ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

the world, and it has been amply demonstrated that if we are to maintain this position we cannot depend upon philanthropy and purely private resources to promote fundamental science and to provide adequate supply of scientific personnel for agriculture, industry, medicine, defense, and education.

Although we are the leaders in the world in applied science, we do not have the same preeminent position in fundamental sciences. In the past we have depended to a very considerable extent on the great fundamental scientific resources of Germany in particular and a number of other countries, in general. We cannot and should not do so any longer.

If we pass this legislation, we will be providing one of the necessary guaranties that our Nation will always hold a leading place among other nations. If we design the National Science Foundation so that it will bring to us many advances in health and standard of living comparable to the great advances in armament which science brought to the war effort, we will bring to the Nation a great boon.

Now, I feel, by way of commentary on some of the bills offered, that the legislation that will be adopted by this committee should follow the recommendations of the Hoover Commission and the President's Scientific Research Board.

The Hoover Commission pointed out that "the major functions of such a foundation should be"-you will find this quotation taken from the Overseas Administration Federal-State Relations Federal Research report of the Hoover Commission to Congress, March 1949.

The major functions of such a foundation should be (a) to examine the total scientific research effort of the Nation, (b) to assess the proper role of the Federal Government in this effort, (c) to evaluate the division of research effort among the scientific disciplines and among fields of applied research, and (d) to evaluate the key factors that impede the development of an effective national research effort. Based upon its investigations, it should advise the President as to the measures necessary to establish a sound scientific research program for the Nation.

In addition, the Foundation should be given appropriations for the support of basic research and for research fellowships in fields not adequately covered by the research grants and fellowships of other Federal Government agencies.

Then the report goes on to specify the lack of coordination between the researches in various bureaus such as the groups that are mentioned, the Agricultural Research Administration, the Office of Naval Research, the Office of Research and Planning of the Public Health Service, the Research and Development Division of the Department of the Army's General Staff, and so forth, and then the report goes on to speak of the need for over-all coordination, and I quote again from page 48 of the report:

Effort along these lines within individual agencies is not enough. There is need for an organization to facilitate the development of research policy for the Federal Government as a whole.

Then the report goes on to speak of the need for the creation of a National Science Foundation and one of the functions would be to develop this very coordination that the report said is now lacking and is so sorely needed.

Neither the bill that I have offered nor the other bills have provisions covering all these functions that I have just mentioned and which are very succinctly stated to be necessary in that report, and I

would recommend to this committee that it incorporate suitable provisions in any bill that it reports to that end.

As you are aware, we are called upon to vote for many bills appropriating funds for scientific purposes and we do not know whether two or more bills provide funds for the same work. Scientific research is expensive, both in dollars and in manpower. Therefore, there should be some coordinating agency to see that public money is not wasted by needless duplication of effort. This agency must know the total scientific effort in the country in order to recommend a sound program for the Federal Government.

Now I would like to discuss briefly and specifically, three other phases of the subject:

One. The form of administration;

Two. The distribution of funds;

Three. The assignment of patent rights.

The assignment of responsibility for the disbursement of public money to a full-time Federal employee, like the Director, responsible to the President, would make for better administration. Some of the bills still justify many of the objections given by the President in his veto message of August 8, 1947, on S. 526, in that they wouldvest the determination of vital national policies, the expenditure of large public funds, and the administration of important governmental functions in a group of individuals who would be essentially private citizens. The proposed National Science Foundation would be divorced from control by the people to an extent that implies a distinct lack of faith in democratic processes

* * *

Full governmental authority and responsibility would be placed in 24 parttime officers whom the President could not effectively hold responsible for proper administration

** * *

Gentlemen, I think it is unthinkable that these vast matters concerning the very heart of our Nation be left in the hands of individuals not subject to fullest governmental control.

Now let us look at the second reason why this part-time Foundation should not have the power to approve the disposal of funds. I again quote from the President:

There are other compelling reasons why control over the administration of this law should not be vested in the part-time members of the Foundation. The Foundation would make grants of Federal funds to support scientific research. The recipients of these grants would be determined in the discretion of the Foundation. The qualifications prescribed in the bill for members of the Foundation would insure that most of them would be individuals employed by the institutions eligible for the grants. Thus there is created a conflict of interests which would inevitably give rise to suspicions of favoritism, regardless of the complete integrity of the members of the Foundation.

***

*

Adherence to the principle that responsibility for the administration of the law should be vested in full-time officers who can be held accountable will not prevent the Government from utilizing with great advantage the services of eminent scientists who are available only for part-time duty. We have ample evidence of the patriotic and unselfish contributions which such citizens can make to the success of governmental programs. The role to be assigned to such part-time participation, however, is more appropriately one of an advisory nature rather than a full responsibility. In other governmental programs of vast national importance this method is used to obtain advice and recommendations from impartial experts as well as from parties in interest. There is no reason why such a system cannot be incorporated in legislation establishing a National Science Foundation.

I think we must take heed to what the President says in that regard, because if you are going to continue in a new bill the same causes for his objections and his veto, we will simply have our labor for our pains.

There is still a third reason why, in my mind, a Foundation consisting of part-time members is undesirable. The Budget Bureau has indicated that the type of Foundation provided in the bill by the gentleman from Tennessee, the presiding officer this morning, Mr. Priest, H. R. 12, appears workable. But they have not stated that it is the most desirable of the several types proposed. The veto message suggests a type of administration much closer to that given in my bill than in either S. 247 or H. R. 12. It gives us a clear reminder that unless we enact feasible legislation we may as well enact no bill at all. I quote again:

Moreover, the organization prescribed in the bill is so complex and unwieldy that there is grave danger that it would impede rather than promote the Government's effort to encourage scientific research

*

* *

Apart from the conflicts and confusion which would result from this complex organization, the bill would violate basic principles which make for responsible government.

* * *

Can you imagine, gentlemen, a Director appointed by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, who is bound by strict governmental regulations and is responsible to Congress and to the President, yet who must administer policies and distribute funds as determined by part-time members of a Foundation who are not subject to such regulation and such control? These members, however loyal and well meaning they may be, are actually in a position to block with impunity the functioning of the Foundation. If any conflict arises, as it must, the entire machinery of harmonious coordination of research in which the Nation is vitally interested, the granting of funds, the development of scientific talent, would be brought to a jarring standstill until you, or rather, until we, the Members of Congress, would probably again have to step in and reenact the direct-line type of administration which should be done, I think, now, while we are at it.

To enact two sets of authorities, and two allegiances, is to enact none. Indeed it is worse, since it would provide the Nation with a Foundation which would be unequal to the stresses to which it would be subject and which might break down at the very moment of crisis in which its smooth functioning would be most necessary.

It is better to have one man, I believe, in charge of the purse strings, responsible to the President, rather than that the Nation be forced to accept the decisions of a 24-$50 a day-man board whose tenure is ephemeral and whose primary allegiance may not be to the Government. And these gentlemen may make decisions that would directly or indirectly benefit themselves. They may direct funds to be given in large or small part to the very organizations or institutions of which they are members.

In view of these considerations, it seems to me that there are two courses of action that we can take. One is to adopt the form of administration, at least in its top structure, proposed in the bill that I have offered. This provides for a full time administrator, assisted by an advisory national research board. The other alternative is to utilize, say, the bill introduced by the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Priest, but amend it so that the members of the 24man Foundation recommend, but do not determine, policy and do not have the power to approve disbursement of funds.

89560-49- -8

In regard to the manner of the distribution of funds, the bill I have offered provides that a portion of the funds be distributed on a geographic and population basis, and I think this is very important; very important for the underdeveloped areas of the country. I am going to repeat that.

One of the bills provides that a portion of the funds be directed on a geographic and population basis. While I do not hold to any definite formula, I do want to see that some of the funds are used to develop scientifically backward parts of the Nation.

I also feel, for example, that the provisions in the bill that I have been so bold as to offer, concerning scholarships and fellowships, is better than some of the other bills. This provision assures that the able youth who happen to live in a region without the best educational opportunities will have an opportunity to become scientists. The provisions in the other bills which award scholarships solely on the basis of ability and without geographic quota will tend to place a premium on ability to develop through better educational facilities. They will thus tend to award scholarships to youth favored with these better educational circumstances and thus concentrate the awards in a few

areas.

Now there are two approaches to this particular problem. One requires putting money where you get the maximum research by institutions in certain centers of the country, like New York, Boston, and Chicago. The other extends rather than concentrates, so that the whole Nation should immeasurably benefit. I prefer to have the whole country divided into something like geographic and population quotas for widespread scholarships and fellowships. Should not scientifically undeveloped areas like, say, Oregon, Mississippi, Alabamba, and the Mountain States be treated more liberally in that regard? This would be a slower proces, but in the long run it would probably be better for the Nation, because the work would not be concentrated in a comparatively few hands. There would be a greater basis for research. We do not know where all the scientific talent exists or lies. Also, in a push-button war, should we not avoid putting all of our eggs in one basket?

Perhaps the two views-one, concentration; the other, distribution for grants and scholarships might well be combined. I do not exactly know. That is a matter that I hope you gentlemen will give mature consideration to. In any event, the bill reported out should have some specific direction in that regard and I do not think that the bills that are before you, even including mine, have sufficient specific direction with reference to that very important subject.

The last point I want to touch upon is the assignment of patent rights. We all know that scientists employed by private organizations assign their rights on patentable discoveries to their employer. Just go to the du Pont Corp. in Delaware; the General Motors in Detroit; go to the General Electric in whatever State it may have its main office-I do not know-and you will find very easily that the result of any research financed and controlled and managed by those entities belong to those entities. There is a recognized principle. Shall Uncle Sam be treated any less favorably than these employers? Patent rights on discoveries financed by the Foundation should be assigned to the public. This basic principle is incorporated, I think, in some of the bills, and they provide for a departure from this prin

ciple only when it is in the interest of the general welfare, in the interest of national security and national defense. A definite policy is to be followed when such departures are made, with protection against abuse of such departures from such a policy.

Most of the bills do not contain a clear-cut and definite directive on patents.

In fact, I am considerably concerned, and I say this as a lawyer, although not a patent lawyer, that the patent provisions in some of the other bills, including yours, I will say to the chairman, are not definite enough and they should be screwed down and tightened. Otherwise, if you do not, you will have endless litigation, and litigation that may absorb the energies of the Foundation and prevent it from accomplishing its aims. I know your provisions are well intended and they sound good; but I tell you, as a lawyer, that they are not definite enough and that they may give rise to very ambiguous interpretations and a very clever lawyer can twist them to the benefit of his own clients.

We want to avoid litigation. We do not want to get this Foundation, at the inception of its career, involved that way. The work that they are doing is entirely too important to have the members of that Foundation become involved in the courts.

While I feel that the patent provisions that I have suggested should apply to all Government agencies distributing Federal funds for scientific research, and my bill so provides, I think I might be willing to revise my conclusions in that regard and agree that the bill you recommend should have that restriction only applicable to the National Science Foundation.

I think any inventions or discoveries or findings produced in the course of the work of the Foundation, financed by it and developed through it, should be made freely available to the public and if patented be freely dedicated to the public; but I would permit exemptions to this policy of dedication by the Foundation in the public interest when the national security, as I said before, demands it; but then only if the Foundation first finds that the proper research cannot or will not be made without the exemptions from this policy of dedication to the public.

In summary, I would say we all agree on the need for a National Science Foundation. The act establishing it, however, should be broad in scope so that this Nation may have a unified and comprehensive policy on scientific research, basic research. The Foundation should have a sound form of public administration with the responsibility for the disbursal of public funds vested in a full-time officer with a part-time advisory board. Full use should be made of parttime scientific experts in an advisory role. These part-time experts should not have the right to determine policy. Moreover, the Foundation should be directed to expand the Nation's scientific resources by developing the scientifically backward regions or undeveloped regions. The fruits of the Foundation's research program should accrue to the public who support it.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen.

Mr. PRIEST. Mr. Celler, we are always very glad to have you present your views to us. Those of us who have been connected with this legisÏation in the past know that you have given a great deal of study to it. We know there are some differences of opinion. All of us are working

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »