페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub

Mr. PRIEST. Mr. Wilson.

Mr. WILSON. May I ask to recall the chancelor from Nebraska University. I want to ask him a question.

Mr. PRIEST. Is Dr. Gustavson still present?
Will you take the chair again, Doctor?
Mr. GUSTAVSON. I will be very happy to, sir.
Mr. PRIEST. Mr. Wilson?

STATEMENT OF R. G. GUSTAVSON, CHANCELOR, UNIVERSITY OF

NEBRASKA, LINCOLN, NEBR.—Resumed Mr. Wilson. Doctor, you expressed deep concern about the geographical distribution of the benefits to be derived from the Foundation on the basis of research.

Mr. GUSTAVSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. Wilson. I, too, come from the Middle West. I do know there are many, many men in need of just such aid from the educational standpoint and economic standpoint.

One of the witnesses that followed you, Dr. Dael Wolfie, in his statement, endorses the statement of section 4 (b) of H. R. 12, in that section would be ample protection for a geographical distribution on a proper basis.

Do you agree with that?
Mr. GUSTAVSON. I think experience will have to tell us, Mr. Wilson,
Mr. Wilson. Let me give you the wording of that, if you will.
Mr. GUSTAVSON. Yes, sir.
Mr. WILSON (reading):

In exercise of the authority and discharging of functions referred to in subsection (a) of this section, it shall be one of the objectives of the Foundation to strengthen basic research and education in the sciences, including independent research by individuals throughout the United States, including its Territories and possessions, and to avoid undue concentration of such research education.

I think that is the statement that Dr. Wolfle was referring to, endorsed as being an ample guaranty or protection for proper geographic distribution of benefits.

Mr. GUSTAVSON. The discussions which we have had in our two organizations have all led us to the conviction that if a definite percentage could have been allocated for geographical distribution the situation would have been better as we see it. We feel, however, that in view of all the discussion which has taken place the probabilities are that the statement you have read will take care of it.

I am speaking there in part from my experience on the Research Advisory Committee of the United States Public Health Service. Here again we were accused in an article in Science of not giving a proper distribution to the funds geographically. We have been very careful since that article appeared and even before that to give a great deal of attention to seeing that research was stimulated in other regions except the eastern and western seaboard. So, I feel that there is a general recognition of this principle, Mr. Wilson, which experience probably will show—at least, I hope it will show—will be adequate.

Although speaking for my two organizations, we would rather have seen a specific percentage allotted in that direction. But we feel that the passage of the bill is far more important, and we would not want to jeopardize that because we feel that basic research for the reasons that have been given is so important to the United States today, both from the standpoint of the national welfare and national security.

Mr. WILSON. The accomplishment of the intended or expressed purpose in that section would be dependent upon the director and ħis policies?

Mr. GUSTAVSON. That is right. That is why I said experience will have to answer it.

Mr. Priest. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WILSON. Yes.

Mr. PRIEST. Is it not true, also, Doctor, that an earlier consideration of this bill, such an arbitrary allocation by percentage was proposed and became the point of such controversy that most of those who were interested in the legislation agreed finally that it would be better to put in this general statement, trusting, as you say, in the Foundation and the director to carry out the intent of Congress rather than saying that 331/3 percent of this money would be distributed to States on geographical basis?

Mr. GUSTAVSON. That is quite correct, Mr. Chairman,

Mr. PRIEST. We had that up one other time, and as one who has been extremely interested in the legislation, I wish the record to show at this point that I appreciate very much the positon taken by you as representative of the land-grant colleges and all of the landgrant colleges in agreeing that in order to get a National Science Foundation bill you will take that portion of it on faith and not insist an arbitrary allocation be made.

Mr. Gustavson. That is right.

Mr. PRIEST. I think it is a very fine attitude, and as chairman of this subcommittee, I appreciate it.

Mr. Gustavson. Thank you, sir.
May I make one more statement?
Mr. PRIEST. Yes, sir.

Mr. GUSTAVSON. The general conclusion of our subcommittee was that we have enough faith in the democratic processes that if this is a mistake we can correct it.

Mr. PRIEST. Mr. Wilson, do you have any other questions?

Mr. WILSON. After all is said and done, there is ample protection in that wording, in your opinion?

Mr. GUSTAVSON. I think so.
Mr. Wilson. That is all, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. PRIEST. Does anyone else have a question?
Thank you, Doctor.

As the Chair stated a moment ago, if there is a witness here who cannot be heard tomorrow who could make a brief statement in the remaining time, the subcommittee would be glad to hear this witness at this time.

Mr. HAMMOND. May I volunteer a statement, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. PRIEST. Yes.

Mr. HAMMOND. It is about the need for scholarships and fellowships. I experience that in a much more direct way than Mr. Trytten does because of the mail that comes to me and my experience in interviewing our students.

A great many of them who have the qualifications to go on for advanced study are not able to do it because of financial limitations. They are able to squeeze through 4 years and that is the end for them. They have such attractive positions offered them in industry these days they cannot resist the temptation to take them as compared with the hardships they would have to undergo if they were to continue in college. I myself believe that this provision of the bill, which I hope will be law, is perhaps the most important one that it contains.

[graphic]

Thank you.
Mr. PRIEST. Thank you, Dean Hammond.

The subcommittee will stand adjourned until 10 o'clock Monday morning.

(Whereupon, at 11:40 a. m., the committee recessed to reconvene Monday, April 4, 1949, at 10 a. m.)

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

MONDAY, APRIL 4, 1949

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON
INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE,

Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10 a. m., in room 1334, New House Office Building, Hon. J. Percy Priest (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Mr. PRIEST. The subcommittee will come to order. We are meeting this morning for a continuation of hearings on National Science Foundation legislation. Our colleague, the gentleman from New York, Hon. Emanuel Celler, has shown a continuing interest in this legislation from its very inception and has had before this committee each year a bill, and has one of the bills presently under consideration before the committee.

We will be very happy to have you, Mr. Celler, at this time.

STATEMENT OF HON. EMANUEL CELLER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Chairman and members of this distinguished committee, I appreciate the opportunity of expressing some observations on the subject of the National Science Foundation and beg leave to have a few words to say about some of the provisions of the pending bills.

Science was mobilized during the war under the office of Scientific Research and Development directed by the able Dr. Vannevar Bush. It was this organization of some 5,000 scientists and 10,000 technicians that was responsible for advancing our scientific and technical knowledge 20 years in the 5 years of war. Many of their discoveries in the secret weapon field are now finding useful application in industry and medicine.

The Office of Scientific Research and Development is a wartime agency. It were a pity if the work done by the Office of Scientific Research and Development were to end. It need not end. Therefore, there have been offered

a number of bills by myself and others to set up a National Science Foundation to continue the work of the Office of Scientific Research and Development,

This National Science Foundation could be a permanent agency of the Government to promote the progress of science, advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare, and secure the national defense.

105

The Foundation would conduct basic research and provide a training program for the creation of reservoirs of young scientists.

There are no longer any physical frontiers, but the frontiers of science are still vague intellectual regions, still unconquered. Indeed, that region recedes ever farther and it becomes ever wider as physicists, chemists, and scientists, doctors, and biologists make their new revelations and their new discoveries.

It is rather anomalous that a nation as great as ours has not even found a cure for the common cold, let alone heart disease, arthritis, and cancer.

The story is told about a man who goes to a doctor and the doctor says, “You have a cold. I will tell you what to do. You go outsideit is raining cats and dogs—you take off your coat and your hat and you walk through the rain, and after several hours come back to me." And the patient says, “I will get pneumonia," and the doctor says, “That is exactly what I want you to get, because I can cure pneumonia, but I cannot cure the common cold."

Well, that is a very sad state of affairs.

I read in this morning's New York Times of a gathering of a very great number of people up in New York at the Waldorf-Astoria, and they heard Charles Kettering, a scientist and automotive industrialist, say that 6,000,000 Americans are alive today, but they are all marked for death as a result of cancer. Then he went on to say:

Cancer presents a number of curious paradoxes, such as the fact that biologi. cally it is at the positive extreme of life and growth and is at the same time a widespread cause of death ; that the more complete our medical services and the higher our standards of living, the more cancer we seem to develop; that scientists have a relatively great knowledge of the world around us, but have failed to penetrate with equal mastery the unit of man himself, the cell.

Then he goes on to ask: Why is it that 200,000 people amid us must die every year from cancer?

And mayhap, if we pass a National Science Foundation bill and give it the support that it would deserve we might be able, in the not far distant future, to develop a basic cure for that dreadful scourge and the other scourges that harass people and kill so many.

And all this points up the need to give impetus to basic scientific and medical research.

I read a news dispatch of the New York Times yesterday wherein it speaks of a pediatric survey and it shows how many children die every year because of the shocking inadequacy of cure, not only inadequacy of our medical services, but the inability of medical science, to understand all the ramifications of children's diseases, and mayhap, again, some help could be accorded children if we set up a science foundation for basic science that could evolve something that would help children on their way to health.

It must be made clear at the outset that the setting up of a science foundation in nowise interferes with the activities of the Atomic Energy Commission which is set up for a specific purpose, namely, the development and control of fissionable matter and atomic energy. The purposes of the Science Foundation are far broader in scope, and in no way impinges upon the purposes and jurisdiction of the Atomic Energy Commission.

National Science Foundation legislation is urgently needed. Our Nation is today the leading industrial and technological country in

« 이전계속 »