« 이전계속 »
Is there anything to prevent an employee or an officer of the Foundation from severing his connection from the Foundation and then applying for a patent, based upon the information which he obtained while he was an employee or an officer of the Foundation?
Mr. FOLK. That is a very difficult matter to determine, whether he got the information which subsequently enabled him to make the invention or whether he made the invention during the time he was working for the Foundation. If he were employed by the Foundation, under the law, he is paid for doing the thing, and that would belong to the people that he was working for.
Mr. BENNETT. That is right.
Mr. FOLK. That is all right. The other I admit is a very difficult question and that patent provision is left more or less to the equities of the situation, as I should say, and we have not objected to it.
Mr. BENNETT. Under this bill, I refer to H, R. 12, under section 12 of that bill, is there anything to prevent an employee or an officer from getting a patent on the basis of information that he obtained while he was an employee of the Foundation, as long as he is no longer employed? That is the way I read it. Is that the way you read it?
Mr. FOLK. Yes; I think it is read that way, and I do not know. We have the same thing that has come up recently in the District of Columbia with reference to an employee of the Patent Office who made an invention in the line of work he was doing in the office, and the court had to interpret what his rights were, recently.
Mr. BENNETT. If an officer or employee wanted to be a little bit dishonest, the Government or the Foundation would have absolutely no protection?
Mr. FOLK. I should say that, if it could be shown definitely that he did get that information by reason of or as a result of being an employee of the Government, the Government would have a nonexclusive license. It would have what is commonly referred to as shop rights.
Mr. BENNETT. That is pretty difficult to show; is it not?
Mr. FOLK. I do not know. We have not objected to this paragraph. It is the same in both groups of bills, and after threshing it out thoroughly we decided to leave it just as it was.
Mr. BENNETT. That is all.
You have always brought some good thoughts to this committee when you appeared.
Mr. Folk. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I should have offered my statement for the record. I assumed that the statement when filed would go in the record.
Mr. Priest. Without objection, the prepared statement will go in the record, if you desire it. Mr. FOLK. Thank you. (The statement referred to is as follows:)
TESTIMONY ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION BY GEORGE
E. FOLK, ADVISER TO THE COMMITTEE ON PATENTS AND RESEARCH OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is George E. Folk. I am adviser to the Committee on Patents and Research of the National Association of Manufacturers, and I am speaking today for that association, a voluntary organization of more than 16,000 manufacturers, 70 percent of whose members have less than 500 employees each.
NAM APPROVES OF CREATION OF A NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
As has been testified by representatives of the NAM upon previous appearances in connection with proposals for the establishment of a National Science Foundation, the NAM favors the creation of such a foundation to procure the full development of this country's scientific and technical resources along the lines recommended by Dr. Vannevar Bush, Director of the Office of Scientific Research and Development, in his report entitled "Science: the Endless Frontier.”
The NAM recognizes that the Government has a proper role in the development of basic research. It believes that both the security and prosperity of our country depends today, as never before, upon the rapid extension of scientific knowledge. It also believes that, in the interest of science, there should be close cooperation between the teaching institutions of our country, the Federal Government, and industry. The NAM is fully appreciative of the fact that the Government has a natural and proper interest in the welfare of its citizens and, therefore, has a natural interest in insuring that adequate research be carried on in this country in such fields as national defense, public health and safety, and conservation of natural resources. While as much of such research as possible should be left to the province of private enterprise to be carried on with private funds, there are situations where, because of the complete lack of profitable probable uses of the results in the foreseeable future, private industry cannot, without financial assistance, adequately pursue the particular research activity deemed to be essential, In such instances, public funds properly could be utilized; but, as there is a limit to the amount of money that can or should be taken from the individual taxpayer, the Government has a high responsibility to insure that research projects sponsored by Government funds should be carefully selected and expended by it for the advancement of science in the most efficient manner possible. In this connection, it is essential in order to effectively conserve the taxpayers' money that the Federal Government avoid the duplication of services rendered by private industry, agencies supported by private funds, and non-Federal Government institutions.
The NAM has taken the position that the functions of the National Science Foundation should, as far as possible, be removed from politics. This position also has been taken overwhelmingly by prominent scientists and educators.
PREVIOUS SCIENCE FOUNDATION BILLS
After extensive hearings, Congress in 1917 passed a Science Foundation bill, which failed to become a law by reason of the President's pocket veto. The President stated that he was in favor of a National Science Foundation, but he could not approve that particular bill. The bill so vetoed had been in general favored by the National Association of Manufacturers.
To quote from the Senate committee report accompanying its recommendation for the enactment of S. 247, it stated : "Early in the second session of the Eightieth Congress, a series of conferences designed to reconcile the divergent views of the executive and legislative branches of the Government (as reflected in the President's memo of disapproval and S. 526, respectively) was conducted by a number of Congress and administration representatives. As a result of these conferences and in the light of the most recent development in this important field, a new National Science Foundation bill (S. 2385) was introduced in the Senate on March 25, 1948."
The NAM, while not looking upon this compromise bill with as much favor as it did upon the bill previously passed by both Houses of the Congress, still regarded it as a compromise bill which was probably the best that could be obtained, and, therefore, gave support to it. This testimony is found in connection with the hearings on H. R. 6007 (Wolverton) and S. 2385 (Smith) on June 1, 1948.
The bills now before this committee for consideration may be divided into three groups as follows:
H. R. 12, H. R. 185, H. R. 311, H. R. 2751, which are the same as the original S. 2385 and H. R. 6007 (referred to hereinafter as group 1);
H. R. 1845 and H. R. 2308 are the same as S. 247, recently passed by the Senate (hereinafter referred to as group 2);
H. R. 395 is the same as S. 525 of the Eightieth Congress.
Since the above referred to testimony given on behalf of the NAM on June 1, 1948, discusses in detail these various bills, a repetition thereof is deemed unnecessary and the present testimony will be confined to certain features of the above-mentioned groups 1 and 2.
To quote further from the committee report on s. 247, it is stated: "The pending proposal, S. 247, is identical with S. 2385, as approved by the Senate in the Eightieth Congress, and it represents the culmination of the years of study and experience outlined above." The committee report fails to state that very important changes were made in the original S. 2385, which, in effect, restored the particularly objectionable features which the NAM and scientists and educators in general had vigorously opposed.
IMPORTANT CHANGES MADE IN GROUP 3 BILLS While generally speaking, S. 247 and the companion group 2 bills are in many respects identical with the original s. 2385 of the Eightieth Congress and with the bills of group 1, said group 2 bills make important and fundamental changes in sections 5 and 6. These changes, in effect, involve a return to the objectionable features about which so much controversy has waged.
DIRECTOR OF THE FOUNDATION
It will be remembered that the most controversial point in proposals for the establishment of a Science Foundation centered about how the Director would be appointed. Congress, in the bill it passed in 1947, resolved this by agreeing with the scientific and industrial leaders that a Foundation to be successful would have to avoid political domination, and that this could be accomplished only if the Director were not a political appointee but, on the contrary, was appointed by and was responsible to the eminent citizens who comprised the Foundation membership. As the House Committee on the Judiciary explained in connection with the 1947 bill, which provided for the Director being appointed by the Foundation, "in order that the Foundation will have a free hand to select a Director whom it deems to be competent, and to replace such Director at any time as such action seems desirable, it is provided that the Director is to be appointed without regard to civil-service laws." The provision in the 1947 bill that the Director was to be appointed by the membership of the Foundation was particularly objected to by the President.
The compromise bill, S. 2385, and the above first group of House bills provide that the Director is to be appointed by the President "after receiving recommendations from the Foundation." This was a compromise measure which was not objected to by the National Association of Manufacturers (sec, 6, par. a, of group 1 bills). This compromise provision has been stricken out of S. 247 and the corresponding group 2 bills. Section 5 of these group 2 bills provides that the Director of the Foundation shall be appointed by the President "after the members of the Foundation have been appointed and qualified." The NAM believes that this change is not desirable. The provisions of section 6 of group 1 bills is far preferable. It is true that this section 6 leaves it to the discretion of the President whether or not he follows the recommendations of the Foundation, but such recommendation would undoubtedly have some ameliorating advantages. Section 3 of these various bills provide, with respect to the appointment of the members of the Foundation, that "the President is requested, in the making of nominations of persons for appointment as members, to give due consideration to any recommendations for nomination which may be submitted to him by” various scientific or industrial organizations. There is even greater reason why, in the appointment of a Director, the President should be requested likewise to give due consideration to any recommendation made by the members of the Foundation. He would still have a free hand to make his own appointment "by and with the advice and consent of the Senate," but there would be at least some kind of an influence from the Foundation upon his appointments.
POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE DIRECTOR
With respect to the powers and duties of the Director of the NAM also is particularly concerned.
The NAM favors the provision of paragraph (b) of section 6 of group 1 bills, which paragraph reads as follows:
“(b) The Director shall, in accordance with such directives as the Executive Committee 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 approval of the Executive Committee."
In canceling out the above paragraph (b), the specification of the powers of the director has been left out of group 2 bills. This is, in the opinion of the NAM, a serious omission. As a result of this omission, there is no adequate check on the Director. It appears as if, in effect, this omission tends to make the Director a one-man Foundation with the members of the Foundation serving only in an advisory capacity. The NAM believes that the concentration of authority in one man is unsound.
OTHER DIFFERENCES BETWEEN FIRST AND SECOND GROUPS OF BILLS
As stated in general, except as pointed out, the two groups of bills are quite similar, though there are some unimportant differences in detail. It seems unnecessary, therefore, to discuss these other differences or the similarities of the two bills, especially as they were set forth in NAM's previous testimony.
AUTHORITY OF THE FOUNDATION There is one provision, however, common to all these bills to which we wish to direct attention.
In section 11 of group 1 bills and in section 10 of group 2 bills, it is provided that "The Foundation is empowered to do all things necessary to carry out the provision of this Act, and without being limited thereby, the Foundation is specifically authorized * * * (e) to acquire by purchase, lease, loan, or gift, and to hold and dispose of by sale, lease, or loan, real and personal property of all kinds necessary for, or resulting from, scientific research.” This particular paragraph (e) is objectionable because of its ambiguity, especially since, in the above statement, the Foundation is not to be limited by what is necessary to carry out the provisions of the act.
Paragraph (e) would be very much improved if it were rewritten to read. for example: “(e) to acquire by purchase, lease, loan, or gift, and to hold and dispose of by sale, lease, or loan, real and personal property of all kinds necessary for carrying out the provisions of this Act.” The paragraph in the several bills would authorize the acquisition of property of all kinds "resulting from scientific research.” This, of course, means everything. While no doubt the Foundation itself would give due consideration to the provisions of the act, there should certainly be some check on the actions of the Director. Group 2 bills in striking ont section 5 of the original S. 2335 and paragraph (b) of section 6 of group 1 bills has removed the provision reading : "the authority granted to the Foundation by paragraph (e) of section 11 shall be exercised by the Director with the approval of the executive committee.” Thus it apparently is left to the Director to exercise the authority without necessity of approval by the executive committee or by the Foundation.
Not only is this paragraph (e) objectionable for the reasons above stated, but the language is so broad in referring to “personal property of all kinds" as to include patents, which as is well known are a species of property.
The act of 1910, as amended in 1918, provides a definite way by which the Government and its contractors can without license to the patent owner utilize any patents which it may deem necessary by providing for just compensation to the patent owner. The acquisition of the patents themselves is not necessary, therefore, and so far as the Government is concerned the acquisition of a nonexclusive license for the Government and those acting for the Government would be adequate, and all that is necessary.
This section (e), therefore, is both ambiguous and too broad in scope. The above suggested revision of paragraph (e) would remove its objectionable features.
GROUP 3 BILLS Since the NAM in its previous above referred to testimony given on June 1, 1948, has discussed bills corresponding to H. R. 359, we merely call attention to that testimony as stating NAM's objections to this bill.
Mr. PRIEST. The Chair wishes to state that because of legislation on the floor of interest to all Members it will be necessary to adjourn this subcommittee at 11:45 this morning.
We have a number of witnesses here who were unable to get here yesterday, because of bad weather. We hope to proceed just as rapidly as we can. We do not want to shut anybody off.
We are glad to have our colleague, the Honorable James E. Van Zandt, of Pennsylvania, who has for a good many years been inter
ested in National Science Foundation legislation, and we will be glad to hear him at this time. STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES E. VAN ZANDT, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. VAN ZANDT. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, like many Members of Congress, I have sponsored a bill to promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense; and for other purposes, My bill is H. R. 1845.
To explain the details of my bill, a very distinguished educator of Pennsylvania and of the Nation is here this morning, Mr. Harry P. Hammond, who is dean of the School of Engineering of the Pennsylvania State College, which is located in my district.
So, if there is no objection, I would like at this time to introduce to the committee Dean Hammond and he will take over from this point.
Mr. PRIEST. Thank you, Mr. Van Zandt. Dean Hammond needs no introduction to this committee. He has been before it before and we are always glad to have him here. Dean Hammond.
STATEMENT OF HARRY P. HAMMOND, DEAN, SCHOOL OF ENGI
NEERING, THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE COLLEGE
Mr. HAMMOND. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, just briefly to summarize my pedigree
Mr. PRIEST. We hope you will do that, sir.
Mr. HAMMOND, I was educated as a civil engineer, but I am now an administrator of an engineering school. Therefore I am no longer an engineer.
I am here representing the Engineers' Council for Professional Development, which is an organization comprising institutional membership of most of the important national engineering societies. It has to do with the education, training, and development of engineers, and as such, it has an important interest in research.
I also administer two research units of the Pennsylvania State College: One, our engineering experiment station, which is operated by the college for the benefit of industry and public works, Government agencies. The other, an ordnance research laboratory, which the college operates entirely for the Navy.
I also might say that the college for the past 2 years has sponsored a national conference on the administration of research and on invitation there comes to the college each year 175 or so leading scientists and research administrators.
I think I am fairly well in touch with the feelings, the interest, and the attitudes of the men who are actually on the firing line of research work.
Now, I merely wish to discuss three points:
Since I appeared last year, I will not stress that point greatly, but would say that it is virtually the universal belief that applied research in the United States has reached very good proportions, both in the Government, in industry and educational institutions, but basic research has not.