Of course, there should be, there must be, cooperation and coordination between the activities now being carried on by the Public Health Service and other research agencies of the Government. In the bills before you a mechanism is set up which should insure such coordination.

The Administrator of the Foundation is made chairman of an Interdepartmental Committee, an Interdepartmental Committee on Science. This provision is contained in section 14 of H. R. 1815.

There is another provision, Mr. Chairman, which appears frequently in laws relating to one governmental activity which has a bearing upon and is related to another governmental activity, and I would venture to suggest it for the committee's consideration.

The provision which I have in mind-I have not thought out the exact legal phraseology-would be to this effect: The Foundation would be authorized and directed to cooperate with other governmental agencies legally available for scientific research, or legally responsible for the conduct of scientific research, and, wherever practicable, to utilize their facilities.

The point of utilizing facilities may or may not be of importance. I think it is difficult for any of us to visualize specifically the exact relationship between research in the Department of Agriculture, the Public Health Service, and the over-all interest of the National Science Foundation. Yet the principle of utilizing the services of existing agencies of Government, which I think all will agree has worked extremely well in many pieces of Federal legislation, might furnish a pattern that the committee would consider desirable to be followed in this instance.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, may I say that progress in science obviously depends upon a number of fundamentals. At the moment I think of several.

First, sufficient well-trained personnel.

Second, adequate facilities, the workshops of science, the places in which the scientists can work.

Third, assurance of continuity of support.
Fourth, academic freedom.

The first two points, Mr. Chairman, are so obvious I shall not discuss them. But may I discuss briefly the last two?

The assurance of continuity is of tremendous importance. I am sure that many young men who have promise do not seek a career in science because they have no assurance that an opportunity for a satisfactory career, even with modest financial rewards, will remain open to them.

The fear that governmental funds may be transitory, may be terminated with the change of administration, or a depression, or some other determining national situation, has led, I think, to a certain lack of confidence in governmental support of research.

I can say that so far as the Public Health Service is concerned there is no reason for such fear. The Congress has supported research activities of the Public Health Service consistently and repeatedly through the years.

However, if the Congress establishes a National Science Foundation, it should do so only upon the mature determination to continue the support which is being tendered. I think the reasons for this are obvious.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, another condition for the progress of science is freedom, and the lack of regimentation, the proper atmosphere in which science can flourish. I feel very deeply that the most favorable atmosphere in which science can flourish is in a democratic society such as ours.

Science is a very delicate plant which it is very easy to destroy unless the individual scientific worker feels free from restraint to pursue knowledge in the directions which will yield the most promising result.

I sensed in Dr. Jewett's testimony-an eloquent statement of his point of view-a note of fear of what he called "political pressures" which might tend to make science less free, and therefore less fruitful. I have confidence, Mr. Chairman, based on more than 30 years in the Government service, and based upon a not inconsiderable contact with cutside philanthropic foundation activities, that the proper atmosphere for science can be created by this partnership, by governmental support, by partnership between the Government, the scientific institutions, and the scientific workers throughout the country. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any questions, gentlemen? (No response.)

The CHAIRMAN. We thank you very much, Dr. Parran.

Dr. PARRAN. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. The next witness will be Mr. Folk, who is special adviser to the National Association of Manufacturers.

STATEMENT OF GEORGE E. FOLK, SPECIAL ADVISER TO THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS COMMITTEE ON PATENTS AND RESEARCH

Mr. FOLK. Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, in the first place, I want to thank you for giving me an opportunity to finish my statement this afternoon.

The CHAIRMAN. We are anxious to hear from you, Mr. Folk. Industry plays a large part in the advance of science, through scientific research. It is very appropriate that we should have the views of industry as reported by you for the National Association of Manufacturers.

Mr. FOLK. I might say, so that you may know who I am, that within 2 months I will have finished my fiftieth year in the practice of the patent protection, partly in the Patent Office, partly in the practice of general law in Chicago, for more than 20 years an associate of Dr. Jewett, who was in charge of the research work of the Bell Laboratories, and I was in charge of the patents. I was general patent counsel to the company.

For the last 9 years I have been patent adviser to the National Association of Manufacturers.

We have prepared a statement and filed it, and I am not going to try to read it. It would take too long, and I am a poor reader, any

way.

I will say this-that the National Association of Manufacturers has approved in principle the legislation for creating the National Science Foundation along the lines presented in Dr. Bush's report: Science, the Endless Frontier.

We are more than concerned, therefore, with the provisions in any bill that may be passed, provisions that will be of such a nature that they will help rather than hinder the development of science.

Öf the various bills before you, the National Association of Manufacturers favors more particularly the four identical bills. More particularly that feature of the bill in which the Board appoints an executive committee of 9 members, and the executive committee selects a director whose duties and responsibilities shall be provided by the executive committee, and who shall be under the supervision of the executive committee.

That is quite a distinct feature, radically distinct from the provision in the other bills with reference to the appointment of an administrator.

We have asked several questions as to the others. I want to make it clear that no one favors that method of selecting an administrator. The CHAIRMAN. I want to compliment you, Mr. Folk, in that you have certainly complied with the rules laid down by the legislative Reorganization Act. You have presented to the committee your statement in full, and a second statement, in effect a summary of your complete testimony. I want to say we appreciate it.

Mr. FOLK. I did not know I was going to appear as a witness until the day before yesterday. Probably I could have done a better job if I had had more time.

I am going to read from my summary some of the objections of the bill as we can see it.

In the first place, we think the membership should not include in general terms, leaders in "education or public affairs." That is too broad, in our opinion. You can get one or the other, leading scientists in the country or all the public officials you want, without including broadly this type of language.

Second, we think that it is unnecessary to have "educational organizations," as such, among those who should make nominations for membership on the Board, to whose nomination due consideration should be given. Again, we feel that that is unnecessary. But those are minor matters.

We also oppose the inclusions of "other sciences" as fields in which the Foundation is authorized to initiate and support scientific research. There may be a need for some social science research, but we do not believe it belongs in a bill of this general nature.

Now we come to some real objectionable features, and one feature is found in all the bills. I will read it exactly as it is. Section 10 (f) [reading]:

to acquire by purchase, or otherwise, hold and dispose of by sale, lease, loan, or otherwise, real and personal property of all kinds necessary for, or resulting from, scientific research without regard to the provisions of law relating to the acquisition, holding, or disposition of property by the United States——

In the first place, the language is too broad, whether confined to include patents or not. But the language is broad enough to include patents, because by saying "real and personal property of all kinds," in view of the fact it is well recognized that patents are a form of personal property, you have a provision in here relating to patents.

It is broad enough in language, at least, so they can acquire, not only by purchase, or in any way they please otherwise, patents, not neces

sary for-no-or resulting from scientific research. In other words, in language, at least, it would authorize them to condemn patents of anybody relating to scientific research, and then hold them, sell them, or do as they please, or dispose of them, as they see fit.

I might say that that language, if you look at it-and I think language ought to be more definite than this-that language is broad enough to include the Foundation going in the business of buying and selling modern technical developments.

For example, they could go in the business of buying and selling nylon stockings if they wanted to under this provision, if you construe it the way it reads.

Anyway, I merely call attention to the fact that that language is entirely too broad, in our opinion.

Then the next provision of this bill, of these four identical bills that we wish to call attention to, is the provision that-section 11 (b) [reading]:

Áll inventions produced by employees of the Foundation in the course of their assigned activities for the Foundation shall be made freely available to the public, or, if patented, shall be freely dedicated to the public.

In the first place, we feel it is inadvisable to include in this bill, or in any bill for a National Science Foundation, a definite provision regarding patents. There is distinctly an urgent need for legislation covering the control of patents on which the Government has rights. But we feel this bill, or these bills, rather, are not the proper place. This is doing it piecemeal.

We should have some general provision for taking care of Government-owned patents. But if you are going to put it in, the language is a little indefinite.

I happen to know that some of the Departments of the Government are now concerned with foreign patents developed by employees of the United States Government. And when you say, as this does, "or if patented"-patented where? In the United States, foreign countries, or both?"shall be freely dedicated to the public." What public? United States citizens, foreign citizens, or to whom?

We think that that provision should be more definite and should be dealt with more fully.

There is one other phase of it that I want to call to your attention. In the very last paragraph of this bill H. R. 1815 there is a provision that has already been read to you quite recently [reading]:

(i) The activities of the Foundation shall be construed as supplementing and not superseding, curtailing, or limiting any of the functions or activities of other Government agencies (except the Office of Scientific Research and Development) authorized to engage in scientific research or scientific development.

It is my understanding that the Atomic Energy Act of 1946 was intended to take complete control of the development of atomic energy. Now, in failing to exclude the Atomic Energy Commission and letting this Foundation supplement it-not supersede it; letting it supplement it, that is, getting other people to work on the problem-it seems to me you are conflicting with the Atomic Energy Act, and there should be a specific exception to that, or else have it definitely understood that the Foundation can go ahead on its own and do what they please with the atomic energy development.

99686-47-9

I appreciate very much your giving me an opportunity to finish. I have tried to be brief. I hope that, if you are interested in the subject, you will have an opportunity to read my statement.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Folk. You made a very fine statement. I assure you that it will be in the record in full, although you have summarized it for the purpose of conserving time. The entire statement will be made a part of the record.

We appreciate your having come down from New York to give us the benefit of your thoughts in this matter.

(The prepared statement of Mr. Folk is as follows:)

TESTIMONY ON THE SIMILAR BILLS, H. R. 1815, 1830, 1834, 2027, AND THE CELLER BILL, H. R. 942, FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION, MARCH 6, 1947

(By George E. Folk, special adviser to the National Association of Manufacturers' committee on patents and research, before the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce)

My name is George E. Folk. I am special adviser to the National Association of Manufacturers' committee on patents and research. I am speaking today for the National Association of Manufacturers, a voluntary organization of about 16,000 manufacturers, 70 percent of whose members have less than 500 employees each.

The National Association of Manufacturers favors the creation of a National Science Foundation to procure the full development of this country's scientific and technical resources along the lines recommended by Dr. Vannevar Bush, Director of the Office of Scientific Research and Development, in his report entitled "Science, the Endless Frontier."

The NAM's committee on patents and research has given careful consideration to various bills introduced in Congress for the establishment of a National Science Foundation. A careful consideration of bills H. R. 1815, 1830, 1834, and 2027 (which are identical) discloses that they conform rather closely to the outline for the creation of a National Research Foundation as set forth in the abovementioned report of Dr. Bush and that they follow the lines favored by NAM. Hence we appear before your committee in support of H. R. 1815, 1830, 1834, and 2027, except for certain criticisms discussed below. H. R. 942, of which we do not approve, is discussed separately subsequently.

Before discussing any of the bills proposing the establishment of a National Science Foundation, we wish to suggest that it might be well in order to avoid possible confusion to have all such measures include a provision stating that they do not apply to such provisions as come within the purview of the Atomic Energy Act of 1946.

We approve of the provision in the four above-mentioned identical bills, whereby the Foundation's set-up is for a relatively simple organization consisting of persons well versed in the various specified scientific fields. However, in including among such persons leaders in "education or public affairs," too wide a scope is given for the possible appointment of persons not especially qualified for the purpose for which the Foundation is created.

We approve especially the provision whereby the persons nominated for appointment as members "shall be selected solely on the basis of established records of distinguished service and without regard to political, social, or religious factors."

We also approve of the provisions by which "the President is requested, in the making of nominations of persons for appointment as members, to give due consideration to any recommendation for nomination which may be submitted to him by the National Academy of Sciences or by other scientific * * * organizations." We question the advisability of consideration being given to nominations "by educational organizations" for the same reason that we question including among the membership of the Foundation leaders in education or public affairs.

We approve of the provisions as to the powers and duties which the Foundation is authorized to perform but question whether in authorizing the Foundation "to initiate and support basic scientific research" in various fields, there