definitions are required in the glossary of terms, they could
be added.
Granted that under these circumstances some of the definitions may be arbi-
trary, they may, if clearly expressed, serve as a common language base. If we
understand the terms in which we talk, I think it will be easier to determine how
much we spend an various types of research. You may well find that by far the
major portion of our money is going for prototype or pilot plant efforts and far
lesser amounts for basic or applied research. Information of this type should be
helpful in your considerations.
(pp. 777-778)
De flnition of various activities usually included under R. d D.
(Collbohm)
There is a broad range of activities ranging from basic research
through development and engineering. A full understanding of the
variety of these activities, and careful examination of their specific
nature, is important. Each really calls for different treatment from
the administrative or policy point of view. [The witness' testimony
included discussion of basic research, exploratory development, and
system development.]
(p.723)
Distinction between basic research, and applied research and develop-
ment (Seaborg)
Although the two types of research overlap, there are certain dis-
tinctions. Among these are (1) motivation behind the research,
and (2) the criteria that are applied to determine what work shall
be undertaken and what changes shall be made in the lines of inves-
tigation as the study develops.
(1) Motivation
* * * In basic research the motivating force is not utilitarian goals, but a
search for a deeper understanding of the universe and of the phenomena
within it. * * * the underlying, motivating force in basic research is intellectual
curiosity * * *
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
1204 FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
(2) Determination of how basic a research program is
If the final goal is very precisely stated, the program is probably not too
basic. If the investigator is not free to make radical changes in his program
and to pursue some unexpected question which has arisen in his work and
which excites his curiosity as to why or how, the program is probably not
basic. * * *
(pp. 66-67)
Distinction between "research" and "development" (Calkins)
Distinction should be made between "research" and "development"
to avoid confusion and misunderstanding, and each should be con-
sidered and evaluated separately, each according to its own costs and
benefits.
(p. 911)
I denti fccation and definition of Federal research expenditures
(Peyton)
* * * the chamber recommends that every effort be made to identify amounts
being spent for actual research as well as those for development, testing,
evaluation, and for support activities such as facilities and equipment, commonly
called R. & D. plant. The statement frequently made that $15 billion is now being
spent annually on research gives an erroneous impression. Only a small portion
of this amount is actually committed to research. A relatively large amount is
spent on development, testing and construction of facilities as well as pur-
chase of equipment which should not be identified as "research."
* * * * * * *
It is suggested that the select committee not only provide definitive informa-
tion on research expenditures and programs but that it also recommend that
budget requests submitted by Federal departments and agencies be in suffi-
cient detail to enable Congress to identify and evaluate these items easily.
(pp. 1032-1033)
Importance of understanding difference between research, and de-
velopment (Haworth)
(A member of the committee asked the witness: "If you had any
single recommendation that you would make to this committee with
respect to these programs you are talking about, what would it be?")
* * * I think the most important thing * * * (is) that we really under-
stand this distinction between research and development. * * *
Research is a search for knowledge * * * development, on the other hand,
is to do some particular thing for some particular purpose, and in general has
limited application. Therefore, we must think of these not as a single package,
but we must think of research in the brood sense.
We must think of development as something where we want to 'attain par-
ticular ends, and we must look hard at those particular ends, and especially so
because development is the thing that costs the big money.
And so where we must be very, very sure of what we,are doing from the Gov-
ernment's standpoint is that the developments we are supporting are worthwhile
developments for worthwhile ends, andbeing well done.
On the other hand, in research we need the broad spectrum of knowledge, and
we sitting here in Washington can't possibly direct research. We can sup-
port it. We can have some influence on where emphasis is in the sense that
we may feel that some particular part of the whole spectrum needs more sup-
port than it is getting. We can do that sort of thing, but we can't possibly
direct it or make real detailed decisions about it.
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15: CIA-RDP66B00403 2 10Q~_ i 41-9
FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PRO
But in Washington we can make detailed decisions about whether we are
going to develop this gadget for military applications or that power reactor for
civilian application, and so forth.
(p.51)
Need for better understanding of various types of research (Bailey)
Distinctions need to be made to the Congress and the general pub-
lic about the different types of activities called "research." Defini-
tions of, and distinctions between, "basic" and "applied" research and
"development" (within certain limitations, of course) would mark
lon
-ran
e
and evaluatin
ti
i
t
tin
i
t
d
g
g
g
on
n s
a
g
commun
ca
progress
owar
objectives of Federal research and development.
(pp. 871-872)
Need to define "basic research" and "applied research" (Waterman)
Two reasons support the need to distinguish between basic research
and applied research:
(1) * * * basic research is true pioneering, and unless it Is given completely
free rein, it may miss important contributions to knowledge, many of which,
as history shows, pave the way for sensational technological progress.
(2) * * * applied research drives out basic-a sort of Gresham's law. That
is to say, under budget limitations and pressures to achieve high-priority, prac-
tical objectives, preference tends to be given to those items which are aimed di-
rectly at meeting practical needs. My concern at the moment, and it is a deep,
one, is that we are now observing a verification of this law in the critical at-
titude which is developing toward provision of funds for the support ,of scientific
activities.
(p. 812)
Separation of expenditures for basic and applied science (Weinberg)
Only expenditures for basic scientific research should be part of the
science budget. Expenditures for applied scientific effort should be
considered part of the budget of whatever the application is meant
for.
It is as improper to single out the military's expenditures for applied science
as it is to single out the military's expenditure for transportation or communi-
cation.
(pp. 317-318)
C. BASIO RESEARCH IN PARTICULAR GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
Allowance of basic research as an item of costs in contracts with
private agencies (Thomas)
Some of the Federal agencies which are concerned with develop-
ment of hardware by their contracting proceedings discount the value
of basic research. Some contracting procedures will refuse to allow
basic science going on within an institution as an item of cost, which
is shortsighted.
(pp. 41"14)
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
1206 FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
New vs. old agencies in basic research (Seitz)
The rate of scientific growth in the United States since the end of
World War II has depended too much on the new agencies. Older
agencies, with the notable exceptions of the National Science Founda-
tion and the National Institutes of Health, have cut back basic re-
search and focused energies on programmatic investigations. The
Atomic Energy Commission is also an exception, since its support of
basic research has retained a broad base throughout its history. Na-
tional Aeronautics and Space Administration has not yet given sup-
port to basic science. It would be very desirable if NASA should
devote 5 percent of its budget to basic research.
(p. 62)
Place of basic research in the space program (Webb)
Questions raised were (1) whether National Aeronautics and Space
Administration has given sufficiently broad support to the basic sci-
ences, and (2) whether NASA has incurred losses because develop-
mental work has been attempted without having done some of the work
in basic research that should have preceded it.
Neither charge is supported by facts. In contrast with other kinds
of research, space research requirements are unique. Space research
cannot be done in a laboratory. Therefore some developmental work
must precede the basic research.
You have got to have a rocket to get out into space, to leave the earth, and you
have got to consider many measurements at the same time, so you relate the
measurements in what they call exploration science.
But now the point is that until the technology for flying rockets is developed,
you cannot go out to do the science. We have had to spend a lot ofmoney in
technology in order to get to the position of doing science.
Between 5 and 10 percent of the NASA budget is at present de-
voted to basic research, depending on whether cost of tools needed to
do the research is considered part of basic research expense.
(pp. 88-91)
Proportion of basic research in Department of Agriculture programs
(Shaw)
More than one-third of research funds expended-both within the
USDA and at State experiment stations-is for basic research, as
compared with about 20 percent 5 years ago. (The Department's
total appropriation for research is $168,716,000, of which $38,000,000
are Federal grants to State experiment stations.)
Substantial progress has been made, but a still greater share of our
resources should go into fundamental work.
(p. 207)
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
VII. RESEARCH IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES, THE BE-
HAVIORAL SCIENCES, AND THE HUMANITIES
Adequacy of private support of basic research in social sciences
(Calkins)
Private support for basic research is inadequate. Private philan-
thropic money is often spent in the same areas as Government money,
and the neglected areas are being covered only little better by private
philanthropy than by public support.
(p. 913)
Adequacy of support for P. & D. pertaining to life, social, and be-
havorial systems (Calhoun)
Paralleling the achievements resulting from attention to physical and earth
sciences and their applications, there has been less than necessary support to
research and development pertaining to life, social, and behavioral systems. If
programs in the aquatic, wildlife, recreational, and human sides of resource de-
velopment are to achieve the maximum benefits of modern science and its
sophisticated application, there must be continued assessment of the balance of
research among these fields. A better balance which probably means increased
support for research in the future is one of the desired objectives of Interior's
program. At the moment we do no research on human behavior. It is my
belief that there are some of the behavioral sciences on which research should be
done if the missions of Interior are to be properly discharged.
And when I use "behavior" I meant behavior in the broad sense of the be-
havior of all life, and this includes fish as well as people.
(pp. 119, 122,123)
Adequacy of support for social sciences and humanities (Haworth)
My concern * * * is not that there is too much research in the universities
in the natural sciences, but that the other disciplines in the universities are
falling behind, because they don't have equivalent sources of support, and that
we have got to do something to do the equivalent thing from some source for
the social sciences and the humanities and things of that sort.
(p. 50)
Adequacy of support for the social sciences relative to the physical
sciences (Wirtz)
We are not doing enough in the social sciences.
There is just a startling contrast between the amount of research effort that
goes into the physical science programs of this Government on the one hand and
what goes into the human science or social science parts of it on the other. It
is an ominous difference, I think.
* * * When I compare the amount of attention we are paying to scientific re-
search with the amount of attention we are paying to human research-what we
are doing right now is flying the most powerful jet engine in the history of man-
kind, and I mean to include all of our scientific and technological developments,
and we are flying it by the seat of our pants, we are flying it by luck, by instinct,
without any instruments at all in the cockpit. That is about the relationship
1207
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
1208 FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
between the amount of research we are doing in the social sciences with what is
being done in the physical sciences. And that is about where we are.
I am not sure that on this basis we are going to be able to keep our social engi-
neers flying this blind with the amount of technological development which is
being brought about.
We may or we may not be able to handle as self-governing social engineers
what we know as scientists. A concern about "planning" sometimes inhibits re-
search in the social science areas.
(pp. 156, 160)
Balance between research in the social sciences and other types of re-
search (Denney)
There is the problem of the balance among different kinds of re-
search for different agencies. With fragmentation of responsibility
between agencies in the executive and between committees of Congress,
with certain agencies related to particular committees, there is a ten-
dency for programs "to grow up somewhat uncoordinated."
The claims of scientific and military programs are clearer and more dramatic,
and doubtless greater, than the claims of other programs, but are they all that
much greater? There is reason to doubt that questions of balance-say between
programs of so-called hardware research and social science research-have ever
adequately been examined.
The committee might want to question whether the social sciences
should be given the low priority present figures indicate, and to change
it, not by decreasing funds in the physical and life sciences, but by in-
creasing them in the social sciences, and to explore the total "mix" of
Government research.
(pp. 184, 193)
Disparity between the Federal expenditures on social science research
and physical science research; the research activities of the Department
of Labor (Wirtz)
The Department of Labor's total expenditure for research in fiscal
1963 was one-eighth of 1 percent of total research expenditures in fiscal
1963 by the Federal Government. The amount in dollars in fiscal 1963
was $5.4 million and is being increased in fiscal 1964 to $7.5 million.
The Department of Labor is a very small Department; its research
program is very small.
In the Labor Department, the great bulk of research is "applied,"
though such a precise demarcation in the social sciences is difficult.
Actually, the collection of general-purpose data accounts for a much
larger part of the Department's work than "research," mainly because
it is the primary source of basic economic statistics, such as the con-
sumer price index, unemployment figures, productivity, etc.
We are relatively satisfied with the research program which we have in the
Department. We realize that it only startsinto the area of possibility asfar as
research is concerned. We will be wanting to do a good deal more with it.
It is essential to an understanding of what we are about. * * *
In the field of the administration of the programs for which we have respon-
sibility, there is a large need for trying to find out those things wheh are going
on, which are not obvious on the surface, and which some analysis shows.
I hope that there will be more that we can do in the future about this
program.
(pp.155,157-158,158-159,166-167)
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS 1209
Effect of Federal support of science upon the social sciences and the
humanities in the universities (Kirk)
The charge is made that the flow of funds into scientific fields has
created a distortion of imbalance within the universities because the
social sciences and the humanities have received too little support,
relatively speaking.
This may appear to be true but we must temper our judgment with certain
other facts which are pertinent in this connection. The first is that financial
needs for research in science and the humanities are vastly different. Except in
the field of pure theoretical speculation, no one can carry on effective scientific
research without a great array of costly equipment. * * *
Conversely, in the humanities, what, for example, does a professor need for
his research? He must have some time free from teaching, an assistant, travel
funds and access to a first-rate research library. In financial terms, with full
allowance for the expenditures that such a library requires, the cost is relatively
slight.
Moreover, because of the availability of Federal funds for scientific research,
provided its costs are met in full for each project deemed worthy of Government
support, the university can concentrate its own limited free funds to a greater
degree upon nonscientific research fields. Also, the availability of Federal funds
for science has enabled many of the great foundations to direct more support
to other fields of scholarly interest. I do not say that the humanities have all
the research money they need today ; I do say .that their relative need is small
and that to meet it in full would require further expenditures on a scale quite
modest compared with the costs of doing the same for science.
(pp. 341-342, 351, 356-357)
Factors inhibiting research in the social sciences (Wirtz)
(1) Concern in various quarters that it is "planning" and not re-
search.
* * * the minute we start going very far into research in our field, somebody
begins to wonder whether we are doing too much planning. Sometimes when we
are simply trying to find out what we think we need to know, we find ourselves
getting into an area in which there is concern expressed as to whether we are
planning things.
(2) The unreliability and the dangers of the present incomplete
mastery of a kind of research that relies so largely on making statistics
out of people.
There is a very real realization on the part of the various departments of
Government, realization of the imperfections of the research techniques which
we have been able to develop so far. We realize by and large most of our re-
search is reducing people to statistics and are drawing conclusions from that,
and that is a pretty dangerous process, and not one that we are about to jump
into too fast.
(3) Detailed public scrutiny surrounds the Government's efforts in
the field of human resources research, probably because more people
assume that these areas are more comprehensible to them than are the
technical areas.
* * * By and large, the research done has been the subject of project-by-project
appropriation, which has meant intense review within the executive branch and
the Congress.
* * * We have learned to engage in elaborate consultation before starting
anything new, not only with other scientists, but with community groups who
are affected by the subject matter of our research. * * *
(4) No major human resource research effort based upon wide-
spread participation by private and university researchers throughout
the Nation has ever been undertaken.
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
1210 FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
But we have not in any sense developed the major network of cooperative ac-
tivity of this kind which should underline our national efforts to cope with our
human resources problems and the pressing issues of how to adjust to change
brought about by technology and science.
(5) There is a deficiency of trained, knowledgeable, and expert re-
searchers in this field in the universities.
This results in part from the shift in emphasis in the universities to the nat-
ural and physical sciences.
(6)
The committee may want to consider whether it would advance work in the
field of human resources research if researchers in this field were to be given
broader responsibilities in carrying out their missions.
(7) The finances-put into the efforts of human relations study groups
are small. The Manpower Development and Training Act has put
somewhat more in this area, but the total amount is still small. Pres-
ent authorizations for expenditure on the part of the Federal Govern-
ment, even when supplemented by State appropriations and Founda-
tion grants, have not created a major national research capability in
the universities. Yet the universities should be a major source of
ideas, experimentation, imagination, and exploration in depth.
I would hope that the committee might explore * * * ways by which we
might bring this about. * * *
(pp. 156,157,161,162)
Federal support of basic research in the social sciences (Calkins)
There is danger of concentrating R. & D. efforts on special programs
in defense, atomic energy, space, medicine, and the natural sciences,
and overlooking needs "that are not apparent and immediately related
to current programs, but which for the longer run may become both
urgent and critical."
In practice there has been little conscious effort to strike a rational
balance between natural science research and social science research.
This is a serious flaw in the present Government effort. Neglect of
social sciences may result in much future "social distress" if we are
unprepared for the changes brought about by scientific and technologi-
cal revolution.
Only 2 percent of Government research money goes to the social
sciences, which
* * * acknowledges neither what expanding knowledge in the social sciences
has contributed to public policy in recent decades, nor what it will be called upon
to contribute in the future.
* * * * * * *
* * * The basic research that still needs to be done to permit an understand-
ing of our social system, its operation and its malfunctioning, is very great, but
the benefits to be expected from such knowledge justify an expanded effort.
* * * * * * *
* * * Though the present research effort reflects certain urgent national
interests, it does not adequately reflect our present or future need for knowledge
concerning the operation of our economic, political, and social system, or con-
cerning the problems of social adjustment that increasingly will have to be faced
over the next generation. Therefore the question of balancing the Federal re-
search effort is a fundamental one for this committee.
(pp. 911-912)
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved Fo , lp seag95~gl&, ~i; RD06 6B0040 3R00010 02?Qpt1-9
Imbalance in Federal research support among the sciences and the
humanities (Aderhold)
The bulk of Federal research support is going to the physical
sciences and engineering, while the life sciences, psychological and
social sciences, and the humanities, receive much smaller amounts.
Emphasis on the physical sciences and engineering has resulted in the
buildup of those areas at educational institutions, while the social
sciences and humanities have "stood still or shrunk."
I do not propose that Federal research and development funds be equally
divided among all these fields. But, I would point to indications today that we
need far more knowledge of the life sciences, the psychological and social sciences,
and humanities, than we now have to cope with an already complex life. To-
morrow, that need may be expected to become intensified.
While this imbalance might be overlooked in a period of crisis, "to
ignore it now would be to court disaster in the future."
(pp. 903-904, 908)
Need for money for research in social sciences and humanities (Rose)
It is suggested that the committee examine what is involved in in-
creasing funds for research in social sciences and humanities. This is
a great need, because only the social sciences can provide knowledge to
cope with our perplexing socio economic, political problems.
Scientists and engineers need wide training in the social sciences and
humanities, and increased support for these areas is required even for
"a reasonable technological program."
(p.793)
Priority of funds for behavioralscience& (Weinberg)
[The low priority for funds for behavioral science was defended
during questioning on the ground that]
compared to a science like physics or a science like biology, the behavioral sciences,
dealing as they do with much more complicated situations, have greater difficulty
in formulating their programs, demonstrating that they know exactly in which
direction to spend large sums of money.
(p.330)
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
VIII. RESEARCH IN MEDICINE AND RELATED FIELDS
A. Medical research
B. Pharmaceutical research
C. Optometric research
A. MEDICAL RESEARCH
? Adequacy of funds for medical research (Rusk)
Funds for medical research are insufficient generally, although in
some areas like cancer research there are exceptions. Shortage of
funds has held back research in some areas, but admittedly there are
other causes of lag.
(pp. 495-496)
Bases for Government expenditures for health research (Feldmann)
Appropriations for health research should be based only in part upon
the need for the research results. They should also be based upon the
facilities and qualified scientists available to implement such pro-
grams.
(pp. 881, 885-886)
The effect of the medical research program on the supply of practicing
physicians (Berson)
The question has been raised concerning the diversion from medical
practice to medical research. Only about 5 percent of each graduating
class goes into research, which is necessary for the future of medicine.
We need more doctors for all activities, but it would be wrong to think
that the way to increase the number of practicing physicians is dis-
couragement of the present 5 percent who go into medical research.
(p. 804)
Effects of Government aid to research on nongovernmental aid
(Rusk)
In the field of health research, Government aid has stimulated
private aid in some instances, and in other cases the latter has tended
to dry up. It takes both kinds of money because the activities they
support are very different, and they complement and supplement each
other.
(pp. 494, 499-500)
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
1214 FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
Federal financing of medical research (Blasingame)
The house of delegates of the American Medical Association at its clinical ses-
sion in November 1962 adopted a report of the AMA Council on Medical Service
which said that Federal research expenditures are a matter of continuing and
growing concern. The council report referred to an earlier adopted policy of the
association which acknowledged that "the mounting problem of proper allocation
of Federal funds for medical research be given particular attention by the
American Medical Association." The house of delegates directed the association
to be watchful of Federal research appropriations and to offer to the congres-
sional committees at the appropriate times the comments of the AMA.
Accordingly, aware of its responsibility in this area, the AMA Board of
Trustees has recently appointed a special committee to consider the subject
of Federal financing of medical research. Representatives of the association's
council on medical education, council on medical service and council on legis-
lative activities will meet with the board of trustees' committee on scientific
activities on December 20, 1963. It is intended that the special committee will
continue to meet from time to time until a comprehensive report may be made
to the AMA Board of Trustees. The knowledge and understanding acquired
by the AMA committee should enable the association to present expert opinion
on the subject of Federal support of medical research.
We trust that at some later date we will have the opportunity of expressing
our further views to the House Select Committee to Investigate Research Pro-
grams. Certainly, the effort of your committee and the review being conducted
should prove helpful to the Nation. We would like to aid that effort in every
way that we can.
(pp. 959-960)
Federal support for hospital construction and medical research (Ber-
son)
Expenditures by the Government in support of these two programs repre-
sent investments in the health of the Nation which pay rich dividends, as has
been amply documented. It is imperative that these programs be continued
and developed further.
(pp. 795, 797)
Federal support for provision of teaching facilities (Berson)
The policy of the Federal Government in providing major support
programs for medical facilities and medical research has complicated
the conduct of medical education because of failure to include support
for teaching facilities as well.
The three components of medical education-teaching, research,
and service-are inseparable, leading to the concept of the medical
center in which the three are united.
The new legislation authorizing Federal aid to medical schools and
loans to students will be an enormous help when it becomes effective.
(pp. 795, 805-807)
Medical education and personnel (Rusk)
Medical research has generally been receiving more funds than
medical education. Help for the latter is greatly needed, because
there is a shortage of physicians in the country and probably will
continue to be. The number of physicians is just about keeping up
with the population.
Especially in the therapeutic fields, with its ancillary services, there
is a need for professionally skilled people.
(pp. 496-497, 501)
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS 1215
Payments of full costs on Federal grants and contracts for the support
of medical research and research training (Berson)
The Association (of American Medical Colleges) continues to recommend that
grants from the National Institutes of Health for the support of research and
research training permit the payment of full cost based upon a formula that will
allow for variations in the costs from institution to institution.
* * * *
(The association also recommends that) as a result of constant study each
year's appropriation for research and research training continue to be adjusted to
the national need, to the availability of the facilities and scientific personnel, and
to the amounts of money that can be spent wisely and efficiently.
* * *
I think the time has come for the Congress to adopt as a*basic
principle that each research grant and pools and
universities bear the full cost of the research it now supports medical schools and
in part.
(During questioning it was brought out that costs of research in
universities average about 29 percent. Medical research is in a more
unfavorable position than physical research because the usual mecha-
nism for assistance is a grant with a fixed allowable cost while in
physical research assistance is commonly obtained through the con-
tract which provides for the research and full costs of doing it as well.)
(pp. 795-796, 797-798, 801-802)
The relative contributions to medical research from the universities,
Government laboratories, and private industry (Berson)
* * * As I see the situation, I can't really say that the Federal dollar buys
more from the intramural programs of the NIII, for example, or from that
supported in universities. I think they are both very important.
The Federal dollar gets good value through expenditure in the NIH
intramural program.
* * * It could be overdone. I do not think that it is overdone at the present
time. You could have too big an intramural program.
Some kinds of research can be done in the independent research
laboratory or in the university.
If you consider the short-range aspects, I don't see much difference in the value
that you get for the dollar.
The problems developed in research relating to a clinical application
must be done in a medical center setting.
But if you consider the longer range dividends, I think that a byproduct of
the Federal support of research in a university medical school may, in the long
run, turn out to be even more important than the immediate direct problem.
What I mean is that the research program enriches the academic environment.
* * * the national byproduct is a continuing supply of young men competent
to carry on this kind of research in the future.
(pp. 802-803)
The research grant for basic medical research (Berson)
A research contract is most useful when specific pathways to the
solution of a research problem are evident,
* * * but this is rarely the case when attacking the fundamental problems
with which medical faculties are concerned. It is through research grants,
rather than contracts, that most Federal funds for the support of research in
medical schools are provided.
26-665-64-pt. 3-10
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
1216 FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
The importance of the research program, as it has evolved under the leadership
and guidance of the NIH [National Institutes of Health], cannot be overempha-
sized.
During the period of rapid growth in the national research effort
the U.S. Public Health Service and the National Science Founda-
tion-
* * * have made excellent, if uneven, progress in developing policies, proce-
dures and staff to handle this complex matter effectively and wisely without in-
terfering with the legitimate prerogatives and objectives of the institutions and
the scientific community. The universities and medical schools have developed
capability for the prudent management of grant funds and the full discharge
of the responsibilities a research grant places upon them.
(pp. 797, 800)
Tmmelag from research to medical practice (Rusk)
Much improvement is needed in getting information of research
discoveries from the laboratory to medical practice. The timelag is
sometimes 12 to 18 months.
(pp.494-495)
Training of medical personnel (Smith)
The training of teachers and research personnel in the medical field
should receive "highest priority."
(p.1040)
B. PHARMACEUTICAL RESEARCH
Division of Government-supported pharmaceutical research between
industry and universities (Feldmann)
Applied research should be carried out primarily by industry, sec-
ondarily by universities.
Basic research should be carried out primarily by universities and
secondarily by the Government as needed to supplement university
research.
It is most effective and efficient to have university researchers en-
gaged in basic research, and industrial researchers in applied research.
(pp. 879-880, 884-885, 896-901)
Role of Government in pharmaceutical research (Feldmann)
In the pharmaceutical field, Government support should, in general,
be limited to basic research.
It is appropriate for Government to support basic research into the
fundamental principles of disease and illness, and into the fundamen-
tal mechanism of drug action. It is not wise for Government to get
involved in the applied research of developing new drugs; in drug
screening, except where necessary to enforcement of the law; or where
an activity is too large for private industry to undertake alone.
* * * it is less wise for the Government * * * to materially or significantly
participate in these [applied research] areas, because there is great need for
additional basic research. If we have the industry, Government, and universities
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For L je QS 5A/ 15 b I RD P66B0040R0 00 01002 00 1-9
all concentrating in the areas of applied research, we are fearful that the neces-
sary basic research on which tomorrow's applied research will be built will
eventually dry up.
(pp. 879-880,881-885,887)
C. OPTOMETRIC RESEARCH
Recognition of optometry as a field of medical science entitled to Fed-
eral support (Jones of HEW)
[In reply to questioning concerning the current unavailability of
Federal research grants to optometrists, the witness stated:]
* * * I don't think the research grant programs have been detrimental to the
interests of optometry.
There are other areas in which relationships similar to those be-
tween medicine and optometry are matters of sensitivity.
(pp.558-561)
Research in optometry, or the problem of control of research by the
medical profession (Ewalt)
Members of the optometry profession have found it difficult to
obtain funds for research, and as a result there is a shortage of per-
sonnel holding Ph. D. degrees in physiological optics, on whom re-
search and the training of teachers is dependent. The difficulty of
obtaining research funds has been hampered by resolution No. 77
passed by the American Medical Association in 1955 which declared
that it is-
unethical for any doctor of medicine to teach in any school or college of op-
tometry, or to lecture to any optometric organization or to contribute scientific
material to the optometric literature, or in any way to impart technical medical
knowledge to nonmedical practitioners.
For example, one research request was turned down on the grounds
that the work was not to be done under medical supervision, yet this
requirement could not be met because of the AMA's resolution.
Optometry's research program has been hampered because all too frequently
we are denied access to Federal funds. Members of the medical profession,
for all practical purposes, control the funds and are bound by the AMA resolu-
tion. This is another case of conflict of interest.
If the schools and colleges of optometry are to make their maxi-
mum possible contributions, they must have Government contract
research and research grants. Congress should specify that certain
amounts of the appropriations for research should be allocated to
optometric institutions. This would attract students interested in
scientific research in the field of vision. To correct the situation, which
also existed for dental research until the founding of the National
Dental Institute under the National Institutes of Health, Congress
should establish a National Optometric Institute as a division of
NIH, or some other agency responsible for research needs of optom-
etry. It should be staffed by psychologists, physiologists, biophysi-
cists, pathologists, neuropsychiatrists, and others as well as' optome-
trists.
(pp. 365-367, 368-370, 377, 379)
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
IX. RESEARCH IN SPECIFIC AREAS
A. Economic problems
B. Miscellaneous
Sociomedical
Materials
Water pollution
International assistance
Resource environments
Political science
A. ECONOMIC PROBLEMS
Balance between military and civilian research (Biemiller)
* * * There are vast areas of our civilian life to which adequate research and
development resources have not been applied because private incentives have
been absent and Government policy has failed to, compensate for their absence.
When private institutions fail to generate the research and development which
the public interest demands, the Government must either increase private incen-
tives or do the job itself. Because we have done neither adequately, very little
is being done to improve urban redevelopment and transportation, to deal with
the growing problem of air and water pollution, to speed up the vitally important
program for the desalination of water, to assist small firms and sick industries
and to raise the level of civilian life in countless other ways.
* * * Few things could enhance the image of America in the eyes of the rest
of the world as much as an all-out attack on the problems of unemployment and
poverty. And few things could contribute as much to the basic strength of
America as the improvement of our human resources through greater expendi-
tures on education and health.
(p. 958)
Development of collective bargaining solutions to problems (Bie-
miller)
We need to experiment with information and guidance services which can
assist unions and employers, upon request, in developing collective bargaining
solutions to the problems created by technological change.
(p.958)
Justification for Federal expenditures on research in the problems of
human resources (Wirtz)
The economist, the statistician, and the sociologist have often been
the men whose research has created new national awareness 'or a change
in attitude that has had the proportions of a social revolution that
has strengthened our basic free institutions.
The entire concept of labor legislation grew out of early research
into the living conditions of workers. The researchers who found a
way to measure unemployment created a national determination to
1219
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
1220 FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
do something about the problem, as legislated in the 1946 Employ-
ment Act. The researchers who figured out how to measure changes in
prices created a reputable and scientific method of helping manage-
ment and labor to adjust wages to changes in living costs. And so on.
Research work on employment and unemployment have brought to
the fore several problems which must be dealt with and which pres-
ently remain unsolved : How shall we provide jobs for inadequately
trained young people? How can minority groups share the general
prosperity? How shall we meet the needs for vast amounts of edu-
cation for the changing character of jobs in our economy? There are
many others-and present research efforts in these areas barely scratch
the surf ace.
Research, focused on these and other economic and social problems,
could be an indispensable tool in finding answers to the shifting prob-
lems of the economy, its workers and managers.
(pp. 160-161)
Need for scientific study of employment and unemployment (Wirtz)
We have had unemployment now at over 5 percent for 6 years. It is
taking on a whole new character because of technology, and it is
centering on the unskilled and the untrained. Its concentration is of
a very different nature than formerly when people were hit by it
about equally all over the country. There is a necessity to find out
more about exactly where the unemployed are and who they are, so
that we will know something more about what to do about them.
The central question is to find out about what is happening to the
idea of work in this country, how it is distributed, how it is concen-
trated, what its relationships to product are.
New indexes need to be developed. For example, there is some
serious question as to whether we are measuring unemployment in
the right way today. There are all kinds of analyses in this area that
have got to be made in the future.
Our present research efforts barely scratch the surface of these
problems.
(pp. 161, 163-165)
Problems arising from increased leisure time (Biemiller)
* * * we need to address ourselves to the host of problems arising from the
more rapid increase in leisure time which is likely to occur within the next
decade.
(p. 958)
Rehabilitation of distressed areas and regions; also advance prep-
aration for technological changes (Biemiller)
We also need to find better ways of rehabilitating distressed areas and regions.
And we need to develop an early warning system which can identify the kinds
of technological changes likely to occur in the future ; describe their effect upon
employment ; and facilitate the development of counselling, training, investment
and other programs necessary to - avoid human suffering and the disruption of
entire communities.
(p. 958)
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS 1221
Relation of R. & D. expenditures to current national economic diffl-
cu,.lties (Biemiller)
The current national economic difficulties can be attributed in part
to an imbalance in spending for R. & D. The development of some
areas has been encouraged while that of other areas of equal im-
portance has been neglected.
More specifically,
* * * American policy during the past decade * * * has shown a one-sided,
almost single-minded, concern for the advancement of technology and produc-
tive efficiency while doing little to facilitate the difficult human adjustments
made necessary by such advancement.
Various aspects of the problem can be summarized as follows:
(a) Technological change has received more favorable treatment
than persons adversely affected by it.
While technological change has been encouraged by granting cor-
porate income tax reductions, investment credits, accelerated depre-
ciation allowances, subsidies and special tax treatment for research
and development, equal attention has not been paid to protecting the
victims of technological chance.
(b) There are 2videspreac effects of spending for defense, atomic
energy and space research activities.
Federal spending for R. & D., although primarily for defense,
atomic energy and space activities, has had influences reaching beyond
these areas, for along with private expenditures for R. & D.,
* * * they have created a revolution in our way of producing goods and
services. They have created an era in which machines are replacing human
judgment and performing incredible production miracles in almost every sector
of our economy. Moreover, they have systematized and speeded up the whole
process of discovery and technological change instead of leaving it to chance
as in the past.
(c) Rapid technological changes produce serious problems of Am-
man readjustment.
When technological changes are slow and moderate, the problems
created can be dealt with without undue hardship. But when they
are far-reaching and rapid and when they occur in a period of slow
economic growth, as has been the case, their effects are "extremely
disruptive and human readjustment is "exceedingly difficult." The
result has been widespread unemployment and in some cases entire
communities have been "left in a state of impoverishment."
(d) No real effort has been made to balance the needs for physical
and social science research.
This failure to put our technology to work properly is not an indication of our
inability to cope with social problems ; it is rather an indication of our unwill-
ingness to devote adequate resources to their solution. We have made no real
effort to balance our need for research in the physical sciences against our need
for research in the social sciences.
Other witnesses appearing before the committee have called attention to this
glaring inadequacy.
[Problem areas requiring further study were enumerated.]
In our view * * * the most significant problem in the area with which this
committee is concerned is not the need for economizing on expenditures for
research and development. It is rather the problem of devoting more research
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15: CIA-RDP6,6B0040 000100230041-9
1222 FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMEN
and development resources to the solution of our great social and economic
problems and the strengthening of civilian life in general.
(pp. 957-958)
B. MISCELLANEOUS
Personnel situation in the field of socio-medical research (Rusk)
Problems of aging population will require a great deal of socio-
medical research. The supply of personnel for this field is "terribly
short." Research is only beginning in the vocational rehabilitation
field because effort has been concentrated on training personnel in
present knowledge, in order to meet the great demand throughout
the country.
(pp. 497-498, 501)
Support of applied research in materials fields (Harris)
In the materials field applied research programs that contribute to
systems development have received only minimum support. Some-
times pragmatic engineering approaches have been used to find solu-
tions for problems that basic research has been unable to solve.
(pp. 830-831, 834)
Adequacy of research into water pollution problem (Representative
Robert E. Jones, Jr.)
The analytical tools and scientific knowledge which served well for the
problems of the past are proving increasingly inadequate in dealing with present
pollution problems and will become more so with foreseeable future problems.
Thus, water pollution research must develop an effective new science while
those who administer the water pollution control programs attempt to hold the
pollution line with available knowledge.
(p. 954)
Engineering and international assistance programs (Harris)
Consideration should be given to determine whether there has been
established an effective relationship between engineering and the
U.S. international assistance programs. Have we allocated sufficient
funds for preinvestment research?,
(pp. 829, 833)
Research on resource environments or environmental systems (Cal-
houn)
Perhaps the most critical research need that has developed in the entire field
of natural resources is the need for research on understanding resource environ-
ments or environmental systems. * * * It is impossible to understand how to
carry on operations within any system unless the system itself can be identified
and described, and its performance characteristics measured. Although we have
recognized the need for research in such broad environments as the atmosphere
and ocean, we are now considering whether more attention is needed for * * *
parks, Indian reservations, hydrological networks, or the crust of the earth.
Now, what I am trying to say is that in nature all of our resource systems can
be viewed similarly, as an organism-not a living organism, certainly, but as an
organized system. And it is fundamental to our evaluation of these systems
and to our statement of policies to effect their healthful existence, to have a
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For ae e 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
D' g L RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS 1223
knowledge of the system as such-what they are made up of, why they exist, how
they function, what their parameters are.
I think in the whole natural resources area this is our most critical need.
(pp. 121, 126)
National Science Foundation's policy toward research in political sci-
ence (Kirkpatrick)
The National Science Foundation, created by Act of Congress on May 10, 1950,
provides research grants and fellowships in psychology, economics, anthropology,
and sociology, but excludes political science completely from its fellowship pro-
gram and virtually excludes it from its research grants and other support. Such
exclusion by the National Science Foundation is without rational justification,
has worked and is working an undue, unfair, and discriminatory hardship on
political science as a discipline and a profession. Thus, the officers and Council
of the American Political Science Association feel that this, NSP policy is, an
appropriate subject for consideration by the Select Committee on Government
Research, with particular reference to the question of the impact of Govern-
ment research programs on the academic community.
The American Political Science Association, through letters and conversation,
repeatedly has sought to get a change in NSF policy. It has had no success.
A change of policy is essential, however, and is certainly one that is in the na-
tional interest.
* The remedy for the existing situation is simple enough. The NSF
made the present policy ; it can change it. NSF should (1) open its fellowship
programs to political science on an equal basis with the other social sciences,
particularly economics, psychology, anthropology, and sociology; and (2) estab-
lish a section for political science, staffed by political scientists, in the Division
of the Social Sciences ; it should be coordinate with those in economics., anthro-
pology, and sociology. If these changes are made, political science will enjoy
the same benefits from NSF as the other social sciences.
In closing, it should be noted that the National Research Council of the Na-
tional Academy of Sciences has reorganized its Division of the Behavioral
Sciences this year to include political science on an equal basis with the other
social sciences. This sets an example that the NSP might well follow.
(pp. 1027, 1029-1030)
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
X. GOVERNMENT-INDUSTRY RELATIONSHIPS IN R. & D.
ACTIVITIES
A. Government-industry relationships
B. Government contracts to industry
C. Patent policy
D. Byproducts of Government R. & D.
A. GOVERNMENT-INDUSTRY RELATIONSHIPS
Alleged superiority of large, over small, firms in pursuit of organized
research (Foley)
It has long been argued that large firms are in a better position to
pursue organized research activities than small firms. The most im-
portant reason given is sheer size because (1) only large firms can
afford to maintain a number of research projects of which only a few
will be successful, and small firms do not have this margin of safety;
(2) small firms face shortage of personnel, have less access to outside
funds, and are unfamiliar with business opportunities outside their own
locale; and (3) economies obtainable in large-scale operations are not
available to small firms, who cannot count on a diversity of research
projects necessary if they are to exploit their discoveries to the utmost.
Although there are some elements of truth in this, the small firm can,
and should, play a larger role in our total research effort. Small busi-
ness has certain inherent advantages: (1) it is more flexible organiza-
tionally and in many cases can exploit development potentialities
neglected by the larger firm; (2) in some of our most important in-
dustries innovations of major economic significance have come from
independent inventors and small firms; (3) many major increases in
productivity have come about through a series of small process and
product changes, well within the capabilities of small business; and
(4) small firms have been creators of a long list of the important com-
mercial inventions of the past century. Even big business concedes
the role of small business in invention and innovation. In short, small
business can provide a meaningful contribution to our national re-
search endeavor.
(pp. 733-734, 738-739, 743-745, 745-747)
Competition with foreign B. ct D. efforts (IIalaby)
In research on commercial aircraft, such as the supersonic transport,
many foreign governments have no compunction about furnishing full
subsidy for development, which they achieve through nationalized
corporations. What is at stake is private enterprise in aeronautical
manufacturing. To meet the challenge to the supremacy of the United
States in the production and sale of commercial aircraft, the Presi-
1225
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15: CIA-RDP66B004W90100230041-9
1226 FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PRO
dent has proposed a Government-industry partnership in which re-
search and development costs are to be shared, and recovered by the
Government and private industry as partners.
(pp. 133-136, 138-140)
Delineation of areas of D. between the Federal Government and
industry (Jones of Esso)
Federal research management should give more attention to the
proper evaluation of research projects. Among the areas of Federal
intervention in research that are questionable are those "which are
not likely to be of commercial utility until 10 to 20 years hence or
even longer," and in particular, "applied research and development
oriented toward the civilian economy." Not only could private in-
dustry make use of the technical talent in programs which might bene-
fit the economy in the more immediate future, there is also the danger
that research programs with long-term objectives may be outdated
by subsequent developments.
* * * this select committee can, I believe, serve a very useful purpose by
focusing attention on the need for careful delineation of those areas of research
and development appropriate to Federal support, and those appropriate to indus-
try support. Some of the management problems now confronting the Federal
Government in research may be minimized if the areas of Federal Government
responsibility for research are spelled out clearly.
(pp.781-782)
Distribution of Federal research assistance to economic and technical
areas (Rose)
I suggest that the committee appoint a * * * task force which will devote
its attention to the problem of redirecting our national research efforts to areas
which will support economic and technical growth of the Nation as a whole-this
to the extent permitted by the need for research in support of weapon and space
development.
(p.793)
Effects of Federal tax policy on industry's R. & D. (Vickers)
In our company [Sperry Rand Corp.] we are convinced that we
must be able to invest adequately in basic and applied research, and
that, to do so effectively, we must make a satisfactory profit after
paying for our in-house research.
Federal policy respecting corporate taxation has a major effect on
what funds remain available for research by industries, and a sub-
stantial reduction in corporation taxes and favorable now tax laws are
looked forward to.
Your committee may wish to explore whether special tax allowances to en-
courage selected explorations by industry have merit, particularly in research
areas that would advance important national objectives.
(p.1066)
Effect of Government-supported research on industry (Bush)
In view of our economic difficulties-insufficient rate of industrial
growth, excess outflow of gold, and international trading problems-
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS 1227
It would be well to find out whether the pressure of Government-supported
research is not now preventing industry from doing its research job well.
(p. 462)
Government-industry relationship in large, mrission-oriented projects
(Vickers)
The closest relationships between Government and industry occur
in the large, mission-oriented projects in which there comes into
being-
an evolutionary mix of concurrent applied research, development and now, gen-
erally, small scale production. Such projects obviously consume the greatest
share of Government-provided funds. It is here that understandable interest
centers on choosing the right project to meet the specified objective, or of decid-
ing whether duplicate projects should be undertaken to, meet the same objective.
Because of the high costs involved, critical choices must be made by Government
not only on what hardware will do the job, but whether the objective itself is
one of national necessity. And it is not infrequent that a more agonizing decision
needs to be made, viz, when to stop a project that is not getting anywhere, is too
costly, or too late.
(pp. 1066-1067)
Incentives for industrial research (Peyton)
An examination should be conducted into the means and incentives
which governments at all levels can use to create the proper environ-
ment to stimulate private enterprise to do increased research.
Given the necessary incentives, the private sector of the economy will perform
much of the research now being funded by the Government.
(p. 1034)
Joint responsibility of Government and private industry for certain
programs (pIollomon)
Here I think recently we have come into the most trouble. Like Dr. Wiesner,
I am convinced that we are inadequately supporting those things that have to
do with our civil side of our life and our technology and our economy. But in
these cases we must insure that we do this, if the Federal Government partici-
pates, without taking away the initiative of the private enterprise.
When the technology applies to a general activity that benefits the whole of
the public, or is so costly that individual support is not feasible or sufficient, or
when its benefits are too diffuse to warrant individual support alone, then Gov-
ernment has a role to play.
Examples of these various situations are (1) agricultural research,
(2) R. & D. in the communications satellite and supersonic transport
programs, and (3) early support of atomic energy and aviation tech-
nology.
As technology matures, however, participation by private enterprise should
expand. Questions then have to be asked as to the rate at which the Federal
Government should withdraw from the support of the technology. Elimination
of vested interests, or of technological featherbedding, or scientific feather-
bedding, is a problem not unlike that in private industry.
The "civilian industrial technology program" in the Department of
Commerce is designed to catalyze the support of technology by indus-
try and to examine those factors in the environment which retard the
rapid use of technology for industrial development.
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
1228 FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
I am convinced that the benefit to the country as a whole as well as to private
industry of an increased industrial technology effort far outweighs the private
and public costs.
(pp. 292-293,296-297)
Nature of relationship between Government and industry (Haber)
The Government-industry relationship should be considered as a partnership,
rather than a competition, and improvements in this partnership should use the
incentives inherent in the free-enterprise system.
(pp. 605-606,608)
Relationship between Government agencies and civilian scientists
(Murray)
The relationship between Government research officers and civilian
scientists has changed in the past years, until now scientists solicit
Government agency support more often than the agencies go to the
scientists with research problems. This relationship warrants more
consideration and recognition.
(p. 457)
Relationship of Government R. d D. to industry R. cC D. (Killian)
Several problem areas can be distinguished in the relationship be-
tween Government and industry :
(1) What has been the effect on the utilization of scientists and en-
gineers on the Federal R. & D. carried on by industry, and on indus-
try's own privately financed R. & D.?
(2) Have the growth and policies of the Government's R. & D. pro-
gram been a cause of the decrease in the rate of growth of R. & D.
financed by industry?
(3) Has the Federal R. & D. program caused a rise in the cost of
research so that industry has had to hold back its own research?
(4) R. & D., whether privately or federally supported, which is
sponsored by industry is concentrated in a few industries. Can Gov-
ernment encourage industry in a wide utilization of research in
industry ?
(p. 758)
The relatively small proportion of Government R. & D. assigned to
small business (Foley)
Small firms should have a larger role in the Government's R. & D.
efforts. The portion of Federal R. & D. money received by small busi-
ness is below its capabilities, and is an insignificant amount of the whole
spent by the Federal Government on R. & D. A few large companies
receive a high proportion of the research money. A 1960 survey by
the National Science Foundation indicated that the largest firms, rep-
resenting only 3 percent of the total, accounted for 90 percent of fed-
erally financed R. & D., while the small firms (those with less than
1,000 employees) representing 90 percent of the total number, ac-
counted for only 5 percent of federally financed R. & D. Yet the
small firms employed 10 percent of the available R. & D. scientists and
engineers. Surely they are capable of obtaining a larger share of this
work.
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS 1229
I am concerned about this statistic and I am confident that Congress shares
my concern. My position is that small business has proven to be an efficient
performer when it has had an opportunity to participate in prime contract
awards. Its capability to perform in this area of Government expenditures is
greater than the very minor role it has experienced. However, I fully realize
that it is impractical for Government agencies involved in research and develop-
ment activities to be bound with a mandate stating a fixed percentage be awarded
to small business. That is beyond the limit that we would care to go. Such
a mandate would only divert Government agencies with research responsibilities
from their main objectives. It would neither be desirable for the economy nor
good for the taxpayer. There are other avenues of approach. (This was fol-
lowed by an explanation of the various methods used by the Small Business
Administration to improve the position of small business.)
(pp. 739-741, 744)
The responsibility of private research in the national research effort
(Jones of Esso)
In summary, we would like to urge that the committee give careful considera-
tion to the desirability of making the national research and development effort
more efficient,and effective by stimulating and encouraging private enterprise to
take on the responsibility and expense of a larger portion of the total national
research effort for the benefit of the national economy. Such an approach will
place the responsibility for research and development on those parts of our
American system which are in the best position to exercise this responsibility.
(p. 784)
Use of private industry for Government research, (Vickers)
* * * We feel that your committee might want to consider whether present
Government-industry relationships an basic and much applied research tends to
discourage industry from "selling" its scientific capabilities to the Government.
Many industrial research directors find themselves "locked out", believing that
such advanced research sponsored by the Government is the exclusive province
of the Government laboratory, the university or the tax-exempt institution.
Others are hesitant to mount a complex marketing task to seek out potential
business from myriad agencies, to expend the time of their most valuable re-
search workers in the risks and frustrations of current bidding procedures, and
to compete against agencies or universities which appear to have a built-in
competitive advantage.
The use of broad area, support-type contracts with reasonable overhead allow-
ances deserves serious consideration. Industry is quite capable of supplying a
greater share of advanced research to Government, provided means of funding
this research are improved.
(p. 1066)
The bidding process in letting Government contracts for performance
of research by private industry (Vickers)
One aspect of large-scale defense projects which is worthy of con-
sideration is the extensive investment by industry in the competitive
bidding process involved in selecting one or more contractors for a
development assignment. -Competitive bidding of this type
* * * is a high-risk situation, and winners and losers of contracts alike are
making multi-million-dollar expenditures each year. Much of this cost is borne
by industry. * * * Since only the winner may profit, the other contenders have
suffered a dilution of profit. We feel that more efficient means of procurement
should be encouraged.
(p. 1067)
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
The concept of profits in negotiated contracts between Government
and industry (Vickers)
The Department of Defense merits commendation for its new regu-
lation, ASPR 3-808. It greatly expands the principles involved in
the negotiation of profits and fees on negotiated contracts. Briefly,
it gives contractors opportunity to earn profits commensurate with
risk, increases rewards for good performance records, and rewards
contractors who provide their own facilities and financing or who
have made prior pertinent contributions in It. & D. at their own risks.
If this regulation is administered throughout the contracting process in the
spirit expressed in this policy [ASPR 3-808.1 policy], it will most assuredly
be in the national interest. * * *
We should point out, however, that other modifications to procurement policies
are needed also. * * * Profits obtained from Government contracts become
progressively lower as one goes from production to development to applied re-
search to basic research-and frequently the latter two are done at a loss. We
believe your committee will feel with us that this is not a satisfactory situation
for either Government or industry.
Finally, there are objections to the present section XV of the Armed
Services Procurement Regulations which, although it does not in itself
seem unreasonable, has been unsatisfactory in application because it
in fact makes cost sharing mandatory. The restrictive effect of man-
datory cost sharing limits the potential benefits which industry could
contribute to the economy. The committee might be interested in see-
ing a constructive outcome to the current attention being given to re-
vising the regulations.
(pp. 1067-1068)
The cost of independent P. &c D. as an overhead item in defense con-
tracts (Haughton)
There are certain costs that are completely excluded from overhead. We
cost share sometimes on the basis of it all comes out of profit, what we call share.
It is a matter of negotiation with the agency that we are doing business with.
In other instances the agencies that we do business with in the Government
will allow a portion of the cost of this research to go into our overhead. Now
this doesn't mean that we recover everything in overhead, because we have
straight fixed price contracts, and we have fixed price incentive, and we have
cost-plus incentive, and then we have in some of the R. & D. work, we have CPFF
[cost plus fixed fee], so it goes across this wide range. But it means that part
of the cost goes into the overhead and goes into the Government contract.
Sometimes this costs the Government something. Other times it doesn't cost
the Government anything.
In making a contract with the Government, the cost of research is
added in as a part of the cost of services to the Government. It is not
added on a profit basis but as a part of overhead.
[It was asked whether, if the cost of personnel salaries for research
should run 10 to 20 percent above the average for the industry, that
would be added in as part of the overhead. In reply the witness said:]
"The cost of their salaries, yes." [When asked whether it did not
matter how much these people doing research were paid, if the com-
pany wanted them for special jobs, because Uncle Sam would pick up
the tab, there was this reply:]
Uncle Sam picks it up on certain kinds of contracts and certain kinds of con-
tracts we pick it up on * * * a lot of these jobs that we win we bid them. * * *
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved FA ># t1M >Q R/gD: gh5 gfJE B0 0403R000101231 41-9
we have more competitors than just in the aerospace industry now. * * * there
are a lot of people doing work for the Government other than just the aerospace
industry.
(pp. 104, 10'6-107)
Criteria other than size to be used in awarding contracts to "small
businesses" (Foley)
R. & D. contracts should not be taken away from big firms merely to
be given to small firms, nor should any definite percentage of contracts
be reserved for small business.
The Small Business Administration has not attempted a geographi-
cal diversification of contracts to small business.
Other important factors, in addition to size, include the experience
of the leading members of the firm, their financial competence, their
previous relationships with either Government or industry in terms
of success.
(pp. 747-749)
Disadvantage of small firms in contract negotiation (Foley)
Some smaller concerns do not take the trouble to bid on contracts,
because they believe they have no chance to win-there is "just a com-
plete feeling of frustration."
Small firms often have to hire outside help to aid them in the com-
plicated processing of a bid for a Government contract, because the
requirements are so complicated. Large concerns, however, can keep
experts for negotiating purposes, at Government expense.
(p. 745)
Method of letting contracts to industry (Ilalaby)
There are certain principles which should be more widely applied
in issuing contracts to industry. In development contracts, the pri-
vate contractor should share the cost because he may share in the
benefit. In some cases the Government should get a royalty on the
products that evolve from the contractor's developmental work.
(p. 130)
Negative effects of small applied research contracts (Ila.ber)
The small size and short duration of applied research contracts
have the following effects upon an industrial research laboratory :
1. Compartmentalization of effort, which frustrates interaction and inter-
disciplinary activities.
2. Difficulty in attracting the best personnel, who tend to avoid such an
atmosphere because of its instability.
3. Inefficient use of technical personnel on proposal writing and negotiations
for small contracts.
Recognizing that many projects are small and isolated in nature,
the present system has tended to fractionize research effort more than
necessary. Wherever appropriate, the continuity of research efforts
and extensions over longer periods of time should be encouraged.
(p. 607)
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R2#0100230041-9
1232 FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
C. PATENT POLICY
Patent Policy (Smith)
Government should develop a realistic patent policy, so planned and
developed as to encourage cooperation between industry-supported
researchers and Government-supported scientists.
Government contractors, even though using Government research
money, should receive "fair and adequate exclusivity" for the results
of their research work in recognition of the fact that they were chosen
by the Government because of their "superior facilities, know-how and
inventive genius." Such arrangements spur incentive for future work.
(pp. 1038, 1040)
Protection of private investment in products of private research
(Vickers)
Laws involving acquisition without compensation of rights for the
Government in data and inventions developed with private research
funds, have brought an alarming reduction in protection of private
investment in research.
Many of these laws, policies and practices not only discourage investment of
private funds, but when such funds are committed, the cost and risk of the
private research and development is increased. Congress has already heard
much testimony to the effect that this situation is not in the best interest of
the Government. We trust that this important aspect of the Government-
industry relationship will be given attention by your committee.
(p. 1066)
Small business and patents and proprietary rights (Foley)
Small firms feel that they have been dealt with unfairly in the area
of proprietary rights and patents.
Because of their small portion of Government-financed R. & D., small
firms have less access to research byproducts. Prime contractors can
more often obtain patents and processes which they can exploit
commercially.
Congress made its intentions clear in section 9(b) (2) of the Small
Business Act, with instructions to the Small Business Administration
to assist small business concerns in obtaining such benefits.
(pp. 733, 741)
D. BYPRODUCTS OF GOVERNMENT R. & D.
Corollary benefits of the Federal research programs (Haber)
The first of these is the technical contribution that defense, space, and atomic
energy programs have made to industrial activities and consumer products. * * *
(There is) another legacy of perhaps equal importance, This is the ability,
on the part of the Government-industry team, to manage and complete very large
projects of extreme technical complexity. This capability is available for other
future challenges that may be altogether outside the realm of atomic energy,
defense, and space. * * *
Owing to the size and scope of these programs (several possible programs are
cited), planning and financing would require Government participation. The
skills and techniques to undertake such tasks already exist in the Government-
industry partnership developed in the course of our defense, space, and atomic
energy programs.
(p. 608)
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved ,?S&Le ESEAOR IOA/ND : CIA PDi1PENBPROORRMOOO1Q42, 0041-9
Effectiveness of converting R. & D. into practical products (Vickers)
Research and development is viewed as a pyramid of four parts. At
the top is basic research; the greater the incentive for the researcher
to put his findings to use, the closer he approaches the next segment
of the pyramid. The next segment is applied research which carries
forward the application of scientific principles toward ultimate pro-
duction of useful results. The third segment is development, and the
fourth section or base of the pyramid is production.
This, in our view, must be the paramount and ultimate goal of the whole re-
search and development process. It is through the production and distribution of
the fruits of research and engineering that each citizen-who in fact pays for the
whole effort-receives the benefits for which he pays.
If the committee concurs with this premise, then the emphasis in its appraisal
of Government's role in research and development should be upon how effective
is the process of converting research and development into practical end products
serving the Nation. Inasmuch as only industry is or should be exclusively in-
volved in the functions of production, sale, and distribution, it is apparent that
the interfaces between the four segments of the pyramid and thus also of the
Government-industry relationship become of utmost importance.
(pp. 1064-1065)
Finding useful byproducts of R. & D. (Halaby)
More attention should be given to getting double duty out of de-
velopment dollars by gleaning new products and byproducts of re-
search. Just as in industry, in the various agencies there should be
someone constantly watching for things that can be picked out of the
research and development programs and made usable for civil appli-
cations.
(p. 131)
Relationship between the military and industry in use of results of
defense R. & D. (Teller)
(A member of the committee questioned the witness concerning
(1) the charge that too much time and attention are devoted to mili-
tary R. & D. at the expense of the civilian economy; and in particular
to (2) the charge that the military, under the guise of security require-
ments, do not release results of R. & D. for civilian use.)
I am under the impression that there has been a conscientious effort and an
effort that has paid off to make available the results of our military research
to our economy. One example is the development of our planes. * * *
I do not deny that there may have been cases where better, earlier availability
would have been of help. But in general I think this charge is based on an
exaggeration, I mean the charge that military developments are not available
to the civilians. This is an exaggeration.
In one respect, however, the charge may be valid, but this is not due
to action of the armed forces.
* * * We have laws, very restrictive laws, concerning security. In many
areas you are not allowed to communicate to the industry unless it is first clearly
and completely proven that publication cannot possibly hurt our country. Such
proof is immensely hard to get.
* * * * * * *
I believe that at any rate the burden of proof should be on the other side.
Things should be open, unless proved to be dangerous. * * * The willingness
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
1234 FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
for cooperation is there. The practice of cooperation is there. But some of our
laws make the cooperation unnecessarily difficult.
(pp. 942-944, 951)
Usefulness of military and space R. & D. in the civilian economy
(Foley)
Most Government R. & D. work is directed toward national defense.
For the most part, the implications (the spillover) of military tech-
nology for civilian uses are largely unexplored. The Small Business
Administration is conducting such explorations, and is working with
the National Science Foundation, the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, and the Department of Commerce to supply small
business concerns with usable information derived from Govern-
ment-funded R. & D. The SBA is conducting several services for
transmitting such information to small business.
It must be recognized that the knowledge gained from Government expendi-
tures in space and military research and development can, in many cases, be
transferred directly into industrial application. This information contains the
potential for creating new industrial techniques, materials, products, and
processes. If assimilated properly, it can exert a profound influence on our
civilian technology. The Federal Government, therefore, has an obligation to
develop a workable system of utilizing this enormous reservoir of scientific
information so that its benefits can be transmitted to businessmen both large
and small in order to provide the ingredients necessary for an accelerated
growth in our civilian economy. *
(pp. 741-712)
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
XI. MANPOWER, SCIENTIFIC AND ENGINEERING
A. Allocation and utilization of manpower
B. Competition for manpower
C. Developing manpower
D. Scientific freedom
E. Shortage of manpower
F. Conflict of interest
A. ALLOCATION AND UTILIZATION OF MANPOWER
Allocation and utilization of limited scientific and engineering re-
sources (Jones of Esso)
It is doubtful whether the fraction of national resources devoted
to science and engineering can be increased "simply by making more
money available', and it is questionable whether the greatly in-
creased R,. & D. effort now in the preliminary stages will yield bene-
fits to the national welfare commensurate with its costs. More im-
portant than the expenditure of money is the proper allocation of the
limited supply of scientific and engineering resources which is avail-
able. [The resources referred to are primarily "creative, imaginative,
inventive, innovative people who spark the research and development
programs."]
The Nation has in the last quarter-century developed a very large
research and development capacity.
However, it is my opinion that we have not coupled research production with
the rest of the civilian economy in a satisfactory manner. We are still learning
how to plan and use research so that the results can be of the most timely value
to the economy as a whole.
(pp. 781, 785)
Allocation of manpower to different areas of R. c& D. (Haworth)
* * * Whereas funds for .military research and development are equivalent to
and, therefore, interchangeable with funds for other military purposes, the same
is not true of our resources of scientific and engineering personnel. They are
not interchangeable with production or military manpower and our total is
limited in extent. We must, therefore, be careful not to overuse this resource
in any single area to the serious detriment of others.
(pp. 12, 14, 20)
Brainpower waste (Brown)
An individual's talent may be wasted if he shifts around agencies
and programs too frequently, or if he changes from one field of research
in which he is very experienced to one in which he is less so. Changing
from one to another program, however, is not necessarily wasteful
unless it happens too often.
(pp.181-182)
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
1236 FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
Impact of military and space R. cfi D. on civilian economy (Kistiakow-
sky)
Effect of use of major portion of our scientific and technical person-
nel on military and space problems :
(a) Partial responsibility for slow growth of the civilian economy,
and
(b) Partial responsibility for inhibiting the growth of privately
financed research and development because of the consequent rise in
cost of It. & D.
(pp. 610-611)
Manpower utilization (Killian)
Proper manpower utilization is more important than the way we
allot our It. & D. dollar. The Government should always consider
manpower utilization in the advance planning of its large It. & D.
programs. It should avoid policies and procedures leading to in-
efficient deployment of personnel, overemphasizing one area at the
expense of another, stockpiling, and so on. Since 60 percent of all
scientists and engineers in It. & D. in the United States are working
wholly or in part on programs or projects financed by the Federal
Government, the Government has a major responsibility in manpower
utilization.
We urgently need more information about manpower utilization.
At the request of the President, a committee sponsored by the Na-
tional Academy of Sciences, of which I [Killian] serve as chairman, is
studying the subject and hopes to report early in 1964.
(pp.757,762-763)
Misuse of scientific personnel (Bush)
* * * I do not think there is any danger in the basic field of getting a good
scientist to work on the wrong thing. * * * I know perfectly well you cannot get
a basic scientist to work on anything unless he is genuinely interested. * * * He
will pick his own problems if he is any good.
The big engineering organizations have to be run in the way you
would run any business, and there men get put on to things that they
do not think worthwhile. It is bound to happen.
(p.466)
Results of overex-penditures for research (Bush)
* * * If the country pours enough money into research, it will inevitably sup-
port the trivial and the mediocre. The supply of scientific manpower is not
unlimited.
[In questioning, the belief was expressed that] we have already
reached the point "where our support of research exceeds the supply of
first-rank scientists."
(pp. 461,463-464,467)
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS 1237
B. COMPETITION FOR MANPOWER
Alleged pirating of scientists from private industry by the Govern-
ment research programs (Haughton)
In 1955 the divisions of the Lockheed Aircraft Corp. employed a total of 8,300
scientists, engineers, and supporting personnel In research and development
work, representing about 17 percent of our total labor force. By 1962 this
group of research and development employees had increased to 27,000, about one-
third of our total labor force.
I don't think they [the Government programs] are pulling scientists from us.
To be real honest and straight about that, we might be on the other side of that.
We might be hiring scientists that would otherwise be employed in other industry.
* * * However, I think there has been an increase in the recognition of scien-
tists, and I think this will adjust itself as time goes on. But I guess we have
done this with our programs. We have pulled scientists from other places, be-
cause we have increased our scientists.
[Replying to the question of overbidding for the services of scientists
and technicians, the witness stated:]
I don't believe we pay more than the going rate in our industry.
(pp.104,105-106,108-109)
Competition between Government and non-Government establishments
for scientific personnel (Jones of HEW)
The present salary ceiling for scientific personnel in Government is
too low to enable the Government to obtain the number and kind of
scientists it needs.
As to NIH, its problems are related to a lack of competitive situation with even
educational institutions now for the services of competent scientists who are
available.
The salary ceiling of $20,000 is considerably below what is the going rate for
competent medical scientists in most of our institutions, and certainly in our
commercial research laboratories.
(pp.553-554)
Competition for brainpower (Brown)
Now agencies and programs frequently draw scientific talent away
from other agencies and programs to the latter's detriment. This is
a significant problem in some cases. Of course, if Congress changes
the relative amount of research funds appropriated to the agencies,
it expresses its judgment as to the relative importance of the pro-
grams, and resulting shifts of scientific personnel are inevitable.
(pp. 181-182)
Effects of Government research programs on manpower supply
(Haworth)
* * * Certainly the work of the Government in defense and space and so forth
has created a competition for scientists and engineers. * * * and certainly
scientists and engineers are in some disciplines in short supply in total, and I
think in most disciplines there is need for more highly qualified scientists and
engineers.
* * * I don't think that one could say that Government research has pulled
people away from industry any more than industry research has pulled people
away from Government research. I think it is just a competition * * *.
(p.49)
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
1238 FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
Increase in salaries of scientific personnel (Shaw)
The need to pay scientists salaries "that are commensurate with
their worth" is a problem in the Agricultural Research Service.
Passage of the 1962 Federal Salary Reform Act which removed the
ceiling on supergrades for scientific positions in Government promises
to help meet this need. This, coupled with the salary increases pro-
vided in 1962, has notably improved the situation. Federal salary
legislation now pending before Congress will be of further assistance
in competition for top quality scientists.
(p. 208)
Necessity of attracting the best minds to the public service (Wiesner)
Several studies have dealt with this problem. 1962 congressional
action has helped the situation with respect to adequate salaries. How-
ever, there is a special problem that affects the salary of top executives.
Reports have dealt with this particular aspect of the problem.
High quality, prudent and thrifty management will not follow automatically
from wise legislation, careful appropriations, or even direct orders by the Presi-
dent. Implementation of Presidential and congressional intent ultimately rests
on the shoulders of Federal staff. * * * I would urge that this Committee recog-
nize the direct relationship of Federal staffing to the quality of science and
technology programs with which your study is concerned.
(pp.263-264)
Need for improved pay. and personnel policies in Federal Govern-
ment (Killian)
Inadequate Government pay scales and personnel policies make it
difficult for Government to attract and keep technically competent ad-
ministrators. Such personnel is necessary to improved Federal R. &
D. programs. The committee should give special attention to ways
whereby good management in the national R. & D. effort can be en-
couraged and recognized.
(pp. 757-758)
Salaries of scientific personnel (Bush)
With the greatly increased amount of Federal funds available for
science, there is a danger that the competition for personnel will force
salaries indefinitely upward, making it difficult for industry and non-
profit institutions who do not get Federal funds to compete.
(p.462)
Waste of scientific personnel through competitive contracting
(von Braun)
Competition among industrial teams for major space contracts ties
up a lot of top talent making proposals and studies to put them in a
good competitive position. Often these people do not carry through
on implementation of the programs they proposed when a contract
is secured, but start work drafting new proposals.
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS 1239
This competition is a very healthy thing because it brings the best
ideas to the fore. It is highly desirable because it forces everyone to
try to be a little better than the competitor.
(p. 532)
C. DEVELOPING MANPOWER
Basic research in advanced training of scientists and engineers
(Waterman)
One final but no less important aspect of basic research is that it is an
essential ingredient in the advanced training of scientists and engineers. Its
natural habitat is the colleges and universities where these are trained and where
the association of young inquisitive minds gives added impetus and effectiveness
to the research performed.
(pp. 812, 817)
The competence of applied scientists (Teller)
Newly graduated scientists generally wish to engage professionally
in pure research and teaching, and the newly graduated engineers are
well trained for development work. Between the two, the education
of applied scientists is neglected. In our few "very wonderful"
applied science laboratories, the talented recruits from the universities
have to be retrained for their jobs in the laboratory.
Why do I say this? Our universities train excellent specialists, mathemati-
cians, physicists, chemists, but the chemist doesn't understand the mathema-
tician. The mathematician doesn't understand the physicist, and sometimes I
believe the physicist doesn't understand anybody.
We need people, we need specialists who can understand each other's: language,
who can cooperate, and we need particularly people with general education in
the physical sciences, who can lead these cooperative efforts, which are char-
acteristic of the great discoveries, the great Inventions of the last few decades.
* * * It is my opinion that general research and development needs support,
needs support which is criticized carefully and in detail, but perhaps what our
national effort needs most is a decent supply of applied scientists who can take
the wonderful insights of the pure scientist and turn them into practical appli-
cations. If this can be accomplished, then the United States will take first
place in applied science. On this effort our future may depend in several im-
portant respects.
[The witness described a new course in applied science which he is developing
at the University of California.]
(pp. 941-942, 946-949, 951)
Developing scientific manpower through aid to higher education
(Harris)
The Federal Government can help to develop scientific manpower
through direct educational grants and fellowships, as well as by basic
research projects. Recent appropriations cuts in Congress "eliminated
almost all of the exciting new proposals for graduate educational sup-
port. A suggested means of dealing with future programs of a sim-
ilar purpose might be revealed by a case study to determine how such
appropriations cuts have affected proposed graduate programs in
engineering, mathematics, and physics.
(pp. 831, 836)
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
1240 FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
National manpower needs (Kerr)
The educational system is in most trouble at the bottom and at the
top. At the bottom, occupational training, retraining, counseling, guid-
ance, and relocation are needed to provide skills valuable in a dynamic
economy where skill levels are rising at perhaps the fastest rate in
history. Full employment is the necessary complement to make such
training effective.
At the top, the Nation needs more research activity in a number of fields
and more highly skilled personnel-particularly engineers, scientists, mathemati-
cians, teachers, and medical doctors. The most recent Bureau of Labor Sta-
tistics survey shows that from now to 1970 the expected supply of engineers
and scientists will fill only three-quarters of the demand. This is a very large
gap. The prospective situation is particularly critical for engineers.
Fortunately, the levels where Federal aid is most necessary are levels where
Congress has been most supportive.
(pp.1024-1025)
Need for engineers of broader professional training (Haber)
Engineers' professional education does not include enough training
in applied R. & D. translating formal knowledge into workable and
economic products and systems. This should begin at the university
level, rather than being delayed until the engineer's subsequent em-
ployment.
(p. 608)
Need for scientific talent to support increased R. & D. functions
(Furnas)
The proportion of Federal R. & D. money relative to the gross na-
tional product (presently about 3 percent) cannot increase significantly
in the future until the number of "top talent" scientists and engineers
is increased through university education. The present level of Fed-
eral support does not constitute an undue proportion of the GNP, nor
is it a great financial burden. Logically Federal R. & D. expenditures
should continue to rise, but the proportion relative to the GNP is con-
ditioned on production of scientific manpower.
(p. 1009)
Relationship between R. cC D. needs for manpower and the general
manpower situation (Calhoun)
* * * the role of research in our society is closely related to the development
of creative people. Inasmuch as these cannot be separated it is necessary to
consider research and development needs in parallel with manpower needs. Ap-
propriations to one segment of research, by its existence alone, can draw man-
power from another area of research. The possibility exists of placing natural
resources research contracts with universities in such a manner as to achieve
the maximum development of needed manpower for supplying the Federal re-
search and management program in these fields. Interior's program has little
flexibility for achieving such a goal at the present time.
(p. 120)
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS 1241
D. SCIENMuc FREEDOM
Freedom of scientific investigation under Federal grants (Berson)
Immediately after World War II there was concern in the academic
and scientific community that the freedom of individual investigators,
and of the institutions in which they worked, might be so severely
restricted by governmental regulation and supervision as to interfere
seriously with the productiveness of scientific research. The policies
of the National Institutes of Health have, however,
* * * proved so farseeing and imaginative that this did not come to pass,
and the scientific community soon achieved a sense of great confidence in the
wisdom and soundness of the program. From the outset, the National Institutes
of Health organized a system of close scientific and administrative supervision
through their own staff and through study sections, as well as various councils.
(pp. 796, 799)
Improper use of scientific personnel by the Government (Thomas)
(The question was raised as to whether scientists employed by the
Federal Government are properly utilized in terms of their qualifica-
tions.)
A scientist in Russia might have to do what he is told,
But this being a free country, if a man makes a choice of doing something
that he doesn't want to do, just because of the facts, where the money is or
something like that, this is a free choice. I wouldn't respect the man as a
scientist. I might respect his economic judgment, but, of course, that is as far
as I would go.
Since the stated purpose of this committee is to see that Federal
research money is well spent, there is a question whether giving scien-
tists more freedom would, or would not, make our research activities
more efficient and effective. The extent to which Government scien-
tists do, or do not, have freedom in their work is of importance,
particularly if by comparison with their degree of freedom in non-
governmental research.
(pp. 415-417)
Maintenance of balance between controls and scientific freedom (Jones
of HEW)
A balance must be maintained between prudent expenditure of re-
search funds and safeguarding of scientific freedom.
Some scientists have expressed concern that these controls (designed to
insure the prudent expenditure of research funds) may jeopardize the freedom
of the research scientist essential for productive and creative scientific achieve-
ment. We are confident that this delicate balance between prudence and freedom
will be appropriately safeguarded.
(pp. 539-540)
Scientific freedom (Heald)
Finally, I think it cannot be overemphasized that the quality of research-
especially research that leads to breakthroughs in knowledge and understand.
ing-is vitally dependent on the freedom of the researcher.
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
1242 FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
The Ford Foundation has subsidized a study concerning the basic
freedoms that a scientist needs in order to conduct effective research.
It is being conducted by a committee of the National Academy of
Science, under the chairmanship of Dr. Kistiakowsky.
(pp. 388, 404)
Scientific freedom (von Braun)
* * * I respectfully suggest that the paramount consideration is that our
basic research efforts continue to move forward as swiftly as possible, without
administrative obstruction, without bureaucratic delay. This can be done only
if we assure to the scientist his freedom to pursue truth. * * *
Any corrective measures taken to improve research should not ham-
per scientific freedom, but nurture scientific talent. Pure science
must be an open society, self-regulating, not regulated by any Federal
control agency.
(p.516)
E. SHORTAGE OF MANPOWER
Availability of scientific talent (Furnas)
The reservoir of scientific talent is being depleted more rapidly than
it is being filled. This situation bears directly on some very serious
problems of higher education.
(p. 1007)
Manpower shortage (Levin)
(In response to a question whether or not we had enough people
trained to enter the teaching and research fields, if very large new
centers were established, the response was in the negative.)
No, I think we are getting shorter and shorter and this is one of the great
virtues of the Federal program of training. * * *
While there are some people today who are not doing all the re-
search they could do now and who could use additional support, there
is also a
* * * need to train more at an accelerated pace, in order to keep up with the
times, or we are going to find ourselves in trouble along about 1975, or so.
(In response to a question whether it would be unwise to build addi-
tional research centers if people were not available to man them, the
witness stated that by the time the facilities were available, the peo-
ple for this purpose would be available.)
(pp. 600-601)
Need for brainpower (Brown)
More researchers must be trained. There is probably not enough
trained manpower to develop more research programs. In the long
run research has always repaid the effort that is put into it.
(p. 181)
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
Need for graduate-level engineers (Killian)
The high priority assigned to basic research in the university does
not mean that applied research is not important. For example, the
National Science Foundation has recognized what might be called
"basic engineering research" to be conducted in engineering schools.
It is urgent that United States increase the quality and quantity of
engineers at the graduate level with training in research "which in-
volves making things work."
(p. 755 )
Need for scientific generalists (Collbohm)
Colleges need to develop more scientific generalists, able to apply a
number 'of different disciplines to the solution of problems in. order to
improve the rate at which we progress. During the past few years
there has been an increasing application of techniques, methods, and
tools developed in one field of science, to others-what we call the
interdisciplinary use of knowledge.
(p. 724)
Scarcity of highly trained manpower (Fisk)
Quality in this type of manpower is of the highest importance. Much fine
work has been devoted by the National Science Foundation to encouraging an
awareness of and a respect for quality in both scholarship and teaching. It may
well turn out that quality-as well as the scope-of our scientific and engineer-
ing teaching is one of the prime national resources possessed by our country.
It is difficult to find personnel who are able to work in the zone be-
tween engineering and the sciences at a sufficiently high level of skill.
Bell Laboratories find it necessary to require that the newly hired
college graduate with bachelor's degree in engineering complete a
graduate program, at the company's expense, leading normally to a
master's degree or higher.
(pp. 1002-1003)
Scientific manpower (Harris)
One of the important issues which the committee should consider
relates to scientific manpower.
To what extent are we limited by manpower in the research and development
that we can carry on ; what are the resources of competent individuals who can
be retrained in order to be effective in research and development programs of
great national urgency? It is as necessary that we not underestimate the na-
tional potential to do research as that we do not overcommit these critical
manpower resources.
(pp.828,832)
Shortage of scientists (DuBridge)
There is no question there has been a great shortage of scientists and
engineers in the last few years, and that there is competition between
Government, industry, and universities in getting the best ones, but
"healthy competition is a good thing in general."
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
1244 FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
All we have to be careful of is that we are not trying to get more research
done than there are people to do it, and I don't think in the field of basic research
we have yet reached that stage.
(p. 315)
Shortage of supporting help for professional scientific staff (Shaw)
Shortage of junior scientists, subprofessional help, and labor to assist
senior scientists constitutes a problem to the Agricultural Research
Service.
(p. 208)
Conflict of interest as it affects review of R. d D. programs (Water-
man)
In the selection and use of experienced and competent consultants
and advisory committees, the problem of resolving conflict-of-interest
issues is a "most perplexing" one.
In principle, conflict of interest must be scrupulously avoided, especially by
the Government, for obvious reasons. However, when carried to its extreme, this
means that no expert can qualify for consulting service if he is receiving any
direct or indirect support from the Government for R. & D. projects or programs
which relate to his consulting. Since in carrying out the R. & D. programs which
the Government supports it is obviously important to secure the services of the
ablest individuals in the field, rigorous application of this extreme policy means
disqualification of this top group for consultation. Clearly this is an extremely
grave matter. It is not soluble by asking such individuals to drop out of related
activities. In the first place, many will refuse ; in the second, if they accept, they
are then lost to the programs involved. I have no good answer to this dilemma,
except to say that such individuals are essential in both capacities, and that
therefore one must select individuals with high integrity and objectivity, and
count upon their performance accordingly.
(pp. 810-811, 820)
Evaluation of use of scientific advisory panels (Jones of HEW)
[The witness replied to a question from a member of the committee
concerning alleged dangers in the use of outside advisory panels to
make recommendations concerning research programs or contracts
to be undertaken.]
This is not considered a problem in the case of the projects of the
National Institutes of Health.
For example, if a council approves a project application under a NIH Insti-
tute, the Surgeon General is not obligated to approve that project as to its
concept or as to the amount of money. The staff of NIH and of the Surgeon
General are constantly reviewing these actions of the council. They participate
with councils in these decisions, so that the Federal responsibility is recognized,
even though recommendations are made by non-Federal advisory groups.
With respect to other programs within HEW, extensive reliance on
the advisory panel system is "more difficult."
* * * For example, the Food and Drug Administration relies on advisory
groups, and it will do so increasingly. But here we have a regulatory function,
so that the conflict-of-interest problem enters into the picture much more exten-
sively than would be true in the pure and basic science field where you are
dealing with nonprofit public institutions almost exclusively.
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved F? En eA~s% -Wffl"AD' q r~?0f9;V qq~ OO~ ~~41-9
Consequently additional factors have to be brought into account
when one undertakes to utilize the same kind of mechanism. Differ-
ent techniques are justified, relating to the specific needs of special
programs.
There are procedural safeguards excluding an individual member
from a council in consideration of a project from his own institution.
(pp. 551-552, 556)
Possibility of conflict of interest in advising Congress (Harris)
There is a possibility of conflict-of-interest situations arising with
senior scientists and engineers in giving advice to the Congress, be-
cause most of them have been involved in Federal R. & D. programs.
The Engineers Joint Council is a tax-exempt organization and the
law restricts our activities in relation to legislative matters.
(pp. 829, 833)
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
XII. INFORMATION AND PUBLICATION
A. Information storage, retrieval, and sharing
B. Individual Government agencies
C. Scientific and technical publications
A. INP?ORMATION STORAGE, RETRIEVAL, AND SHARING
Availability of scientific information (Smith)
There should be improved scientific communication within the United States
of the results of Federal research activity. All grantees and contractors should
be required to submit yearly reports which should be made public unless national
security or other confidential matters are involved.
These reports should be properly indexed by the Government an4
made available to any interested party. This is the only way in which
the scientific community can be kept currently informed of research
progress, since final publication of many results occurs even years
after completion. Also, the publication of unsuccessful efforts would
assist other researchers by preventing them from repeating the
experiments.
(p. 1040)
Central register of research projects and grants (Kirk)
A central office is needed where all research projects and all grants
in all fields would be registered to avoid duplication of activity, to let
researchers and institutions know what others are doing, and to find
areas where research is needed.
(pp. 348, 353-354, 360)
Comnwnication between the scientific community and the public
(Harrar)
There was a time when there was very little of such communication.
The situation has gradually improved, but much remains to be accom-
plished toward greater mutual understanding, in part from greater
R. & D. in the art of science administration. Certainly, science has
the obligation to interpret its role to the public and to those responsible
for furnishing support. Both the legislator and the administrator
desire adequate communication.
(p. 1016)
Dissemination and distribution of scientific information (Representa-
tive Robert E. Jones, Jr.)
Significant savings could be made in. this area. There is little use
in the extensive research efforts of the. Federal Government if the end
1247
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
124 FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
products are not communicated in usable form to those to whom they
could be useful.
* * * If information growing out of the multitude of Government research
projects is unavailable because it is buried beneath thousands of other reports,
then all the money and effort which went into the research has been wasted.
The waste is more tragic because it results from nothing more than an inability
to simply find the results of what has been already accomplished. This waste,
in turn, can lead to further waste in the form of duplication and repetition of
research which has already been accomplished.
To eliminate this wasteful situation the Government must maintain an effective
internal communication system, and it must assure an effective over-all com-
munication system. By "overall" I mean that the Government must assume re-
sponsibility even toward those parts of the non-Government research systems that
do not overlap with its own, simply because Government has assumed such
heavy responsibility in the entire research area. This means that the Govern-
ment, in the very near future, must improve existing systems, and devise new
ones where necessary, for preserving the valuable information growing out of its
vast research program and rejecting what is worthless. It must take the re-
sponsibility for summarizing, indexing, abstracting and distributing its informa-
tion promptly and efficiently.
I am sure this committee will want to devote considerable effort to this entire
area of information distribution and retrieval. The opportunities for savings are
great.
(pp. 955-956)
General availability of expensive research results (Thomas)
[The question was raised as to whether it is a form of waste to make
expensive research results-particularly those pertaining to military
use-available to the 'world scientific community. The witness re-
plied:]
No, I do not. I will give you an example. Some figures I read recently pointed
out that in the USSR, one farmer can feed three people. In the United States
1 farmer feeds 29 people. Agricultural science is the same all over the world.
It is equally available to the Russians as it is to us.
I think the specific answer to your question is that the scientific information
developed through research is available to everybody, and the question of who
utilizes it best is the important element in the question that you ask, not the
development of research, of science through research. This I never consider to
be wasteful.
* * * * * * *
Of course, you have at the one extreme national security leaks, and at the
other you have the fact that no matter what you develop, take the atomic bomb,
for example, information about it is always bound to come out in the long
run. * * * But this is an inevitable thing.
* * * I think we find a very good balance between the extremes of secrecy that
would stifle scientific 'information exchange on the one hand, and too free and
open an operation on the other.
* * * * * * *
You can't hold back human thinking, and this is what you are dealing with.
(pp. 417-418, 419)
Information retrieval (Haller)
The information we already have must be made easier to find and use. One
of today's biggest problems in R. & D. Is simply knowing what has been done.
Better methods are needed for storing and retrieving technical in-
formation we already have, and the Government might well support
more research on the information retrieval problem. netter use should
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100ffff41-9
FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
be made of existing computer technology in cataloging and retrieval.
Present communication between laboratories and scientists, through
meetings, reports, and technical journals, is a stone-age approach to
the problem. The amount of information now existing is so great that
it can no longer be adequately transmitted by people talking and
listening and writing to each other.
(pp. 333, 336, 338-339)
Need for improved communication in research (von Braun)
There is "urgent need" for "prompt, open, continuous communica-
tion" among scientists and between scientists and the Government
hierarchy.
At present the means whereby a scientist-engineer can canvass re-
search in his field are inadequate and may lead to duplication. It is
sometimes easier to conduct research than to locate information on
what others have done.
An. organized, comprehensive data system is recommended whereby
a scientist can obtain information quickly and accurately. High-
speed electronic research-library and data-dissemination systems now
being developed will be the greatest tangible improvement which can
be made to the Government's research program at present.
We must improve the means whereby the scientist communicates
with the administrator and through the administrator with the public.
We must find a way to inform the Congress, as representatives of
the people, in layman's language, of scientific facts on which to base
national research policy decisions. Providing such a service to the
Congress is becoming one of the imperatives of our democratic system.
It is very important to the scientific community that the national
standard data system in the National Bureau of Standards be fully
implemented. Congressional financial support will be needed in
future years.
Better use could be made by members of the scientific community
and by administrators in the (government of NASA's system of bibli-
ographical document control, and it could be copied in developing in-
formation handling systems in other scientific fields.
(pp. 518-522, 523)
B. INDIVIDUAL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
Access by industries to information of National Science Foundation
(Haworth)
[A member of the committee stated that he had been informed of
some difficulty by segments of larger industries, claiming they did
not have access to information of the NSF, whereas smaller concerns
in industry had no difficulty whatsoever. He asked whether this had
come to the witness' attention. He replied :]
No, and I don't see how it could be so.
[The member furnished the witness with a copy of the allegation
and entered it in the record, with a request that the witness respond
to it later.]
(p. 55)
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
1250 FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
Evaluation of work of the Scientific Information Exchange
(Freeman)
Is the information given out. by the SIB of good scientific quality,
and do SIE services really inform research directors and scientists
about new research that they may not have heard about?
The report of the President's Scientific Advisory Panel indicates
that SIB services accomplish their primary purpose. Hundreds of
unsolicited letters also say so. Five hundred users of SIB informa-
tion were recently asked by questionnaire these questions, and 97 per-
cent replied that they had learned about new research in their own
specialties that they had not known about before, and the information
helped them avoid duplication. Seventy percent said the SIB an-
swers were comprehensive and did not contain extraneous or irrele-
vant material. About 50 percent said they used the information to
avoid duplication in preparing research proposals and grant applica-
tions.
From this evidence, it would seem that this kind of an information service
does, in fact, fulfill its primary purpose and that the information is judged to
be of good scientific quality.
(pp. 844, 845)
Interchange of scientific information (Furnas)
Standardized methods for classifying, indexing and abstracting
coupled with appropriate machine methods will facilitate communi-
cation of R. & D. information. These should be encouraged. The
overall Scientific and Technical Program (STINFO) should be en-
couraged and stimulated.
(p. 1010)
Lack of scientific information facilities (Shaw)
Library facilities to meet increasing demands for scientific informa-
tion are needed by scientists in the Department of Agriculture, State
experiment stations, and industry, doing research on food, biology,
and agriculture. An appropriation has teen recommended for plans
for a new building for the National Agricultural Library at the Agri-
cultural Research Center in Beltsville, Md.
(p. 207)
Prevention of duplication in research by the Science Information Ex-
change (Freeman)
* * * In the present research process, there is probably a 1- to 3-year gap be-
tween the time that an investigator actually starts his work and the time the
results are finished, published, and available to the general scientific com-
munity. It is the time that the research project is proposed and the time that
the results finally appear in the technical journals, libraries and other doc-
umentation services. It is the SIE's purpose to complement these services by
covering the prepublication hiatus of the research process. * * * timely informa-
tion about new projects when they are started and long before they are generally
known, can do much to help avoid unwanted and unknowing duplication.
There are no regulations requiring that a person with a Federal re-
search grant must file information with the SIB.
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved FFEDRAL RESEARCH AND DEA ROP66B004ROGROM010Q~041-9
There are two sides to the argument concerning coercive require-
ments that researchers using public money should make their work
public property.
I think that the loopholes that we have as far as the Federal system is con-
cerned is merely a matter of time, if there is any problem here in getting these
records. It is a question of time. Getting the records from the thousands
of other agencies outside the Government * * * would also be a slow job because
there are so many of them, thousands of them.
* * * * * *
From my point of view as director of the Science Information. Exchange, I
have a feeling that wholehearted cooperation from the scientist would give us
better quality of material.
There has been a great deal more enthusiastic cooperation from
many places because of congressional interest and interest from the
Office of President in the last few years.
My feeling has been * * * that perhaps the exchange will be a better imple-
ment, a better instrument in the long run, if this material can be gotten in, by,
shall we say, sweet persuasion, willingness, interest, enthusiasm, and coopera-
tion. It might be slower to build it up, but I think it would be better information
in the long run.
(pp. 837-838, 845-849, 852)
Storage and retrieval of information (Ewalt)
The problem of storing, retrieving, and sharing information is a
growing problem of national and international dimensions. The work
and influence of agencies such as the National Academy of Science
should be extended. The Armed Forces National Research Council
Committee on Vision is doing .an excellent job of coordinating efforts
in vision research for the armed services.
(p. 370)
C. SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL PUBLICATIONS
Communication of scientific information (Schairer)
[The committee] may find it useful to look into theproblems involved in the
publication of research results and also the impact of security on the availability
of research reports. It is my impression that you will find a healthy attitude
by all involved.
Although both aspects present difficulties in communicating scien-
tific information and thus assuring against unnecessary duplication,
the difficulties do not prevent research workers from keeping informed
on research in their particular fields.
(p. 1036)
Cost of scientific and technical journals (Feldmann)
It is suggested that the Government consider ways to help pay the
ncreasing cost of the scientific and technical journals, through which
increasing'
results of Government research are.disseminated. These, journals are
published at a deficit to their sponsoring societies and associations,
resulting in substantial financial hardship.
(pp. 883, 887)
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
1252 FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
Dan er of future unfair competition from tax-exempt journals (Bab-
cock)
There are 600 or 700 society publications at present. They are non-
profit and do not accept advertising. However, if their Government
grant or page charge is dropped, they will have to accept advertising.
The independent profitmaking publications will then have to compete
in the marketplace with publications of nonprofit societies which do
not pay taxes. The result is unfair competition between these pub-
lications and the independent profitmaking publications.
(p. 928)
Government subsidy of, nonprofit publications and freedom of the press
(Babcock)
There is competition in the United States for news and information. This
competition, which is healthy and in the best interests of a free society, requires
free access to news and information.. If the Government publishes its own pub-
lications, or encourages subsidization of nonprofit publications, there could be a
tendency to favor the Government supported publication with better news and
information than might be available to a free and independent business press.
There is thus raised the question of freedom of the press.
(p. 927)
Publication costs (Ewalt)
The Federal Government is helping in the problem of publication
costs by including money in grants for this purpose, and in turn re-
searchers are being charged by the journals for the publication costs.
This is a back-door approach, and a more direct method should be
used.
(pp. 366, 370)
Results of Government subsidy of nonprofit publications (Babcock).
Government subsidy of nonprofit journals through page charges
and grants produces the following results :
First, a page charge is established for publishing editorial material in the
publication, and the Government directly or indirectly pays this page charge.
Second, the publication solicits advertising which competes with taxpaying
publications which in turn help finance the Government.
Third, since the publishers are tax exempt organizations no income tax is paid
on advertising profits which sometimes ensue.
Fourth, the publication is mailed at exempt postage rates considerably lower
than those provided for taxpaying publications which are published for profit.
(p. 926)
Suggested studies for the committee concerning Government subsidy
of nonprofit publications (Babcock)
Our purpose in appearing today is to fully endorse the excellent concept of this
committee. In the same way that you will seek information about research
itself, so do we hope that you will include within your study the subject of page
charges, grants to publications, alternate methods of dissemination of informa-
tion, and best utilization of the existing independent press of the United States
to the best interest of the scientific and research programs of the United States.
Associated Business Publications * * * has stated that the need for the Gov-
ernment to disseminate the results of Government financed research is certainly
recognized by the Association.
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS 1253
We would hope, however, that the committee would look into the matter and
determine whether page charges and grants to technical journals are the best
method of dissemination. * * * Certainly there are areas where the business
press of the United States may work to the definite advantage of the Govern-
ment. It would be our hope that these hearings would explore this possibility.
(pp. 927-928)
Unnecessary proliferation of journals (Babcock)
The Government, through its subsidy page charge to nonprofit pub-
lications, often encourages societies and associations to start magazines
to serve their particular area of interest. The area might already be
served adequately, or could be, by existing media.
(pp. 927-928)
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
XIII. CONGRESS AND THE SELECT COMMITTEE
A. Role of Congress
B. Legislative-executive relationships
C. Review of Federal R. & D. programs by congres-
sional committees
D. Role of the select committee
D. Suggestions for consideration by the select committee
A. ROLE OF CONaItESS
Agreement between legislative bodies and the scientific community on
importance of P. & D. (11arrar)
Inevitably, legislative bodies and the scientific community have
varying approaches to the total problem of Government support of
R. & D.
* * * There is common ground in the clear agreement that research and de-
velopment are essential on a continuous and growing basis for the well-being of
the Nation. The legislators must of necessity attempt to keep in balance the
multiple needs of our country and decide how to distribute available resources
for maximum national benefit. The scientist sees so many areas demanding re-
search that he inclines to press for more support in the conviction that the need
is obvious and that past achievements and future prospects justify this position.
(p. 1016)
Congressional policy decisions with respect to R. & D. (IIollomon)
A final point. I believe that you, as members of the Congress, are perfectly
capable of making the necessary decisions with regard to policies toward research
and development. It is not necessary, nor do I believe desirable, for one to be
a specialist in science or engineering to evaluate or to set the national goals for
research and development in this country, or even to ask intelligent questions
concerning it. Congress does not need to convert itself to a body of nuclear
physicists to appreciate the consequences of the development of atomic energy
in both peace and war. It does need to keep itself informed on sound technical
management principles and on the character and nature of the results of science
and insist on effective and capable technical management.
(pp. 294, 299)
Current Government-sponsored research program (Berkner)
Basically, these programs are sound and productive. By far the
overwhelming majority are valid and worthwhile.
In conclusion, I should like to pay tribute to the extraordinary prescience of
the Congress in mounting the ever-enlarging program of scientific research at
the very moment of the technological explosion. No other country has been so
timely in its recognition of the nature of changing events. As a consequence,
our country has emerged as a world leader.
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
1256 FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
* * * no government is more conscious of the impact of science on its affairs,
and no government has acquired so much experience and proven knowledge in
research administration.
Neither Congress nor science need make any apology for the expenditures
that have been made. * *
(pp. 426, 429-430)
Informing the Congress on scientific policy (Calkins)
More efforts such as the conferences sponsored under the Brookings
advanced study program are needed to provide a systematic means
of informing the Congress of new thinking and discoveries in the
physical and social sciences. Far more could be done to provide such
opportunities for Members of Congress.
(p. 914) B. LEGISLATIVE-EXECUTIVE RELATIONSHIPS
Effect of adverse congressional reaction on agencies' research (Heald)
It is said that some agencies, for fear of adverse congressional reaction, are
avoiding support for projects that they feel are otherwise sound and worthwhile.
Certainly courage, inventiveness, and integrity have often been displayed by
Government grant-making agencies. It would be a loss to the American people
if these characteristics were suppressed. This investigation provides an excel-
lent opportunity to highlight fruitful examples of these characteristics and to
reinforce the notion that the public employee may be more responsible to his
trust by courage and imagination than by adhering slavishly to what is "safe."
(pp. 388, 402)
Government regulation of R. & D. (Furnas)
There is danger of too tight control over research. Recently there
have been criticisms of Federal research grant programs any a few
instances of misapplication of funds. Probably there has been some
misuse of funds, "due to naivete rather than cupidity." Some cor-
rections should be made but it is very important that Congress not
establish a degree of bureaucratic control which will stifle the national
R. & D. program. Bureaucratic controls are inevitable in large or-
ganizations, particularly in Government, but in research they must
be kept to a minimum and applied with wisdom. The researcher's
time must not be wasted, nor must he be unduly frustrated or dis-
couraged-otherwise his efficiency will be reduced.
Congress should use "wisdom and restraint" in legislating regula-
tions for the direction and accountability of Federal research funds,
avoiding too much bureaucratic control.
Increased responsibility and authority should be given by the Fed-
eral agencies to those at the working level.
(pp. 1008, 1009-1010)
Need for congressional action to improve the organizational struc-
ture for overall coordination (Waterman)
[In response to a question whether it was felt that Congress should
take some action to improve the organizational structure for overall
coordination of research and development, the witness replied:]
I believe that it would help for Congress to get behind the present system
and say this is the one that you have told us about, let's make it work.
(p. 824)
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS 1257
Reporting to the Congress by the Executive (Staats)
There needs to be improvement in the means for communicating
to the Congress, on a systematic basis, on research and development
programs of the various agencies. This indicates the need for more
adequate reporting by the executive branch.
The executive branch should keep Congress more fully advised by :
(1) Following through on the President's budget message with
information developed by the Bureau of the Budget and the office of
Science and Technology which would describe and evaluate trends
and changes in R. & D., indicate emergency R. & D. investment oppor-
tunities, comment on the balance among fields of supported research,
and furnish measures of the impact of the R. & D. program on our
supply of manpower, our industries, and the universities.
(2) Developing more adequate reports of agency research programs
for the information of Congress, explaining the projects and progress
made.
(3) Developing special crosscutting studies and reports on prob-
lems common to all Government agencies in administering R. & D.
(pp. 567-568 )
C. REVIEW or, FEDERAL R. & D. PROGRAMS BY CONGRESSIONAL
COMMITTEES
Congressional organization as it relates to Federal research programs
(Kistiakowsky)
Under the present congressional committee setup, with different
committees reviewing different Federal agency programs, a particu-
lar congressional committee sees the Government's R. & D. program
only in part, the program of a single executive agency.
It is recommended that the Senate and House each have one com-
mittee to furnish an overall evaluation of Federal R. & D. to
strengthen congressional role in science. Such a committee need not
have legislative authority that would conflict with the authority of the
Appropriations Committees or the authorizing committees.
Its role might be the evaluation on their merits of the various research pro-
grams regardless of the agencies concerned and the transmission of its findings
to the relevant congressional committees having authorization and appropria-
tion authority. This activity will greatly strengthen the role of Congress in
the scientific field.
(p. 612)
Congressional review of R. c6 D. problems or programs from a total
perspective (Wiesner)
* * * All too often, the Congress is obliged to consider these subjects from
the point of view of one program or one agency, when many of the most impor-
tant current issues in research and development cut across the entire range of
Federal interests. * * * it is vital that the Congress, or at least some groups
within it, be able to examine the scope of Federal programs and of the problems
and opportunities that face the Nation in science and technology.
The committees in Congress who have the responsibility for these agencies
[dealing with oceanography] haven't the same determination to hold a national
program together that the Space Committee has, for example, to be sure there
is an integrated space program.
(pp. 256, 276)
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
1258 FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
Congressional supervision of national R. & D. (Furnas)
Standing congressional committees with capable staffs for review
of R. & D. programs are desirable and in order, though there is
danger of a proliferation of such special committees which will tend
to overlap andgot in each other's way.
Consideration might be given to the establishment of a standing
joint committee with oversight of the entire national science program.
(p. 1010)
Need for a congressional committee to review all Federal R. & D. (Kil-
lian)
Congress should evolve an organization to give comprehensive at-
tention to Federal science and technology as a whole, both as to money
and personnel, in order to evolve sound policy. There should be at
least one group in Congress viewing the whole program in order to
be informed about "little science" and "big science," and to develop
a frame of values and a sense of proportion, and to establish national
priorities.
Congress particularly needs a group to be informed on the less
glamorous, less spectacular, but less obvious and fundamental work in
science. "Big science" is important too, but it must be related to the
greater whole.
The executive branch has been evolving an organization to do this,
but it is vital for Congress to do so.
Through appropriate committees or in other ways, Congress might
have a focal point of information and policy initiation similar to the
Parliamentary and Scientific Committee in Great Britain.
(p. 752)
Organization for scientific choice (Weinberg)
The legislative branch lags behind the executive branch in the insti-
tutional organizations for making scientific choice. Establishment of
the Science Adviser, the Federal Council for Science and Technology
and the Office of Science and Technology are regarded as major steps
forward by the executive branch.
Congress has no organization through which it can look at its ex-
penditures for basic science as a whole and thus make informed choices
among competing fields and projects. Both basic and applied science
are viewed by many different committees; each committee, like each
Government agency, looks at its activities from a rather parochial
viewpoint.
I do not have any highly original or obviously valid suggestions as to how Con-
gress can look at its expenditures for basic science as a whole, and thus weigh
one field of basic science against another ; or how it can weigh one technological
project * * * against another * * *. Perhaps the select committee itself to-
gether with a permanent, scientifically competent staff, can become a permanent
body, possibly as a subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee.
Various competing claims for the scientific dollar. put forth separately by the
different committees could then be balanced against each other, by a knowledge-
able arm of the Appropriations Committee, in much the same way that conflict-
ing claims in the executive branch are reviewed by the Office of Science and
Technology.
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230 41-9
FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS 1259
Congress needs a pool of talent similar to the President's Science
Advisory Committee to, assist it. The National Academy of Sciences
could supply this talent.
(pp. 316-317, 329-330)
Technical advisers to the Congress (Bachman)
The difficult task of the Congress in evaluating technical programs
of the different Government agencies, "will get worse, not better, un-
less some way is found to cope with it." The NAM Research Commit-
tee "concludes that Congress * * * finds itself at a disadvantage with
the Executive agencies in the matter of evaluation. * * *"
It appears that the executive departments and agencies have access
to scientists and scientific advisers which the legislative branch appar-
ently does not have. Congressional committees, it would appear, must
choose between the alternatives of accepting the proposals of the agen-
cies or arbitrarily withholding authorization and appropriation. The
traditional system of checks and balances threatened with disappear-
ance is absent in this process.
* * * we think that Congress might well wish to take advantage of the potential
availabilities of * * * highly trained and competent directors of industrial re-
search. Undoubtedly, their industrial experience has sharpened their appraisal
ability. In general, use of such men would give Congress evaluations quite
independent of an academic approach.
It is the wish of the NAM Research Committee to offer assistance to Congress
by submitting to its committees or members thereof, on request, names of a num-
ber of men, regardless of academic or industrial connection, selected on the
basis of their technological background and demonstrated competence in the eval-
uation of research in the area of request. Generally speaking, two or three
times the number of names required for the assignment would be submitted.
Such persons could review, study, and offer advice on scientific or technological
projects for which Government funds are requested. Further, if your select
committee feels that such persons could be helpful in your present studies, we
stand ready to furnish names : we think they can be helpful.
The NAM wishes to play no part in the ultimate selection of evaluators and
so invitations to the individual men would come directly from the Congressmen or
congressional committee. Service * * * would be ad hoc in nature * * * which
would tend to keep costs at a minimum.
(pp.778-779)
D. ROLE OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE
The committee's assessment of the entire Government research effort
(Denney)
The committee's aims should be much broader than merely identifica-
tion of mismanagement in specific research programs. Far more im-
portant is the unique opportunity to make an assessment of the entire
Government research effort.
In addition to areas of duplication, the committee may wish to iden-
tify some areas of neglect. For example, Chinese studies have not been
given the attention that have Russian studies. There is a question
whether the balance between research in the social sciences (2 percent
of total Government research) and research in the physical and life
sciences is correct. The committee may wish to explore the total "mix"
of Government research.
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
1260 FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
We in each executive department can only see that part of the whole research
picture which relates to our own activities; you can obtain an overview which
can lead to more efficient use of the Nation's resources for research.
(pp.192-193,196-197)
Congressional responsibility and competence in science policy (Teller)
Detailed knowledge from technical people is obviously needed, but
there cannot be scientific agreement on the scientific future.
* * * I hope that these decisions will not be delegated to scientific commit-
tees that, as committees often do, often are induced to do, come up with unani-
mous recommendations.
Differences of opinion about these vital future developments are essential. To
my mind the only sound way to proceed is your way, having the broad knowl-
edge and the heavy responsibility concerning many things of which science is
only one. I hope you will listen to the great variety of different opinions, and
then reach your own conclusions.
(pp. 938, 950)
Congressional scrutiny of research programs (Brown)
Finally, I believe that our research programs should continue to receive
the close scrutiny that has been exercised by the committees of the Congress for
Appropriations, Armed Services, Science and Astronautics, Atomic Energy and
Government Operations ; and I believe that the establishment of this select com-
mittee by the House can provide additional benefits to the total Government
research program.
I think that the details in research may be too many for any single body
either in the executive or the legislative branches to turn their attention to, and
I think that policies of geographical distribution, in-house, industrial, special
corporation decisions involve some very important matters of policy ; the rela-
tions between the Government and the universities involve some important mat-
ters of policy. I think that many of these areas require an across-the-board look
by a representative congressional group, and I think that this committee is ideally
suited for such a purpose.
(pp. 174, 179)
Executive-legislative cooperation in science and technology (Water-
man)
Finally, and in particular, the establishment by the President and the Con-
gress in the executive branch of the statutory Office of Science and Technology
leads to the hope and the expectation that there will be greater opportunity for
cooperation between the executive and the legislative branches of.the Govern-
ment in the solution of the increasingly complex and important issues that lie
before the country. Toward this end I believe that the establishment of this
select committee in the House is most significant.
(pp. 815, 822)
Maintenance of fundamental integrity of science during committee's
investigation (Weinberg)
* * * I believe the investigation which you are undertaking is most worthwhile
and that it can be the beginning of an ever more enlightened relation between
science and Government than our country has already enjoyed. On the other
hand, I can foresee a possibility that such an investigation might put into motion
forces which could hurt much that is of inestimable value to our society. When
$15 billion is spent, inevitably examples of waste, possibly even dishonesty, can
be found. But I believe that the remarks of Mr. Elliott on the floor of the House
sum up the essence of the situation : "The history of all mankind proves that
knowledge is power-and when scientific research lags, knowledge stagnates and
civilizations crumble." The scientific edifice our Nation has built is one of its
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved F $1 qOs1 qq / D CIA,-&gFf1?W0 ~M100 RP41-9
finest achievements. it is profoundly important that we maintain its funda-
mental integrity, even as we do what we can to improve its architectural details.
(p. 320)
Means by which. the committee's work may be accomplished (Heald)
(1) Solicitation of information and opinions from all interested
parties, including science journalists, scientists who have not been
closely associated with Federal research, and a few scholars from the
humanities and social sciences.
(2) Use of two studies under preparation by committees of the Na-
tional Academy of Sciences, and by the Rand Corp.
(3) A "clear and realistic understanding of the broad categories of
activities going on under the rubric `research,"' leading to a distinc-
tion between them based on their different needs and characteristics,
in order to prevent overgeneralization about such a wide spectrum of
activities.
(p. 382)
Means of informing Congress of our national scientific needs
(Berkner)
Science through its societies and its National Academy of Sciences bears a
responsibility through timely studies and reports. The administration, through
all of its mechanisms, owes the Congress clear analyses of the situations for
which support is solicited.
But basically, I see no ultimate alternative but the method of congressional
inquiry which you are using here. Such inquiry forces each element of the
scientific community to search deeply for the answers that are of vital concern
to our Nation. It serves to develop the diverse views of protagonists in which
all areas of scientific thought can participate. Open inquiry provides the views
of all to the Congress and to the people from which a wise judgment can be
derived.
(pp. 438-439)
Possible duplication of functions of the select committee and of the
Office of Science and Technology (Wenk)
* * * I believe there is a requirement from our point of view to look at the
matter of duplication, but in no way does this preempt the responsibility, as
we understand it, of the Congress. In other words, from the point of view of
separation of powers? I would visualize our roles as being quite parallel, but
in no way would we be duplicating each other in this regard, but our objectives
certainly would be the same. * *
(p. 253)
The proper role of R. & D. in the long-range needs of our country
(Seaborg)
The thoughtful study of the select committee can do much toward
the delineation of this problem.
(p. 65)
Strengthening ability of Congress to assess research programs
(Denney)
The committee can be of service in strengthening the ability of the
Congress to assess Government research programs. Policies and
principles are needed to guide the wise use of the research dollar.
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
1262 FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
Any help in formulating guidelines will contribute to the national
interest.
(pp. 193, 197)
E. SUGGESTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE SELECT COMMITTEE
Areas of Federal R. eC D. which need examination (Jones of Esso)
(a) Space exploration
This area should receive careful study by Congress since it is so
predominately a Federal Government responsibility.
I am sure the Congress is giving serious attention to whether alternate uses
of some of these funds and the scientists involved might produce greater benefits
to the country as a whole.
(b) Research oriented toward consumer markets
At present this is not a large area of Federal Government research expendi-
tures (other than in nuclear power and the food industry), but it appears to be
growing, and with the too prevalent climate of opinion that if a little research
is good, a lot more is a lot better, we are concerned that Federal research oriented
towards the consumer market will grow rapidly, displacing or duplicating pri-
vately financed research, with resultant loss to the overall economy. [Ad-
vantages of having private enterprise conduct this type of research are
enumerated.]
[In questioning concerning specific Government research and devel-
opment programs which might more appropriately be turned over to
private industry, the following examples were mentioned: (a) dc-
velopment work on formulation of insecticides and herbicides; (b)
the fertilizer business; and (c) utilization of natural oils in protective
coatings. Additional examples mentioned later in questioning were
the use of atomic energy for power, making liquid hydrogen carbons
out of coal, and shale oil recovery.]
It is areas like these that I refer to. They are not large, * * * but we are
concerned lest they become large. All of us in industry * * * have been brought
up in an atmosphere of severe competition, and we know how to operate in this
atmosphere, and we welcome it, but not from the Government. This is the
competition that private enterprise cannot possibly win.
* * * What I am recommending is to have a long-range goal of getting the
elements of the civilian economy in the hands of free enterprise.
(pp. 783-784,78-1-785,786)
The effects of the Federal Government's R. & D. programs (Thomas)
Federal expenditures have increased from $74 million in 1940 to
$12 billion in 1963-a change which has profoundly affected the
character and motivation of research being done in this country.
* * * But the effects on other parts of the economy and, in fact, on the basic
social attitudes of the average citizen are perhaps even more profound. I will
venture an opinion that even political attitudes may be modified. * * *
There are today about 400,000 scientists and engineers in the coun-
try, engaged in R. & D. work.
* * * It is my opinion-one that I earnestly hold-that this inventory repre-
sents the country's greatest resource.
How this resource is used, developed, and maintained, its morale,
its economic security are all of concern to this committee. The in-
ventory is created primarily by the research work itself, and is added
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved F q-E eMs% ,W(q/1A5 b DIE RDP66B004403R1000s1001206341-9
to by education and depleted by death and economic attrition. The
motivations of the individuals are strongly influenced not only by
scientific curiosity but by the redistribution of the funds in the Fed-
eral research budget. Only slowly will total numbers of personnel be
changed.
I would like to restate this, because in my opinion it is the most significant
way to view the main problem of the committee, which is to insure that research
and development funds are wisely spent in the public interest. The manipula-
tion of the inventory of the research talent of the country and its allocation to
specific purposes is the result of. a system of buying and selling research that
has some of the characteristics of a free market. In. this market the Federal
Government is the largest single buyer and its influence is overwhelming. The
work of this committee would be most effective if it can recommend practices
in the various contracting agencies of the Government that will insure that all
aspects of this exchange be considered, including the recognition that research
itself adds to the inventory of scientific talent.
This Is, I believe, the broadest statement of the problem. * * *
(pp. 410-411)
Effect of Federal research programs on scientific and technical man-
power (Peyton)
A very difficult and complex problem which the Chamber believes the sub-
committee should consider is the impact of Federal research programs, con-
ducted within Government and by contract or grant, on the technical and
scientific resources of the Nation, particularly manpower. * *
(p. 1034)
Evaluation of classified research (Bush)
* * * I have great sympathy for this committee in their task of judging our
program. in the open research field. I suspect that sound judgment on military
research is just as badly needed, and almost impossible to arrive at without far
more effort than I believe is now contemplated.
(p. 463)
Protection of universities engaged in Government-supported P. c6 D.
(Killian)
Higher education is strongly affected by Government research policy
and is responsive to changes in that policy.
Congress should concern itself with seeing that the Government pro-
tects universities through providing for long-term research grants
through providing for full reimbursement of indirect costs, and
through grant and contract procedures that recognize the difference
between the funding of basic research and materiel procurement.
(p. 754)
The purposes in an investigation of R. c D. activities (Waterman)
* * * we should not make the mistake of assuming that major economies can
be brought about by an investigation of science and the activities of scientists,
unless indeed one wants to jeopardize our future technology.
What does require special attention is the review and analysis of what we are
spending large amounts of money for, whether national goals are truly served
by these programs, whether the programs presently planned will indeed attain
their objectives, and whether these operations are conducted efficiently and
economically.
(pp. 809, 811, 815, 819)
28- 885-64-pt. 3-13
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
1264 FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
Relation of scientific research to the economy (Berkner)
The committee should examine the role of scientific research in the
light of our national situation and establish clearly the relation of
science to the rise of the new economy of plenty. It should endeavor
to find the most suitable levels of scientific research, and of graduate
education required to optimize that research, in order to stimulate the
economy at the necessary pace. There is evidence that moneys spent
for research are rapidly multiplied in our new economy, in industry,
employment, wealth, and tax returns.
Innovation from the scientific understanding and control of nature
is an important new resource for the country, and now provides for
about half of our economic activity. It is a characteristic of this
resource that it continually releases manpower through the steady
rise of productivity of the highly educated and creative individual.
We are now fully committed to reliance on this new resource for future
national growth. Innovation from scientific understanding of nature
has four elements :
l.. Scientific research, to uncover the functional behavior of nature, the general
laws that govern that behavior, and the technologies that can command that
behavior under man's control and for his benefit.
2. Education, very advanced and continuing-at the graduate level and be-
yond--competent to advance knowledge in all areas through scientific research,
and to infer from new knowledge those innovations that are useful to mankind.
Likewise, education at all intermediate levels is imperative. * * *
3. Energy, derived out of and controlled by the technologies as they emerge.
Today, controlled energy replaces "labor."
4. Capital, which can direct the major energies of society toward the creation
of the mechanized means of production whereby productivity is vastly enhanced
and the power of the new resource fully developed and released.
(pp. 422, 428-429)
Review of Federal agencies conducting R. & D. (Furnas)
The functions and programs of the forty Federal agencies involved
in R. & D. should be evaluated thoroughly to see if "consolidation,
elimination, or transfer of authority" are advisable.
(p.1010)
Suggested areas of investigation for the select committee (Peyton)
In addition to the areas of investigation now contemplated, the chamber sug-
gests that particular attention be given to the following problems for which
solutions must be found if the proper objectives of Federal research are to be
achieved within the limits of the Nation's scientific, technical, and financial
resources:
(1) Better identification and definition of Federal research expenditures.
(2) A means of achieving better management for and increased productivity.
in Federal research programs.
(3) More effective coordination and review of Federal research programs.
(4) Realistic assessment of the impact of Federal research programs on
utilization of scientific and technical manpower, and on the Nation's institutions
of higher education.
(5) Increased incentives for industrial research.
[Each was discussed separately and will appear under the appropriate
heading.]
(p.1032)
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS 1265
Suggestions for committee. studies (Staats)
Suggested problems for committee study :
1. Standards and procedures for selection of research projects and
for the review of on-going projects.
2. The importance of strong support for basic research and its long-
range investment value in competition with immediate needs of ap-
plied research and development.
3. International joint research efforts and the increasing opportuni-
ties for international cost-sha:ringin scientific research.
4. Administrative problems of universities resulting from Federal
support, especially as regards the hardship caused by indirect cost
allowance.
(pp.,568-569)
Suggestions for types of research for the committee to study (Heald)
Most of the committee's inquiry must necessarily be devoted to the
largest Government research programs-defense-related, health, and
atomic energy, for example.
The committee might also concern itself with research connected
with, urban transportation, manpower training, and foreign policy.
It might also consider whether Government agencies might be given
modest research funds to do research about the effectiveness of their
own work.
(p.384)
ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES APPEARING BEFORE (OR FILING
STATEMENTS WITH) HOUSE SELECT COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT
RESEARCH
Dr. O. C. Aderhold, president, University of Georgia.
Mr. John B. Babcock, senior vice president, Associated Business Publications.
Dr. Paul W. Bachman, chairman, Committee on Research, National Association
of Manufacturers.
.Dr. W. S. Bailey, associate dean of the graduate school and coordinator of re-
search, Auburn University.
Dr. William R. Baldwin, dean, College of Optometry, Pacific University.
Dr. Lloyd V. Berkner, president, Graduate Research Center of the Southwest.
Dr. Robert C. Berson, Association of American Medical Colleges.
Mr. Andrew J. Biemiller, legislative director, AFL-CIO.
Dr. F. J. L. Blaslngame, executive vice president, American Medical Association.
Dr. Harold Brown, Director of Defense Research and Engineering, Department
of Defense.
Dr. Vannevar Bush, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Dr. John C. Calhoun, Jr., Assistant and Science Adviser to the Secretary of the
Interior.
Dr. Robert D. Calkins, president, the Brookings Institution.
Mr. F. R. Collbohm, president, the Rand Corp.
Mr. George C. Denney, Jr., Deputy Director, Bureau of Intelligence and Research,
Department of State.
Dr. John S. Dickey, president, Dartmouth College.
Dr. Lee A. DuBridge, ,president, California Institute of Technology.
Dr. Milton S. Eisenhower, president, the Johns Hopkins University.
Dr. H. Ward Ewalt, Jr., immediate past president, American Optometric
Association.
Dr. Novice G. Fawcett, president, Association of State Universities and Land-
Grant Colleges.
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
1266 FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
Dr. Edward G. Feldmann, director, scientific division, and Mr. Grover C. Bowles,
Jr., chairman, governing council, American Pharmaceutical Association.
Dr. James B. Fisk, president, Bell Telephone Laboratories, Inc.
Dr. John C. Flanagan, American Educational Research Association.
Hon. Eugene P. Foley, Administrator, Small Business Administration.
Hon. William C. Foster, Director, U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency.
Dr. Monroe E. Freeman, Director, Science Information Exchange, Smithsonian
Institution.
Dr. C. C. Furnas, president, State University of New York at Buffalo.
Dr. Ivan A. Getting, president, Aerospace Corp.
Mr. Bernard D. Haber, assistant to the president, North American Aviation, Inc.
-Ion. Najeeb E. Halaby, Administrator,- Federal Aviation Agency.
Dr. George L. Haller, vice president, General Electric Co.
Dr. J. George Harrar, president, the Rockefeller Foundation.
Dr. William J. Harris, Jr., chairman, Government Liaison Committee, Engineers
Joint Council.
Mr. Daniel J. Haughton, president, Lockheed Aircraft Corp.
Dr. Leland J. Haworth, Director, National Science Foundation.
Dr. Henry T. Heald, president, the Ford Foundation.
Dr. J. Herbert Hollomon, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Science a
Technology.
Dr. Elmer Hutchisson, director, American Institute of Physics.
Mr. Boisfeuillet Jones, Special Assistant to the Secretary of the Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare (for Health and Medical Affairs).
Dr. Charles F. Jones, president, Esso Research & Engineering Co.
Representative Robert E. Jones, Jr? chairman, Subcommittee on National Re
sources and Power, House Committee on Government Operations.
Dr. John G. Kemeny, chairman, Department of Mathematics and Astronomy,
Dartmouth College.
Dr. Clark Kerr, president, University of California at Berkeley.
Dr. James R. Killian, Jr., chairman of the corporation, Massachusetts Institute
of Technology.
Dr. Grayson Kirk, president, Columbia University.
Dr. Evron M. Kirkpatrick, executive director, American Political Science
Association.
Dr. George B. Klstlakowsky, Harvard University.
Dr. Louis Levin, dean of science and associate dean of faculty, Brandeis
University.
Dr. F. A. Long, vice president for research and advanced studies, Cornell
University.
Dr. John W. McConnell, president, University of New Hampshire.
Dr. W. M. Murray, Jr., director, Southern Research Institute.
Mr. Donald L. Peyton, secretary, Science and Technology Committee, Chamber
of Commerce of the United States.
Dr. Frank A. Rose, president, University of Alabama.
Dr. Howard A. Rusk, chairman, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabili-
tation, New York University Medical Center.
Dir. George S. Schairer, vice president, research and development, the Boeing
Co.
I)r. Clarence Scheps, vice president and comptroller, Tulane University, repre-
senting the National Association of College and University Business Officers.
Dr. Glenn T. Seaborg, Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission.
Dr. Frederick Seitz, President, National Academy of Sciences.
Dr. Byron T. Shaw, Administrator, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture.
Dr. Austin Smith, president, Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association.
Dr. Elmer B. Staats, Deputy Director, Bureau of the-Budget.
Dr. 1-I. Guyford Stever, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Dr. Robert E. Steimke, associate dean of faculties and administrator of re-
search, Georgia Institute of Technology.
Dr. Lindley J. Stiles, dean, School of Education, University of Wisconsin.
Dr. Edward Teller, professor at large, University of California.
Dr. B. D. Thomas, president, Battelle Memorial Institute, Columbus, Ohio.
Mr. Harry F, Vickers, president, Sperry Rand Corp.
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved FawRekaseiZWSM/WD CJ 40#P( 100?4g~41-9
Dr. Wernher von Braun, Director, George C. Marshall Space Flight Center, Na-
tional Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Dr. Alan T. Waterman, president, American Association for the Advancement of
Science.
Hon. James E. Webb, Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Adminis-
tration.
Dr. Alvin M. Weinberg, Director, Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
Dr. Edward Wenk, Jr., Executive Secretary, Federal Council for Science and
Technology, Executive Office of the President.
Dr. Jerome B. Wiesner, Director, Office of Science and Technology, Executive
Office of the President.
Dr. Logan Wilson, president, American Council on Education.
Hon. W. Willard Wirtz, Secretary of Labor.
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
INDEX OF PART 1 AND PART 2 OF HEARINGS LISTING
ORGANIZATIONS, PEOPLE, PUBLICATIONS, TABLES, ETC.
[See Contents page of SUMMARY OF HEARINGS for guide to topics]
A Page
Abelson, P. II-------------, --------__ _ 67, 410
Accident Prevention Division, Bureau of State Services (PHS)---------- 703
Accounting for Colleges and Universities, by Scheps---------------------- 916
Ackermann, Dr. William C. (O.S.T.)--------------------------------- 843
Aderhold, O. C-------------------------------------------------- 856,.901
Oral statement------------------------------------------------ 902,
Summary. of statement on-
Grant and contract processes_____________________________ 1127
National policy, formation of--------------------------------- 1083
Research in the social and behavioral sciences and humanities--- 1211
Wider distribution of Federal research funds among universities__ 1.190,
1192
Administrator's Technical Advisory Board (FAA) -----------------------
153
Advance Research and Technology, Associate Administrator of (AEC-
NASA) --------------------------------------------------------- 87
Advanced Research Projects Agency--------------------------------- 475
Advent program -------------------------------------------- .--------- 92
Aerojet.-------- --------- -- ------- -- ------------------- 745-746
Aeronautics and Astronautics Coordinating Board_____________________ 87, 94
Aerospace Corp___________________________________________ 726, 1010-1015
AFOSR---------------------------------------------------------- 858
Agena satellite------------------------------------------------------ 100
Agriculture, Department of____________________________ 24,
119, 123, 200-218, 519-520, 529, 827, 850, 852, 1021
Agricultural Marketing Service --------------------------------- - 204, 212
Agricultural Research Service_________________________________ 200-212
Cooperative State Experiment Service-------------- 204-205,212-213,905
Economic Research Service___________________________________ 213-214
Farmer Cooperative Service ------------------------------------- 214
Forest Service---------------------------------------- ------ 214-215
Secretary--------------------------------------------------- 204-205
Soil Conservation Service_________________________________ _____ 216
Statistical Reporting Service____________________________________ - 216
Agricultural Marketing Service (Agriculture) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 204, 212
Agricultural Publishers Association --------------------------- .------- 924
Agricultural Research Center, Beltsville, Md___________________,_ 207, 210-212
Agricultural Research Council (Agriculture) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 204
Agricultural Research Service (Agriculture) ----------------- 200,204,210-212
Agricultural Science, Committee on (Agriculture)---------------------- 205
Air Commerce Act--------------------------------------------- --- 79
Air Force, Department of the---------- 84, 132, 479, 480, 606, 725, 769, 831, 835,
850, 851, 852, 859, 938, 943, 945, 1002, 1012, 1013, 1014, 1035
Air Force Science Advisory Board___________________________________ 938
Air Force Systems Command, Ballistic Systems Division --------------- 1013
Air Pollution Division, Bureau of. State Services (PHS) --------------- 708-709
Ajax missile------------------------------------------------------- 1002
Alabama Educational Television_____________________________________ 787
Alabama, University of------------------------------------------- 787-794
College of Engineering ---------------------------------------- 521,875
Extension Center (Birmingham)_________________________________ 458
Medical College (Birmingham)----------------------------- . 458, 794, 799
Alamogordo Air Base_________________________________ _____ _ 1004
Alpha test(Army) ------------------------------------------------932
Alphabetical list of witnesses appearing before (or filing statements with)
House Select Committee on Government Research--------------- 1265-1267
1269
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
1270 INDEX
Page
__________ ______ ____------ 379
American Academy of Optometry-----------------------------------
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) ----- 808_827, 862 329,
American Association of Physics Teachers____________________________ 1018
American Aviation Publications_____________________________________ 926
______________________ --- - 794
American Board of Internal Medicine--------------------------------
American Cancer Society--------------------------------- 496, 840, 892, 894
American Chemical Society----------------------------------------- 476
American Council on Education--------------- 311,314,506-512,590,756,916
89American Diabetic Association_____________________________
American Educational Research Association----------------- 856,922,929-935
American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations
(AFL-CIO)-------------------------------------- 168,169,957-958
American Fisheries Advisory Committee, Bureau of Commercial Fisheries
(Interior) ___________________ _ 116, 118, 276
American Foundation for Pharmaceutical Education------------- 881, 886, 894
American Heart Association______________________________ 496, 840, 892, 894
American Institute for Research------------------------------------- 928
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics-------------------- _-18-1037
American Institute of Physics---------------------------------- _ 877,878,883
American Journal of Hospital Pharmacy------------------------
American Medical Association----------------- 365,367,377,535,794,959-993
_____________ _ __ __________________ 464
American Men of Science--------------------------------------------
American Optometric Association (Foundation) ----------------- 254, 363-380
American Pharmaceutical Association-------------------------- 856, 877-901
Journal----------------------------------------------------- 884,891
American Physical Society_______________________________________
American Political Science Association___________________________ 1027-1031
American Society of Hospital Pharmacists____________________________ 18891
93
American Society of Mechanical Engineers____________________________
American Society of Tool Engineers--------------------------------- 1063
American Telephone and Telegraph Co---------------------------- 1001-1003
American Visual Institute------------------------------------------ 378
_ ___-_ ------ ---- -- --- ------ 129
Ames Laboratory --------------------------------------------------
"Anatomy of a Space Age Team," by Menzies, Boston Sunday Globe_ _ _ _ 734-737
1
Anderson, John B. 50-51, 52, 63-64, 88-89, _109-110, 113, 124-125, 136, 165,
179-181, 200, 217, 250-252, 255, 277-279, 288, 357, 378-379, 381,
403, 417, 418, 451-452, 458, 469, 497, 511-512, 530-532, 555-556,
591-592, 600, 721, 727, 728, 747, 762, 763, 780, 785, 786, 794,
857, 896-897, 909, 921-922, 925, 928, 932, 937, 945-946, 952.
Annis, Edward R-------------------------------535,959
Antarctic Program, Office of (NSF)__________________________ 16, 30, 33, 36
Research stations--------------------------------------------- 534
Apollo program_______________________________________ 80-81, 517, 531, 532
Apprenticeship and Training, Bureau of (Labor)______________________ 155
Appropriations Committee (House) ------------ 130, 237, 317, 596, 611, 755, 836
Appropriations Committee (Senate)________________________________ 143, 157
Consultants Committee on Federal Medical Research---------- 1041-1048
Archambault, Dr. G. F--------------------------------------------- 893
Architectural Forum ------------------------------------------------ 926
Arctic Health Research Center, Bureau of State Services_(PHS)_-____- 710-711
Arecibo Ionospheric Observatory (Puerto Rico)________________________ 479
---------------- __--_-______ ------------- 452
Argonne Laboratory -----------------------------------------------
Armed Forces National Research Council, Committee on Vision--------- 366
Armed Services Committee (House)__________________________________ 559
Subcommittee on Research and Development --------------------- 1013
Armed Services Procurement Regulations (ASPR) ------------ 1012, 1067-1068
Armed Services Research and Development Board--------------------- 463
Arms Control and Disarmament Act (Agency) - - 193, 601, 769, 770-772, 774, 776
Army, Department of the _ _ - 131, 206, 347, 418, 520, 606, 850, 851, 852, 932, 1002
Audit Agency------------------------------------------------- 614
Arthritis and Metabolic Diseases, Council of-------------------- 496, 681-682
Associated Business Publications ------------------------------- 856, 922-927
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15: CIA-RDP66B00403R00010DRP041-9
INDEX
Page
Associated Universities, Inc------------------------ 14, 15, 16, 30, 35, 451, 452
Association of American Medical Colleges------------------ 794, 795, 796, 799
Association of American Universities------------------------------- 311, 314
Association of Railroads-------------------------------------------- 300
Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges ---------- 996, 1000
Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy------------------ 30, 35
Atlantic Missile Range--------------------------------------------- 1014
Atlas booster (missile)-------------------------------------------- 80, 1036
Atmospheric Sciences, Laboratory of, National Center for Atmospheric
Research---------------------------------------------------- 16,30,35
Atomic Energy Act of 1954----------------------------------------- 68
Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) ---------------------------------- 11,
12, 20, 24, 35, 40, 62, 65, 67-73, 77-78, 87, 93, 100, 101, 124, 196,
218, 268, 276, 319, 320, 347, 452, 508, 563, 565, 606, 761, 764,
775, 783, 786, 796, 799, 828, 832, 850, 851, 852, 858, 860, 941,
994, 1005, 1018, 1021, 1036, 1059.
Atomic Energy Commission-National Aeronautics and Space Adminis-
tration (AEC-NASA) ---------------------- 101, 218, 739, 742, 757, 775, 799
Atomic Energy Research and Development Board------------------- 71
Atwood, J. L------------------------------------------------------ 604
Auburn University------------------------------------------- 856,870-877
Audit Agency (Army) -------------------------------------------614
Auger,.Pierre --------------------------------------------------- 464
Aviation Medicine, Office of (FAA) -------------------------------- 152-153
Aviation Week--------------------------------------------------- 923,925
B
Babcock, John B------------------------------------------------ 856,922
Oral statement---------------------------------------------- 925-927
Questions and answers------------------------------- 923-925,927-928
Summary of statement on scientific and technical publications-- 1252-1253
Bachman, Paul W------------------------------------------------- 776
Oral statement---------------------------------------------- 777-780
Summary of statement on-
Adequacy of present support for R. & D--------------------- 1099
Distinction between various types of R. & D------------------ 1203
Review of Federal R. & D. programs by congressional committees_ 1259
Bailey, Wilford S------------------------------------------------ 856,870
Oral statement---------------------------------------------- 871-876
Questions and answers----------------------------------- 876-877,905
Summary of statement on-
Basic research, adequacy of present level--------------------- 1103
Criteria for evaluation of R. & D. activities ------------------- 1092
Distinction between various types of R. & D------------------ 1205
Duplication and control------------------------------------ 1133
Geographical distribution of Federal research funds ------------ 1194
Institutional vs. project grants------------------------------ 1182
Need for better coordination of R. & D. activities------------- 1139
Universities and education, benefits from Federal research sup-
port------------------------------------------------ 1153,1154
Universities' responsibilities---------------------------------- 1171
Baldwin, William R-------------------------------------- 364,377,379-380
Summary of statement on effects of Federal research support on
smaller universities and colleges-------------------------------- 1193
Ballistic Systems Division (Air Force)-------------------------------- 1013
Bates, Dorothy M-------------------------------------------- iii (Pt. 3)
Battelle Memorial Institute---------------- ------ 18,380,409-419 , 458, 827
Bayne-Jones Committee___________________________________ 1044, 1045, 1047
Bell, Alexander G -------------------------------------------------- 454
Bell Telephone Laboratories------------------------- 269,424,941,1000-1003
Berkeley Radiation Laboratory______________________________________ 319
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66BOO403ROO0100230041-9
1272 INDEX
Page
Berkner, Lloyd V-------------------------------------------------- 380
Oral statement______________________________________________ 419-427
Written statement --------------------------------------- 426,428-451
Questions and answers ----------------------------------- 451-453, 1020
Summary of statement on-
Areas of It. & D. which should receive Federal support----------- 1088
Basic research, adequacy of present level___________________ 1104, 1105
Duplication and control--------------------------------- 1129, 1130
Effects of Federal research support of the educational program---- 1163
Fragmentized vs. centralized organization of Federal R. & D.
functions------------------------------------------------ 1122
Grant and contract processes________________________________ 1128
Indirect costs of federally supported research in universities------ 1184
National objectives in R. & D_______________________________ 1083
Resources, problems concerning allocation_____________________ 1086
Role of Congress_______________________________________ 1255,1256
Role of the select committee_________________________________ 1261
Suggestions for consideration by the select committee ----------- 1264
Berman, William 11______________________________________________ 769, 774
Berson, Robert C-------------------------------------------- --- 794
Oral statement___________________________________________ 794,799-801
Written statement___________________________________________ 795-798
Questions and answers________________________________________ 801-807
Summary of statement on-
Institutional vs. project grants______________________________ 1182
Medical research____________________________ 1213, 1214, 1215, 1216
Scientific freedom__________________________________________ 1241
Biemiller, Andrew J.:
Written statement___________________________________________ 957-958
Summary of statement on-
Federal support of educational research___ __________________ 1168
Research in economic problems-------------------------- 1219-1222
Biological and Medical Sciences, Division of (NSF) -------------------- 33
Biological Standards, Division of (NIII) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 690-692
Blasingarne, F. J. L.:
Written statement___________________________________________ 959-960
"Money and Medical Schools"__________________________________ 960
Summary of statement on medical research_______________________ 1214
Blatt, Joseph D--------------------------------------------------- 132
BMEWS system--------------------------------------------------- 1002
Boeing Co----------------------------------------------------- 1035-1037
Bonneville Power Administration (Interior)___________________________ 116
Boskey, Bennett--------------------------------------------------- 722
Boston Sunday Globe, "Anatomy of a Space Age Team," by Menzies__ - 734-737
Bowles, Grover C----------------------------------------- 877
Oral statement -------------------------------------- 878-883, 887-901
Written statement___________________________________________ 883-887
Brandeis University_________________________________________ 513, 594-603
Breskins Publications______________________________________________ 923
Bronk, Detlev W________________________________________________ 254, 330
Brookhaven National Laboratory-- 6, 14, 18, 32, 48, 342, 451, 452, 600, 610, 1021
Brookings Institution________________________________________ 909-916, 958
Brown, Clarence J. (Rep.)------------------------------------------ 1,
4, 14, 46-48, 83-86, 88, 91, 105-108, 109, 113, 122-124, 132-136,
182-199, 217, 255, 284-287, 302-303, 402-403, 407, 414-417,
465-469, 471, 477-478, 479, 495-497, 523-528, 552-555, 721, 743,
744, 745, 761, 762, 805-806, 807, 822-825, 857, 869-870, 888-896,
899-900, 901, 937, 942-945.
Brown, Harold---------------------------------------------------- 94, 96
Oral statement_____________________________________ 174-182,273,1011
Written statement_______________________________________ 170-174, 182
Summary of statement on-
Adequacy of present support for R. & D__--..----------------- 1098
Criteria for evaluation of R. & D. activities------------------- 1092
Financing of R. & D., specific problems---------------------- 1110
Manpower, allocation and utilization of______________________ 1235
Manpower, competition for_________________________________ 1237
Manpower, shortage of_____________________________________ 1242
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66BOO403ROO0100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : C-RDP66BOO403ROO0100
Brown, Harold-Continued
Summary of statement on- Page
Need for better coordination of R. & D______________________ 1140
Role of select committee____________________________________ 1260
Undesirable duplication____________________________________ 1137
B-70 military plane________________________________________________ 943
Buckley, Oliver---------------------------------------------------- 269
Budget, Bureau of the_____________________________________________ 120,
124, 130, 132, 157, 218, 237, 239, 274-275, 278, 313, 314, 511,
513, 562-594, 618, 761, 774, 755, 801, 919, 921, 995, 1020-1033.
Bush, Vannevar--------------------------------------------- 308, 380, 459
Oral statement______________________________________________ 460-463
Questions and answers---------- 463-471, 472, 473, 492, 494, 530, 728, 767
"Science, the Endless Frontier"______________________________ 812, 1044
Summary of statement on-
Basic research, various aspects______________________________ 1199
Distribution of support between basic and applied It. & D__ 1100, 1102
Duplication and control____________________________________ 1135
Government-industry relationship in R. & D______________ 1226, 1227
Manpower, allocation and utilization of---------------------- 1236
Manpower, competition for_________________________________ 1238
Need for better coordination of R. & D______________________ 1142
Program evaluation of research______________________________ 1091
Suggestions for consideration by select committee______________ 1263
Universities and education, adverse effects upon ----------- 1154, 1155
Bylinsky, Gene and William E. Howard, "The Hot Rocket to Nowhere,"
Saturday Evening Post____________________________________________ 73-77
C
Calhoun, John C. Jr ------------------------------------------------ ill
Oral statement______________________________________________ 113-121
Questions and answers_______________________________ 121-127,406-407
Charts showing variety of programs and obligations for research of the
Department of the Interior_________________________________ 114, 115
Summary of statement on-
Areas of R. & D. which should receive Federal support--------- 1088
Coordination of multiagency R. & D--------------------- 1144, 1145
In-house and external research______________________________ 1125
Manpower, development of_________________________________ 1240
Questions in regard to efficiency in research___________________ 1116
Resource environments research_________________________ 1222,1223
Social and behavioral sciences, humanities, research in --------- 1207
California, University of_________ 32,48,65,71,72,357,492,038-953,1019-1026
School of Optometry_____________________________________ 365,558-559
California Institute of Technology------------ 254, 287, 305, 307, 312, 745, 1020
Calkins, Robert D.:
Oral statement______________________________________________ 909-915
Questions and answers___________________________________ 915-916,958
Summary of statement on-
Alternative sources of support for R. & D____________________ 1108
Dangers of excessive coordination of R. & D__________________ 1142
Distinction between various types of R. & D__________________ 1204
Distribution of support between basic and applied R. & D------ 1100
Duplication and control____________________________________ 1131
Institutional as. project grants______________________________ 1182
National objectives in R. & D_______________________________ 1082
National policy in R. & D., formation of_____________________ 1085
Role of Congress------------------------------------------ 1256
Social and behavioral sciences, humanities, research in----- 1207, 1210
Suggestions for greater efficiency in research------------------ - 1118
Cancer Chemotherapy National Service Center, Southern Research Insti-
tute----------------------------------------------------------- 456
Carey, William G_________________________________________ 562, 591, 592
Carnegie Corp---------------------------------------------------- 361
Carnegie Foundation for International Peace__________________________ 361
Carnegie Institute, Washington, D.C--------------------------------- 424
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
1274 INDEX
Page
Celebrezze, Anthony J_____________________________________________ 547
Centaur _program -------------------------------------------------- 84,92
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) ------------------------- 196,197-199,775
Central Project Office (Agriculture)__________________________________ 204
Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory, Chile____________________ 16, 30, 35
Chamber of Commerce, U.S., Committee on Science and Technology- 1032-1034
Charts. (See Tables and charts)
Chemical Engineers ng--------------------------- -__-_____-____-_____ 923
Chicago, University of______ --------------------------------------- 357, 452, 869
Chicago Metallurgical Laboratory ----------------------------------- 319
Chicago Rehabilitation Center______________________________________ 492
Christofilos, Nicholas C_____________________________________________ 286
Chronic Diseases Division, Bureau of State Services (PHS)_____________ 704
Cincinnati, University of, College of the Bible_________________________ 787
Civil Aeromedical Research Institute, Oklahoma City------------------ 142
Civil Aeronautics Board____________________________________________ 129
Civil Defense Management, Office of (SAC)_____________ 269, 270, 317, 729, 785
Civil Service Commission___________________________________________ 208
Cleary, Robert---------------------------------------------------- 1029
Cleveland, James C. (Rep.) ----------------------------------------- 1,
4, 51-53, 64, 71-72, 90-91, 111, 113, 125-126,138-140,165-167,
181-182, 200, 217, 252-254, 255, 279-282, 288, 315, 328-330,
339, 346-347, 357-358, 361-362, 379, 381, 403-409, 417-418,
452-453, 458-459, 470-471, 476, 532-534, 556-559, 560, 562,
592-594, 600-601, 721, 731, 732, 748, 763, 764, 765, 825-827,
833, 836, 837-839, 842, 845-849, 857, 867-868, 909, 915-916,
922, 946-948, 952, 1068-1070, 1075.
Clinical Center (NIH)---------------------------------------------- 689
Coal Research, Office of______________________________________ 116, 117, 126
Coast and Geodetic Survey_______________________________________ 250, 254
Coast Guard (Treasury)____________________________________________ 276
Collbohm, Frank R-------------------------------------------------- 721
Oral statement ---------------------------------------------- 722-726
Questions and answers --------------------------------------- 727-732
Summary of statement on-
Distinctions between various types of R. & D----------------- 1203
Duplication and control ------------------------------------ 1135
In-house and external research______________________________ 1125
Manpower, shortage of ------------------------------------- 1243
Suggestions for greater efficiency in research__________________ 1119
Colorado, University of____________________________________________ 1059
Colorado State College --------------------------------------------- 1032
Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center_______________________________ 340
Columbia University----------------------------------- 254,340-363,1020
Commerce, Department of---------- 78, 87, 111, 218, 254, 565, 566, 742, 905
Assistant Secretary__________________________________________ 290-305
Secretary--------------------------------------------------- 732, 786
Commercial Fisheries, Bureau of American Fisheries Advisory Committee
(Interior) --------------------------------------------- 116, 118, 276
Commercial Solvents Corp------------------------------------------ 776
Communicable Disease Center, Bureau of State Services (PHS) --------- 705
Community Health Services, Division of, Bureau of State Services (PHS)__ 702
Compton, Arthur -- - - --- - -- ------------ 319
Comsat Corp------------------------------------------------------ 88
"Concorde" (French-British airplane)________________________________ 103
Congress of Industrial Organizations-American Federation of Labor
(AFL-CIO) ------------------------------------------ 168-1691957-958
Congressional Record_______________________________________________ 900
Connally, Gov. John B.(Texas)------------------------------------- 453
Consolidated Aircraft Corp----------------------------------------- _98
Consultants, Committee of, on Federal Medical Research (Senate)--- 1041-1048
Consumer Price Index, Bureau of Labor Statistics (Labor) -------------- 158
"Contributions of Practicing Physicians to Medical Education," in Data-
gram----------------------------------------------------------- 986
Coolidge, William------------------------------------------------- 64
Cooperative State Experiment Station (Agriculture)----_ 204, 205, 212-213, 905
Coordinating Committee for Materials, R. & D. (FCST) --------------- 70
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/1JJ4-RDP66BOO403ROOO1O(jO41-9
Page
Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory------------------------------ 472, 473, 477
Cornell University______________________________ 216, 380, 471-485, 868, 869
Agricultural College____________________________________________ 472
Arts and Sciences College_______________________________________ 474
Home Economics College_______________________________________ 472
Industrial and Labor Relations School___________________________ 857
Medical College--------------------------------------------- 474-475
Organizational charts of______________________________________ 486-487
Research and advanced studies________________________________ 480-485
Research tables--------------------------------------------- 488-489
Veterinary Medicine College____________________________________ 472
Cox Foundation--------------------------------------------------- 95-96
+ CPFF (cost plus fixed fee)__________________________________________ 104
"Criteria for Review of Financial Requirements," by the Bureau of the
Budget------------------------------------------------------- 563-565
"Criteria for Scientific Choice," by Weinberg, Minerva----------- 316, 321-330
Cronback, Lee J., written statement_______________________________ 933-935
D
Daddario, Emilio Q.(Rep.)----------------------------------------- 518
Daily News Record----------------------------------------------- 924, 926
Darley, Ward---------------------------------------- 966, 983
Dartmouth College____________________________________ 379, 826, 1069, 1075
Medical school------------------------------------------------ 1076
Dauphinais, Raymond J_____________________________________ 878, 890, 893
Davidson Eugene J ----------------------------------------------- 732
Davison chemical Co---------------------------------------------- 776
Dees, Bowen C----------- --------------------------------- 1028
Defense Analysis, Institute of (IDA)_________________________________ 1013
Defense, Department of-------------------------------------------- 11,
12, 20, 24, 29, 32, 40, 71, 80, 87, 92, 94, 95, 100, 119, 130, 131-133,
134, 138, 142, 170-182, 206, 218, 268, 275, 279, 300, 460, 472,
477, 478, 508, 517, 537, 563, 565, 606, 615, 616, 721, 734, 739,
740, 741, 743, 744, 747, 757-758, 761, 771, 772, 775, 781, 796,
709, 806, 828, 832, 858, 943, 994, 1005, 1009, 1010, 1067, 1068.
Deputy Secretary---------------------------------------------- 769
Defense Intelligence Agency---------------------------------------- 196
Defense Research and Engineering (Defense) -------------- 132, 170-174, 1014
Defense Science Board_____________________________________________ 781
de Gaulle, Charles------------------------------------------------ 139
Deitrick,John ------------------------------- - - - - 799
Denney, George C.,Jr -------------------------------------------182
Oral statement---------------------------------------------- 193-197
Written statement___________________________________________ 183-193
Questions and answers_______________________________________ 197-200
Summary of statement on-
Academic freedom and independence_________________________ 1173
Distinctions between various types of R. & D---------------- 1202
.Financing of R. & D., specific problems______________________ 1110
In-house and external research______________________________ 1124
Need for better coordination of R. & D__________________ 1141, 1142
Social and behavioral sciences, humanities, research in--------- 1208
Role of select committee________________________________ 1259-1262
Suggestions for greater efficiency in research ------------------ 1115
Dental Public Health and Resources Division, Bureau of State Services
(PHS) --------------------------------------------------------706
DEW line ----------------------------------------------------1002
Dickey, John S------ --- -- - 763, 826
Letter to Rep. Elliott-------------------------------------- 1075-1077
Summary of statement on-
Centralization of Government research programs-------------- 1121
Effects of Federal research support on educational program----- 1161
Indirect costs of federally supported research in universities----- 1185
National objectives in R. & D______________________________ 1083
Suggestions for greater efficiency in research ------------------ 1116
Universities and education, now centers of excellence----------- 1195
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66BOO403ROO0100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/1151: CIA-RDP66BOO403ROO0100230041-9
Page
Disarmament Advisory Staff ---------------------------------------- 774
Dondero, George A------------------------------------------------ 1,4
Donovan, Gen. "Wild Bill"_________________________________________ 194
Douglas Aircraft Corp----------------------------------- 139, 721, 722, 728
Draughon, Ralph B----------------------------------------------- 871
Dryden, Hugh L--------------------------------------------------- 89
du Bose, Rene---------------------------------------------------- 492
DuBridge, Lee A---------------------------------------- 254, 267, 269, 287
Oral statement---------------------------------------------- 308-312
Written statement___________________________________________ 305-307
Questions and answers__________________________ 312-315, 318-319, 1020
Summary of statement on-
Basic research, adequacy of present level----------------- 1104, 1108
1)istributionof Federal research funds among universities, defense
of----------------------------------------------------- 1188
Manpower, shortage of_______________________ _ 1243, 1244
Universities and education, adverse effects upon--------------- 1160
Universities and education, benefits from Federal research sup-
port--------------------------------------------------- 1152
Dyna-Soar------------------------------------------------- 727,730,1035
E
Eastman Kodak Co------------------------------------------------ 724
ECA, Administrator of--------------------------------------------- 769
Economic and Statistical Studies, Office of____________________________ 33
Economic Development, Committee for______________________________ 930
Research, Advisory Board of___________________________________ 909
Economic Research Service (Agriculture) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 204, 213-214
Edison, Thomas A___________________________________________ 285, 286, 454
Education and Labor, Committee on (House) ------------------------- 788
Subcommittee on Special Education----------------------- 305, 509, 515
Education, Council of Advisers on___________________________________ 1026
Education, Manpower and Economic Growth, by Harbison and Myers ----- 751
Education, Office of (IIEW)______________ 40, 53, 537, 554, 713-715, 1059-1062
Educational and Cultural Affairs, Assistant Secretary (State) - _ - _ - - _ _ _ _ 195
Educational Media Research, Office of Education (HEW) -------------- 714
Edwards Flight Test Center---------------------------------------- 129
Effects of Federal Programs on Higher Education, by Harold Orlans------- 910
Einstein, Albert ----------------------------------------- 526,532,533,604
Eisenhower, Dwight D---------------------------------- 218, 593, 609, 1045
Eisenhower, Milton S.:
Written statement------------------------------------------- 993-996
Summary of statement on-
Continuity in Federal Government-university relationships- _ - -- 1177
Federal agency-university relationships_______________________ 1175
Grant and contract processes_______________________________ 1127
Indirect costs of federally supported research in universities_- 1186, 1187
Institutional vs. project grants__________________________ 1179 1180
Electronic News-------------------------------------------------- 924,926
Elliott, Carl (Rep.) iii,
1-5, 46, 55, 63-65, 71, 78, 88-91, 93-98, 104-111, 113, 121-122,
124, 127, 129, 131-132, 143, 154, 162-165, 170, 175, 182-183,
197, 200, 216-217, 220, 250, 254, 255, 267-275, 277, 289, 305,
307, 308, 315, 320, 330, 336-337, 338, 339, 344-345, 363, 364,
377, 380, 381, 393-399, 403, 409, 410, 411, 413-414, 419, 427,
451, 452, 453, 455, 458, 459-460, 463-464, 471, 472-476, 478, 479,
489, 494-495, 497, 506, 510, 512-513, 515, 516, 519-521, 522-523,
535, 536-537, 538, 550, 557, 561, 562, 590-591, 594-600, 602, 603,
612, 613, 616, 721, 722, 726-728, 731-734, 742-743, 745, 747-749,
760-763, 765, 769, 774, 776,870,784-788,792-794,801-805,807-
808, 822, 827, 833, 836, 837, 839-842, 849, 855-856, 857, 870, 877,
887-888, 896, 898, 900, 901, 902, 908, 909, 910, 916, 921-922,
923-925, 927-929, 932, 936, 937, 942, 945, 1019, 1075-1077.
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66BOO403ROO0100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/1 qLA-RDP66B00403R00010q 041-9
Page
Employment Security, Bureau of (Labor)_____________________________ 155
Engineer, publication of the EJC------------------------------------ 836
Engineering Education, Commission on (NSF)_____________________ 40
Engineering Manpower Commission_________________________________ 828
Engineers, Corps of------------------------------------------------ 119
Engineers Joint Council (EJC), Government Liaison Committee-__ 827, 828-836
England, scientific and technological advances in----------- 282, 300, 465, 611
Environmental Engineering and Food Protection Division, Bureau of
State Services (PHS)___________________________________________ 707-708
Environmental Health Sciences, Intramural and Extramural, Bureau of
State Services (PITS)__________________________________________ 706-707
Esso Research and Engineering Co-------------------------------- 780, 781
Ewalt, H. Ward, Jr----------------------------------------- 254, 330, 363
Oral statement---------------------------------------------- 364-367
Written statement___________________________________________ 367-375
Questions and answers___________________________________ 377-379,558
Summary of statement on-
Information and publications furnished by individual Govern-
ment agencies------------------------------------------- 1251
Need for better coordination of R. & D______________________ 1141
Optometric research_______________________________________ 1217
Scientific and technical publications__________________________ 1252
Smaller universities and Federal research support-------------- 1194
Undesirable duplication________________________________ 1137, 1138
Ewing, Gifford C-------------------------------------------------- 340
F
Faiman, Robert N----------------------------------------------- 857, 869
Fairchild Publications______________________________________________ 926
Farmer Cooperative Service (Agriculture) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 204, 214
Fawcett, Novice:
Written statement__________________________________________ 996-1000
Summary of statement on-
Geographical distribution of Federal research funds -_ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1194
Institutional v. project grants_________________________ 1179, 1180
Universities and education, adverse effects upon--------------- 1156
Universities and education, benefits from Federal research
support------------------------------------------------- 1153
Federal Aviation Act________________________________________________ 140
Federal Aviation Agency (FAA)------------------- 127-154, 218, 520, 565, 850
Administrator's Technical Advisory Board (app. B)----------------- 153
Aircraft Development Service__________________________________ 151-152
Aviation Medicine___________________________________________ 152-153
Council of Research Advisers (app. C)__________________________ 153-154
Scope of R. & D. Programs (app. A) ----------------------------- 150
Federal Bureau of Investigation______________________________________ 196
Federal Communications Commission__________________________________ 88
Federal Council for Science and Technology (FCST)___________________ 14,
15, 29, 31, 42, 46, 70, 113, 118, 119, 124, 125, 179, 206, 217-254,
267, 273, 279-280, 297, 317, 329, 564, 566, 592, 593, 611, 760,
779, 814, 822, 1017.
Federal Department of Science_______________________________________ 1010
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act______________________________ 879, 884
Federal Funds for Science (NSF)_____________________________________ 251
"Federal Government and Education, The" Edith Green (Rep.) ---------- 788
Federal Housing Administration (FIIA)_______________________________ 1026
Federal Medical Research, Committee of Consultants on (Senate)___ 1041-1048
Federal Salary Reform Act of 1962 ------------------------------------ 208
"Federal Support of Medical Research," report of Senate Committee on
Appropriations ------------------. ------------------------------975
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
1278 INDEX
Page
Feldmann, Edward G--------------------------------------------- 856, 877
Written statement-------------------------------------------- 883-887
Questions and answers________________________________________ 887-901
Letter to Hon. Carl Elliott--------------------------------------- 898
Summary of statement on-
Medical research____________________________________________ 1213
Pharmaceutical research________________________________ 1216, 1217
Scientific and technical publications__________________________ 1251
Universities' responsibilities --------------------------------- 1170
Ferguson, Gen. James F-------------------------------------------- 1013
Fermi, Enrico--------------------------------------------------- 413,863
Finger, Harold---------------------------------------------------- 87,88
Fisheries, Bureau of________________________________________________ 254
Fisk, James Brown:
Written statement----------------------------------------- 1000-1003
Summary of statement on shortage of manpower ------------------ 1243
Flanagan, John C------------------------------------------- 856,922,928
Oral statement---------------------------------------------- 929-932
Written statement___________________________________________ 933-935
Questions and answers_________________________________________ 932
Summary of statement on-
Federal support of educational research__________________ 1166, 1167
Institutional vs. project grants__________________________ 1178, 1179
Program planning and evaluation of research_________________ _ 1089
Fleming, Sir Alexander___________________________________________ 508,872
Fogarty, John E. (Rep.) -------------------------------------------- 3,
113,136,141-143,157,165,167-170,255,301,303-304,307,312-
313, 314, 337-339, 345-347, 355-357, 361-362, 377-378, 427,
937, 945, 948, 949-952.
Foley, Eugene P:
Oral statement______________________________________________ 732-742
Questions and answers_______________________________________ 743-749
"Anatomy of a Space Age Team"________________________________ 734
Newspaper article by A. A. Riley-------------------------------- 737
Summary of statement on-
Byproducts of Government R. & D__________________________ 1234
Government contracts to industry___________________________ 1231
Government-industry relationship in R. & D--------- 1225, 1228, 1229
Patent policy--------------------------------------------- 1232
Fontaine, Thomas D----------------------------------------------- 1028
Food and Drug Administration________________ __________ 552, 554, 537, 720
Ford Foundation____________________________ 48,380-381,394,400-409,1034
Grant to National Academy of Sciences________________________ 405-406
List of grants----------------------------------------------- 395-399
Ford Motor Co---------------------------------------------------- 532
Foreign Affairs Committee (House)__________________________________ 775
Foreign Language Research, Office of Education (HEW)________________ 714
Foreign Service Institute (State)____________________________________ 195
Foreman, Ed (Rep.) ------------------------------------------ 857
Forest Service (Agriculture)___________________________________ 204,214-216
Foster, William C.:
Oral statement---------------------------------------------- 769-777
Summary of statement on-
Academic freedom and independence_________________________ 1172
Coordination of multiagency R. & D_________________________ 1143
In-house and external research______________________________ 1124
Specific problems in research________________________________ 1121
France, science in-------------------------------------------------- 465
Freeman, Monroe E--------------------------------------------- 827
Oral statement______________________________________________ 837-844
Written statement___________________________________________ 850-855
Questions and answers--------------------------------------- 844849
Summary of statement on information and publications furnished by
individual Government agencies___________________________ 1250, 1251
Fry, Glenn A----------------------------------------------- 364, 376, 379
Fulton, Richard (Rep.) --------------------------------------------- 154
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 1JJRDP66B00403R0001002p1-9
Page
Fumich, George,Jr ------------------------------------------------ 126
Functions and Activities, Committee on (FCST)____________________ 226-236
"Functions and Structure of a Modern Medical School," statement by
Council on Medical Education and Hospitals, and the Association of
American Medical Colleges_______________________________________ 975
Furnas, Clifford C------------------------------------------------- 1003
Written statement_________________________________________ 1004-1010
Summary of statement on-
Alternative sources of support for R. & D________________ 1108, 1109
Basic research, adequacy of present level --------------------- 1106
Duplication and control____________________________________ 1131
Executive branch organization for It. & D. programs ----------- 1122
Financing of It. & D., specific problems---------------------- 1110
Indirect costs of federally supported research in universities____ 1185,
1186
Information and publications furnished by individual Government
agencies------------------------------------------------ 1250
Legislative-executive relationships___________________________ 1256
Manpower, development of_________________________________ 1240
Manpower, shortage of_____________________________________ 1242
National policy in R. & D., formation of_____________________ 1085
Review of Federal R. & D. programs by congressional commit-
tees---------------------------------------------------- 1258
Suggestions for consideration by select committee______________ 1264
G
Gage, N. L., written statement____________________________________ 933-935
GAO report------------------------------------------------------- 91-92
Gemini program--------------------------------------------------- 80-81
General Electric Co------------------------------ 254,286-287,301,330-339
General Electric Research Laboratory________________________________ 64
Geological Survey (Interior)______________________________ 116-117,119,121
Advisory committee to_________________________________________ 118
George C. Marshall Space Flight Center____________________ 513, 515-535, 875
Georgia, University of____________________________________ 856,901,902-909
Georgia Institute of Technology___________________________ 513,604,613-616
Georgia Nuclear Laboratories_______________________________________ 110
Germany ----------------------------------------------- 282,465,524-525
Getting, Ivan A.:
Written statement_________________________________________ 1010-1015
Summary of statement on-
Adequacy of present support for It. & D_____________________ 1099
Basic research, various aspects______________________________ 1200
Duplication and control____________________________________ 1134
Program planning of It. & D________________________________ 1090
Gilliland, E. R---------------------------------------------------- 1007
Gilman Bio-Medical Center_________________________________________ 1076
Glenn, John------------------------------------------------------ 413
Goddard Robert---------------------------------------------- 79,86,946
Gordon,'Wllllam --- 479
Gordon Research Conferences_______________________________________ 825
Government Liaison Committee, Engineers Joint Council (EJC)---- 827, 828-836
Government Operations, Committee on (House) ----------------- 274, 591, 612
Subcommittee on Natural Resources_______________________ 937, 953-954
Government Printing Office (GPO)__________________________________ 498
Government Procurement Activities_________________________________ 732
Government Research, Select Committee on, creation of (H.R. 504, 88th
Cong., 1st sess., Rept. 718)____________________ ___ __ __ _____ 1-2, 784
"Government Science and Information," report of President's Scientific
Advisory Panel-------------------------------------------------- 844
Graduate Research Center of the Southwest----------- 380,418,419-453,1020
"Graduate Training in Engineering, Mathematics, and the Physical
Sciences"------------------------------------------------------- 1007
"Grants for Research Projects" (HEW) from Federal Register --------- 540-547
Green, Edith (Rep.) --------------------------------------------- 509,788
Gross, Paul M---------------------------------------------------- 862
Gross National Product (GNP) -------------------------- 11, 12, 20, 282, 318
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66BOO403ROO0100230041-9
 A9pved For Release 2005/033n ,CIA-RDP66BOO403ROO0100230041-9
II Page
Haber, Bernard D----------------------------------------------- 513,603
Written statement ------------------------------------------- 604-609
Summary of statement on-
Byproducts of Government R. & D__________________________ 1232
Duplication and control____________________________________ 1134
Government contracts to industry--------------------------- 1231
Government-industry relationships in It. & D ----------------- 1228
Manpower, development of --------------------------------- 1240
Program planning of R. & D-------------------------------- 1090
Role of universities in basic research ------------------------- 1165
Suggestions for greater efficiency in research------------------ 1118
Hahn, Otto----------------------------------------------------- 67
Hailsham, Lord---------------------------------------------------- 46
Halaby, Najeeb E.:
Oralstatement ---------------------------------------------- 127-131
Written statement------------------------------------------- 143-154
Questions and answers_______________________________________ 131-143
Summary of statement on-
Byproducts of Government U. & D__________________________ 1233
Coordination of multiagency it. & D_____________________ 1142, 1143
Government contracts to industry ---------- .----------------- 1231
Government-industry relationships in R. & D------------- 1125, 1226
Program planning of R. & D-------------------------------- 1089
Undesirable duplication____________________________________ 1138
Haller, George L ------------------------------------------- 254
Oral statement-------------- -------------------------- 331-333
Written statement___________________________________________ 333-336
Questions and answers_______________________________________ 336-339
Summary of statement on-
Duplication and control ------------------------------------ 1131
Financing of It. & D., specific problems______________________ 1110
Information storage, retrieval and sharing---------------- 1248, 1249
National objectives in R. & D_______________________________ 1081
Suggestions for greater efficiency in research------------------ 1119
Harbison, Frederick------------------------------------------ - ---- 751
Harrar, J. George:
Written statement________________________________________ 1015-10, 18
Summary of statement on-
Duplication and control------------------------------------ 1132
Favorable evaluation of the present system of R. & D. effort- 1114, 1115
Financing of It. & D., specific problems______________________ 1112
Information storage, retrieval and sharing____________________ 1247
Role of Con;ress------------------------------------------ 1255
Universities and education, relationship with Federal Govern-
nient--------------------------------------------------- 1151
Harris, William J-------------------------------------------------- 827
Oral statement ---------------------------------------------- 832,836
Written statement ------------------------------------------- 828-831
Questions and answers----------------------------------------- 836
Summary of statement on-
Conflicts of interest---------------------------------------- 1245
Distribution of Federal research funds among universities------ 1190
Favorable evaluation of the present system of It. & D. effort- 1113, 1115
International assistance research________________ ----------------------------- 1222
Manpower, development of_________________________________ 1239
Manpower, shortage of________________________ ------------------------------------- 1243
Materials research----------------------------------------- 1222
Resources, problems concerning allocation-------------------- 1086
Status of science and technology in the U.S------------------- 1080
Harrison, Edwin D------------------------------------------------ 613
Harrison, Gordon------------------------------------------------ 406-407
Hartford Foundation----------------------------------------------- 840
Harvard University---------------- __ 40, 604
Astronomical Observatory-------------------------------------- 528
School of Business --------------------------------------------- 726
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66BOO403ROO0100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 i hRDP66BOO4O3ROOO1OO2j2RJ1-9
Page
Hatch Act------------------------------------------- -- 474,858
Naughton, Daniel J--------------------------------------------- 78,95,98
Oral statement----------------------------------------------- 99-103
Questions and answers__________________________________ ____ 104-111
Letter to Hon. Carl Elliott__________________________________ 103-104
Summary of statement on-
Basic research, adequacy of present level ---------------------- 1104
Distinctions between various types of R. & D ------------------ 1202
Government contracts to industry -----------------------
1230, 1231
Manpower, competition for_________________________________ 1237
Roles of universities in basic research ------------------ 1166
Suggestions for greater efficiency in R. & D------------------- 1188
Haworth, Leland J:
Oral statement------------------------------------------------ 5-17
Written statement_______________________________________ 17-31,31-46
Questions and answers--------------------- 46-55, 64, 78, 252, 1000, 1011
Summary of statement on-
Adequacy of present support for R. & D______________________ 1097
Distinction between various types of R. & D-------------- 1204, 1205
Distribution of support between basic and applied R. & D__ 1102, 1103
Duplication and control -------------------------------- 1131, 1132
Effects of Federal research support on educational program----- 1162
Federal agency-university relationships_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1176
Information and publications furnished by individual Govern-
ment agencies------------------------------------------- 1249
Manpower, allocation and utilization of______________________ 1235
Manpower, competition for ---------------------------------- 1237
National objectives in It. & D_______________________________ 1082
Need for better coordination of R. & D_______________________ 1140
Social and behavioral sciences, humanities, research in --------- 1207
Status of science and technology in the U.S------------------- 1080
Heald, Henry T--------------------------------------- -- - 380, 381
Written statement___________________________________ 382-388, 388-393.
Questions and answers_______________________________________ 394-409
Ford Foundation grants to NAS_________________________________ 405
Letter to lion. Carl Elliott-------------------------------------- __395
Letter to Hon. James C. Cleveland______________________________ 404
List of Ford Foundation grants ---------------------------------- 395
Summary of statement on-
Academic freedom and independence_________________________ 1174
Criteria for evaluation of R. & D. activities------------------- 1092
Financing of R. & D., specific problems______________________ 1111
Grant and contract processes________________________________ 1127
In-house and external research______________________________ 1124
Legislative-executive relationships______________________ 1256
National policy in R. & D., formation of_____________________ 1084
Need for better coordination of R. & D_______________________ 1140
Role of select committee____________________________________ 1261
Scientific freedom-------------------- _ 1241, 1242
Status of science and technology in the U.S------------------- 1079
Suggestions for consideration by select committee--------------- 1265
Universities and education, adverse effects upon--------------- 1159
Health and Medical (Affairs) Committee (HEW) -------------------- 536-561
HEW, PHS, NIH, 1963 and 1964 appropriations -------------------- 700-701
Health, Education, and Welfare, Department of----------------------- 24,
29, 40, 53, 119, 218, 301, 330, 380, 498, 513, 535, 536-561, 795,
850-852, 1005, 1020, 1021, 1046.
Public Health Service (NIH)---------------------------------- 617-720
"Research Manpower in the Pharmaceutical Industry, 1959-61" _ 1049-1058
Research obligations, 1964 (HEW)_______________________________ 538
Henderson, L. J---------------------------------------------- ---- 722
Hercules missile.- - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 102
High Altitude Observatory, National Center for Atmospheric Research,
Boulder, Colo-------------------------------------------------- 35
Historical Office, Bureau of Public Affairs (State) ---------------------- 195
Hitler, Adolf------------------------------------------------------ 67,524
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66BOO403ROO0100230041-9
 Amyed For Release 2005/0i/&kCIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
Page
Hodges, Luther----------------------------------------- - 907
Hollomon, J. Herbert________________________________ 78, 111, 254, 273, 289
297
--- 294-
Oral statement-------------------------------------------
Written statement________________________ --- ----__ - --- - __- 290-294
Questions and answers -------------------- 297?-305, 332, 1011, 1012, 1014
Summary of statement on-
Basic research, various aspects ------------------------------- 1199
Coordination of multiagency R. & D_________________________ 1143
Criteria for evaluation of R. & D. activities___________________ 1093
Duplication and control____________________________________ 1134
Financing of R. & D., specific problems___________________ __ 1109
Government-industry relationship in R. & D-------------- 1227, 1228
National objectives in R. & D_______________________________
National policy in R. & D., formation of_____________________ 1084
Role of Congress------------------------------------------ 1255
______________________________________ 340
Stanford C
Adm
Hoo
er
____
.
,
p
Robert L. (Staff Director) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ iii, (pt. III),
Hopper
,
1, 4, 113, 255, 381, 515, 568, 721, 794. 857, 937
Hospital and Medical Facilities Division, Bureau of State Services (PHS) - 704-
705, 712-713
Hospitals, Division of, Bureau of Medical Services (PHS) ------------ 712-713
"Hot Rocket to Nowhere, The," by Gene Bylinsky and William E. Howard,
Saturday Evening Post-------------------------------------------- 73-77
House Resolution 504, 88th Cong., 1st sess--------------------------- 1-2
House Select Committee on Government Research, alphabetical list of
witnesses appearing before (or filing statements with) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1265
"
Howard, William E. and Gene Bylinsky, "The Hot Rocket to Nowhere,
Saturday Evening Post-------------------------------------------- 73-77
Huff, Ben G -----------------------------------------------------170
Hughes, Mrs. Charles Evans________________________________________ 495
Hughes Aircraft Corp___________________________________________ 132
Humble OR and Refining Co---------------------------------------- 780
Hutchisson, Elmer:
Written statement_________________________________________ 1018-1019
Summary of statement on-
Adequacy of present support for R. & D______________________ 1099
Continuity in Federal Government-university relationships- _ _ __ 1178
Distribution of support between basic and applied R. & D------- 1101
I
_______________________ __----_- 36
Ikeda, Prime Minister (Japan)--------------------------------------
Illinois, University of_______________________________ 491, 794, 796, 799, 1059
Illinois Geological State Survey____________________________________ 841
Indian Affairs, Bureau of (Interior)________________________________ 116-117
Indian Health Division, Bureau of Medical Services (PHS) _ _ -_ _ _ _ _ _ _ 712-713
Indiana, University of______________________________________________ 523
Division of Optometry_________________________________________ 365
Industry-Government Aerospace Relationship, Stanford Research Institute-- 1067
Inhouse Research Salaries and Expenses, Office of Education (HEW), 713-714
Instrumentation Laboratory__________________________________ 758,764,766
Intelligence and Research, Bureau of (State)________________________ 183-200
Intelligence Research, Office of______________________________________ 1027
Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) -------------------- 831, 835, 1012
Interior, Department of the__ 113, 116-121, 125, 127, 218, 276, 295, 406-407, 827
Bonneville Power Administration________________________________ 116
Organization chart (fig. 12) - ----- -- - - - __________________________ 114 "Total Obligations for Research, 1963" (fig. 13) ------------------- 115
International Business Machines (IBM) ------------------------------ 845
International Development Agency (State)___________________________ 193
International Geophysical Year of 1957-58 (I GY) ----- _ ----------- 35-36, 564
International Indian Ocean Expedition____________________________ 16, 30,36
International Research Office (NIH)------------------------------- 697-699
International Science Activities, Committee on (SAC) ----------------- 33, 270
International Scientific Affairs, Office of (State) ----------------------- 195
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66BOO403ROO0100230041-9
INDEX 1283
Page
International Service, Committee on (SAC) ---------------------270
International Year of the Quiet Sun----------------------------- 16, 30, 564
Inventor's Council_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 286
----------------------------------
"Investing in Scientific Progress" (NSF) ----------------------------- 811
J
James, Prof. Charles----------------------------------------------- 863
Japan, scientific and technological advances in----------------------- 282, 300
Jet Propulsion Laboratory ------------------------------------- 14,48, 1021
Jodrell Bank, University of Manchester------------------------------ 480
Johns Hopkins University-------------------------------- 495,776,993-996
Johnson, President Lyndon B--------------------------------------- 823
Joint Chiefs of Staff, chairman of------------------------------------ 199
Joint Committee on Atomic Energy--------------------------------- 68,268
Jones, Boisfeuillet--------------------------------------- 111, 380, 513535
Oral statement---------------------------------------------- 536-552
Questions and answers------------------------------- 552-561,592,593
Summary of statement on-
Conflicts of interest------------------------------------ 1244,1245
Financing of It. & D., specific problems----------------------
1111
Grant and contract processes--------------------------------
1126
Manpower, competition for---------------------------------
1237
Optometric research---------------------------------------
1217
Program evaluation of research______________________________
1090
Scientific freedom__________________________________________
1241
Universities' responsibilities______________________________________
1171
"Grants for Research Projects"_________________________________
540
"Public Health Service Support for Research in the Visual Sciences"__
560
Research programs of HEW____________________________________
672
"Resources for Medical Research"_______________________________
617
Summary of "Grants Manual ------------------------------------
547
Table showing research obligations for HEW----------------------
538
"Universities Maintaining Full-Time Washington Offices"-_
558
"University Personnel Spending Full-Time on Preparation of Appli-
cations for Research Support"_________________________________
557
Jones, Charles F.:
Oral statement---------------------------------------------- 780-784
Questions and answers_______________________________________ 785-786
Summary of statement on-
Areas of It. & D. which should receive Federal support-------- 1087
Criteria for evaluation of R. & D. activities__________________ 1094
Government-industry relationship in It. & D------------- 1226, 1229
Manpower, allocation and utilization of______________________ 1235
Need for better coordination of It. & D______________________ 1142
Suggestions for consideration by select committee-------------- 1262
Jones, Robert E. Jr. (Rep.) ----------------------------------------- 937
Written statement___________________________________________ 953-956
Summary of statement on-
Information storage, retrieval, and sharing--------------- 1247, 1248
Water pollution research____________________________________ 1222
Journal of Applied Physics____________________________________ 1018
Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences_____________________________ 879, 884, 891
K
Kappel, Frederick R_______________________________________________ 1001
Karth report (House Rept. 1959, 87th Cong., 2d sess.) ----------------- 92-93
Kemeny, John G.:
Letter to Hon. J. C. Cleveland______________________________ 1069-1070
"Once the Professor Was a Teacher," New York Times Magazine__ 1070-1074
Summary of statement on-
Effects of Federal research support on educational program----- 1161
Grant and contract processes________________________________ 1128
Kennedy, President John F------------------------------ 36, 218, 615, 1021
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66BOO403ROO0100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
Kerr, Clark: Page
Written statement ----------------------------------------- 1019-1026
Summary of statement on-
Academic freedom and independence_________________________ 1172
Basic research, adequacy of present level______________________ 1106
Distribution of Federal research funds among universities-__ 1190, 1191
Effects of Federal research support on educational program--_ 1162, 1163
Federal agency-university relationships___________________ 1174, 1176
Indirect costs of federally supported research in universities____ _ _ _ 1183
Institutional vs. project grants______________________ 1180,1181-1182
Manpower, development of__________________________________ 1240
Role of universities in basic research__________________________ 1164
Smaller universities and Federal research support__ _ _ _ -------- _ 1193
Universities and education, adverse effects upon_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1155
Universities and education, new centers of 1196
Universities and education relationship with Federal Govern-
ment ---------------------------------------------- 1150, 1151
Universities' responsibilities_____________________________ 1169, 1170
Kettering, Charles----------------------- ------------------ 285, 287
Kidd, Charles V------------------------- - ------------------------ 1025
Killian, James R., Jr ._____________________________________ 471, 749, 1034
Oral statements_____________________________________ 750-760,776-777
Questions and answers ---------------------------------------- 760-769
Summary of statement on-
Academic freedom and independence--------------------- 1172, 1174
Distribution of Federal research funds among universities------ 1192
Distribution of support between basic and applied R. & D------ 1101
Effects of Federal research support on educational program--_ 1163, 1164
Federal support of educational research_______________________ 1167
Government-industry relationship in R. & D------------------ 1228
Indirect costs of federally supported research in universities------ 1184
Institutional vs. project grants_______________________________ 1180
Manpower, allocation and utilization of---------------------- 1236
Manpower, competition for_________________________________ 1238
Manpower, shortage of_____________________________________ 1243
Program evaluation of R. & D______________________________ 1091
Review of Federal R. & D. programs by congressional committees- 1258
Specific problems in research______________________________ 1120
Status of science and technology in the United States---------- 1079
Suggestions for consideration by select committee-------------- 1263
Universities' responsibilities _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1169, 1170
Kirk, Grayson---------------------------------------------- 254,330,339
Oral statement______________________________________ 340-344,347-349
Written statement___________________________________________ 349-354
Questions and answers__________________________ 344-347, 355-363, 1020
Summary of statement on--
Academic freedom and independence_________________________ 1173
Distribution of Federal research funds among universities, pro-
posals for wider----------------------------------------- 1189
Effects of Federal research support on educational program ----- 1162
Federal agency-university relationships ------------ ..------ 1174, 1175
Indirect costs of federally supported research in universities- 1183, 1185
Information storage, retrieval and sharing -------------------- 1247
Roles of universities in basic research --------------- 1164, 1165, 1166
Social and behavioral sciences, humanities, research in --------- 1209
Kirkpatrick, Evron M.:
Written statement_________________________________________ 1027-1031.
Examples of NSF grants in social sciences_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1030
Summary of statement on political science research---------------- 1223
Kistiakowsky, George B------------------------- 273, 404, 513, 566, 603, 760
Written statement___________________________________________ 609-612
Summary of statement on-
Coordination of multiagency R. & D_________________________ 1145
Criteria for evaluation of R. & D. activities___________________ 1095
Distribution of Federal research funds among universities---____ 1190
Distribution of support between basic and applied R. & D------ 1102
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R0001002
INDEX 30041-9
Kistiakowsky, George B.-Continued
Summary of statement on-Continued
Favorable evaluation of the present system of Federal support of Page
research-------------------------------------------------- 1114
Grant and contract processes_______________________________ 1126
Manpower, allocation and utilization of______________________ 1236
Review of Federal R. & D. programs by congressional committees- 1257
Kitt Peak National Observatory, Tucson, Ariz ---------------------- 15, 30, 35
Kiwwireactor ------------------------------------------------------ 88
Knox, W. T ------------------------------------------------------ 780
Koppers Co-------------.--------------------------------------- 776, 777
Labor, Department of_______________________________________ 154-170 905
Bureau of Employment Security_________________________________ 155
Labor Statistics, Bureau of (Labor)___________________________ 155, 157, 158
Lamb, George A--------------------------------------------------- 126
Lamont Geological Observatory_____________________________________ 340
Lampert Committee----------------------------------------------- 79
Land, Edwin II --------------------------------------------- 513, 603-604
Land Management, Bureau of (Interior)_______________ 116, 117, 119, 122, 123
Landrum., Phil M. (Rep.)------------------------------------------- 1,
4, 53, 90, 110-111, 113, 255, 315, 330, 857, 901, 908
Langley Laboratory------------------------------------------------ 129
Laser------------------------------------------------------------ 1002
Lasker Foundation------------------------------------------------ 426
Lawrence, E. 0---------------------------------------------------- 319
Lawrence Radiation Laboratory____________________________________ 71, 938
Leith, Cecll E.,Jr -------------------------------------------------- 940
Levin, Louis---------------------------------------------------- 513, 594
Questions and answers--------------------------------------- 594-602
Supplementary comments____________________________________ 602-603
Summary of statement on-
Effects of Federal research support on educational program--___ 1162
Geographical distribution of Federal research funds -------- 1194, 1195
Indirect costs of federally supported research in universities--_-- 1182,
1183
Manpower, shortage of_____________________________________ 1242
Smaller universities and Federal research support---------- --- 1193
Universities and education, new centers of excellence__ 1195, 1196, 1197
Universities' responsibilities_____________________________ 1170, 1171
Library of Congress------------------------------------------------ 521
Life Science Panel (SAC) ------------------------------------------- 270
Lilienthal, David____________________________________________ 342,343,356
Lincoln Laboratory_______________________________ 14, 148, 472, 758, 764766
"List of Small Business Concerns Interested in Performing Research and
Development"-------------------------------------------------- 740
Livermore------------------------------------------- 48, 100, 766, 942, 947
Lockheed Aircraft Corp------------- 78, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 110
Leadership fund----------------------------------------------- 109
Logistics Institute (Defense)________________________________________ 133
Long, F. A------------------------------------------------- 380,459,471
Oral statement------------------------------------------------ 472
Written statement___________________________________________ 480-489
Questions and answers_______________________________________ 472-480
Summary of statement on-
Basic research, adequacy of present level- -------------------- 1107
Centralization of Federal agencies supporting research ---------- 1121
Role of universities in basic research------------------------- 1164
Universities and education, adverse effects upon ------------ 1160, 1161
Los Alamos Science Laboratory---------------- 14, 48, 100, 610, 766, 938, 1021
Lovelace, Randolph------------------------------------------------ 492
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15D : CCIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
6 IN
M Page
McConnell, John W----------------------------------------------- 856
Oral statement______________________________________________ 857-867
Questions and answers_______________________________________ 867-870
Tables on expenditures, research at University of New Hampshire__ 866-867
Summary of statement on-
Duplication and control____________________________________ 1133
Federal agency-university relationships_______________________ 1175
Financing of R. & D., specific problems______________________ 1112
Institutional vs. project grants______________________ __ 1180, 1181
National policy in R. & I)., formation of_____________________ 1084
Universities and education, adverse effects upon ----------- 1156, 1157
Universities and education, benefits from Federal research
support-------------------------------------------- 1152, 1153
McGraw-Hill Publishing Co-------------------------------------- 923, 926
McKittrick, Leland S-._____________________________________________ 960
McLean, Mrs. Evelyn Walsh________________________________________ 495
McMillan, Brockway ---------------------------------------------- 1013
McMillan, E. M--------------------------------------------------- 67
McNamara, Robert__________________________________________ 94, 133, 199
Magazine Publishers Association_________________________________ __ 924
Manchester, University of, Jodrell Bank______________________________ 480
Manhattan District Project______________________ 268, 319, 340, 400, 938, 940
Manpower Development and Training Act (Oflice)______________ 155, 166, 167
Manpower Panel, Science and Technology (SAC)___________________ ---------------------- 270
Mariner spacecraft------------------------------------------------- 97
Maritime Administration_________________________________________ 296, 300
Martin, Glenn---------------------------------------------------- 285
Martin, Patrick Minor (Rep.)--------------------------------------- 1,
4, 53-55, 64-65, 72, 91-93, 111, 113, 126-127, 140-141, 182, 217,
255, 287-288, 307, 339, 358-360, 363, 721, 732, 749, 765, 766, 767,
M 768, 769, 937, 946, 948-949.
Maser --------- ----------------------- ----- ------ - -- - 1002
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) ------------------------ 39,
287, 319, 357, 468, 471, 521, 749, 750, 758, 761, 768, 827, 869,
941, 1034, 1035, 1068.
Visiting Committee for Sponsored Research---------------- 756, 759, 769
Materials in Design Engineering_____________________________________ 926
Mathematical, Physical, and Engineering Sciences, Division of (NSF)____ 33
Maxwell Air Force Base____________________________________________ 1032
Medical Services, Bureau of, Division of Hospitals (PHS) ------------ 712-713
Medical Services, Bureau of, Indian Health Division (PHS) - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 712-713
Mees, C. E ------------------------------------------------------724
Menzies, Ian, "Anatomy of a Space Age Team," Boston Sunday Globe__ 734--737
Mercury program------------------------------------------------ 80, 95
Metalworking News---------------------------------------------- 924, 926
Meyers, Charles A-.------------------------------------------------ 751
Midwestern University Association__________________________________ 451
Miller, George P. (Rep.)---------------------------------- -------- 1, 3-4,
49, 63, 70-71, 77-78, 82-83, 85, 86, 92-93, 105, 107, 124, 137-138,
255, 275--277, 282, 284, 297-300, 313-314, 332, 381, 418-419, 427,
460, 464--465, 470, 471, 478-480, 521, 528-530, 534, 555, 559-560,
721, 726, 727, 745, 746, 747, 750, 928.
Miller, Stephen D-------------------------------------------------- 923
Miller-Freeman Co------------------------------------------------ 926
Minerva, "Criteria for Scientific Choice," by Weinberg----------- 316, 321-330
Mines, Bureau of (Interior)__________________________ 116, 117, 119, 121, 295
Minnesota, University of ------------------------------- 732, 1015, 10181027
Minuteman missile -------------------------------------------------- 1036
Missiles and Rockets----------------------------------------------- 926
MITRE---------------------------------------------------------- 1013
Modern Hospital-------------------------------------------- 877, 878, 883
Modern Plastics--------------------------------------------------- 923
Mohole project ------------------------------------------- 16, 30, 280, 565
MOL----------------------------------------------------------.-- 727
"Money and Medical Schools," American Medical Association-------- 960-993
Morrow Committee------------------------------------------------ 79
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15= J RDP66BOO4O3ROOO10021W1 -9
Page
Moynihan, Daniel P---------------------------------------------- 154, 156
Murphree, E. V---------------------------------------------------- 781
Murray, William M., Jr-------------------------------------- 380, 417, 453
Oral statement----------------------------------------------- 454-458
Questions and answers________________________________________ 458-459
Summary of statement on-
Duplication and control____________________________________ 1134
Favorable evaluation of the present system of Government re-
search programs_________________________________________ 1113
Government-industry relationships in R. & D ----------------- 1228
Murtaugh, Joseph S------------------------------------------------ 618
N
Naftalin, Micah H_________________________ 1, 113, 255, 381, 575, 721, 857, 937
National Academy of Engineering___________________________________ 836
National Academy of Sciences (NAS)________________________________ 15,
29, 32, 55, 56-65, 99, 118, 126, 219, 275, 317, 404-406, 564, 566,
757,779,827,829,830 , 836, 938, 942, 1038, 1047.
National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics_______________________ 79, 1036
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) --------------- 24,
40, 62, 77-78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 84, 87, 90, 91, 93, 94, 95, 100, 101'
129, 130, 131, 137, 138, 142, 254, 276, 347, 475, 478, 508-509,
510, 513, 515, 517, 519, 523, 529-535, 537, 563, 606, 613, 740, 747,
794, 796, 828, 832, 850, 851, 852, 858, 859, 875, 956, 999, 1001,
1005, 1021, 1024, 1036, 1059, 1060.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration: Atomic Energy Com-
mission (NASA-AEC) ---------------------- 101, 218, 739, 742, 757, 775, 799
National Agricultural Library, Beltsville, Md _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 207, 216
National Agricultural Research Advisory Committee----------------- 204-205
National Arbitration Association_____________________________________ 1027
National Association of College and University Business Officers--_ 856, 916-922
National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), Research Committee__ 776-780
National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges------ 904
National Aviation Facilities Experimental Center, Atlantic City, N.J. __129, 140
National Bureau of Standards_____________________________ 424, 519, 520, 830
National Business Publications_____________________________________ 924
National Cancer Institute (NIII)__________________________________ 675-677
Clearing house ------------------------------------------900
National Center for Atmospheric Research, Atmospheric Sciences Labo-
ratory, Boulder, Colo__________________________________________ 16, 30, 35
National Defense Education Act_____________________________________ 40,
41, 305, 510, 515, 613, 860, 951, 1024, 1026, 1061, 1062
National Defense Research Committee_______________________________ 1018
National Dental Institute__________________________________________ 367
National Education Improvement Act_______________________________ 1023
National Formulary______________________________________ 877, 879, 884, 895
National Foundation for Higher Education___________________________ 1026
National Heart Institute (NIH)----------------------------------- 677-680
National Institute of Arthritis and Metabolic Diseases (NIH) __ _ _ _ 496, 681-682
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NIH)___ 682-683
National Institute of Dental Research (NIH) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 683-684
National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIH) ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 684-686
National Institute of Mental Health (NIH)------------------------- 686-687
National Institute of Neurological Diseases and Blindness (NIH) ------ 687-688
National Institutes of Health (NIH, HEW)--------------------------- 32,
34, 40, 61-63, 143, 269, 271, 275, 312, 320, 344, 361-362, 366-
367, 458, 467, 475, 478, 494, 496, 498, 508-510, 536-561, 593-
594, 596, 613, 615, 789, 794-797, 799-800, 802-803, 827, 846
(NRP), 852, 858, 860-861, 869, 897, 900, 976, 994-995, 098-999,
1024, 1026, 1035, 1040, 1043-1058, 1061
Appropriations tables (1063-64) ------------------------------- 700-701
History, organization, functions ------------------------------- 672-719
"Resources for Medical Research"_____________________________ 617-671
"National Intelligence Survey", (State)__________________________ __ 196
National Park Service____________________________________ 116, 117, 118, 119
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66BOO403ROO0100230041-9
 ApprpXed For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
12 ~s~S INDEX
Page
National Radio Astronomy Observatory, Green Bank, W. Va-------- 15, 30, 35
National Register of Scientific and Technical Personnel (NSF) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 42
"National Research Centers"_______________________________________ 30
National Research Council---------- 32, 56, 451, 779, 827, 1030, 1034, 1038,1047
Naval Research Laboratory (office)- 34, 62, 268, 337, 424, 830, 835, 850, 858, 1005
National Science Advisory Board (NSF)______________________ 15, 30, 45, 779
National Science Foundation (NSF) --------------------------------- '
5,
15, 16, 17, 24, 29, 30-45, 46, 47, 50, 54, 55, 62-63, 168, 218, 251,
268, 269, 276, 279, 280, 281, 283, 311, 312, 330, 347, 365, 423,
475, 477, 478, 510, 596, 599, 604, 609, 611, 613, 616, 739, 742,
754, 755, 756, 762, 764, 766, 779, 797, 798, 803, 809, 811-815,
831, 845, 850, 851, 858, 860, 861, 862, 869, 918, 919, 942, 994,
995, 999, 1003, 1005, 1012, 1024, 1026, 1027-1031, 1034, 1059,
1060, 1061, 1072, 1073
"Financial Report for Fiscal Year 1963"__________________________ 44-45
"Investing in Scientific Progress"________________________________ 811
"Profiles of Manpower in Science and Technology"________________ 811
National Science Foundation Federal funds for science survey----------- 116
National Science Foundation grants in social sciences, 1960-62 ------ 1030-1031
National Security Act of 1947_____________________________________ 106, 198
National Security Agency__________________________________________ 196
National Society of College Teachers________________________________ 1059
"Nation's Engineering Research Needs, 1965-85," Engineers Joint
Council------------------------------------------------------- 829,832
Natural Resources, Subcommittee on, Government Operations Committee
(House) -------------------------------------------------- 937,953-954
Navy, Department of the___________________________________________ 132,
142, 206, 239, 254, 347, 356, 418, 520, 606, 850, 851, 852
Nerva (engine) ---------------------------------------------------- 88
Neucleonics----------------------------------------------------- 923,025
New England Board of Higher Education---------------------------- New Hampshire, University of________________________________ 856'857-870
New Haven Railroad ---------------------------------------------- 301
New York, State University of, Buffalo _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1003-1010
New York hospital------------------------------------------------ 472
New York Times Magazine______________________________ 380,421,1070-1074
New York University Medical Center ------------------------------ 489-506
Nike-X missile---------------------------------------------------- 102
Nimbus program (system)_______________________ - __ 297,565
--------------
North American Aviation Co------------------------- 104-106,513,604-609
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 787
"Notice of Research Project" (NRP)________________________________ 838
Notre Dame University____________________________________________ 872
Nuclear Society--------------------------------------------------- 938
Nursing Division, Bureau of State Services (PHS) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 702-703
0
Oak Ridge National Laboratory_____________________ 254,315,330-876,1025
Occupational Health Division, Bureau of State Services (PHS) ---------- 710
Oceanography, Committee on (FCST)_______________________________ 125
Oceanography, Institute for, University of Southern California, La Jolla- 526-527
Oceanography, Interagency Committee on (ICO)____________________ 236-237
Oceanography, Subcommittee on (House)_____________________________ 275
O'Dette, Ralph E------------------------------------------------- 1029
OECD, Science Ministers of---------------------------------------- 46
Ohio State University___________________________________ 868,901,996-1000
School of Optometry------------------------------------------- 364
Oil and Gas, Office of (Interior)_____________________________________ 116
Oil and Gas Journal__________________________________________ 923,924,926
Oklahoma, University of, Medical Center_____________________________ 142
"Once the Professor Was a Teacher," by Kemeny, New York Times
Magazine--------------------------------------------------- 1070-1074
ONR, Office of---------------------------------------------------- 764
Optometric Center (New York City) -------------------------------- 365, 367
Optometrically trained personnel active in vision research, list of------ 370-375
Optometrically trained personnel associated with NIH---------- 1961-63, 561
Optometry, Division of Indiana University_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 365
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R00010041-9
INDEX
Page.
Optometry, School of, Ohio State University 364
Optometry, School of, Pacific University 364, 380
Optometry, School of, University of California_____________ ---- 365
Organization for Science and Technology in the Government (AAAS)__ 814-815
Orlans, Harold, "The Effects of Federal Programs on Higher Educa-
tion"---- ------- - - ------ - - - - -------------------------------- 910, 1025
Outdoor Recreation, Bureau of (Interior) ----------------------- - - - - 116, 117
P
Pacific University, School of Optometry------------------------------ 364
Palo Alto Laboratory (AEC) ---------------------------------------- 9100
24
Paper Trade Journal----------------------------------------------- 465
Paris, University of------------------------------------------------
Parris, Addison W., letter to lion. James C. Cleveland----------------- 7749
49
Patent Office------------------------------------------------------
"Patterns of Federal Research and Development" (OST) ------------- 2257-260
57,260
"Paths to Progress" (OST) -------------------------------------- 193
Peace Cows (State) ------------------------------------------------ 340
-----------
Pegram, eorge---------------------------------------
Petroleum Engineer----------------------------------------------- 924
Peyton, Donald L.: 1032-1034
Written statement -----------------------------------------
of statement on-
Distinction between various types of R. & D------------------ 1204
Duplication and control---------- -----------------------
Government-industry relationships in R. & D- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1227
Need for better coordination of R. & D---------------------- 1139
Suggestions for consideration by select committee---------- 1263,1 1264
Suggestions for greater efficiency in research------------------1
Universities and education, adverse effects upon-------------- 1037-1048
Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association---------------------- -
Pharmacy Division, Public Health Service ---------------------------- 893
Physical Science and Rehabilitation, Department of, New York Universit489-506
Medical Center--------------------------------------- 06
Physics, Commission on College (NSF)_________ -_ ----
Physics Today, "Whither Graduate Education," by Berkner__ 426, 427, 439-451
558, 558,929
Pittsburgh, University of----------------------------
894
Pittsburgh Pharmacy Sch.ool-----------------------------
Polaris missile ------------------------------------------ 101, 831, 835
Polaroid Corp----------------------------------------------------- 513
Policy Planning Council, (State)------------------------------------' 195
Powers, Lee---------------------------------------------------- 966,971
President's Science Advisory Committee__ 218, 219, 220, 267, 269, 270, 273-274,
565-567, 609-613, 749, 760, 779, 814, 822, 844, 1023, 1036, 1045
Panel on Scientific and Technical Manpower-------------------- -
Seaborgreport ------------------------ 7, 14-15, 19, 29-33, 42, 46, 70-71
Price, David E----------------------------------------------------547
Price, Melvin (Rep.) - - - -------- 1, 4, 49-50, 64, 70, 87-88, 90, 93, 108-109,
255, 268, 281, 282-284, 315, 328, 822, 857, 868-869, 876- 877, 10122
Princeton University----------------------------------------- ----- 110
Procter and Gamble Co--------------------------------------------
Products List Circular, Small Business Administration (SBA) ------------ 742
"Profiles of Manpower in Science and Technology" (NSF) -_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ 11
Program Planning, Office of, Resources Analyses Branch, "Research Man-
power 1058
in the Pharmaceutical Industry, 1959-61 _______________ 49-1058
"Resources of Medical Research"----------------
Project Grants Office----------------------------------------------- 556
"Proposals for the Support of Medical Education by the Federal Govern- 795
ment," American Medical Association-----------------------------
Public Affairs, Bureau of (State), Historical --------------------- 195
347,
Public Health Service (NIH, HEW)______ ------
494, 498, 536-561, 672-719, 797, 799, 800, _ 850, 852, 887-888,
892-893, 895, 897, 054, 995, 1046, 1059.
"Public Health Service Support for Research in Visual Sciences"__ 560_561
"Resources for Medical Research"---------------------------
Public Roads, Bureau 9f-------------- -------------------------------------- 301
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 App1% d For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
INDEX
Public Works Committee Page
338
Pucinski, Roman C. (Rep.)---___-___ ______ __---__---_ 1,55
Puerto Rico, University of________________________________479
Pulp and Paper--------------------------- --------------- 924,926
Purdue University-------------------------------- _---- 827
Raborn, Adm. W. F------------ R _ 831, 835
Radiological Health Division, Bureau of State Services (PHS) _ _ - - _ _ _ _ 711-712
Rand Corp----------------------------------------------------- 721-732
Rats, Lice, and History by Zinsser------------------------------------ 424
"Realities of the Federal Grant University, The," by Clark Kerr -------- 1020
Reclamation, Bureau of (Interior)_____________________________ ___ 116, 119
Reeves, Edward D.---------------------------------------------- 781
Reinhold Publishing Co_________________________`_ 926
----------------
Renegotiation Act_________________ 142
Reorganization Plan of 1962------------------ ----------- ------- 218
Research Advisers, Council of, for Navy, Public Health, Army, Air Force
(FAA) --------------------- 153-154
Research Advisory Board, Committee for Economic Development----___ 909
Research Analysis Corp ----------------1013
Research and Development, Assistant Secretary (OST)----------------- 273
Research and Development, Interior Committee on (Interior)----_ 117-118, 125
"Research and Development Programs and Selected Scientific and Tech-
nical Activities of the Federal Government" (Bureau of the Budget)___ 562,
571-59
Research and Statistics, Division of, Social Security Administration____ 7
18-719
Research Committee (NAM)---------------- 776-780
Research Facilities and Resources, Division of (NIH) ______________ 692-693
Research Grants, Division of (NIH) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - 694-696
"Research Manpower in the Pharmaceutical Industry, 1959-61," by
Resources Analysis Branch, Office of Program Planning (NIH, HEW)- 1049-
Research Services Division (NIH)------- __ 1058
------------------------ -
Resources Analysis Branch, Office of Program
Planning (NIH), "Research96 697
Manpower in the Pharmaceutical Industry"_________________ 1049-1058
Resources of Medical Research --------------------------------- 617-671
Resources for Medical Research Resources Analysis Branch, Office of Pro-
gram Planning (HEW, NIHj_______________________________ 536,617-671
Revelle, Dean R --------------------------------------------------- 526
Review and Services (Defense)___________________________ 170
"Reviews of Data on Research and Development" (NSF)-------------- 42
Rice Institute_________________
Rift vehicle------------------------------------- ----------- 100-101,110
Riley, Arthur A--------------------------- ------
Rockefeller Foundation___________________
----- 737-738
48, 361, 1015-1018
Institute______________________ 254
Roosevelt, Franklin D_________ --------------------------
460, 812
Rose, Frank A_________________ 786
Oral statement--------------------------- 787-793
__ on_________ --_-_-_- ________ -------------- __793--794, 802
Summary Questions of and answers statement -----------------
-
Distribution of Federal research funds among universities--__-__ 1192
Duplication and control___________________________ _ 1135
Federal agency-university relationships_______________________ 1175
Financing of R. & D., specific problems______________________ 1112
Government-industry relationship in R. & D------------------ 1226
Grant and contract processes____________________ 1127
Indirect costs of federally supported research in universities-___ 1185
Institutional v. project grants____________________________ _ 1179
Management problems in research__________________________ 1117
Social and behavioral sciences, humanities, research in---------- 1211
Universities and education, adverse effects upon ----------- 1157, 1158
Universities and education, benefits from Federal research sup-
port ---------------------- 1152
Universities and education, relationships with Federal Govern-
ment----------------------------------------- 1149, 1150, 1151
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
INDEX 1291
Page
Rover project____________________________________ 72, 73-77, 87, 88, 90, 946
Rusk, Dean--- - - 195
Rusk Howard A---- - - -
-- - -- - - - - - - 380, 459
6ral ritten statement 489--494
Wri
W
Questions and answers 498
I94 506,512
Summary of statement on-
Medical research ------------------------
1213, 1214, 1216
Sociomedicalresearch -------------------------------------- 1222
Sabin, Albert _____ S
899
------?----------------------- _ _
Sachar, A. L________-_-
-------------
--------- -_-__ 94
St. Elizabeths Hospital------------------
Saline Water, Office of (Interior) ----------- ----------- 7
----------------------- 8961 1117
Salk, Jonas - --- ---------- - _---------- 896-897
Saturday Evening ing Post, "The Hot Rocket to Nowhere," by B lmsk and
Howard - - - Y Y 73-74
Saturn booster ------------------------------------------- 80, S4,875,1035
Schaffter, Dorothy----------------- - - - -- iii(Pt. 3)
Schaueri George S.:
Written statement____________________ - 1035-1037
Coordination of multiagency R. & D_____________________ 1146, 1147
Distinction between various types of R. & D_________________ 1201
Duplication and control--------------------------- 1133, 1134, 1135
Scientific and technical publications --------------------------- 1251
Suggestions for greater efficiency in research________________ 1117
Scheps, Clarence ------------------
Oral statement _________________. _ 856
- - 916-921
Questions and answers ---------------------------------------- 921-922
Summary of statement on -
Indirect costs of federally supported research in universities__:___ 1183,
1184, 1187
Role of universities in basic research1164
Universities and education, benefits from Federal research support 1154
Universities' responsibilities ------------------------- _-------- - - 1.171
"Scholarship and Research . ..," Heald___________________________ 388-393
Schriever Gen. B. A__.?___________
-- -- -
Science, apartment of 835
530
Science Adviser's Office (Interior) _ 117-118
Science Advisory Committee (SAC) Committee on International Science - 270
Office of Civil Defense Management-----_-- - _ 269-270, 317, 729, 785
Science and Astronautics, Committee on ----------- 82, 92, 93, 154, 313, 427, 752
Subcommittee on Science, R. & D_____________________________ 99, 1028
Science and Research, Subcommittee on (House)____________________ 99,1028
Science and Technology, Office of (OST) _ _ _ _ - - _ - _ _ - _ 15,
29, 31, 42, 43, 46, 69-70, 78, 100, 118, 120, 124, 218, 219, 220,
240, 251, 254, 256-289, 316, 317, 329, 563, 566-567, 591, 611,
612, 760, 774, 785, 814, 822, 823, 843, 926, 1033, 1034.
Science and Technology, U.S. Chamber of Commerce Committee on_ 1032-1034
Science and Technology Bureau ----------------------------- 769
Science and Technology Manpower Panel (SAC) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 270
Science Information Exchange (Smithsonian Institution) --------------- 34,
119, 123, 132, 205, 206, 837-855, 863
Science, Research and Development, Subcommittee on (House) --- 99, 518, 1013
Science Resources Planning Office (NSF) ------------- 33
Science, The Endless Frontier, by Vannevar Bush ---------------812
Scientific Advisory Board, (Air Force) - _ - _ 1036
Scientific Personnel and Education, Division of (NSF) --------------- 33, 1028
"Scientific Progress, the Universities, and the Federal Government" (Sea-
borg report) ---------------------7,14-15, 19, 29-33, 42, 46, 70-71, 1023
Scientific Research and Development, Office of__------_ 72, 268
"Scientific Research and Development in Colleges and Universities Ex-
penditures and Manpower" (NSF)______________________________ 813
Scientific Research Board----------------------------------- 1044
Scoville, Herbert, Jr --------------------------------------769,774
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
1292 INDEX
Page
Seaborg, Glenn T---------------------------------- 93,287,288,1011
Oral statement------------------------------------------------
Questions 65-70
and answers----------------------------------------- 70-78
"The Hot Rocket to Nowhere," by Bylinsky and Howard__________ 73
AmAysis of-----------------------------------------------77
Summary of statement on-
Basic research, adequacy of present level--------------------- 1105
Distinctions between various types of R. & D------------- 1203, 1204
Distribution of support between basic and applied R. & D______ 1100
Duplication and control -------------------------------- 1135, 1136
Need for better coordination of R. & D---------------------- 1141
Role of select committee-------------------------------- 1261
Undesirable duplication_________________-------------- 1137, 1138
Universities and education, relationships with Federal Govern- 1150
meat---------- -------- - - --
Seaborg report ("Scientific Progress, the Universities, and the Federal
Government") ---------------------- 7, 14-15, 19, 29-33, 42, 46, 70-71, 1023
Seamans, Robert----------------------------------------------- 89,91,94
Seamaster ---------------------------------------------------- 730
Seitz, Frederick ------------------------------------- ----- 55-56, 78,99,1011
56-63
Oral statement------------------------------------------------ 63-65
Questions and answers-----------------------------------------
Summary of statement on-
Basic 1105,1106
research, adequacy of present level -_-_---_-_-_ 1206
Basic research in particular Government agencies-------- ---- 1206
Basic research, various aspects-------------------------
Distribution of support between basic and applied R. & D------ 1195
Geographical distribution of Federal research funds------------ 1137
Undesirable duplication ----------------------- ----
Select Committee on Government Research, alphabetical list of witnesses
appearing before (or filing statements with) --------------------- 1265-1267
Role of, summary of statements ----------------------------- 1259-1262
Suggestions for consideration by, summary of statements-_----_ 1262-1265
Select Committee on Small Business (Senate) ------------------------- 4732
92
Selye, Hans ------------------------------------------------------- 132
Shank, Robert J-----------------------------------------------
-
ames----------------------------------------------- 1044-1045
Shannon,James-----------------------------------------------
Shaw, Byron T,: _ 200-208
Oral statement ---------------------------------------------
statement------------------------------------------- 209-216
Questions and answers--------------------------------------- 216-217
Summary of statement On-
Basic research in particular Government agencies--------------
Information and publications furnished by individual Govern-
ment 1250
agencies-------------------------------------------
Manpower, competition for--------------------------------- 1238
Manpower, shortage of-------------------------------------- 1244
Specific problems in research_______________________________ 1120
Sheldon, R. C--------------------------------------------------- 407-409
Sherwood roject-------------------------------------------------- 64
Sibal, Abner W. (Rep.) ---- -- -- - ------------------------------------- 900
_ 458
Sloan-Kettering Institute--------- ------------------733, 740-742, 749, 904
Small Business Administration (SBA) ------------------ 732,739-742
Office of Economics--------------- ----- -- -
Small Business Guide to Government Research and Development Oppor- 741
tunities-----------------------------------------------------
Business Guide to Government Research and Development Oppor-
Small 741
tunities (SBA) -------------------------------------------
SmeltRoy-----------------------78,-99,-108, 111
Summary of statement on-
Adequacy of present level of Federal support of basic research-- 1104
Role of the universities in basic research----------------------
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15: CIA-RDP66B00403R000100Q 41-9
INDEX yy
Smith, Austin: Page
Written statement ----------------------------------------- 1037-1048
Excerpts from report of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association__ 1041
"Research Manpower in the Pharmaceutical Industry, 1959-61"_ 1049
Summary of statement on-
Basic research, various aspects______________________________ 1199
Information storage, retrieval and sharing -------------------- 1247
Medical research-------------------------------------------- 1216
Need for better coordination of R. & D_______________________ 1139
Patent policy------------------------------------------- 1232
Smithsonian Institution__________________________________________ 206, 521
Science Information Exchange---- 34, 119, 123, 132, 205, 206, 837-855
863
,
SNAP progra.ms--------------------------------------------------- 88
Social Sciences, Division of (NSF)____________________________________ 33
Social Sciences Division, American Political Science Association ---------- 1027
Social Security Administration____________________________________ 537, 554
Research and Statistics, Division of_____________________________ 718-719
Soil Conservation Service (Agriculture)_____________________________ 204, 216
South African Government ------------------------------------------ 277
Southern California, University of----------------------------------- 1063
Institute for Oceanography, La Jolla___________________ - 526-527
Southern Regional Education Board________________________________ 787, 868
Southern Research Institute______________________________ 380, 417, 453-459
Space Science, Committee on (SAC) ------------------------------- 270, 276
Space Vehicles, Committee on (SAC)________________________________ 270
Spaulding Life Science Building, University of New Hampshire ---------- 869
Special Assistant to the President for Science and Technology------------ 29,
255, 269, 270, 566
Special Education, Subcommittee on, of the House Committee on Educa-
tion and Labor_______________________________________ 305,509,515,1034
Special Foreign Currency Program, Office of Education (HEW) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 714
Sperry Rand Corp--------------------------------------------- 1063-1068
Research Center_______________________________________________ 1064
Sponsored Research, Visiting Committee for (MIT) -------------- 756, 759, 769
Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Bureau of (Interior) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 116, 119, 121
Sputnik I------------------------------------------------------ 102
Staats, Elmer B------------------------------------------------- 513,561
Oral statement---------------------------------------------- 562-590
Questions and answers_______________________________________ 590-594
Summary of statement on-
Coordination of multiagency R. & D_________________________ 1144
Criteria for evaluation of R. & D. activities------------------- 1091
Favorable evaluation of the present system of R. & D. functions-- 1114
Indirect costs of federally supported research in universities- _ _ _ 1184
Legislative-executive relationships --------------------------- 1257
Suggestions for consideration by select committee------------ 1265
Standard Oil Co.(N.J.)-------------------------------------------- 780
Standards, Bureau of_____________________________________________ 320,530
Stanford Research Institute, "The Industry-Government Aerospace
Relationship?--------------------------------------------------- 1067
Stanford University Research Institute (Center)__________________ 48,418,451
Industry-Government Aerospace Relationship---------------------- 1067
State, Department of___________________________ 183-200,218,775,851,1027
Bureau of Intelligence and Research___________________________ 182-200
State Services, Bureau of (PHS-IIEW) :
Accident Prevention Division_________________________________ 703-104
Air Pollution Division________________________________________ 708-709
Arctic Health Research Center________________________________ 710-711
Chronic Diseases Division______________________________________ 704
Communicable Disease Center__________________________________ 705
Community Health Services Division____________________________ 702
Dental Public Health and Resources Division--------------------- 706
Environmental Engineering and Food Protection Division-------- 707-708
Environmental Health Sciences, Intramural and Extramural----- 706-707
Hospital and Medical Facilities Division-------------- 704-705, 712-713
Nursing Division____________________________________________ 702-703
Occupational Health Division___________________________________ - 710
Radiological Division________________________________________ 711-712
Water Supply and Pollution Control Division------------------ 709-710
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
1294 INDEX
"Statement on the Relationships Between Schools of Medicine and Grant- page
ing Agencies and Organizations," American Medical Association------ 796
Statistical Reporting Service (Agriculture)__________________________ 204, 216
Steelman,John ----------------------------------------------- 1044
Steimke, Robert E------------------------------------------- 513,604,612
Written statement___________________________________________ 613-616
Summary of statement on-
Continuity in Federal Government-university relationships - 1177, 1178
Federal agency-university relationships___________________ 1176,1177
Grant and contract processes________________________________ 1126
Indirect costs of federally supported research in universities--__ 1186
Universities and education, adverse effects upon -_ _ - - _ -- _ _ _ 1159, 1160
Universities and education, benefits from Federal research sup-
port------------------------------------------------ 1151,1152
Steinmetz, Charles P----------------------------------------------- 286
Stever, H. Guyford:
Letter to Hon. James C. Cleveland__________________________ 1068-1069
Summary of statement on problems concerning allocation of resources-- 1087
Steward, Ward---------------------------------------------------- 904
Stiles, Lindley J.:
Written statement----------------------------------------- 1059-1063
Summary of statement on-
Federal support of educational research ------------------- 1167, 1169
Universities and education, relationship with Federal Govern-
ment--------------------------------------------------- 1150
Strassmann, Fritz-------------------------------------------------- 67
Strategic Services (OSS), Office of (State) -------------------------- 194, 197
Strickland, Stephen P______________________ 1, 113, 255, 381, 515, 721, 857, 937
Strike Back at Arthritis (PHS)_______________________________________ 498
Strokes (PIIS) ----------------------------------------------------- 498
Surgeon General____________________________________________ 538,551,1046
Consultant Group on Medical Education__________________________ 1047
Sweeney, William J------------------------------------------------ 781
Systems Research and Development Service (FAA)____________________ 132
Tables and charts:
Administrative budget expenditures for Federal R. & D. programs,
1962-64-------------------------------------------------- 588-589
Administrative budget expenditures for R. & D. divided between
national defense and other programs, fiscal years 1953-64 --------- 573
Advanced degrees awarded, 1959-63, University of New Hampshire-- 867
Agencies requesting information to be used in considering applications
for grants and contracts______________________________________ 851
Agriculture in transition________________________________________ 440
Annual expenditures of all medical schools from training grants,
1947-59 (fig. 5) ---------------------------------------------- 969
Annual expenditures of medical schools from research grants, 1947-60
(fig?4)----------------------------------------------------- 968
Annual medical school expenditures from endowment income, 1955-
60 (fig. 10)-------------------------------------------------- 985
Appropriations for DHEW, PHS, NIH, 1963 and 1964 ----------- 700-701
Average medical student (resident) tuition and fees, 1935-59 (fig. 9)-- 984
Comparison between Federal expenditures for medical and health-
related research and total R. & D., by agency, 1963______________ 627
Comparison of average expenditures of public and private medical
schools (fig.2)---------------------------------------------- 965
Comparison of expenditures of all medical schools, by selected cate-
gories, 1956-57 and 1960-61 (fig. 6)____________________ 970
Comparison of selected major categories of expenditures of 10 high and
10 low expenditure schools, 1960-61 (fig. 8) --------------------- 978
Comparison of total expenditures for all medical schools, 1940-41 and
1960-61 (fig.3)---------------------------------------------- 967
Cornell University organization charts________________________ 486, 487
Distribution of Federal expenditures for performance of health-
related research by agency mission, 1947-63-------------------- 629
Distribution of research manpower in the pharmaceutical industry
by employment interval, 1961--------------------------------- 1052
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/1 51 ik-RDP66BOO4O3ROOO1OO2 O 41-9
Tables and charts-Continued
Distribution of research scientists in pharmaceutical industry by Page
level of training, 1961---------------------------------------- 1053
Distribution of research scientists in the pharmaceutical industry by
1051
company sales groups, 1961_________________
Doctorate production in U.S. universities, 1920-60 ----------------- 444
Doctorates conferred, 1058-59 ---------------------------- -- 447
Estimated construction costs for 12,000 students entering medical 982
schools -----------------------------------------------------
of NSF grants in the social sciences, 1960-62 -------- 1030, 1031
Expenditures for research, fiscal year 1963, University of New Hamp-
shire 866
-------------------------------------------------------
Expenditures of AEC for R. & D., 1962-64 ----------------------- 577
Expenditures of DOD, military functions for R. & D--------------- 574
Expenditures of medical school funds, 1960-61 (fig. 1) -------------- 964
Expenditures of NASA for R. & D., 1962-64 ---------------------- 576
Federal expenditures for health-related research, 1947-64 ------------ 622
Federal expenditures for medical and health-related research, 1947-63 - 648
Federal expenditures for medical and health-related research, 1960-64_ 622
Federal expenditures for medical and health-related research, by
agency, 1947-63--------------------------------------- 650, 651, 652
Federal expenditures for medical and health-related research, by
agency, selected years, 1947-64----- ____________________------ 630, 631
Federal expenditures for medical and health-related research, by 643
field of science, 1963-----------------------------------------
Federal expenditures for medical and health-related research, by field
of science, by agency, 1961-63------------------------------ 665, 666
Federal expenditures for medical and health-related research, by 638
performer, 1947-63------------------------------------------
Federal expenditures for medical and health-related research, by per-
former, 1963---------------------------------------------- 640, 641
Federal expenditures for medical and health-related research, by per-
_ _ _ _ _ - _ 659-664
former, by agency, 1947-63---------------------------------
Federal expenditures for medical and health-related research, conduct
of research, total, budgeted and directly related, 1947-64--------- 624
Federal expenditures for medical and health-related research, selected 623
years, 1947-60----------------------------------------------
Federal expenditures for R. & D., by program area, 1947-63 -------- 649
Federal expenditure for R. & D., by program area, selected years, 625
1947-64 ----------------------------------------------------
expenditures for conduct of health-related research, 1947-64_ _ 623
Federal expenditures for conduct of medical and health-related 647
research -______--__ _
Federal expenditures for conduct of medical and health-related
_ _ _ - _ _ _ _ 653, 654, 655
research, by agency, 1947-63 ---------------------------
Federal expenditures for construction of facilities for medical and
health-related research, by agency, 1947-63---------- 645, 669, 670, 671
Federal grants and contracts for research, University of Alabama, May 788
1961 to October 1963----------------------------------------
Federal obligations for research and development, by selected agency, 26
1962, 1963, and 1964 (fig. 9) ---------------------------------- Federal programs in meteorology-------------------------------- 582
Federal research and development and R. & D. plant expenditures by 25
selected agency, 1940-64 (fig. 8) -------------
Federal support for conduct of health-related research and all other
R. & D., by performer, 1963 estimate-------------------------- 639
Financial report for fiscal year 1963, NSF----------------------- 44,45
Ford Foundation grants for research, 1962-63------------- ----- 395-399
Funds used for performance of research and development in the 23
United States, by sector, 1953-62 (fig. 7) -----------------------
Geographical distribution of doctorates conferred, 1958-59 ---------- 445
Government expenditures and obligations, fiscal year 1963---------- 867
Illustrative research projects at Cornell University----------------- 446
Intensity of doctoral activity, 1958-59 ---------------------- 976
Medical school construction initiated during 1960-61 and 1961-62
(table 2) ---------------------------------------------------
Medical school income from physicians, gifts (fig. 11) -------------- 987
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66BOO403ROO0100230041-9
 ApRr0ed For Release 2005/03/lf]EcIA-RDP66BOO4O3ROOO1OO23OO41-9
Tables and charts-Continued Page
Money available for grants by the Public Health Service (fig. 13)____ 992
New obligational authority and expenditures for Federal space pro-
grams,1962-64---------------------------------------------- 586
New obligational authority for Federal meteorological R. & D. pro-
grams, fiscal year 1964--------------------------------------- 583
Number and percent distribution of scientific staff in pharmaceutical
industry by major field, 1959-61 ------------------------------- 1053
Number and percent distribution of scientific staff in research in the
pharmaceutical industry by detailed field and sales group, 1961____ 1054
Number of faculty receiving a portion of their full-time salary from
Federal research (fig. 7) -------------------------------------- 974
Obligations for research for Department of the Interior, 1963------- 115
Obligations of DOD military functions for R. & D., 1962-64 -------- 575
Obligations of Federal agencies for medical and health-related re-
search,1962-64--------------------------------------------- 581
Obligations of Federal agencies for oceanography, 1962-64---------- 585
Obligations of Federal agencies for water research and surveys,
1962-64---------------------------------------------------- 586
Office of Education, obligations for research_______________________ 713
Optometrically trained personnel with NIH research grants, fiscal
year 1961-63------------------------------------------------ 561
Organization for research coordination and program development in
the USDA (fig. 14) ------------------- ---------------- 209
Percentage distribution of Federal expenditures for conduct of medical
and health related research, by agency, 1947-63 ----------- 656, 657, 658
Percentage distribution of Federal expenditures for medical and
health-related research, by field of science, by agency, 1961-63__ 667, 668
Percentage distribution of Federal expenditures for medical and
health-related research, selected years, 1947-64 -------------- 632, 633
Ph. D.'s annually per million State population____________________ 446
Ph. D.'s per million, 1959--------------------------------------- 449
Programs of Department of the Interior__________________________ 114
Public and private expenditures for health-related research by source
of support, 1963--------------------------------------------- 619
Public Health Service tables:
Fiscal data----------------------------------------- - 675-678,
680, 682-684, 686, 687, 689, 690, 692, 693, 696, 697, 699-717, 720
Personnel data--------------------- 675, 686, 689, 690, 692, 693, 696
Recent trends in sources of support for health-related research, 1960-
63 --------------------------------------------
-------------
620
Relationship of research to teaching and administration at Cornell
University, 1962-63------------------------------------------
488
Reports on investigator applicants requested for SIE, 1963---------
850
Research and development, 1961-62 (fig. 4)______________________
13
Research and development as a percent of the gross national product,
1953-54/1962-63 (fig. 3) ------------ ------------------------
11
Research and development performance, by sector and type of work,
1962 (fig.5)-------------------------------------------------
21
Research and development programs of Federal Government--------
572
Research expenditures by fields, 1962-63, Cornell University--------
488
Research manpower in pharmaceutical industry by level of training
and type of personnel, 1961-----------------------------------
1052
Research manpower in pharmaceutical industry by sales group and
type of personnel, 1961---------------------------------------
1051
Research manpower in pharmaceutical industry by types of personnel,
1959-61----------------------------------------------------
1050
Research manpower in the pharmaceutical industry, 1959-61 --------
1049
Research obligations, fiscal year 1964, HEW______________________
538
Sources of research support, 1962-63 ----------------------------
'
488
States
contribution per $1,000 personal income to medical school sup-
port (fig.12)------------------------------ ------ ----------
990
Subject requests received from agencies concerning technical subject
matter-----------------------------------------------------
852
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66BOO403ROO0100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/1~rtDD-RDP66B00403R00010041-9
Tables and charts-Continued
Summary of additional needs for research scientists in 1962 in pharma- page
ceutical industry, by field and sales group---------------------- 1057
Total administrative budget expenditures for R. & D., 1962-64------ 573
Trained workers in professional and technical fields and management
1930-70---------------------------------------------------- 443
Trends in Federal obligations for performance of research and develop-
ment, by sector, 1955-64 (fig. 6)------------------------------- 22
Trends in Federal obligations for research, development, and R. & D.
plant, 1947-64 (fig. 2)----------------------- 10
Trends in Federal obligations for total research, by major fields of
science, 1956-64 (fig. 11)_____________ 28
Trends in Federal R. & D.expenditures, 1947-64---- _------------- 626
Trends in funds for basic and applied research and development,
1953-54/1961-62 (fig. 1)_________________ 9
Trends in level of training of scientific staff engaged in research in the
pharmaceutical industry in 23 largest companies, 1959-61-------- 1055
Trends in total Federal expenditures and Federal R. & D. and R. & D.
plant expenditures, 1940-64 (fig. 10) --------------------------- 27
Undergraduate medical students, graduate students in medical science 971
(table 1) --------------------
U.S. unemployed 1950-62 -------------------------------------- 441
Volume of research at Cornell, 1962-63 --------------------------- 488
Taylor, Hall------------------------------------------------------ 1029
Technical Committee for High Energy Physics (FCST) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 70
Technical Services, Office of_________________________________________ 845
Teller, Edward--------------------------------------------------- 937
Oral statement---------------------------------------------- 938-942
Questions and answers_______________________________________ 942-953
Summary of statement on-
Basic research, adequacy of present level____________________ 1104
Byproducts of Government It. & D______________________ 1233, 1234
Centralized direction of research_____________________________ 1121
Distinctions between various types of R. & D_________ ___ 1203
Distribution of support between basic and applied R. & D-.----- 1101
Financing of R. & D., specific problems______________________ 1111
Manpower, development of_________________________________ 1239
Role of select committee___________________________________ 1260
Tennessee, University of------- -------------------------------- 878, 883
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) 119
Territories, Office of (Interior)______________________________________ 116
Texas, University of----------------------------------------------- 453
Medical School______________________________________ 780,794-795,799
Texas A and M College____________________________________________ 453
Thomas, Albert (Rep.)--------------------------------------------- 143
Thomas, B. D.:
Oral statement------------------------------------------- 409-413
Questions and answers----------------------------------- 413-419, 458
Summary of statement on-
Basic research in particular Government agencies -------------- 1205
Criteria for evaluation of R. & D. activities___________________ 11093
248
Information storage, retrieval and sharing--------------------
In-house and external research__________________________ 1125, 1126
Scientific freedom------------------------------------------
---------- --- --------- ------------- 1241
Suggestions for consideration by select committee--------- 1262, 1136
Undesirable duplication_____________________________________
Time,Inc -------------------------------------------------------- 926
Tiros--------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------- - - 137
Titan missile____ _______________________________________ 1002, 1014, 1036
Toronto, University of____________________________________________ 495
Treasury, Department of the------------------------------------- 276,468
Truman, Harry S_ _ _ _ _ _ _ 593
----------------------------------------
Tulane University------------------------------------------------- 916
Tuve, Merle______________ 424
Tyco Laboratories------------------------------------------------- 734
Tyler, Ralph W., written statement____________________________ 929,933-935
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Applr d For Release 2005/03/1JA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
U Page
Udall, Sec. Stewart L----------------------------------------- 113, 121, 125
Undergraduate Education in the Biological Sciences, Commission on
(NSF) ------------------ -------- ------------ ------------- - 40
Undergraduate Program in Mathematics, Committee on (NSF) --------- 40
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (U.S.S.R.)------------------------ 282,
284, 416, 418, 465, 478, 524, 611, 940, 1004
United States-Japan Cooperative Program --------------------------- 36
U.S. Pharmacopeia------------------------------------------------ 879
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research ----------------- 16, 30, 35
University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor_______________________ 476
"University Personnel Spending Full Time on the Preparation of Applica-
tions for Research Support" (HEW)_____________________________ 557, 558
V
Vanderbilt University ---------------------------------------- 794, 796, 799
Vela program ------------------------------------------------------ 771
Vermont, University of--------------------------------------------- 868
Veterans' Administration_________________________________ 490, 498, 843, 850
Vickers, Harry F.:
Written statement__________________________________________ 1063-1068
Summary of statement on-
Adequacy of present support for R. & D_____________________ 1098
Byproducts of Government R. & D__________________________ 1233
Duplication and control____________________________________ 1129
Government contracts to industry_______________________ 1229, 1230
Government-industry relationship in R. & D --------- 1226, 1227, 1229
Patent policy--------------------------------------------- 1232
Vision, Committee on, Armed Forces National Research Council-------- 366
Vision Research, Optometrically Trained Personnel Active in (list) ----- 370-375
Vocational Rehabilitation Administration (VRA)---------------------- 494, 498, 500, 501-503, 504-506, 537, 554, 717-718, 1061
von Braun, Wernher----------------------------------------------- 513
Oral statement---------------------------------------------- 515-519
Questions and answers________________________ ___________ 519-535
Summary of statement on-
Centralized Federal control of research_______________________ 1122
Coordination of multi-agency R. &D_________________________ 1145
Information storage, retrieval and sharing-------------------- 1249
Manpower, competition for_____________________________ 1238, 1239
Scientific freedom------------------------------------------ 1242
Status of science and technology in the U.S------------------- 1080
von Karman, Theodore_____________________________________________ 745
W
Wage and Hour and Public Contracts Division (Defense)_______________ 155
Wakelin, James--------------------------------------------------- 239
Wald, George------------------------------------
40
Water Supply and Pollution Control Division, Bureau of State Services
(pHs) ----------------------------------------------- - 709-710
Waterman, Alan T------------------------------------------------ 807
Oral statement -------------------------------.--------------- 815-822
Written statement__________________________________ ------ 808-815
Questions and answers_______________________________________ 822-827
Summary of statement on-
Basic research, various aspects__________________________ 1200, 1201
Conflicts of interest---------------------------------------- 1244
Criteria for evaluation of R. & D. activities--------------- 1092, 1094
Distinctions between various types of R. & D -------- 1201, 1202, 1205
Distribution of Federal research funds among universities,. de-
fense of-------------------------------------------- 1187, 1188
Duplication and control____________________________________ 1129
Favorable evaluation of the present system of organization for
science and technology___________________________________ 1113
Financing of R. & D., specific problems______________________ 1111
Legislative executive relationships___________________________ 1256
Manpower, development of_________________________________ 1239
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
INDEX 1299
Waterman, Alan T.-Continued
Summary of statement on-Continued Page
Need for better coordination of R. & D______________________ 1139
Role of select committee____________________________________ 1260
Status of science and technology in the United States ------ 1080, 1081
Suggestions for consideration. by select committee______________ 1263
Undesirable duplication________________________________ 1136, 1137
Weather Bureau_____________________________________ 88, 131, 295, 304, 940
Webb, James E--------------------------------------------------- 77-78
Oral statement------------------------------------------------ 78-82
Questions and answers_________________________________________ 82-98
Letters to Representative Elliott--------------------- 93-94, 97-98, 1001
Summary of statement on-
Basic research in particular Government agencies -------------- 1206
Specific problems in research_____________________ 1119, 1120
Suggestions for greater efficiency in research__________________ 1115
Weinberg, Alvin M ------------------------------------------------ 254
Oral statement---------------------------------------------- 315-320
Questions and answers --------------------- 328-330, 407-409, 876, 1025
Article entitled "Criteria for Scientific Choice-------------------- 321-328
Summary of statement on-
Adequacy of present support for R. & D----------------- 1097, 1100
Areas of R. & D. which should receive Federal support--------- 1088
Basic research, adequacy of present level_____________________ 1107
Criteria for evaluation of It. & D. activities ---- ..-------------- 1094
Distinction between various types of R. & D__________________ 1205
Distribution of support between basic and applied R. & D______ 1103
Fragmentized vs. centralized Government organization for
research------------------------------------------------ 1123
Review of Federal R. & D. programs by congressional commit-
tees ----------------------------------------------- 1258,1259
Role of select committee_______________________________ 1260, 1261
Social and behavioral sciences, humanities, research in ---------- 1211
Suggestions for greater efficiency in research______________ 1117, 1119
Welfare Administration______________________________________ 537, 715-717
Wenk, Edward, Jr.:
Oral statement_______________________________________ 217-21,236-240
Written statement___________________________________ 221-236, 240-250
Questions and answers_______________________________ 250-254,273,329
Annual report for 1962 of Federal Council for Science and Technology_ 221
Summary of statement on-
Alternative sources of support for It. & D____________________ 1109
Areas of It. & D. which should receive Federal support --------- 1088
Coordination of multiagency it. & D--------------------- 1144, 1146
Executive departments as agents of the Federal R. & D. pro-
gram----------------------------------------------- 1122,1123
Role of select committee____________________________________ 1261
Whipple, D----------------------------------------------------- 528-529
White, Paul------------------------------------------------------- 492
White, Samuel R-------------------------------------------------- 132
White House Committee___________________________________________ 218
White House Conference on Children and Youth______________________ 930
"Whither Graduate Education," Physics Today, by Berkner- - 426, 427, 439-451
Wiesner, Jerome B____________________ 14, 17, 30, 31, 78, 100, 179, 218, 253, 254
Oral statement---------------------------------------------- 255-256
Written statement___________________________________________ 256-267
Questions and answers------------------------------------------
267-
289, 296, 299, 311, 518, 523, 760, 785, 1011,
1012
Summary of statement on-
Adequacy of present support for R. & D ----------------- 1097,
1098
Basic research, adequacy of present level_____________________
1106
Coordination of multiagency It. & D_________________________
1147
Distribution of Federal research funds among universities-__ 1191,
1192
Federal agency-university relationships_______________________
1176
Manpower, competition for_________________________________
1238
Proposed centralization of Federal science and technology--_--_
1123
Resources, problems concerning allocations-------------------
1086
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
 Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9
1300 INDEX
Wiesner, Jerome B.-Continued
Summary of statement on-Continued
Review of Federal R. & D. programs by congressional commit- Page
tees----------------------------------------------------
1257
Universities and education, benefits from Federal research
support------------------------------------------------
1154
Universities and education, new centers of excellence-----__ 1196,
1197
William and Mary College------------------------------------------
1059
Wilson, John------------------------------------------------------
1, 53
Wilson, Logan----------------------------------------------------
459
Oral statement---------------------------------------------- 506-511
Questions and answers----------------------------------- 511-512, 590
Summary of statement on-
Academic freedom and independence------------------------- 1172
Basic research, various aspects------------------------------ 1200
Distribution of Federal research funds among universities, pro-
posals for wider------------------------------------- 1188, 1189
Role of universities in basic research------------------------- 1165
Universities and education, adverse effects upon--------------- 1158
Universities' responsibilities--------------------------------- 1170
Wirtz, W. Willard:
Oral statement---------------------------------------------- 154-158
Written statement------------------------------------------- 158-162
Questions and answers----------------------------------- 158-170, 958
Summary of statement on-
Research in economic problems------------------------- 1219, 1220
Social and behavioral sciences, humanities, research in --------- 1207,
1208, 1209, 1210
Wisconsin, University of, School of Education---------------- 721, 1059-1063
Wise, C. Edward------------------ iii i (Pt. 3)
Witnesses appearing before (or filing statements with) House Select Com-
mittee on Government Research, alphabetical list of------------- 1265-1267
Wolf le, Dael---------------------------------------------------- 807, 822
Woodrow Wilson Foundation--------------------------------------- 1026
Woods Hole, Mass------------------------------------------------- 118
Horld Oil--------------------------------------------------------- 924
World War II-------------------------------------- 768, 769, 777, 796, 799
Wright brothers--------------------------------------------------- 285
Wyatt & Saltzstein, Washington ------------------------------------ 923
X-Y-Z
X-15 airplane----------------------------------------------------- 605
Yale University--------------------------------------------------- 1027
Zeus missile------------------------------------------------------- 102
Zinsser, Hans, Rats, Lice, and History-------------------------------- 424
Approved For Release 2005/03/15 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100230041-9