Under date line of "Washington 6, D. C., May 17, 1948," addressed to Hon. Charles A. Wolverton, chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House Office Building, Washington, D. C., on page 116 of the printed record of the hearing before that committee on H. R. 6007-identical with H. R. 12—there appears a letter by W. A. Higinbotham.

I should like to pause here to read a brief report from one of our executives who has tried to find out something about the Federation of American Scientists, and I will read this report:

At the request of Mr. John W. Anderson, I made two calls on the office of the Federation of American Scientists, whose address is listed in the telephone directory as 1749 L Street NW., Washington, D. C.

When I first walked by this address I notice it contained a small confectionery and cigar store. I saw no sign or other indication that the above organization was located at this address. I stopped at a small haberdashery shop three or four doors away from 1749 L Street NW., and inquired as to the location of the Federation of American Scientists. I was informed that this organization had its offices at 1749 L Street, but that in order to get to them, I would have to go through the cigar store and up the stairs to the second floor. With this information I returned to 1749 L Street NW., and upon reaching the second floor, looked around for the name of the organization. All of the office doors— three or four-were open and in the first one on my left there were two people sitting, and I inquired if this was the office of the Federation of American Scientists. The lady in the office replied that it was. I explained to her that I was representing the National Patent Council, that we had published a small booklet entitled "Patents Make Jobs for Engineers" and had circulated a great many of these booklets to engineering schools all over the country, and would like to distribute this booklet, setting forth the benefits of our American patent system, to the scientists in the Federation of American Scientists, as well as the Federation of Atomic Scientists, whose address was also 1749 L Street NW., Washington, D. C. I was informed by the woman that the Federation of Atomic Scientists no longer existed, but that the Federation of American Scientists had absorbed or was taking it over.

The woman appeared interested in the prospect of having these booklets distributed, but when I inquired about the availability of a roster of scientists belonging to the Federation of American Scientists, she explained that such a list was not available. She proceeded to tell me that they were making up such a roster and that it might be available at some time in the future. She asked if I would send one of the booklets to her. I said I would and left the place. I called on this organization again within the next 15 minutes to ascertain the correct address where the booklet may be mailed to, and to ascertain the name of the lady I had talked with. I learned that her name is Miss Dorothy A. Higinbotham, and that her brother is W. A. Higinbotham, vice president of the organization. I also learned that the sign at the bottom of the stairway read as follows: "Federation of American Scientists" and "National Committee on Atomic Information."

That is the end of the report.

The letter, to which I referred, from W. A. Higinbotham, quotes what purports to be a resolution of the Federation of American Scientists, of which Mr. Higinbotham is understood to be the executive secretary. Section 2 of that Higinbotham resolution, is a listing of the features recommended to be embodies in National Science Foundation legislation, presents:

2. Specific assignment to the foundation of responsibility for formulation of national science policies, with the right and duty to survey public and private research, and to make recommendations for its coordination.

Mr. Higinbotham and his associates in the Federation of American Scientists apparently want the National Science Foundation invested with full authority to invade the realms of private research and invention and "to make recommendations for its coordination." Dili

gent inquiry to date has not disclosed the identity of constituent bodies forming Mr. Higinbotham's federation. However, there is listed at the same address, 1749 L Street NW., Washington, D. C., with the same telephone number, National 5818, a Federation of Atomic Scientists.

Your patience in considering our treatment of the testimony of Mr. Higinbotham is solicited because of the presumption that he speaks eloquently for a substantial segment of our scientific worldand reflects, as well, the hopeful concurrence of the international groups he mentions.

While, in the light of recent public disclosures, including those herein discussed, many parts of Mr. Higinbotham's letter begin to take on new significance, perhaps worthy of careful review by your committee, there is another section of the recommendations of the resolution worthy of quotation here. It is section 8, and it reads as follows:

8. Provision that all research supported by the foundation be nonsecret.

Thus the foundation, empowered to invade all research, governmental, academic, and commercial, would be mandated to disclose it to the world, of course including Mr. Higinbotham's conferees from Russia. At another point in his letter, Mr. Higinbotham says:

I feel that the principal weakness of the present bill is that the scope of the Science Foundation is severely limited. In the first place, it is restricted to the support of basic research. This side of research is certainly most in need of support. But it will be exceedingly difficult to tell where to draw the line.

And we should not omit one further paragraph which reads:

There has been some concern that aid to foreign scientific institutions, as provided in 11 (c), might be used as a diplomatic tool. I'm sure this was not the intention. The generous provisions for support of international research and for sending scientists to international meetings (sec. 13 (a) (b)) meet with our hearty approval and will secure good will and do much to stimulate world science.

In his statement of March 25, 1949, to this committee, discussing H. R. 12 and other subject bills, in behalf of his Federation of American Scientists, Mr. Higinbotham lays down, with painful frankness, his challenge to our right to retain in secret, and employ, for world peace, scientific discoveries and developments for which we alone pay. An example, of course, is the atomic bomb. On page 4 of his statement last mentioned, in its section 6, he complains that:

In S. 247, section 15, the support (of "international cooperation in furthering scientific activity") is made contingent upon "the foreign-policy objectives of the United States as determined by the Secretary of State after consultation with the Director." H. R. 12, section 16, contains an essentially similar provision although with somewhat improved wording. Real dangers exist in this frank coupling of scientific support and foreign policy. To scientists, it will represent a breach of a long-standing tradition: That the search for objective knowledge is not to be cast along national lines or limited by national policy. To critics of the United States, it will afford an opening for the charge that our assistance is no indication of genuine concern for extension of knowledge or for the welfare of other countries, but only an attempt to further our own interests.

Then, in the same paragraph, Mr. Higinbotham says:

We believe that the National Science Foundation, in giving support to international science, should do so through established international agencies—e. g., UNESCO and the international scientific unions-with no strings of special national interest attached.

Could not Mr. Higinbotham just as logically insist that it would be humiliating to our scientists for our State Department to decline to make available to our foreign enemies information as to the number of ships, airplanes, and guns we possess, the number of our soldiers, and the disposition of all our military strength for defense? Have we forgotten our overwhelming proof of the fact that the secret knowledge of a single scientific achievement not only can end a war abruptly but, by its defensive threat to a ruthlessly advancing foreign imperialism, perhaps delay for years a third world war? Would we not be better off to give our enemy, if we must, information as to the disposition of our military forces, without informing them completely as to the potency of their weapons?

And what standing would any man have before our legislative bodies, or the court of public opinion, were he to insist that we should sanctify, by legislation, the disclosure of military information vital to our national security?

Could there be, on the part of any group, a more conclusive demonstration of inability to understand fully the opportunities for service presented by American citizenship? With more than half of the population of the world now defenselessly exposed to the brutalitarian domination of an openly hostile and venomously insulting nation which, from behind its iron curtain, takes everything and gives nothing, what must we understand to be its possible promises of reward for advocates, among us, of a policy of giving everything and taking nothing?

Can it be that its advocates in America are insensitive to the significance of the already-matured fate of native advocates who assisted it in the capture, by similar methods, of nations now its hopeless satellites?

With all such advocates in this country, and all their disciples, pressing relentlessly for this Science Foundation legislation, might we not reasonably examine all potentials of such legislation for advancing, in America, the identical type of stifling techniques employed in the hopeless enslavement of once-proud nations of once-free men?

Why should the egos of productive Americans continue to cringe before the indefensible presumptions of superior wisdom of native academic messiahs chosen by cunning alien enemies to lead us innocently to our destruction?

Since the date of Mr. Higinbotham's letter we have had from him. perhaps conclusuive evidence of his sincerity in desiring to remove limitations of the proposed National Science Foundation legislation, and in commending its provisions for sending scientists to international meetings.

But apparently Mr. Higinbotham, Dr. Shapley, and many others of affiliations questioned by our Government have become impatient of the delay of 6 years by Congress in placing in their hands the potent instrumentality now identifying itself within the four corners of H. R. 12 and similar bills. Such impatience would seem evidenced by their enthusiasm for the recent international meeting of "scientists" held in New York City on March 26 and 27, 1949, under the auspices of the subversive National Council of the Arts, Sciences, and Professions. According to the grant of power in section 4 (a) (2) of H. R. 12, the Foundation could extend its activities to include all the so-called sciences, and to concern itself with "the impact of

research upon industrial development and upon the general welfare", with powers specifically granted for establishing special commissions in the medical field and (sec. 4 (a) (7)) "such other special commissions as the Foundation may from time to time deem necessary for the purposes of this Act."

Subsection (b) of section 7 of H. R. 12, following an enumeration in subsection (a) of four specific divisions of the foundation, states?

There shall also be within the Foundation such other divisions as the Foundation may, from time to time, deem necessary.

It seems obvious that sponsors of the Science Foundation bills have intended never to be required to return to Congress for increases in the scope of powers of the Foundation.

With this bill enacted, particularly if in the form recently passed by the Senate, subversive infiltrates and indoctrinates-perhaps as yet unidentified as hopelessly captive to the authors of all this iniquity-would have shortened, to a single step, whatever distance remains between them and absolute power to destroy in America not only all incentive to create and produce but also all competitive opportunity for creation and production.

May I repeat here, please, a brief paragraph from my statement in debate with Senator Kilgore in 1943:

There is here neither spkace nor occasion for a detailed analysis of the text of the (Kilgore) bill. Hours would be required to accent adequately the adroitly related subtleties, deep implications, and revolutionary implementations of the document. It reflects profound and prolonged deliberations and a proficiency in deceptive draftsmanship which friends of Senator Kilgore disclaim as among his accomplishments.

The sponsors of this Science Foundation scheme have since had 6 more years in which to practice their admittedly advanced semantics, not only in their draftsmanship of the bill itself but also in their testimony and propaganda supporting it.

Have any of you gentlemen of the committee examined the roster of men who have testified in support of this bill to determine how many of them could reasonably hope to become financial beneficiaries of the operations of the proposed Foundation? If not, it is recommended respectfully that you do so. Your interest in such an examination we hope may be stimulated by words of the noted scientist, Dr. Louis Koenig, of Armour Research Foundation, as they appeared in the March 1949 issue of Chemical Bulletin-reproduced, beginning on page 27 of my herewith-exhibited Dayton address of March 11, 1949, above mentioned. Those words of Dr. Koenig read as follows:

Throughout the entire history of the National Science Foundation legislation, although there has been much bickering over the precise construction of the Foundation, there has been a most remarkable unanimity of opinion concerning the desirability of the Foundation itself. As one example of this unanimity, there may be cited the testimony of hordes of witnesses at the various congressional hearings. In all of these hearings on the numerous bills, and in all the testimony both oral and written, there can be found only one instance in which a witness expressed himself as opposed to the idea of a National Science Foundation.

To a Nation such as ours, which decides so many of its elections by 54-46 and even 51-49 tallies, and which ridicules the Hitler and Stalin 99-1 and 98-2 victories, such a unanimity of opinion is grounds for suspicion or at least for inquiry. Testimony in the Science Foundation hearings was taken from more than 200 persons, of which only the one referred to was opposed. Our desires

would seem to outdo both Stalin and Hitler. They are better than 99.4 percent pure.

Dr. Koenig, later in his discussion of H. R. 12, states:

The unanimity is the more surprising in that all of the bills on the subject, including those now before the Congress, contain the germs of two authorities which may eventually strangle both the chemist and his employer. These authorities are (a) the authority to indiscriminately grant scholarships in science and engineering (b) the authority to engage in entrepreneurial research.

By comparing the dearth of men of industry heretofore troubling to oppose such Science Foundation legislation, or even to understand it, with the host of professional men arising to support it, the soundness of the American system of propulsion by direct financial incentive becomes again apparent.

On page 112 of the record of the hearings on H. R. 6007 there appears a statement by Karl B. Lutz in which we find the following:

The Science Foundation is supposed to limit its work to basic or pure science. By the power of the purse the Foundation will inevitably try to direct the course of research. Not long ago Chicago University refused to accept Federal funds for a certain project. In making the refusal, Professor Thorfin R. Hognness said, "If we take it, the American taxpayer foots the bill while the bureaucrat in Washington calls the tune.'

That scientific research cannot be controlled or directed is conclusively shown by an English professor, John R. Baker, in his book Science and the Planned State, published by the Macmillan Co., 1945. He points out that the scientist must be free to follow his own ideas, wherever they lead. As an example, he points out that penicillin was a chance byproduct of other research. "It would have been impossible to plan a research to find such a substance because the existence of such a substance was not envisaged by anybody."

Mr. Lutz, above quoted, is an employee of the Bohn Aluminum & Brass Corp. of Detroit, Mich., and as such must deal constantly with the practicalities of American industrial enterprise. It may be pointed out that George E. Folk, patent adviser for the National Association of Manufacturers, is listed as one sponsoring H. R. 6007 in behalf of NAM. However, it perhaps is noteworthy that among the long list of other supporters of the bill can be found very few corporations qualified for membership in NAM. Nearly all of the others listed as sponsors represent universities, colleges, and groups of scientists and professional men.

All who testified from industry as sponsors of H. R. 6007, including Mr. Folk, qualified their sponsorship with significant requests for restrictive changes in its provisions. Most of the others, principally of the academic field, listed as sponsors, requested a broadening of the powers of the Foundation.

Included in the list of sponsors of H. R. 6007 there are found almost no representatives of smaller industry in America. By smaller industry is meant that group of usually inarticulate industrialists ranging from the very small up to, but not including, corporations usually classified as Big Business. Members of National Patent Council, whom I have the honor of representing here today, are all included in the category of smaller manufacturers.

Smaller manufacturers-and there are many thousands of themprovide most of the inventive and creative impetus of American industry. Most of the functional components of major products of largest corporations are created, engineered, and produced by smaller manufacturers. For example, 65 to 75 percent of the functional com