HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE,
Detroit, April 26, 1949.

Re National Science Foundation bills.

Hon. J. PERCY PRIEST,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Health,

Science and Commerce Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,
House Office Building, Washington, D. C.

SIR:I would appreciate it if you will receive the following as a written statement of my views to be filed in connection with the hearings which you are holding on the above bills.

I am a practicing patent lawyer, and, as such, am and have been associated with scientific research and development for more than 30 years.

It is my opinion that a National Science Foundation, putting our Government in the business of carrying on research, is unnecessary and undesirable because1. Research of this character is already being carried on under private sponsorship and has functioned so efficiently as to make our country a leader in this field.

2. Government sponsorship of such activities will be inefficient and expensive and will tend to discourage private activity to the actual detriment of our scientific progress.

3. Government departments already have the power and authority to finance scientific investigations and such work is being and has been carried on under this authority so that the formation of the National Science Foundation would simply add another governmental bureau without accomplishing any additional results.

In addition to the foregoing, I am opposed to the specific bills which have been introduced on this subject because they do not necessarily limit the activities to purely basic technical research but would permit investigations in social science. Moreover, and perhaps most important of all, the National Science Foundation bill now under investigation by your committee contains a dangerous provision wherein the Foundation is given authority "to acquire by purchase, lease, loan, or gift, and to hold and dispose of by sale, lease, or loan, real or personal property of all kinds necessary for, or resulting from scientific research." This provision would permit the Foundation to acquire and control patent properties which are not necessary for the purpose of furthering on behalf of the Government scientific developments and would tend to put the Government in business, to the detriment of private enterprise.

Very truly yours,

J. KING HARNESS.

CHICAGO, ILL., April 26, 1949.

Hon. J. PERCY PRIEST,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Health, Science, and Commerce
of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,
House Office Building, Washington, D. C.:

The National Science Foundation bill now under your consideration should be opposed as inimical to free enterprise and to the welfare of scientists.

The bill purports to cover basic research, but no adequate delimitation of that concept is made in the bill, nor has any been successfully achieved by scientists themselves. The patent provisions of the bill show clearly its intent to cover applied research as well. Industrial research, which is one of the pillars of free enterprise, is an entrepreneurial activity-gamble in anticipation of making a profit. If the Government sponsors applied research on the unlimited scale provided for in this bill, the areas of speculation will soon be preempted. The incentive to perform research in areas likely to lead to economic welfare will be destroyed as effectively as it would be by the demolishing of the patent system, which has also been attempted.

The scholarship provisions of the bill are unnecessary and harmful to the interests of scientists. Claims that there is a shortage of scientific personnel emanate for the most part from two classes-employers of scientists and teachers of scientists. To my knowledge, none have ever emanated from the vast body of scientists who have been recently seeking new positions at adequate remuneration. Employment of scientists is in recession at this moment and, relative to the number available, will continue to recede in the next few years.

There is a shortage of skilled workers in the building trades also. Has the Government planned to subsidize apprenticeships for the buildings trades? The answer is "No," and the reason is that there has been an organized group to

oppose such action. Industrial scientists, having no such spokesman, have not been adequately represented at previous hearings on these bills which have been dominated by proponent groups.

I urge that the bill be reported unfavorably.

LOUIS KOENIG, Associate Editor, Chemical Bulletin.

Mr. PRIEST. That concludes the hearings, and the committee will stand adjourned.

(Whereupon, at 12:03 p. m., hearing in the above-entitled matter was closed.)