I might, at this point, call your attention to the single suggestion of substance made by Dr. Bush. This was that the word, "basic," be deleted from section II (c) of H. R. 6007 on line 3 of page 12, and from section 10 (c) of S. 2385. The present wording might be construed to limit the Foundation to basic research alone. I am sure that such a limitation is not intended and it would be most undesirable. In an emergency it might well be desirable to utilize the Foundation, with its established organization, its knowledge of available research facilities, and its roster of scientific personnel, to serve as a center for mobilization of the civilian research of the Nation. Moreover, in carrying on its research activities relating to the national defense under section 4 (a) (3) of either bill, it might be desirable for the Foundation to continue some of its projects into applied research. This is not a new concept of the Foundation's role. Rather, the insertion of the limiting word, "basic," in these bills is new, for such limitation did not appear in the coresponding portions of any of the bills which you considered last year.

Except for elimination of a mandatory executive committee, changes in the description of the Director's position and appropriate formal amendments, the only difference between the two bills presently before you is the absence in S. 2385 of reference to commissions on cancer, heart, and intravascular diseases, and poliomyelitis. In fields such as these, which have received a great deal of publicity and in which active private organizations operating with popular financial support are engaged in sponsoring research, special commissions could be valuable to survey the total effort and to assure closely integrated work supplemented where necessary by assistance from the Foundation. In all likelihood the Foundation would wish to establish these very commissions if the provisions of S. 2385 are adopted. To name these commissions in the bill would, therefore, avoid the delay incident to formal action by the Foundation itself, but whether or not they are named I believe is a matter for the sound judgment of the Congress.

I do not wish to protract this discussion, for I feel that during the course of the past 3 years all of the issues surrounding the establishment of a National Science Foundation have been thoroughly discussed. I am sure that you gentlemen are fully familiar with all of them. The two bills before you do not differ in basic purpose or structure. Either bill, or a combination of the two is acceptable to the Military Establishment. Our interest is in seeing the Foundation established at the earliest possible date, for I assure you that it is urgently needed if we are to continue to make adequate progress in our applied research and development.

Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any questions, gentlemen?

I have in mind that we have had very full hearings on this subject and the differences between the Senate bill and the House bill are limited. It was felt that maybe for that reason it would not be necessary to unduly prolong the hearings by protracted questions. I do not wish to infer that the members shall not have the full privilege of questioning the witnesses, but we might bear that in mind in the hope that we may conclude the hearings on this bill today.

Mr. Busbey.

Mr. BUSBEY. Dr. Hafstad, I was particularly interested in the statement on the first page of your prepared statement where it says in the second paragraph at the very end:

The Board, therefore, has cognizance of all military research and development and has authority to eliminate undesirable duplication of effort and assure that all fields of research necessary to provide our armed forces with effective weapons are adequately investigated.

I have had some rather serious complaints from various people, and, particularly from one man with whom I had a 2-hour conversation yesterday in Chicago.

This friend of mine is, in my opinion, quite a scientist. He has many very valuable inventions on the market. While he is a university graduate he is not a Ph. D. He has one of the most modern laboratories I think in the entire United States. He has tried on numerous occasions to make his service and his ideas available to people down here, and constantly he is given form after form to fill out, and as soon as he fills out one form the form has been changed, "Please fill out another form." He supports his ideas with certain research data and most of the time he cannot get replies to his letters, and it seems to me it is very discouraging to a man like that who wants to serve his country, whose past record of service and inventive genius is known. Now, I do not think that George Washington Carver had a Ph. D., at least, in his earlier years of research. I am inclined to agree with this friend of mine that it is possible that a man might have a good idea that does not have a Ph. D.

Now, I would like to know why a man like that cannot get consideration, or why he cannot get an intelligent answer to his questions, and why he cannot get an audience on this, or an answer one way or the other.

Dr. HAFSTAD. I think I can answer that question in this way that it is a unique case that you bring up. It is one of our mechanical problems to give adequate attention to all of the character of individuals who do have ideas of this kind.

I can assure you that there is no requirement that a man have a Ph. D. as far as military research is concerned to use his ideas. The difficulty is a little something like this, that the Research and Development Board is a coordinating agency and not a contracting agency. We have no direct control of the funds that go out, so that each of the departments, or each agency has a lot of contracting officers, but it is necessary to approach each of these many people in turn, as you indicate, probably getting turned down by some of them before you finally find the place that is concerned with this particular idea. I would suggest that your friend might approach either my organization directly or the National Inventor's Council on that. Either of those organizations can handle cases such as the one that you bring up, Mr. Busbey.

Mr. BUSBEY. Well, I did not know until I got in town this morning that we were going to take this up because if I had known I would have asked our chairman to let this man come in here and testify on this bill, because his experience over a number of years on things down here in Washington has been deplorable in my estimation.

Now, it is not as if he were just some individual out here who had a little shop in his basement or something of that kind, but he has a

very modern laboratory there. People come to him from all over the United States to have him do research work for them in various fields. Companies like Parke, Davis & Co., in Detroit, when they have gone as far as they can on a certain proposition come over to him and turn it over to him to perfect for them.

This man is extremely patriotic. He wants to contribute something to his country, and he has an idea on this guided missile thing. From what little I can learn about it I thonght it was worthy of consideration by somebody down here. Now, how can that man get this consideration?

Dr. HAFSTED. The problem in all of those cases is to get to the right area of Government. We have such a large, sprawling organization that if a man approaches the wrong place he does not get the consideration that he is entitled to have. I believe what we have to do is to devise a mechanism so that a man of that kind can come to some central point fairly high up in the administrative organization in order that he can be directed to the contracting officer who is interested in his particular specialty.

Mr. BUSBEY. I might say that I have spent a great deal of time trying to find out where the right place is to go, and frequently I get the name of what I think is the right place, and give it to him, and he writes in and gets the brush off, and that has been not once, twice, or three times, but repeatedly, and that has been going on to such an extent that, frankly, I am, to use a slang expression, fed up on it. If we cannot get a National Science Foundation which is able to figure out something where we can give consideration to other institutions other than those like the University of Chicago and the Armour Foundation out there, of which I am an alumnus, I think there is something wrong here. Unless it can be set up to meet that situation I am inclined to vigorously oppose, Mr. Chairman, this kind of legislation going through. I want an answer from someone.

The CHAIRMAN. Of course, Mr. Busbey, as to your first statement that your friend did not know of these hearings I think it has been at least two weeks since we gave public notice of them.

Mr. BUSBEY. Yes, that is my fault, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. I do not mean to place any fault on anyone, but I did not want the implication to stand that these hearings were called quickly this morning.

Mr. BUSBEY. No, I did not want to infer that at all, Mr. Chairman, because it was my overlooking the fact that we did have these hearings scheduled because when I left this man yesterday I was going to ask you to have him come down here next week to be given the privilege of testifying as to the facts and what he has been running up against.

The CHAIRMAN. I agree with you that anyone who has recommendations should have the opportunity of presenting to someone. I think if it relates to giuded missles, as you have mentioned, there is already a board in the armed forces to which that can be presented. Mr. BUSBEY. I might say, Mr. Chairman, that I thought I had found the proper place for him to present that, and they referred it back to the Chicago office. They sent some young 23 year old kid out there to look over his laboratory and discuss this thing with him, who did not know the difference between the moon and a hunk of green cheese, and he went back and made an unfavorable report. I want to

know who the man in authority is that a man of this caliber can discuss things of importance with down here.

Mr. HARRIS. It appears to me that is the very purpose of the National Science Foundation. It seems to me that this authorizes the utilization of certain private laboratories and institutions, as well as public, and if such a bill as this is ultimately agreed to and passed by the Congress then it will provide this friend of yours some place to go. Mr. BUSBEY. I want some assurance that the private individuals and institutions will get some consideration and not just the larger laboratories and universities.

The CHAIRMAN. I think that the whole spirit of the bill is to give full play to private initiative. Have you finished, Mr. Busbey?

Mr. BUSBEY. Yes; but I have not received an answer to my question. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Scott.

Mr. SCOTT. Dr. Hafstad, can you tell how much this bill, if enacted into law, will cost annually, within $50,000,000?

Dr. HAFSTAD. Will you repeat your question?

Mr. Scort. Can you tell how much this bill, if enacted into law, will cost annually, within $50,000,000? I would not want to confine you to any small figure.

Dr. HAFSTAD. The estimates on that are from $30,000,000 to $100,000,000, depending on future developments.

Mr. SCOTT. Who makes those estimates?

Dr. HAFSTAD. I think that Dr. Bush in his New Horizons is probably the best authority on that.

Mr. SCOTT. Doctor, I direct your attention to these clauses of the bill to see whether, in your opinion, any estimate can be made. Section 11 prescribes that the Foundation shall have authority to make such expenditures as may be necessary for administering the provisions of the act; section 14 keeps unexpended funds available for expenditure, if obligated, for 4 years; and section 15 authorizes the Director to appoint and fix the compensation of such persons as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of the act; and other sections provide for an unnamed number of scholarships which opens this thing up to a terrific pork-barrel raid by any persons in or outside of the legislative body who may wish to be generous with scholarships. How can you say that it is going to cost from $30,000,000 to $100,000,000?

Dr. HAFSTAD. I believe I would answer that question by saying that most of these things are a matter of growth that one can foresee on the basis of our experience during the war and present values in naval research experience, that we are effectively spending something on the order of, say, $25,000,000 on that.

Now, what happens in the future I think depends on the degree of success attained by this program. You generally get reports on this, and with watching its progress from year to year, and I think depending on how effective it is, and how it meets questions such as were raised here a few minutes ago, a decision will be made as to whether this thing is worth pushing strongly, and whether it is a good, sound investment.

Mr. SCOTT. How many scholarships are contemplated, Doctor?
Dr. HAFSTAD. Up to 7,000, I am told.

Mr. SCOTT. Seven thousand?

Dr. HAFSTAD. Yes, sir.

Mr. SCOTT. And they would cost how much per scholarship?
Dr. HAFSTAD. About $1,000 apiece, I think.

Mr. SCOTT. They would have to be distributed pretty well geographically to satisfy the various sections of the country.

Dr. HAFSTAD. I think that is one of the best investments we can make, to pick up talented people to start helping or supporting them. Mr. SCOTT. Wherever genius may find itself may presumably involve geographical considerations; is that right?

Dr. HAFSTAD. Yes, sir.

Mr. SCOTT. So if a man is a genius and there are too many geniuses in one area, he better move to an area which is less "geniusfied," which sounds rather startling to me. If you had too many geniuses in one area some of them would have to move to other areas where there were less geniuses.

Dr. HAFSTAD. All of these questions are difficult to answer, and I would say that to handle these things you would have to lean on the good judgment of the Director of the proposed Foundation.

Mr. SCOTT. What does the bill do to eliminate or, rather, to integrate some of the numerous research facilities which the Government already has in other departments? Does not this just merely add one more research agency on top of all of the others?

Dr. HAFSTAD. That is correct.

Mr. Scort. Just as with the armed forces unification bill, instead of your having three services you add another one to them and you get quadruplication. That is what you are headed for.

Dr. HAFSTAD. Well, I believe this is the only agency which is specifically authorized and directed to support basic research which is something which does not have obviously immediate and practical value. Most of the research activities in the existing Government agencies are directed to some particular thing. That is the distinguishing feature from this one.

Mr. SCOTT. I have just one other question, and that is pertaining to the establishment of these various commissions, cancer, polio, and the others. According to figures contained in one of the recent news magazines the sum of $13,600 per person afflicted is being spent on polio now. Is not that, in your opinion, enough money to allow plenty to be applied to basic research, and is not $13,600 per afflicted person enough margin to permit of some basic research by private enterprise rather than setting up another Government commission for that purpose?

Dr. HAFSTAD. The problem you raise there is

Mr. SCOTT (interposing). And $22 per afflicted person for cancer is being spent.

Dr. HAFSTAD. The problem you raise there is the basis on which our recommendation would be made, that the right commissions be designated by the Foundation in order to cover the whole field. These privately supported foundations obviously depend on publicity, and some of the diseases which have had the most publicity are getting, perhaps, an undue share of the research effort put on them at the present time. It might be that the time is not ripe for a real drive on one of these diseases, even though it may have a lot of money available, and some other disease may be in the stage where you are just ready to cash in on background research which has been done and they may be short of