« 이전계속 »
twice passed the Senate and which is represented by H. R. 1815. In addition, I suggested certain amendments in an effort to reconcile the differences between the two bills. I am still of the opinion that either H. R. 12 or H. R. 1845 would provide an entirely satisfactory organization, and I respectfully refer you to my letter of May 14, 1948, for what use you may care to make of it in the event that you decide to reconcile these two bills in this committee rather than in conference.
On the other hand, in view of the Senate passage of a bill identical with H. R. 1845, the provision of urgently needed Federal financial support for basic re search and for the training of scientists would be accelerated by passage of H. R. 1845. Very truly yours,
March 30, 1919. Hon. J. PERCY PRIEST, House of Representatives,
Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. PRIEST: Having had a continuing interest in proposed National Science Foundation legislation since the submission of Dr. Vannevar Bush's report to President Truman, we wish to go on record on the following points:
Prompt action on the part of the Congress creating a National Science Foundation is imperative for both national defense and the peacetime development of science in this country.
We are in favor of the legislation in the form (S. 247) in which it passed the Senate on March 18, 1949, and the identical bills H. R. 12, H. R. 185, and H. R. 311, H. R. 1815, H. R. 2308, and H. R. 2751.
The patent provisions in these bills seem to us to be adequate and appropriate to this legislation. We mention this because we hear that there may be some movement to revise the legislation in this respect.
We have closely followed this legislation over the period of nearly 4 years during which it has been under consideration by the Congress and we urge its immediate enactment.
Dr. Boris A. Bakhmeteff, Honorary Member, American Society Chem
ical Engineers, Chairman Committee on Science Legislation, Engineers Joint Council; Dr. G. W. Beadle, Chairman of the Division of Biology, California Institute of Technology ; Dr. Isaiah Bowman, President Emeritus, Johns Hopkins University; Dr. Alan M. Chesney, Dean Johns Hopkins University, School of Medicine; Dr. A. G. Christie, Professor Emeritus of Mechanical Engineering, Johns Hopkins University; Dr. Robert E. Doherty, President, Carnegie Institute of Technology ; Mr. Farnbam P. Griffiths, San Francisco; Dr. R. F. Griggs, Professor of Biological Sciences, Past Chairman, Division of Biology and Agriculture, National Research Council; Dr. C. S. Marvel, Professor of Or'ganic Chemistry, University of Illinois ; Dr. Walter W. Palmer, Director, Public Health Research Institute of the city of New York, Inc.; Dr. Homer W. Smith, Professor of Physiology, New York University College of Medicine, Chairman, AEC Post-Doctoral Fellowship Board in the Medical Sciences; Dr. John T. Tate, Research Professor of Physics, University of Minnesota ; Dr. James J. Waring, Professor of Medicine, University of Colorado, School of Medicine; Mr. Bethuel M. Webster, Webster, Sheffield & Horan, New York; Mr. Robert E. Wilson, Chairman of the Board Standard Oil Co. (Indiana).
AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY,
San Francisco, Calif., March 31, 1949. Hon. J. PERCY PRIEST, Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Health, Science, and Commerce,
Washington 25, D. C. DEAR MR. PRIEST: The American Chemical Society appreciates the invitation to present its comments on Science Foundation bills. Unfortunately, the presence of all Society officers at a meeting in San Francisco makes it impossible for us to be represented at the hearings on any of the dates specified. We are glad, however, to give you the opinion of our Board of Directors on this subject.
The American Chemical Society favors legislation in the support of fundamental science and the education of scientists. The Society is on record to this effect.
It sees no necessity for the inclusion in such legislation of special patent clauses in addition to those which how pertain to all Government-financed research carried on today under existing statutes.
The Society believes that funds to support research in the natural sciences and in the social sciences should not be administered by the same agency.
The American Chemical Society holds the opinion that the administrator should be selected by the Foundation or its Executive Committee.
The important thing to be accomplished by legislation of this kind should be the support of research in fundamental science in our academic institutions and the provision of such assistance as may be necessary to assure an adequate supply of properly educated scientists to meet the needs of the country. Very truly yours,
ALDEN H. EMERY,
STATEMENT OF HON. ELBERT D. THOMAS, A UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF UTAH RE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
You may be interested in the bills entered in the Eighty-first Congress on the National Science Foundation as of the week ending January 8, 1949.
S. 247: “Mr. Thomas of Utah (for himself, Mr. Kilgore, Mr. Fulbright, Mr. Smith of New Jersey, Mr. Cordon, and Mr. Saltonstall) introduced Senate bill 247, to promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense; and for other purposes, which was referred to the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, and appears under a separate heading."
"I also introduce at this time the science foundation bill, which was sponsored by the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and myself, and several others at the last session of Congress. This bill, also, is in the identical form, with the exception of the necessary date changes, in which it passed the Senate. I may say for the benefit and information of Senators, that the bill meets the objections of the President when he vetoed a similar measure passed in the session before the last."
Senator Warren G. Magnuson asked unanimous consent to join with his colleagues on this bill.
Note: S. 247 is identical with S. 2385 as passed in the Senate by the Eightieth Congress. S. 2385 as introduced in the Senate was identical with H. R. 6007 as introduced in the House by Mr. Wolverton in the Eightieth Congress.
The following National Science Foundation bills were introduced in the House as of January 8, 1949, in the Eighty-first Congress;
H. R. 12. Representative Priest, Democrat from Tennessee.
These three bills are identical with H. R. 6007 as reported out of the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee of the House in the Eightieth Congress.
H. R. 359. Representative Celler, Democrat, from New York; same as S. 525, Eightieth Congress.
S. 2385 as passed made the special commissions in heart, cancer and polio permissive and authorized the Foundation to create the executive committee and define its powers. H. R. 6007 as passed made creation of the special commissions and the executive committee mandatory and defined their duties.
DIRECTOR OF FOUNDATION
S. 2385-: Section 5, page 6, lines 9–17, H. R. 6007: Union Calendar No. 1107, Report No. 1151
Report No. 2223, section 6, pages 7-8 "There shall be a Director of the "There shall be a Director of the Foundation who shall be appointed by Foundation who shall be appointed by the President by and with the advice the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, after the and consent of the Senate, after receivmembers of the Foundation have been ing recommendations from the Foundaappointed and qualified. He shall serve tion. He shall serve as a nonvoting as an ex officio member of the Founda- ex officia member of the Foundation and tion. In addition thereto he shall be also as the non voting Chairman of the the chief executive officer of the Foun- Executive Committee. In addition dation. The Director shall receive com- thereto he shall be the chief executive pensation at the rate of $15,000 per officer of the Foundation. The Director annum and shall serve for a term of shall receive compensation at the rate six years unless sooner removed by the of $15,000 per annum and shall serve President."
for a term of six years unless sooner removed by the President.
(b) The Director shall, in accordance with such directives as the Executive ('ommittee shall from time to time prescribe, exercise the powers set forth in this Act, within the policies developed by the Foundation: Provided that the authority granted to the Foundation by paragraph (C) of section 11 shall be exercised by the Director with the ap
proval of the Executive Committee." The differences in S. 247 (identical with S. 2385) and H. R. 12, H. R. 185 and H. R. 311 (identical with H. R. C007) are not sufficiently serious to warrant further hearings. It is probable these differences between the Senate and the House bills could be compromised at committee level. H. R. 6007 having been reported out of committee several months after S. 2385, enjoys the benefit of later improvements in language.
The need for a National Science Foundation is today greater than ever before. There are no facilities in existence today where adequate coordinating studies can be made to determine the need and the degree of overlap in scholarships and research activities of the Nation. Many government and private agencies are active in the educational and research fields but no agency is coordinating this effort.
S. 2385, section 14h, page 16, and H. R. 6007, section 15h, page 18, specifies the basis of this cooperation.
“The activities of the Foundation "The activities of the Foundation shall be construed as supplementing shall be construed as supplementing and and not superseding, curtailing, or not superseding, curtailing, or limiting limiting any of the functions or activ- any of the functions or activities of ities of other Government agencies au- other Government agencies authorized thorized to engage in scientific research to engage in scientific research or deor development.'
velopment.” Mr. PRIEST. We will recess now until tomorrow morning, if the hearing can be arranged.
(Thereupon, at 12:30 p. m., the subcommittee recessed until 10 a. m., Tuesday, April 5, 1949.)
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
TUESDAY, APRIL 5, 1949
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Washington, D. C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10:30 a. m., in room 1333, New House Office Building, Washington, D. C., Hon. J. Percy Priest (chairman of the subcommittee), presiding.
Mr. PRIEST. The subcommittee will be in order, and we will proceed. We are happy to have you, Mr. Lanham.
STATEMENT OF HON. FRITZ G. LANHAM, FORT WORTH, TEX. Mr. LANHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is Fritz G. Lanham. My home address is Fort Worth Tex., and my Washington address is Woodley Park Towers.
I represent the National Patent Council, a nonprofit organization of small manufacturers with headquarters offices at 1434 West 11th Avenue, Gary, Ind. I feel that, in addition to this representation of small business, I speak for the great rank and file of American inventors who in their basements and garrets, often working with insufficient food and sleep and money, labor industriously through the incentive of our American patent system and our free-incentive economy to express their ingenuity in discoveries which promote our progress and prosperity. Perhaps from such humble sources have come even the majority of the useful inventions which have made our country outstanding. So I am speaking for the so-called little fellows who really have proved themselves the big fellows among the creative forces responsible for our national growth and development.
It was my privilege to serve for approximately a quarter of a century as a member of the Committee on Patents of the House of Representatives. That service taught me that through the incentive of our American patent system these humble folk have been the very basis of our progressive development, but it taught me also that in this land of the free there are persons and organizations seeking to undermine and, if possible, destroy this foundation of our progress.
In other words, it has been through this traditional and constitutional policy of ours that this Nation has become outstanding. There are forces at work today seeking to induce us to surrender that policy. Though among those who have indicated an interest in legislation of the character suggested in the pending bills may be found
some thoroughly loyal Americans, including the distinguished gentlemen who introduced these measures and some others who hope for governmental grants for the institutions they represent, I very firmly believe that you can find sponsors who, with unpatriotic intent and with the adroit use of deceptive propaganda, are bent upon the destruction of our American form of government. I think these sponsors would consider the adoption of the proposal of these bills as the most important step toward the accomplishment of their unAmerican purpose. Before I finish my testimony I shall bring to your attention for your earnest consideration and investigation some activities which I believe will prompt you to conclude that the original idea and advocacy of this proposed legislation may have emanated from sources by no means truly or typically American.
In my judgment, based on the years of experience and observation and study I have recited and also on certain modern trends which, I think, substantiate that judgment, the enactment of the identical bills before you would lead us to abandon our inspiring and fruitful policy and substitute for it the centralization in Government of scienific research and thereby dilute, if not destroy, the incentive of those who have really been responsible for most of the accomplishments which have made America great.
Some very pertinent questions naturally arise. Is such a proposal in keeping with American philosophy and ideals and the stimulation of independent individual endeavor to keep this Nation in the forefront? Does it not smack, rather, of the ideology of totalitarian regimes which would subordinate the rugged individual to the domination and regimentation of the state? Doesn't it preach the foreign doctrine that the Government is going to do the necessary research through a Foundation with unprecedented power to put its agents in dominant command of all endeavor for our betterment? To that socalled little fellow, so responsible for our progress, doesn't it seem to say in effect: "You can desist from your labors; the Foundation will do all that is necessary"?
I think some of the testimony at a former hearing is indicative of this purpose. I may say, Mr. "Chairman and gentlemen of the subcommittee, that the same idea which I shall now mention was advocated by one of the witnesses who appeared last Friday before this subcommittee.
The proponents of this legislation first came expressing an interest in basic science only, but in the hearings last year the cat emerged from the bag in the suggestion of some of them that the scope of the Foundation's research be extended to include applied science in order that the agents of the Foundation could be empowered to look around and see what independent individuals and small business were doing or had in mind and then take such steps as they thought necessary. Isn't that a disclosure, likely unintended, of the designed purpose to centralize research under Government control and thereby, to a great degree at least, nullify the incentive and the efforts of independent American citizens outside the pale of the powerful Federal Foundation? We have already reached that stage in the matter of the development of atomic energy. No further proof of this statement is necessary than a reading of the Atomic Energy Act.
Are we to keep our fundamental American policy, responsible as we all know for our preeminent place among the nations of the world