to the best of our ability to get a workable Science Foundation, and we appreciate very much your views on that.

Are there any questions?

Mr. O'HARA. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. PRIEST. Mr. O'Hara.

Mr. O'HARA. Mr. Celler, I would disagree with you perhaps in part on some of your testimony, but perhaps you and I shall have an opportunity to debate that on the floor; but I certainly agree very thoroughly with some of your ideas pertaining to the patent provision which, as a lawyer not knowing too much about patent law, I think is a very serious question for the committee to consider in the formation of the language of this bill.

Mr. CELLER. I know, as chairman of the Judiciary Committeeand we have now jurisdiction over patents, copyrights, and trademarks—and I can tell you that just a mere word or a comma sometimes causes an awful lot of trouble in the drafting of a bill, and when it comes to something as refined and definite as patents, we must be mighty careful.

Mr. PRIEST. Are there any other questions?

We thank you, Mr. Celler.

Mr. CELLER. Thank you.

Mr. PRIEST. Our next witness will be Dr. Karl T. Compton. I think we all know who you are, Doctor, but, for the record, will you state your full name and title.

STATEMENT OF KARL T. COMPTON, REPRESENTING THE NATIONAL MILITARY ESTABLISHMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Dr. COMPTON. My name is Karl T. Compton and I am here in three capacities as representative of the National Military Establishment by designation of the Secretary of Defense, as Chairman of the Research and Development Board which is generally responsible for planning and coordinating military research, and as a citizen with some experience in scientific research as president of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology until last November. I hasten to say that in all three capacities I strongly support the establishment of a National Science Foundation. I should also add that the Departments of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force support the basic legislation and concur in this statement. In addition, the Bureau of the Budget has advised me that there is no objection to presentation of this statement to you.

Despite the extensive discussion during the past 4 years of legislation for this purpose, I feel that it might be useful briefly to review the essential elements of the agency with which we are concerned, for I have the feeling that there is danger of diversion of attention to extraneous issues. In so doing, it may be less confusing if I refer only to H. R. 2308 and H. R. 12, intending, of course, to include the bills identical with each. However, I should like to exclude H. R. 359 for the time being and discuss it separately.

The need for a scientific foundation rests upon the major requirement in this country with respect to science. This is the dual necessity of supplementing the private resources available for the support of basic research and for the training of scientists and engineers. All other issues which have arisen in the course of consideration of

National Science Foundation legislation, although many are important in themselves, are subordinate to the basic need for a foundation, and within the limit of reasonableness, they should be kept subordinate.

We have in the last 10 years devoted an enormous effort to applied research, and this, although considerably reduced since the war, is still roughly three times the annual effort made before 1939. This effort, together with previous modern advances in the utilization for practical purposes of natural phenomena, is bringing us near the point of diminishing returns. We have literally exhausted the stock pile of fundamental knowledge in many fields.

Further improvements are, of course, possible but significant progress is becoming more and more difficult. I speak now from the point of view of the National Military Establishment concerned with providing for our armed forces equipment and weapons superior to those of any potential enemy, but the same thing applies to other governmental agencies and to industry as well. It is basic research which provides the data and general knowledge for use by those engaged in applied research for particular ends, and neither Government nor industry can maintain substantial technological progress without a steady increase in the quality and scope of this basic knowledge.

Now, available private resources are no longer able to keep basic research out in front of this tremendous advance in applied research. It has become necessary, therefore, for Government to intervene partly because of the sheer size of the problem and partly because of the cost of the complex equipment now necessary to realize significant advances in many areas.

The environment necessary for effective basic research, however, has not materially changed. Basic research still involves an inquiry—a search for information without seeking immediately usable results. This means that the sponsor of basic research must select competent individuals or groups, and refrain from attempting to dominate or direct their inquiries in detail. At the same time, participation by Government in supporting basic research implies responsibility to the source of that support-namely, the people of the United Statesfor the most effective use of public funds. Both H. R. 12 and H. R. 2308, and they are companions, I believe, achieve a reasonable balance between these two principles. By provision of a large body of scientists, educators, and men of public affairs, they assure that subjects for investigation will be selected with care. By providing a Director appointed by and responsible to the President, they assure that the expenditure of public funds will be in accordance with sound administrative practice and subject to the necessary safeguards.

I should like to dwell a bit more upon the problem of selection of areas for inquiry, and this is the most difficult aspect. As I read these bills, the Science Foundation is intended to keep itself informed of the state of basic research throughout the country and to formulate a national policy with respect to that activity. It is to be expected that the Foundation will refrain from undertaking research in areas which it finds are being adequately supported by other groups or agencies. It would not, therefore, be in competition with other agencies in the support of research. Moreover, the manner in which the Foundation is apparently intended to operate, namely, through grants and

contracts and not by establishment of its own laboratories, would minimize undesirable duplication of basic research. Both H. R, 12 and H. R. 2308 state as objectives that the selection of individuals and groups to perform the research shall be on the basis of a balance between the urgency of securing the most effective results and the need for increasing and strengthening competent research institutions throughout the country.

I fully agree and to me this means that a large part of the Foundation's research funds would be placed with universities in all parts of the country, thereby attracting and keeping competent research scientists as teachers and able students for graduate training. In many cases, however, it will be desirable to utilize the most competent existing research centers, and these will undoubtedly include such highly competent governmental agencies as the Bureau of Standards and the Public Health Service, to take just two examples.

Just as the Science Foundation should not dominate and direct in detail other groups or agencies whether governmental or nongovernmental so it should not be dominated or directed by them. It would receive general directions from the Congress with respect to the scale of its operations. Thereafter it should be free to determine those areas most urgently needing increased emphasis. In this process, it could be expected that the Foundation would be responsive to the needs in fundamental science of the Military Establishment and of other agencies engaged in research for governmental purposes. However, it should not become involved in doing work, particularly applied research work, for another agency except in case of extreme need. All of these aspects seem to be admirably covered in both H. R. 12 and H. R. 2308.

There are many other desirable features of these bills, some of which I should like to mention briefly. Under H. R. 2308, the Foundation is authorized to establish specialized administrative machinery to provide special attention for particular fields. H. R. 12, containing similar provisions, starts the Foundation off with three of these special administrative groups. As to the necessity for these particular groups at this time, there appears to be some difference of opinion. And, I might interpolate, I think there is no difference of opinion regarding the importance of these fields, but difference of opinion as to whether those three should be selected rather than some others.

I suggest, therefore, that this would be an appropriate subject for consideration by the Foundation itself, and if it concluded that these particular special commissions or any of them would be desirable, then the delay in establishing them after study rather than having them in existence at the inception of the Foundation would not be serious. But this is a matter which is peripheral to the basic issue, and it should not in any circumstances be permitted to influence the passage or nonpassage of any of these bills.

Another highly desirable feature is contained in those sections of the bills which relate to international cooperation in scientific research. Research knows no geographical boundaries. The outstanding example of this fact with which you are all familiar is our own atomic bomb which is truly an international development, for it is based on a composite of principles discovered by individuals in most of the countries of Europe as well as in this country. It is through a large number of individuals each contributing something new-some revolu

tionary and some small advances-that scientific progress is made. Assistance, to the maximum consistent with interests of national defense, to the free interchange of scientific information is in my opinion a very important purpose of the Foundation. But again, it is subsidiary to the main purposes of supplementing available private resources in the support of basic research and the assuring of a continuing supply of adequate numbers of trained scientists.

Effective research, both basic and applied, obviously depends upon men and women soundly grounded in the accumulated learning of the past but with patterns of mental activity firmly established along certain lines. I do not mean a "follow the leader" type pattern, but a pattern of questioning rather than accepting, of constructive imagination and speculation, and of patience to test hypotheses, to encounter failure, and to reconstruct and test again. To equip human beings with this knowledge and these qualities is a long and expensive process. For the academic training of an engineer a minimum of 4 years is generally deemed necessary. For a research scientist it takes 7 to 10 years of training.

In terms of numbers of scientists and engineers, our national requirements are very large indeed and they are increasing rapidly. The costs of education have also increased in the past few years, and the effect of these trends is to increase the spread between those who are financially able to provide for themselves during the training period and the demand for scientists. Moreover, men and women who by nature are suited for scientific work are limited and the incidence of such innate ability bears no necessary relationship to the ability of their ancestors to make money. This latter fact has long been recognized and virtually all educational institutions provide for one or another type of aid to students who are unable to meet the full charge. As in the case of endowment incomes for research relative to costs and the necessary scale of research, private scholarship resources are decreasing relative to tuition and the demands for trained scientists and engineers. Such individuals are truly a national resource, and it seems to me that increasing this resource is a proper function of government. All of the bills before you appear to me to provide a workable organization to assume this public responsibility and to carry it out effectively and economically.

Although some of my remarks have been applicable to H. R. 359 as well as to H. R. 12 and H. R. 2308, I have tried to keep this bill separate from the other two, for although it contains the same basic objectives, it is in my opinion subject to disadvantages not present in the others. It was a compromise worked our 4 years ago. In the intervening years the discussion has tended to unify and concentrate opinion in the direction of H. R. 12 and H. R. 2308. I believe that these bills now represent the views of the vast bulk of all those who have devoted time and thought to the best possible means of safely providing Government support to basic research and education. I earnestly recommend that you gentlemen act favorably on one of them, and I make this recommendation for I believe that you are the most competent people to reconcile the differences between them. Mr. PRIEST. Thank you, Dr. Compton. It is always a real pleasure for this committee to have your testimony.

Are there any questions? Mr. O'Hara?

Mr. O'HARA. Dr. Compton, it has been a relatively short span of 4 years since a National Science Foundation bill was first proposed, and it may be a good thing from the political end to have had this discussion that we have had. Doesn't that prove so in the matter of the consideration of this legislation?

Dr. COMPTON. Yes, sir; it does. We have had some experience. For example, when the first National Science Foundation bill was proposed, just about the time of the end of the war, we did not then have set up in the Military Establishment any organized plan for coordinating military research and development and consequently it was highly desirable at that time in the National Science Foundation bill to incorporate a Division on National Defense. Now the Congress has set up the Research and Development Board. Consequently, the situation has changed in that respect. In other respects also it has changed.

Mr. O'HARA. Do you feel that in consideration of this legislation further consideration should be given to the overlapping of these many agencies that are dealing in the subject of research, or do you feel that science progresses better without too much control? What is your feeling about that?

Dr. COMPTON. I certainly feel the latter, Mr. O'Hara, that basic science particularly can stand quite a lot of duplication. I know that from my own background, where I have worked on problems that in title and subject matter were identical with those of quite a number of other workers in the field at the same time. We often came out with different answers or different in one respect or another. If there had been an attempt at the basic research level to say, "If one man is working on this thing, we won't let a second man work on it,” progress would have been tremendously slowed up and made more uncertain. Of course, there is need for coordination, and when you get to applied research, the kinds of things that an engineering firm can sit down and work out on a drawing board making use of the basic knowledge and well-tested methods of design, then the need of duplication or the justification for duplication is very, very much less.

As regards coordination, it seems to me personally that it would be a mistake to try to incorporate responsibility for coordination in any one bill, because that would seem to me to be a function of the Executive Office of the President and as I understand it, there is a coordinating committee which has been established that looks over the other research agencies and would look over this.

Mr. O'HARA. Doctor, there has been a problem of policy in this set up here as to who is going to run the show, the Director or the Science Foundation, which has troubled me somewhat. Might I state that in talking to some of the scientists, which conversations of course have been very small in number compared to the intimate knowledge you have of their feelings, I find some of them are quite resentful, some that I have talked to, toward the Government's directing their research and activities. They are very sensitive about it and feel very strongly about it. I am asking you a double-barreled question. Let me ask you first, should the Foundation run the show or should the Director run the show?

Secondly, to what extent would be the effect of the Foundation or the Director, whichever directs, upon the scientists of the country