Approve of four divisions

We further approve of the four divisions within the Foundation set forth in section 7 and the divisional committees which are provided for in section 8, but it is to be noted that section 7 also provides for such "other divisions as the Foundation may, from time to time, deem necessary." In view of the fact that the Senate debate indicated that it was envisaged that the Foundation also would become involved in the social sciences, this section shows the importance of eliminating from section 4 the words "and other sciences" in order to preclude the possibilities of the undertaking of such activities by the Foundation. Register of scientific and technical personnel should be on voluntary basis

Section 10 (b) directs the Foundation to maintain a register of scientific and technical personnel "and in other ways provide a central clearing house for information covering all scientific and technical personnel in the United States. and its possessions." The Smith bill, vetoed by the President in 1947, further specified, however, that "no individual shall be listed in such register without his consent." The omission of this sentence from H. R. 6007 raises the question as to whether such registration will be undertaken even without the consent of the personnel involved. This is quite important in view of the fact that the section states that the register is to include "information covering" such personnel, and there is no indication of what this "information" is to consist. Approve of Foundation authority in section 11

We approve of the authority granted to the Foundation by section 11, and we note especially that by virtue of paragraph (c) of this section the Foundation is authorized to enter into contracts for the carrying on "of such basic scientific research activities as the Foundation deems necessary to carry out the purposes of this act." Here once again is emphasized that the research to be undertaken is to be "basic," and apparently this is the thought of the framers of this House bill. Once again, we believe it would be advisable to make clear this objective. Section 11 (e) should specify parent rights are subject to section 12

We wish to raise a question with respect to paragraph (e) of this section, which authorizes the Foundation to acquire "real and personal property of all kinds necessary for, or resulting from, scientific research." This section would give the broadest possible power to the Foundation with respect to patents. Since patents are specifically dealt with in section 12, the above-mentioned paragraph (e) of section 11 probably was not intended to apply to patents. However, the United States Supreme Court has uniformly and repeatedly held that "patents are property ;" and hence "property of all kinds" certainly would include patents. Therefore, the Foundation would be authorized to acquire, in any manner whatsoever, patents necessary for scientific research or development or resulting from scientific research or development. Surely no such unlimited power of condemnation of patents was intended to be placed in the Foundation. This could readily be corrected by inserting at the end of the sentence the clause, "except that patent rights are subject only to the provisions of section 12."

Approve of section 12 on patent rights, but suggest spelling out of intentions

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 secion 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, royalty-free 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."

Section 12 (b) should be made more definite

We approve of the cbjective of section 12 (b), but suggest that it be broadened somewhat and at the same time be made more definite by having the last line of section 12 (b) made to read "and if patented in the United States or in any foreign country shall be freely dedicated to the United States Government and to citizens of the United States."

At present it is by no means clear what rights Government employees may have in their patented inventions, especially as to their rights to take out patents in foreign countries. Such change of phraseology as suggested would make it clear that citizens of the United States are not to be prevented from engaging in trade either in the United States or with foreign countries by reason of inventions made by Government employees paid by the Government and on Government time. Approve of sections on international cooperation

We approve of section 13 pertaining to international cooperation and especially that portion of the section which calls for the approval of the executive committee before expenses of persons to be sent abroad can be underwritten by the director. In connection with international cooperation, we are also in accord with section 16, which specifies that authority to cooperate in international scientific and research activities must be exercised in a manner consistent with the foreign policy objectives of the United States as détermined by the Secretary of State after consultation with the director.

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

S. 2385

While the Senate bill, S. 2385, was originally identical with the House bill, H. R. 6007, as passed by the Senate, it contains a number of significant changes. To the extent that the provisions are still identical with those contained in the House bill, our remarks in connection with the House bill apply. This pertains specifically to our comments on section 3 referring to the membership of the Foundation and section 4 concerning the powers and duties of the Foundation and the inclusion of the "other sciences" as part of the over-all activity of the Foundation.

Approve of change in section 4 (a) (7)

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

Disapprove of elimination of requirement for creation of an executive committee We do not approve of the elimination of section 5 under which an executive commitee was to be created. We observe that instead there is included in section 4 a new paragraph designated (e), authorizing the Foundation to appoint an executive committee, as well as such other committees as it deems necessary and empowering it to assign to the executive committee "such powers and functions as it deems appropriate for the purpose of this act."

Under this change, the powers of the executive committee are in doubt and, inasmuch as the director is to be the chief executive officer of the Foundation, he would presumably be carrying out the policies of the Foundation entirely free from any control, since, if the Foundation consists of part-time scientists, as the NAM has repeatedly stated would be to the best interests of the Nation, the director would have more or less complete discretion.

In the House bill, the executive committee would bridge the period between Foundation meeting and would provide more or less continuous supervision for the director.

While discussion on the floor of the Senate indicated that the Foundation is thus empowered to appoint an executive committee, it is clear from Senator Smith's remarks that the executive committee had been eliminated in order that there be no "intervening layer of organization between the director and the Foundation. In other words, we wiped out the executive committee * * * Neither does the act interpose any barriers, organizational or otherwise, between the director and the President."

Thus, in view of the fact that the director is a Presidential appointee and is reporting directly to the President, and in view of the fact that there would not necessarily be an executive committee to supervise the activities of the director, we find in effect that there is a one-man organization actually controlling the affairs of the Foundation. The relative merits of an individual administrator versus a board have been argued at great length. Scientists on the whole have leaned heavily in the direction of the board for two reasons-first, because the sum total of their knowledge would greatly exceed that of any single individual;

second, because a board is presumably not so susceptible of political influence or control.

In this connection, Dr. Vannevar Bush himself has stated, "This (one man as director) may lead to efficiency in an operating agency, but it is a kind of autocracy which holds grave danger to the full development of science. As former chairman of the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics and as director of the O. S. R. D., I have participated in, and been the responsible head of, both kinds of organizations, and I can testify without reservation that a National Science Foundation will be on a far sounder basis if its policy is determined by a board rather than by one man.”

Disapprove President appointing director without first receiving recommendations from Foundation

Our views with respect to the elimination of section 5, relating to the creation of an executive committee, are all the more important since section 6, as thus amended (now sec. 5 in this bill), eliminates the director being appointed only after the President receives recommendations from the Foundation. Instead, it is merely provided that the members of the Foundation must have been appointed and qualified before the director is appointed.

Senator Smith explained the reason for the change was that "originally we felt it might be proper to provide that the President should make his appointment from among a panel submitted by the Foundation. Then we felt that such a provision might constitute a constitutional limitation on the President's power of appointment, and might be questionable from that angle. We felt that the same result would be brought about if the President first appointed the members of the Foundation, and they were confirmed by the Senate and became a going and operating body, and after they were instituted, the President should nominate the director of the Foundation. We felt that if that sequence of events were brought about, the President would naturally look to the Foundation for advice and counsel in determining who would be an acceptable director. We believe and submit that we have provided a solution which should be satisfactory, and should insure the Foundation's having a director appointed by the President entirely acceptable to its members."

* *

*

It will be observed that Senator Smith was of the opinion that with the Foundation members appointed prior to the appointment of the director, the President would "naturally" look to the members of the Foundation for advice and guidance as to the appointment of a properly qualified director. If this is correct, why the need for the change in language? What is objectionable to the original language that the President shall appoint the director "after receiving recommendations from the Foundation?" Such. language would insure that there would be presented to the President names that the Foundation regarded as qualified and acceptable.

Furthermore, such action by the Foundation would be a guide to the Senate, which would be confirming the appointment of the director, as to the names of persons that the Foundation members themselves thought would be qualified to fill the posts. Senator Smith himself said during the course of his explanations, "Of course, there always remains the safeguard of action by Members of the Senate on the President's nomination." We believe that it is essential, if the director is to be appointed by the President, that this be done only after he has received recommendations from the Foundation.

Director should be subject to check

We do not approve of the elimination of what was formerly section 6 (b) specifying that the director shall operate in accordance with directives issued by the executive committee, and providing further 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 the deletions made 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 is true that he is acting for the Foundation and under the broad authority of the Foundation, but the Senate bill in its amended version merely states that he is the chief executive and does not define his powers.

Consequently, again it appears as if in effect this bill would result in a one-man Foundation, with the real Foundation serving only in an advisory capacity. This, the NAM believes, is detrimental and would not provide a Foundation which could successfully attain the objectives which all those who desire the creation of a National Science Foundation have in mind.

CONCLUSIONS

Consequently, the NAM cannot view with approval the Smith bill, S. 2385, as it passed the Senate, but prefers the Wolverton bill, H. R. 6007, subject to the qualifications explained above.

The NAM is desirous of seeing established a Foundation along sound and efficient lines that can successfully attain the objective of promoting basic research and education in the sciences.

The views of the NAM on how this should be done may be summarized as follows:

The Foundation should call for a relatively simple organization consisting of people well versed in the various specified scientific fields.

Its policy 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 purpose of the Foundation.

The board should prescribe the powers and duties of the director of the Foundation, who is 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 and the equities of the individual or organization with which the contract is executed.

As to the appointment of the director, the NAM 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 by the President only after he has received recommendations from the Foundation.

The CHAIRMAN. It will be necessary for the committee to take a recess for a few minutes to answer the roll call, and I can assure the witnesses that there will be a larger attendance as soon as the roll call is completed. It will probably take about 20 minutes. (Whereupon, a short recess was taken.)

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order.

The next witness will be Hon. Charles Sawyer, the Secretary of the Department of Commerce.

STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES SAWYER, THE SECRETARY,

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Sawyer, we are pleased to greet you in this committee. We have had very pleasant associations with your predecessors. We antipicate and have every hope that the same will be true with reference to yourself.

I can assure you of the desire of the committee at all times to be cooperative in the work that you have in your Department. The work of your Department comes before us as often if not oftener than that of any other Department of Government, so we are very glad to have you come and make this personal appearance before us today.

I think you are acquainted with Mr. Crosser, and this is Mr. O'Hara, and Mr. Bennett of Michigan, and there will be some other members in before we conclude our hearings.

You may proceed now, and we know that you are a very busy man, and we do not want to detain you unnecessarily.

Secretary SAWYER. I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

May I begin by reciprocating your very kind remarks about the Department. Everything which I have heard since I have been here confirms what you have said as to the very friendly relations between

the Department and your committee, and I am sure that everyone in the Department appreciates greatly the consideration and, shall I say, support which the Department receives from the members of this committee.

I might add also that I am glad that the controversy between Dallas and Fort Worth is in the Congress and not in the Department of Commerce.

The CHAIRMAN. Congress may take action that will put it back in the Department.

Secretary SAWYER. That occasionally does happen.

May I say, Mr. Chairman, that it is with a certain hesitancy that I come here today, because, by reason of my very brief tenure of office, I feel hardly qualified to discuss this exceedingly important piece of legislation. But I felt, on the other hand, that it was proper that I should come here and, on behalf of the Department, express some views which I hold personally and which are thoroughly supported by those in the Department who are familiar with this bill.

May I say that I very greatly appreciate the opportunity which the committee has given me to express the views of the Department of Commerce regarding H. R. 6007 and S. 2385 which would establish a National Science Foundation.

The major objective of this legislation to provide for greater Federal aid to fundamental scientific research and for proper concentration of the Federal Government's functions in this respect are so generally accepted that I will not take the time of the committee to elaborate on them. I would, however, like to discuss briefly my views on some of the administrative features of the proposed legislation. These involve primarily the bearing of the Foundation's functions upon the vast scientific research programs with which the established agencies of the Government are already concerned and the extent to which the Congress may wish to delegate governmental authority to a body made up of persons who are Government officials for only a few days a year.

In setting up any new agency of Government, it is important to examine the functions of the existing agencies in the same field. The Federal Government is already spending millions of dollars a year on scientific research. Much of this research is carried on directly in Government laboratories. In many other cases it is done for the Government under contractual arrangements with private organizations. I will take time to mention only a few of the Government agencies which have important responsibilities in various fields of scientific research. I believe that the oldest of these is the Smithsonian Institution and the newest is the Atomic Energy Commission with whose important functions everyone is familiar. There is also the Research and Development Board of the National Military Establishment which was established by the National Security Act of 1947. There is the National Institute of Health of the Public Health Service, the National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics, the National Bureau of Standards, the Weather Bureau, the Geological Survey of the Interior Department, the Agricultural Research Administration, and many others. I have mentioned these agencies to emphasize the fact that the Government is no newcomer in the field of scientific research and that in setting up the National Science Foundation it is important to avoid overlapping of functions and confusion between the equally vital