troduced in the Senate, which were eventually combined in S. 1850, the Senate counterpart of the Celler bill. The Senate passed this bill. In July 1946 the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce considered the two bills, but in view of the many honest differences of opinion over details of the bills, wisely decided to defer action in order to allow fuller discussion of so important a matter in the Eightieth Congress. That action allowed scientists themselves, and members of Congress, an opportunity to discuss and to consider the characteristics of a bill which will create the most effective National Science Foundation. The Inter-Society Committee of Scientists, which I represent, was formed for the purpose of ascertaining, coordinating, and reporting the attitudes of American scientists toward the various issues involved in the creation of a National Science Foundation. The committee held its first meeting in Washington on February 23, 1947. There was complete unanimity at that meeting on the very great importance of establishing a National Science Foundation. The large attendance, the wide range of scientific societies represented, and the high competence of the scientists who attended were impressive proof of the importance given to securing effective action of the problem. We do not wish at the present time to support or criticize any specific bill, but we are united in recommending that any bill should provide the following features. In this respect, our recommendations are the same as those of the War Department and the Navy Department: (1) The Foundation must provide for the support of basic fundamental research without reference to the development of immediate practical applications. The many striking applications of technology during the war tend to give a misleading impression of the progress of science. Wartime discoveries, such as radar, magnetic detection of submarines and even the atomic bomb, were simply the exploitation of long-established scientific principles. Radar, for example, is a straightforward modification of radio. And radio is the practical use of the discoveries made by Hertz in the middle of the last century. It would seem that present facilities, private and Government, are adequate to exploit the fundamental scientific knowledge which is now available, but the blunt fact is that these resources have to a large extent become exhausted. Before the war the cost of research was steadily rising, while private funds for research were dwindling relatively. During the war virtually all basic research came to a halt as scientists and laboratories concentrated on engineering and development for immediate uses. We must have a National Science Foundation to replenish our stock pile of basic scientific knowledge. (2) The Foundation should be free to investigate problems in any scientific area and by any appropriate method, for it is impossible to determine in advance which problems will lead to fruitful results and which methods will be successful, Twenty years ago who would have thought that the study of molds would lead to the development of the wonder drug penicillin? Fifty years ago in searching for the missing element radium Madame Curie had no thought or foreknowledge of its many useful applications. (3) The Foundation should provide for the training of young scientists to make up the great shortage of scientific personnel that now exists, due largely to the fact that students who would normally have begun their scientific careers were taken for military duty. You cannot stop doing a worth-while thing for 5 years without later redoubling your efforts so as to catch up. (4) The Foundation should provide for the coordination of scientific research and the development and utilization of scientific personnel. It should integrate its work with that of other Government agencies, should be free to plan the development of new laboratories when necessary, and should become responsible for the continuation of the national roster of scientific and specialized personnel, The Foundation should feel a responsibility and have authority to survey continuously the country's scientific needs and assume leadership in planning ways to meet those needs. The administrative machinery necessary to accomplish these aims was one of the controversial points in the bills considered last year. There is no unanimity of opinion among scientists as to the most desirable administrative set-up. The specific organization should be planned with the help of experts in government and administration. There is a very widespread feeling among scientists that the caliber of men chosen to direct the National Science Foundation is much more important than the details of administrative organization. It is our feeling that the bill should not be so specific in details of procedure and organization as to hamper the administration in carrying out the objectives of the Foundation. Competent administrators, well acquainted with scientific problems and with the full confidence of the Government and their scientific colleagues, can create an effective National Science Foundation. The committee which I represent had its first meeting 10 days ago. Its executive subcommittee met for the first time yesterday. We are in agreement on the points discussed above. We have not had an opportunity to discuss detailed points of the specific bills which have been presented so far in the Eightieth Congress. The issue before this committee is so important that we urge more extended study and further consideration of these bills. We expect to prepare a more definitive statement which will represent the best composite judgment of the scientists of the country. We would like an opportunity to present it before this committee at a later time. NATIONAL SCIENTIFIC AND EDUCATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS REPRESENTED IN THE The Academy of World Economics ers American Association of Scientic Work ers American Astronomical Society The American Ceramic Society, Inc. American Geographical Society Beta Beta Beta Botanical Society of America, Inc. Eastern Psychological Association The Federation of American Societies Institute of Mathematical Statistics Linguistic Society of America AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE, -Hon. CHARLES A. WOLVERTON, House of Representatives, Washington 25, D. C. DEAR MR. WOLVERTON: Enclosed is the report which President Day, in his testimony on March 6, 1947, promised to give to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. The report summarizes the judgment of the Inter-Society Committee for a National Science Foundation on the major provisions of the Science Foundation bills now under consideration by the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. Members of the Executive Committee of the Inter-Society Committee on a National Science Foundation. By DAEL WALFLE, Secretary. SCIENTISTS' ATTITUDE TOWARD PENDING SCIENCE FOUNDATION BILLS The Inter-Society Committee for a National Science Foundation consists of representatives selected by over 75 scientific organizations of America. The individual societies and associations making up the committee are named in enclosure 1. The Inter-Society Committee was formed to obtain and to express the best judgment of American scientists upon the type of National Science Foundation which they believe will work most effectively. 1. Judgment on best type of administration The scientists of the country believe with almost complete unanimity that a National Science Foundation is necessary and desirable. Two-thirds of them believe that the Foundation should be under the direction of a single administrator appointed by the President. Members of the Inter-Society Committee were asked which types of administration they preferred, a 48-man foundation which would select a director, a presidentially appointed administrator who would work with the advice of a national science board, or a commission of from three to nine men appointed by the President. The vote was: The scientists of the country believe with almost complete unanimity that a National Science Foundation should be permitted or instructed to support research studies in the social sciences. The members were asked whether they believed that the Foundation should specifically include the social sciences, should exclude them, or should be permitted to decide the question of inclusion for itself. The vote was: Favor specific inclusion of the social sciences_ 3. Judgment on inclusion of undergraduate scholarships Percent 49 48 2 The scientists of the country believe in very large majority that the National Science Foundation should provide for undergraduate scholarships and graduate fellowships to science students. The members were asked whether they believed that the Foundation should be authorized to grant scholarships to undergraduate students of science as well as fellowships to graduate students of science. The vote was: Foundation should grant undergraduate scholarships_. 4. Judgment on patent provisions Percent 86 14 The scientists of the country are willing to accept the patent provisions contained in any of the pending bills. The members were asked whether or not they thought that the Inter-Society Committee should take a definite stand on patent legislation. The vote was: Percent 94 6 Believe that no special stand should be taken on patent legislation_ Believe that the Inter-Society Committee should recommend the adoption of the patent provisions contained in S. 525 and H. R. 942--Recognizing that differences of opinion might make compromises necessary, the members of the Inter-Society Committee were asked which types of administration and which possible treatments of the social sciences they would be willing to accept if compromise became necessary in order to secure passage of Science Foundation legislation. They are willing, if that becomes necessary, to accept any of the three proposed types of administration. The vote was: Willing to accept a Commision if necessary. Percent 95 Willing to accept a single Administrator if necessary. 88 86 They are not willing to accept exclusion of the social sciences. The vote was: Percent 99 94 37 Willing to accept permissive inclusion of social sciences. Each member of the Inter-Society Committee was sent a copy of the questionnaire which is attached as enclosure 2. The questionnaires were mailed on March 11. Replies have been received from 73 percent of the members. The members voted as individuals, but each member was selected by his organization as its representative on Science Foundation questions. Many of the members conferred with their parent organizations before voting. The results given above may therefore be taken as the best available expression of the pooled judgment of the scientists of the country toward differences which exist in the present Science Foundation bills. INTER-SOCIETY COMMITTEE ON A NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION QUESTIONNAIRE ON ATTITUDES TOWARD CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES IN THE PRESENT SCIENCE FOUNDATION BILLS 1. Type of administration Two types of administration are described in the present bills. One type authorizes the President of the United States to nominate 48 members of the Foundation. Their appointment is subject to confirmation by the Senate. The persons nominated “(1) shall be outstanding men and women who are recognized leaders in the fields of the fundamental sciences, medical sciences, engineering, education, or public affairs; (2) shall be selected solely on the basis of established records of distinguished service and without regard to political, social, or religious factors; and (3) shall be so selected as to provide representation of the views of scientific leaders in all areas of the Nation. The President is requested, in the making of nominations of persons for appointment as members, to give due consideration to any recommendations for nomination which may be submitted to him by the National Academy of Sciences or by other scientific or educational organizations." This 48-member Foundation will select an executive committee of 9 members. This committee in turn will select the Director of the Foundation, subject to approval by a majority of the 48 Foundation members. The Director will be responsible to the executive committee rather than directly to the President or the Congress. The 48 members of the Foundation are required to meet at least once a year; the executive committee at least six times a year. The proponents of this plan argue that the large board will prevent the President from making a purely political appointment of a Director. They argue also that the large board will guarantee representation to all fields of science and all areas of the country in the making of decisions concerning types of work to be supported by the Foundation, university and other laboratories to be used by the Foundation, etc. They also believe that more competent and outstanding men will be willing to accept appointment on the 48-man Foundation than will accept appointment on the advisory board and committees of the second system (described below). The reason is that the 48-man Foundation will have more authority than the advisory board. Opponents of this plan argue that the 48-man board will so diffuse responsibility that there will be no real responsibility. They fear that the large board, meeting perhaps no more than once a year, will consist of a group of relatively uninformed and inactive members and that it will therefore be easy for a small but active clique within the Foundation to gain control of the executive committee and through that committee of the Director. They point out further, and correctly, that experts in government and administration are almost unanimously opposed to this type of organization. The second plan for administering the Foundation described in the present bills authorizes the President of the United States to appoint an Administrator. His appointment is subject to confirmation by the Senate. It is specified that "The President, before appointing an Administrator, shall consult with and receive the recommendations of the National Science Board." The National Science Board is an advisory board consisting of "nine members appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, from among persons who are especially qualified to promote the broad objectives of this act, plus the chairmen of the several divisional scientific committees." The Administrator appoints a Deputy Administrator and Directors of the several Divisions of the Foundations. Each of these appointments is to be made by and with the consent of the Senate. This system makes the Administrator directly responsible to the President, but gives him the counsel of a National Science Board, part of whose members are the chairmen of the committees selected to advise each Division on the work of that Division. The proponents of this plan argue that it is in closer agreement with customary administrative practices and that practically all experts in government and administration favor it over the first plan described. They point out also that the Administrator will have higher prestige and influence within Government circles as the Presidentially appointed Administrator than he would have if he were chosen by a 48-man board. This position, they contend, will give the whole Foundation greater status and influence within the Government. They argue also that the possibility of a purely political appointment need not be feared. In justification they point to the safeguards within the bill which provide for freedom of discussion and criticism and for advice from the National Science Board in selecting an Administrator. In further justification, they point to the appointments of top men in other Government scientific positions, such as the Bureau of Standards, the Bureau of Mines, and so forth, as evidence that political appointments need not be feared. Opponents of this plan argue that it might easily lead to political appointments, and that even if it did not, it might easily lead to a scientific dictatorship. A third possibility would be the appointment of a Commission consisting of from three to nine men, all of whom would be appointed by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. The members of this Commission might either spend full time or part time on the affairs of the Foundation. The Chairman might be selected by the members of the Commission or by the President. The other members might perhaps be Directors of the several Divisions of the Foundation. This possibility is somewhat vague because it is not now a part of any pending bill and has not been formally suggested to the Congress. It is possible that it might be worked out as a compromise between the two types of administration described in greater detail above. In testimony presented to the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee on March 6 and 7, the first type described (the 48-man board) was recommended by Detlev W. Bronk, chairman of the National Research Council, Dean MacQuigg of Ohio State University, Frank B. Jewett, chairman of the National Academy of Sciences, George E. Folk, special advisor to the National Association of Manufacturers' Committee on Patents and Research, President James B. Conant of Harvard University, Dr. Randolph T. Major, director of research and development for the Merck & Co., Inc., Admiral P. F. Lee of the Office of Naval Research, Bruce Brown of Standard Oil Co., of Indiana, John Vicory of the National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics, and Vannevar Bush. The second type of administration described (the presidentially appointed Administrator) was recommended by William Higginbotham, secretary of the |