OPENING STATEMENT OF THE CHAIRMAN

Welcome to Oklahoma City, and to the conference "Research in the Service of Man."

We called this conference by that name because man, we think, is the basic focus and purpose of any policy, governmental or private. The joint sponsorship of this conference by me, a public man, chairman of the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Government Research, and a private, nonprofit organization the Oklahoma Frontiers of Science Foundation, is most appropriate because achievements in the health. and welfare of man depend upon cooperation between the Government and private citizens.

We are holding this conference in Oklahoma because we feel that many of the areas of this country can benefit and be stimulated by exposure to the high-quality scientific efforts of the nation's top scientists in some of the more developed regions of the country.

Further, we are proud of the excellent medical research being done and applied here in Oklahoma. On October 8, 1966, for example, the internationally respected British medical journal, "The Lancet," focused on the regional medical program (cancer, stroke, and heart) here in Oklahoma, and said: "A new plan for medical facilities in Oklahoma recognizes the medicosocial responsibility of the State to investigate and develop methods to meet the needs of the people." We are very proud of that work and the recognition it is bringing, and also for the other medical research efforts here at the University of Oklahoma Medical School and the Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation in such fields as neurocardiology, wound healing, biomathematics, sleep studies, biochemistry, cancer, the cardiovascular field, the psychosomatic and neuromuscular fields, and in graduate biomedical education.

I am grateful to each of you who have taken the time to come here. The eyes of the entire scientific world will be focused on this meeting during the next 4 days, as, perhaps for the first time, questions which have been widely discussed within the confines of the scientific community will be aired in a public forum.

Expectations are high that this conference may add new dimensions and bring new perceptions to bear on the problem which has been erroneously termed, in some quarters, "basic versus applied research." Without continued emphasis on basic research, there would be little new knowledge to be applied. But so, too, is there an abiding necessity for attention to the application of research results. It is accurate to say that no one who looks at American science with objective eyes can deny the great "payoff" from the public investment in science over the last 20 years. It has been, for both science and society, a most fulfilling experience, money well spent.

But self-satisfaction and mutual congratulations are not enough. Science and technological development are certainly here to stay, and society will continue to look to science with great expectations for even greater contribution to the fulfillment of our hopes and aspirations. The time seems ripe for a reexamination of the problems our society faces, which I believe should provide the basis for a catalog of national goals for science; for a realistic determination of what science can do to help solve these problems; and to ask what levels of money and manpower inputs are necessary to achieve these goals.

Scientific research, particularly research in the biomedical sciences, is clearly a continuing and growing responsibility of our Government. It is a responsibility we cannot take lightly.

President Johnson, on June 15, 1966, at the launching of the medicare program, made some remarks which generated, to quote Science magazine, "* ** shock waves in the upper reaches of the Federal health and medical research establishment ***". (Science, July 8, 1966, "NIH: Demand Increases for Application of Research.") Specifically, the statement was as follows:

A great deal of basic research has been done. I have been participating in the appropriations for years in this field. But I think the time has come to zero in on the targets by trying to get our knowledge fully applied. There are hundreds of millions of dollars spent on laboratory research that may be made useful to human beings if large-scale trials on patients are initiated in programing areas. Now, Presidents, in my judgment, need to show more interest in what the specific results of medical research are during their lifetime and during their administration. I am going to show an interest in the results.

Thereafter, on June 27, the President met with top administrators for Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, and Veterans' Administration for the express purpose of emphasizing his interest in applied matters. At that time he requested an in-depth report from these agencies with regard to current activities in the application of biomedical knowledge. Federal officials and many of the nation's scientific leaders have expressed deep concern about the impact on science of the President's statements, which have been interpreted by some to signify a major shift in national science policy.

So strong is the concern among scientists that National Institutes of Health called a meeting on August 23 of some 300 leaders of their science advisory structure for the purpose of assuring the scientific community that the President's statements do not indicate a major change in policy or a redirection of funds in regard to basic research. The meeting, however, did not quell anxieties.

Is it a matter of finding ways and means of making more generally available the knowledge and practices now found in only a few of the leading medical centers of the country? Is there a need for additional money for greater effort in the applied field? Is it meaningful to speak of applied and basic research as if they are distinct and separate entities, or is this distinction invalid? If our efforts in biomedicine are to be redirected toward greater emphasis on applied research, will this necessarily be at the exepnse of basic research, and, if so, what will be the consequences? What would be the dangers and pitfalls of such a reoriented national policy for biomedical research? What opportunities exist for greater application, development and use of biomedical

knowledge? These, and other associated questions concern both the scientific community and the political community as well, and, it seems to me, need full discussion in this and other national forums.

Therefore, we have called this conference to discuss what areas of biomedical knowledge might be exploited to provide additional benefits to the nation, and the implications of a policy directed toward greater attention to applied medical research.

I would also like to take note of the great leadership in these matters which has been for many years provided by the senior Senator from Alabama, the Honorable Lister Hill and the late Congressman from Rhode Island, the Honorable John Fogarty, both long-time chairmen of the relevant Senate and House Appropriations Subcommittees. Their contributions have been essential to the accomplishment of the great scientific advances this Nation has achieved in the field of health. Their dedication, imagination, and understanding of biomedical research needs have stimulated the growth of national programs to create a healthy America where the ravages of disease and disability will give way to the genius of our scientific effort.

We are very glad you are here. We are hopeful man will benefit from this conference on "Research in the Service of Man."

FRED R. HARRIS,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Government Research.

APPLICATION OF BIOMEDICAL KNOWLEDGE:

THE WHITE HOUSE VIEW

By Ivan L. Bennett, Jr., M.D.

Deputy Director, Office of Science and Technology, Executive Office of the President, Washington, D.C.

To speak of the so-called White House view of the application of biomedical knowledge, of course, is to speak of the President's view and this can be portrayed quickly and accurately.

President Johnson's position has been consistent and clear. Moreover, the subject is one of enormous intrinsic interest to him and his opinions are based upon a wealth of detailed, factual information.

The President has expressed himself on this matter on several occasions during this year and his view is easily documented by direct quotations:

From the message on domestic health and education, March 1, 1966: A nation's greatness is measured by its concern for the health and welfare of its people.

We must:

strengthen our system of health care,
train needed health workers,

increase our research efforts,

take additional steps to meet special health problems.
As in a military battle, a winning strategy demands wise and
well-planned use of manpower. It demands coordinated use
of all the resources available.

If research makes major new breakthroughs in lifesaving
discoveries, I will submit requests for necessary additional
funds.

From remarks to medical and hospital leaders on June 15, 1966:

Presidents, in my judgment, need to show more interest in
what the specific results of medical research are in their
lifetime and during their administration. I am going to show
an interest in the results.

A great deal of basic research has been done *** But I
think the time has come to zero in on the targets by trying
to get our knowledge fully applied.

We will go down their checklist and see what specific efforts
can be made to reduce deaths among the leading killers, and
to reduce disabilities.

From statement following meeting with Directors of National Institutes of Health, June 27, 1966:

These men constitute my strategy council in the war against

disease.