This language is broad enough at least to include patents, since patents are well recognized as species of property. This section should be amended to exclude patents, which are dealt with specifically in section 12. We have indicated in our statement one way in which this might be done.

While approving in general the provisions of section 12, certain specific changes are recommended to provide definitely that if the inventions resulting from basic research are patented in the United States or any foreign country, such patents shall be freely dedicated to the United States Government and to citizens of the United States. We approve of section 16 with reference to cooperation in interna tional scientific research activities.

We approve of the provision for the establishment of regulations for security classification of information with respect to developments having military significance, and of the prohibition against the Foundation itself operating laboratories or pilot plants.

Coming now to S. 2385, which was originally the same as H. R. 6007 but has now been amended, to the extent that provisions of S. 2385 are still identical with those in H. R. 6007, our remarks in connection with the House bill apply.

We approve of the change in section 4 (a) (7), which eliminates that there shall be a special commission on cancer, and so forth, and substitutes therefor general authority for the Foundation to appoint such commissions as it, from time to time, deems necessary.

As to the executive committee, one of the important changes made—we do not approve of the elimination of section 5 under which an executive committee was to be created. We observe that instead there is included in section 4 a new paragraph (e) authorizing the Foundation to appoint an executive committee and to assign to the executive committee "such powers and functions" as it deems appropriate for the purposes of this act. Under this change, the powers of the executive committee are in doubt. In fact, it is doubtful if the executive committee will be appointed.

As to the authority of the Director, we do not approve of the elimination of what was formerly section 6 (b), which specified that the Director shall operate in accordance with directives issued by the Executive Committee, and which further provided that his authority to enter into contracts for basic research activities under section 11 (c) is only with the approval of the Executive Committee. As a result of these changes in the amended bill, there is no check on the Director as to this important matter nor with respect to the contractual arrangements that he might consummate. It appears as if in effect this amendment of the bill tends to make the Director a one-man Foundation with the real Foundation serving only in an advisory capacity. The NAM does not approve of a one-man organization.

Our views with respect to the elimination of section 5 relating to the creation of the Executive Committee is all the more important, since section 6 as amended-now section 5 in S. 2385-removes the necessity for the Director being appointed only after the President receives recommendations from the Foundation. If it is assumed that the President would naturally look to the members of the Foundation for advice and guidance as to the appointment of a Director, there is no need for the change; and the original language requiring that the

President shall appoint the Director after receiving recommendations from the Foundation could be retained.

In conclusion, the NAM does not view with approval the Smith bill, S. 2385, as passed by the Senate, but prefers the bill H. R. 607, subject to the qualifications set forth in connection with the above discussion

of H. R. 6007.

I might say in further conclusion, the views of the NAM as frequently expressed in connection with similar other bills could be summarized as follows: The Foundation should call for a relatively simple organization consisting of people well versed in the various specified activities in the scientific field. Its policies should be determined by a part-time board composed primarily of eminent scientists rather than by one man. The members of the board should be chosen without regard to political affiliation, and solely on the basis of their expressed interest in and capacity to promote the purposes of the Foundation. The board should prescribe the powers and duties of the Director of the Foundation, who is the principal executive officer of the Foundation, and he should be subject to the supervision of the board. The Foundation authority in the execution of contracts should provide for the disposition of inventions produced thereunder in a manner calculated to protect the public interest.

As to the appointment of the Director, the NAM still thinks it preferable that the Director be appointed by, the board and not by the President of the United States. If this is not possible or practicable, NAM strongly urges that the Director should be appointed by the President only after he has received recommendations from the Foundation.

The CHAIRMAN. You made inquiry in your statement, or you expressed some concern as to whether the Foundation was to be a fulltime board. I assume that you mean by that as to whether they would be continually in session.

Mr. FOLK. Whether they are to give their full time and be employed by the year.

The CHAIRMAN. It was not contemplated that they would.
Mr. FOLK. Apparently not, and we are glad to see that.

The CHAIRMAN. The fixing of the per diem is pretty clear indication of the intention that they should be part-time people.

Mr. FOLK. We saw that provision for a per diem, and we assumed that that is intended to be a part-time board, of which we approve. The CHAIRMAN. While approving in general the provisions of section 12, you do recommend certain specific changes. You provide definitely that if the inventions resulting from the basic research are patented in the United States or any foreign country, such patents. shall be freely dedicated to the United States Government and to citizens of the United States. Would you be willing to elaborate some on that?

Mr. FOLK. We have in our statement given language which we think would cover that.

May I read from our main statement, in which we say:

We approve of section 12 (a) pertaining to patent rights, but we believe that it would be beneficial to spell out the intentions pertaining to this section by adding, for example, at the end of section 12 (a) the following:

"Such objectives may usually be accomplished, within the discretion of the Foundation in particular cases, by making freely available to the public or,

if patented in the United States or any foreign countries, by freely dedicating to the United States Government and to citizens of the United States, inventions produced in the course of basic or fundamental scientific research or scientific research or development completely financed by the Foundation, and by providing for the United States to receive an irrevocable, nonexclusive, royaltyfree license for governmental purposes under inventions produced in the course of applied scientific research or development financed by the Foundation but to which the contractor contributes substantially through past or current research or development activities financed by it."

Those are merely suggestions which we thought might make a little more clearly where the patent rights would go. That is in case of inventions financed entirely by the Government.

The CHAIRMAN. The Federation of American Scientists, in a communication addressed to us dated May 17, recommends "free availability or dedication to the public of all patentable discoveries made during research financed through the Foundation." Have you any comment to make on that?

Mr. FOLK. That is, if it is completely financed by the Foundation; that is correct. But where the organization which does the research contributes toward it by past experience or by actually partly financing it, we do not think in those circumstances those should be dedicated entirely, but that the contractor should receive certain rights himself, over and above what others will receive.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you have any questions, Mr. Keogh?

Mr. KEOGH. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. We thank you, Mr. Folk, for your appearance, and I can assure you that the statement which you have submitted to the committee will have its very careful consideration with respect to the several recommendations that you have made.

(The statement is as follows:)

TESTIMONY ON H. R. 6007 (WOLVERTON) AND S. 2385 (SMITH) FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

By George E. Folk, patent adviser to the National Association of Manufacturers, before the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce of the United States House of Representatives, on Tuesday, June 1, 1948

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is George E. Folk. I am patent adviser to the National Association of Manufacturers, and I am speaking today for that association, a voluntary organization of more than 16,000 manufacturers, 70 percent of whose members have less than 500 employees each.

As has been testified by representatives of the NAM upon previous appearances in connection with proposals for the establishment of a National Science Foundation, the NAM favors the creation of such a 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."

H. R. 6007

NAM approves H. R. 6007 with recommendations for specific changes

The NAM's committee on patents and research has given careful consideration to the various bills which have been introduced from time to time in Congress for the establishment of a National Science Foundation. A careful study of the Wolverton bill, H. R. 6007, and the amended Smith bill, S. 2385, discloses that the House bill, generally speaking, conforms to the outline for the creation of a National Science Foundation as set forth in the above-mentioned report of Dr. Bush, and except for certain provisions mentioned hereafter, they follow lines favored by the NAM. Hence, we appear before your committee in support of

H. R. 6007 with, however, recommendations for certain specific changes which we believe would be helpful for the establishment of an efficient Foundation to carry out the objectives which are sought. S. 2385, of which we do not approve, is discussed separately subsequently.

Before discussing either of the bills in detail, we are pleased to note the inclusion of a provision that the Foundation is not to support any research or development activity in the field of atomic energy, nor is it to enter this field without first having made certain that such activity will not adversely affect the common defense and security. This is helpful in that it will avoid any possible confusion as to whether research in the atomic energy field is to be undertaken by the Foundation.

Majority of Foundation membership should be eminent in basic sciences, medical science, engineering

We approve of the provision in H. R. 6007 whereby the Foundation set-up is for a relatively simple organization consisting of persons eminent in the fields of "basic sciences, medical science, engineering." However, also included are persons eminent in "education or public affairs," and while it is understandable that it would be desirable to have such persons serve on the Foundation, the Foundation should be composed primarily of eminent scientists. We therefore recommend that there be some limitation on the number of persons versed in education or public affairs who might be thus appointed. We suggest in this connection that it be stated that the majority, perhaps two-thirds, of the total Foundation should consist of persons eminent in the fields of the basic sciences, medical science, and engineering. This is similar in principle to the provision in section 9 specifying that each special commission is to consist of six eminent scientists and five nonscientists.

Part-time board is preferred

H. R. 6007 is not entirely clear as to whether the Foundation membership is to consist of a part-time board or a full-time board. We infer from section 15 (d), providing that the members of the Foundation are to be compensated at a daily rate, that the membership is to be employed on a part-time basis. It would be helpful if this were clearly stated, for the NAM is of the opinion that a part-time board is preferable, because only in this manner can the Foundation secure the type of person and the type of mind that is so highly essential for the important policy-making posts which comprise the Foundation.

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."

Recommendations for Foundation membership should be by scientific organizations only

We also approve of the provision by which 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

**

* ** organizations." We question the advisability of consideration being given to nominations by "educational organizations because of the possibility of thus including, among the persons appointed, individuals not especially qualified for the purpose for which the Foundation was created."

Social sciences should not be a foundation activity

We approve of the provisions as to the powers and duties which the Foundation is authorized to perform, and note especially that the objective, as enunciated in section 4 (a) (1), is the "promotion of basic research and education in the sciences."

We consequently question the inclusion of "other sciences" in section 4 (a) (2), which authorizes the Foundation to initiate and support basic scientific research in various fields. This language is so broad as to include the social sciences or possibly other sciences, and in the opinion of the NAM such activity would be out of place in a bill establishing a foundation of such a nature as recommended in the Bush report.

Indeed, we observe from the Senate debate on S. 2385, which contains a similar provision, a statement by Senator Thomas that "Of course, the fundamental theory of the bill is to facilitate the development of scientific knowledge in its pure aspects. As a result, applied science is neglected by the bill. Social science

*

is not neglected by it, but at the same time is not set apart as one of the requirements under the program to be inaugurated by the bill. * * Let me say that the social sciences will have a place in the program of the Foundation because of the fact that the Foundation itself undoubtedly will have within its organization many outstanding social scientists."

Furthermore, Senator Smith, in explaining the bill, stated: "After much debate we felt that we should limit the bill, so far as mandatory division was concerned, to what might be called the basic sciences, such as chemistry, biology, physics, etc., and not, for the moment, require that there be a division of the social sciences. The bill sets forth, however, that the Foundation may explore the needs of the social sciences and provide for the establishment of a special scientific research project in some field of social science."

In view of this language, it appears evident that while this provision is regarded as establishing a science foundation primarily for the pursuit of basic research, it does permit of the subsequent inclusion of research in the social sciences.

It is our view that while, as Dr. Bush has so ably pointed out, there is need for support of research in the basic or purely scientific fields, a bill designed to accomplish this should not make possible other activities under the guise of helping basic research.

Clause "and other sciences" should be eliminated

We, therefore, recommend the elimination of the clause "and other sciences" 'wherever it appears in the bill, namely, in section 4 (a) (4) pertaining to the granting of scholarships for "other sciences" and section 7 (a) (4), as well as section 10 (a).

Approve of objective to strengthen basic research

* * *

We also approve of the provision found in section 4 (b) stressing the fact that in exercising its authority it shall be the objective of the Foundation "to achieve the results of scientific research in the most efficient manner possible and to strengthen basic research and education in the sciences. This further bears out the reason for our view that the social sciences should not be part of a program which is devoted to strengthening basic research and education in the sciences.

We approve of the provision by which the membership of the Foundation shall elect from its membership an Executive Committee which "shall implement the policies developed by the Foundation."

Political influence is inherent in Presidential appointment of director

Section 6 provides that the Director of the Foundation is to be appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate "after receiving recommendations from the Foundation." It is also to be noted that the Director is to serve as a nonvoting, ex officio member of the Foundation, and as the nonvoting chairman of the Executive Committee. In addition, he is to be the Chief Executive Officer of the Foundation. Consequently, the Chief Executive Officer will be primarily responsible to the person by whom he is appointed, namely, the President of the United States, and not to the individuals whose policies he is to carry out, namely, the Executive Committee and the Board.

The political influence inherent in such a Foundation, as well as the dual authority which is involved, has been repeatedly commented upon at previous hearings by the NAM representatives.

Prefer Director appointed by Foundation. If not possible, approve method of appointment and explanation of his authority in section 6

The NAM, therefore, still considers it preferable that the Director be appointed by the board and not by the President of the United States. If that is not possible, the NAM urges strongly that the Director should be appointed, as provided in section 6, by the President only after he has received recommendations from the Foundation.

In view of the appointment provisions, we agree as to the desirability of describing, as does section 6 (b), that the Director is to act in accordance with directives received from the Executive Committee, and we approve of this, as well as of the remainder of this paragraph, which specifies that the Director is to enter into contracts for basic research activities (authorized in paragraph (c) of section 11) only with the approval of the Executive Committee.