The Department of Justice study, prepared by its Claims Division, is a very exhaustive one. While it has not been publicly released as yet, I am sure that arrangements can be made to secure it for this committee in its study of science legislation.

I would like to point out that section 8 of H. R. 942, which covers the use and dissemination of research findings, allows for contractual exceptions to the basic policy of public dedication in those cases where the invention is the result of a substantial investment by the private contractor.

In conclusion, let me urge the committee again that it act speedily and favorably on this legislation. In the past year in the absence of a civilian National Science Foundation the War and Navy Departments have spent great sums-about $100,000,000-for fundamental research so that our Nation can have a strong scientific foundation. It is a dangerous step to have the military carry on a peacetime function which they themselves recognize should be carried out by a civilian agency.

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT P. PATTERSON, SECRETARY OF WAR, WASHINGTON, D. C.

The CHAIRMAN. It is a pleasure and a privilege to have as our first witness in this important matter the Honorable Robert P. Patterson, Secretary of War. Judge Patterson comes to us with both a legal and military background. He also has the unusual distinction of having been appointed by President Hoover as judge of the United States District Court of New York, and promoted to the circuit court by President Roosevelt, and to the Cabinet by President Truman.

I understand he has maintained a close contact with research and development in the War Department, and it is a great pleasure to, have the Secretary of War testify as our first witness.

Mr. Secretary.

Secretary PATTERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a short statement, Mr. Chairman, and then, of course, I will be glad, indeed, to answer any questions.

I am glad to testify on the National Science Foundation as proposed by several bills now before your committee "to promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense; and for other purposes." I testified before the Seventy-ninth Congress on similar legislation and can assure you that the War Department has not altered its views nor decreased its support of a National Science Foundation. My comments on the bills will be limited to those matters which directly affect the War Department.

I need not reiterate the necessity for a Government scientific agency. Congress is thoroughly aware of the necessity for this Nation to. establish a central research organization of the highest quality to accomplish the purposes set forth in the respective bills under consideration. The scientific resources of the entire Nation are now necessary for the security of the country.

The entire population of the country possesses abilities, knowledge, and tools for defense which have become the actual foundation of national security. Under our domestic system their development can

be encouraged and assisted by the Federal Government, although guided by the citizens themselves. Federal assistance has become vitally necessary to the desirable and necessary expansion of basic scientific knowledge on a national scale. This assistance is necessary if we are to maintain this reservoir of fundamental knowledge and skills, let alone replenish it from the dangerously depleted condition which resulted from its application to the technological problems of the last war. Fundamental research, as such, almost disappeared during those years under the stringent necessity of utilizing our scientists for the application of then existing fundamental knowledge to the development of new devices and instrumentalities of warfare. I sincerely believe that the National Science Foundation would be the focal point for replenishing this reservoir of knowledge and skills, and for the requisite collection and dissemination of scientific information. These remarks should clarify any doubts you may have regarding the War Department's attitude and degree of support toward the establishment of a National Science Foundation. The War Department believes that a National Science Foundation is vitally neededthe sooner the better. It needs an official agency of science with which to maintain its scientific contacts.

The need for this contact has been made more evident by the passing of the Office of Scientific Research and Development and the National Defense Research Committee which supplied these contacts during the war.

The performance of this task by joint activity by science and the military is not the only reason why the War Department wants the National Science Foundation. There should be a clearing house for Federal research contracts, in order that the War Department, which is just one of many Federal agencies with a research and development program, may know whether work is already being undertaken elsewhere in a field which it desires to explore. It needs to know the best place to go for its pure research work, as well as the best qualified people to do the job it has in mind.

And finally, there has to be some sort of mobilization plan for science, not only in the event of an emergency, but to carry on the necessary research work in peacetime. The War Department is not the agency to prepare such a plan; yet in the absence of such agencies, it has felt compelled to go ahead with planning in this field in cooperation with the National Research Council and other civilian agencies that are concerned with the plans for scientific manpower. A National Science Foundation could do all of these things with propriety.

The War Department does not desire to comment on any details of the provisions of the bills before the Congress, but I cannot help but express my opinion that these bills should not in any way interfere with the existing patent laws. If there is to be legislation on the patent question, it should be entirely apart from the establishment of a National Science Foundation.

With respect to funds, it is the War Department's desire that some percentage of the funds for the National Science Foundation be earmarked for national-defense expenditure. While the foundation should become the principal supporter of fundamental or basic research, the War Department prefers that some funds for basic re

search purposes for the War Department should continue to be appropriated to the War Department.

The War Department has the responsibility for the application of these funds to national security purposes, particularly to the definition of the fields in which it desires progress accelerated. It cannot divest itself of this responsibility. It therefore should, in dealing with the National Science Foundation, submit to it, project by project, the contracts which it desires to make with outside science concerning basic research, in order that the National Science Foundation may advise the War Department as to whether or not sufficient funds are already available in these fields to insure its purposes being accomplished, and with what agencies the contracts can best be made. The National Science Foundation will therefore have complete knowledge of all War Department contracts for pure or basic research. Yet the War Department will retain the responsibility which it now has for the security of the country.

In conclusion, I wish to reemphasize here that the War Department does not wish to impose its ideas upon the organization of the foundation. I wish also to repeat my hearty support for the establishment of a National Science Foundation to obtain the objectives outlined in the measures pending before your committee.

I was keenly interested, Mr. Chairman, in the introductory remarks you made. They brought up to my mind the great debt the Nation owes to the efforts of the mobilized scientists during the war. It was brought out as a striking feature of World War II as it had never .been brought out before, the great aid and assistance that scientists, engineers, and technicians could give to the winning of the war, and I could not help thinking, too, of the great good fortune we had in having Dr. Vannevar Bush in the national effort in the mobilization of scientists, first, as head of the National Defense Research Committee and then head of the Office of Scientific Research and Development.

He, as much as anyone in the whole organized effort, was responsible for the tremendous advances we made and for the devices, new devices, of the most tremendous power that were fashioned and put into operation to bring about a speedy victory.

In

my own thinking on the best mobilifiation of science, not only for military purposes but for peacetime purposes as well, I have been guided largely by the thinking of Dr. Bush and his associates who so ably directed that effort from 1940 to 1945 and 1946; and I regard us as peculiarly fortunate to have had the benefit of his services in the joint organization that we now have between the War Department and the Navy Department, along the lines of research and development, be cause he is Chairman of the Joint Research and Development Board of the Army and Navy.

The CHAIRMAN. Any questions by the gentlemen of the committee? Mr. HINSHAW. Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Hinshaw.

Mr. HINSHAW. I would like to ask Judge Patterson how far he believes the War Department—and I might mention also the Navy Department, although I know he does not speak for it-should go in investment in Government laboratories and facilities for research, and I would also like to know whether or not he believes that that

99686-47-3

money perhaps spread around among educational institutions of high quality might better serve the purposes.

Secretary PATTERSON. Of course, the great majority of the funds appropriated for the Army and Navy for research and development are actually directed to laboratories, universities, and colleges. Over two-thirds of the funds of the War Department are placed on contract with research and development to be conducted by industrial laboratories, laboratories of nonprifit institutions and institutions of higher learning. That is where most of it goes.

Mr. HINSHAW. I realize that, but I understand that in the offing is the possible request for an appropriation of several hundred million dollars for the establishment of an aeronautical research laboratory for the War Department. I had that in mind as to whether or not it would be more advisable to have research done through the educational institutions and scientists in the country.

Secretary PATTERSON. Yes. Our projects for the next fiscal year, in appropriations, do not allow for the project you mention of an aeronautical laboratory. That is a very, very large affair and it is not in the planning stage even yet.

There has been some preliminary thinking about it, but our funds in the budget for the fiscal year 1948 for research and development do not provide for that project.

Mr. HINSHAW. On page 3 of your statement

Secretary PATTERSON. I might say over two-thirds of the War Department's funds in that regard relate to air; airplanes and guided

missiles.

Mr. HINSHAW. On page 3 of your statement, paragraph 2 of that page, you say [reading]:

With respect to funds, it is the War Department's desire that some percentage of the funds for the National Science Foundation be earmarked for national defense expenditure.

I know that no specific percentage is recommended, and I wonder if you had one in mind?

Secretary PATTERSON. No, sir. I believe some of the bills that were discussed in the last session said 20 percent. That figure sticks in my mind. But I do not recommend any particular percentage. Mr. HINSHAW. I think the committee would be very much interested in your ideas upon that percentage.

Secretary PATTERSON. I thought 20 percent and would say at least 20 percent was the amount mentioned in connection with the legislation that was under discussion at the last session.

Mr. HINSHAW. That is all.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Lea.

Mr. LEA. What do you have in mind in suggesting legislation such as that we have before us should not interfere with existing patent laws?

Secretary PATTERSON. Well, that gets us into what the patent lawyers say is a highly controversial field and I merely meant that if. you are going to have any basic change in the patent law, I think you ought to have it through the front door and not through the rear door. That is my impression.

Mr. LEA. The main idea was not to complicate the problem.

Secretary PATTERSON. Well, not in this legislation. It may be that to a limited degree you will have to deal with it, but all I meant by

that was that I do not think I would go far afield in adopting provisions that would radically change our present patent system in this piece of legislation.

Mr. LEA. We are not to infer any blanket endorsement of existing patent laws.

Secretary PATTERSON. No, sir. I never was much of a patent lawyer. I have decided lots of patent cases, but I had to cram up on each case.

The CHAIRMAN. Any further questions, gentlemen?

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Rogers.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Secretary, speaking of patents, I guess you saw in the papers recently where a number of patents have been given to Russia. Do you know anything about that?

Secretary PATTERSON. No, sir; I do not. I saw it in the press yesterday. That is all I know about it.

Mr. ROGERS. It is rather surprising, if it is so, is it not?

Secretary PATTERSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. ROGERS. That is all.

Mr. PRIEST. Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Priest.

Mr. PRIEST. Mr. Secretary, I appreciate what you said about the patent situation and the question Mr. Lea asked in that respect. We had that up in the subcommittee hearings last year and I believe the consensus of the subcommittee was that in this legislation we should not attempt to rewrite the patent laws, but that it should be done generally without reference to this particular legislation.

One other question I want to ask, if you care to comment on it. In addition to the patent provisions of the bill we considered last year, one of the points of main controversy was the question of whether there should be an old line or regular line organization as it is proposed in the Celler bill or the type of organization proposed in the four other identical bills before the present committee.

Would you care to state, from the standpoint of the War Department, which of the types of organization, in your opinion, would be most acceptable?

Secretary PATTERSON. I have no firm opinion on that, Mr. Priest. I believe the bills that I testified about last year-I think one of them was headed by an administrator at the top with an advisory board, and the other, I think it was the Mills bill, was just the reverse, a board to select a manager.

My views on that would be guided, I think, or at least I would give great weight to what the leading scientists familiar with organizations of this type would say would work best.

Mr. PRIEST. I thank you, Mr. Secretary. That is all, Mr. Chairman. Secretary PATTERSON. They are the specialists on this and by their great achievements during the war they have shown, the leaders of them, a great skill and ability and competency in organization and not just theorists or laboratory people; but a high degree of statesmanship as well.

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Harris.

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Secretary, with legislation as proposed here in these various bills, is it your opinion that another situation such as