Mr. PRIEST. Our next witness will be Dr. Gustavson, chancelor of the University of Nebraska.

STATEMENT OF R. G. GUSTAVSON, CHANCELOR, UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA, LINCOLN, NEBR.

Mr. GUSTAVSON. Mr. Chairman, my name is R. G. Gustavson, chancelor, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebr.

We have prepared a statement for the committee which we would very much like to have included in the record, if you see fit, and in order to save time, which I know you are tremendously interested in, may I just make a few comments and then perhaps answer any questions that I can.

I am representing today the National Association of State Universities and the Association of Land-Grant Colleges and Universities. These two associations have during the past 4 years at each of their annual meetings discussed the National Science Foundation bills and have always unanimously approved of the general program.

There have perhaps been only one or two places where we have questioned some item in the bill. These have had to do with the matter of geographical distribution.

It is our feeling that the experience which the land-grant colleges have had in the field of agriculture in having a geographic distribution has been so good that we feel that this would be worth while in the National Science Foundation. However, we are also of the opinion that in the light of discussions which that particular item has had and the general spirit which pervades the bills that even though this is not included as a specific part of the legislation, geographical distribution will undoubtedly be a part of the thinking of the people who have the administration of this bill in hand.

We are tremendously interested in seeing to it that the colleges over the land as a whole, rather than just some of the great research institutions shall have the benefit of this bill, particularly in terms of scholarships. But scholarships and fellowships in small institutions do not mean much unless those scholars and fellows are under the inspiration of men who have the opportunity and the ability to do research.

If there is any one thing that stands out in a review of the scientific talent of our country, it is certainly this that no State or no part of our Nation has had a monopoly on talent.

Mr. O'HARA. That applies to schools also, does it not?

Mr. GUSTAVSON. I think so. The name of Lawrence, for example, is synonymous with the cyclotron. He is a graduate of the University of South Dakota. The name of Urey, with isotopes. He is a graduate of the University of Montana. We could refer to many, many others in a similar vein. Dr. Lester Dragstedt, the great surgeon, is a graduate of a very small college in the West. You could go on indefinitely and show how important it is that the talent which is spread throughout the country should have an opportunity to blossom under the leadership of people who have an opportunity to do research.

I might just say that our two associations feel very positively that the most important thing to be done is to get a Science Foundation bill passed. We feel that the discussions which have taken place

during the past have been extremely worth while and that the Senate bill or the House bill, that is, Senate bill 247 or House bill 12, or some of the similar bills, would be eminently satisfactory.

And may I just say personally that as a member of the board of governors of the Argonne National Laboratory and as a member of the Research Advisory Committee of the United States Public Health Service, it is my very definite opinion that when we choose men of high caliber, which I am sure will be the case, for the responsibility that we have in mind for the Science Foundation bill, that once that is done, the fears that one has of failure of geographical distribution or the fears of some of these matters of Federal domination will die down.

The most important thing is the securing of high-caliber men. Once that is done we need not fear the placement of commas in the bill.

Mr. PRIEST. We thank you, Dr. Gustavson and, if you desire to include your prepared statement in the record, it may go in at this point. Mr. GUSTAVSON. Thank you, sir.

Mr. PRIEST. Are there any questions?

Mr. O'HARA. Mr. Chairman?

Mr. PRIEST. Mr. O'Hara.

Mr. O'HARA. Coming from the Middle West, Dr. Gustavson, I am very happy you are here while we are giving consideration to this legislation.

Mr. GUSTAVSON. Thank you, sir.

Mr. O'HARA. I do have one concern and that is that there be a fair distribution of the funds to all of the colleges. I do not want to see just certain colleges-of course, there must be some basis for an equitable distribution and all of that sort of thing which these colleges shall have; but I certainly would like to see it spread geographically and with complete recognition both of the large and small colleges. Mr. GUSTAVSON. I think that is very important. We must remember for example that in the field of biological research the discovery which earned the Nobel prize came out of St. Louis University, whose equipment is certainly not of the best, who whose talent is very good.

Mr. PRIEST. I believe, following up what Mr. O'Hara has said, Dr. Gustavson, that you can feel assured that this committee feels that a widespread distribution of the research activities under this Foundation is most desirable. That has been emphasized by the committee in executive sessions and in its reports in the past.

We are so happy to have had you here today.

Mr. GUSTAVSON. Thank you.

(The statement above referred to is as follows:)

STATEMENT BEFORE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSOCIATION OF LAND-GRANT COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES AND THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE UNIVERSITIES BY R. G. GUSTAVSON, CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA, LINCOLN, NEBR.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is R. G. Gustavson, and I am speaking on behalf of the Association of Land-Grant Colleges and Universities and the National Association of State Universities, with the due authorization of the executive committees of these associations, whose membership represents about a third of the enrollment in higher educational institutions in this country. These two associations have discussed the question of a National Science Foundation at each of their annual conventions in the past 4 years, and have on each occasion unanimously endorsed it.

My chief purpose today is to urge the early establishment of a National Science Foundation.

The bill has been discussed repeatedly in both Houses of Congress, the points which have caused controversy in the past are well known, and the type and form of legislation which are as satisfactory a compromise of the various viewpoints of those who are united in support of the legislation as it is possible to achieve are now clear. The time has come for recognition of this fact and for the passage of the legislation to which this distinguished committee has given so much time, thought, and unflagging interest.

The committee has before it H. R. 12 and other House bills, and Senate bill S. 247, recently unanimously approved in the Senate. H. R. 12 is identical with S. 247 in several respects, and differs in others.

As you know, the two associations which I represent have in the past repeatedly. expressed support of the inclusion in Science Foundation legislation of the principle of mandatory geographic distribution of a portion of the research funds to qualified institutions over the country.

This insistence has been mistakenly identified in some quarters as a selfish interest. I would like to make the record absolutely clear on this point: The primary purpose of a mandatory geographic distribution of research funds is to assure that some of the major research effort will be outside of the centralized control of any federally established body or authority, however illustrious, devoted, and disinterested its composition. A secondary, and important, consideration in many minds was the fear that a central body might choose to utilize research funds primarily for the achievement of quick results through the building up of tremendous research staffs in a few locations. This type of extreme concentration of effort, while justified during a limited war period, in the long run seriously weakens the research possibilities of the country by stripping most institutions of their best research talent and of those who through example, inspiration, and instruction encourage others to devote themselves to science.

The land-grant institutions particularly have had experience over more than 60 years with Federal research assistance on a grant basis, with Federal responsibility for seeing that the funds are expended for the appropriated purpose, but with a maximum of local responsibility and initiative. This program has had continuity, has assured career permanence in research, has been coordinated and been enabled to avoid duplication and overlapping through regional, State, and National committees and informal interchanges. It has a remarkable record of achievement, both in scientific results and in the stimulation of able young people to become scientists.

A recent study by the National Research Council,' which shows not only which institutions have conferred doctorates in the past 10 years in the various natural sciences, but also where these young people got their undergraduate training, shows clearly the effect of the long continuity of agricultural research programs. Many institutions which are relatively small and not nationally known have a remarkable number of students who have gone on to the doctorate in certain of the biological and physical sciences.

These same institutions have made outstanding contributions to research, along lines which could scarcely have been anticipated by a central body in the allocation of funds. It is reasonable to believe that the research initiative and responsibility placed upon the institution has something to do with this record. I might add, also, that the individual States have so recognized the worth of this program that they are now supporting it to the extent of $4 for every $1 contributed by the Federal Government.

This principle and these issues have been discussed in both Houses of the Congress. Although the mandatory geographic distribution feature has not been included in either S. 247 or H. R. 12, certain features of both bills reflect a recognition by the Congress of the desirability of strengthening research over the country by both institutions and individuals, and of assuring that young people in all areas have not only the opportunity for scholarships and fellowshirs, but the stimulus of direct contact with qualified research people and going research programs.

The provisions of sections 3 (a), 4 (b), 9 (a), and 14 (g) of S. 247, and the provisions of sections 3 (a), 4 (b). 10 (a), and 15 (g) of H. R. 12, are all directed toward strengthening scientific research and opportunity over the

1 The Baccalaureate Origins of the Science Doctorates Awarded in the United States, 1936-45.

Nation. They are identical except for minor differences in the wording of section 4 (b), in which the wording of H. R. 12 is more clear-cut and stronger than the same paragraph of S. 247.

With the inclusion of these provisions in the legislation and the attention that has been directed to the problem, we have confidence that the Foundation will give recognition to the desirability of strengthening the scientific resources of the Nation, and feel justified in no longer pressing for the inclusion of a mandatory geographic distribution provision, in the interest of the major objective early establishment of the Foundation.

There are various points on which S. 247 and H. R. 12 differ. These matters include some differences with respect to the powers of the Director; whether the executive committee shall be constituted by the legislation and given certain powers or its formation and powers be left to the Foundation; and whether or not certain commissions shall be named in the legislation. It would seem desirable that these differences be reconciled in a manner which would be least likely to arouse controversy, particularly as between the legislative and administrative branch.

It is probable that the committee has been or will be asked during the present hearings to provide for positive recognition of the social sciences in the legislation. There may also be recommendations that the provisions for scholarships, and possibly also fellowships, be deferred and included in later general scholarship or fellowship legislation.

With full appreciation of the desirability of strengthening research in the social sciences and preventing an imbalance in research, I would also point out that the present legislation does not bar the door to social science research or to inclusion of the social sciences in the scholarship and fellowship program, though it does emphasize the natural sciences. In view of the history of this legislation it would seem desirable that the present language of section 4 of both H. R. 12 and S. 247 be retained.

With respect to the scholarship and fellowship provisions, I would say that these also should not be changed in the present legislation. The provision of research fellowships is certainly inseparable from the purposes of the Foundation. The undergraduate scholarship may in time be made unnecessary by provisions of later legislation. If that becomes the case the Congress can then move to consolidate with it any portions of the Science Foundation program which should be so consolidated. If it is not the case the undergraduate program will certainly be an important function of the Science Foundation.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that I hope in discussing certain details and subsidiary issues I have not tended to obscure the central issue: The necessity for early establishment of the Science Foundation and its earnest and unanimous support by the Associations which I represent. The reports of Dr. Bush, of the President's Scientific Research Board, of the Hoover Commission, the resolutions of many scientific and educational bodies, and thousands of words of testimony before congressional committees make up the evidence in support of this position. The armed services have, in a sense, acted as "caretakers" for the work of the Science Foundation pending its establishment. They have shown an admirable spirit and performed an admirable function in this respect, but I am sure I need not point out to this committee that it is not sound national policy for the armed services to be the custodians of our major scientific effort, and that there are many functions of policy and coordination and support which they cannot and should not perform.

I respectfully urge the early action of the committee and the Congress on this legislation.

Mr. PRIEST. Our next witness is Dr. Bakhmeteff.

STATEMENT OF BORIS A. BAKHMETEFF, COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE LEGISLATION OF THE ENGINEERS' JOINT COUNCIL, NEW YORK, N. Y.

Mr. BAKHMETEFF. Mr. Chairman, I wish to introduce myself. I am Dr. Boris A. Bakhmeteff, chairman of the panel appearing on behalf of the Engineers' Joint Council.

The Engineers' Joint Council is a body which consist of the five presidents and high officers of the five great national societies who, in the aggregate, represent 100,000 engineers.

We had a big delegation here yesterday afternoon. Unfortunately, they could not stay and Dr. Bowles, representing the mining engineers, is here with me.

We have prepared a statement which I have deposited with the clerk, and I will ask it to be a part of the record.

Knowing how brief the time is, I will make just a few remarks. I wish to say this Engineers' Joint Council have had a very keen interest in the National Science Foundation since 1945, and since 1945 I have been the chairman of a special panel or a special committee which dealt with these affairs.

I have testified and deposited different statements here and in the Senate.

I am very happy to state that our Engineers' Joint Council on recommendation of our panel gives absolutely full hearted and unequivocal endorsement of both groups of the bill. In other words, the group which is represented by H. R. 12 and the group which is represented by H. R. 1845, identical with S. 247 in the Senate.

We have not commented on the Celler bill. We are very familiar with that bill. As a matter of fact, I participated in the meetings that worked out that bill for the Seventy-ninth Congress. But we believe the present bills are so superior and so much better that, from a practical point of view, we concentrate only on these bills.

We know there are certain differences between the group represented by H. R. 12 and the group represented by H. R. 1845. As a matter of fact, just as my colleague and friend, Dean Hammond, we think that 1845 is a little more elastic and a little bit more practical. But that is a matter of secondary importance.

Whatever of these bills is going to be passed, I think the engineering profession, and I speak here for the five societies, will receive it with great gratitude and relief. I say relief, because I want to bring forth one point which we consider very important.

In the situation with the National Science Foundation bill, time is of great essence and any delay that might occur is extremely detrimental to the interests of the Nation.

Perhaps I should say a few words why we press so much on this question of time.

Now, engineers are supposed to be applied people and, of course, we know Dr. Steelman's committee has shown that in the research personnel employed in this country over 30 percent of the men are engineers. However, this bill deals with basic science.

The thing which is not well understood by the public opinion is that the engineers have their own basic engineering science. That is something that has happened within the last 50 years. We really work in the same line as the pure scientists but, of course we pick out the subjects which underlie future application, and perhaps work them out a little bit more practically.

Germany was the first country which started that great movement in engineering science and very largely the strength which Germany exhibited in the last conflict was due to that. It is accepted by all countries, but the fact is this: That of all fields of basic research it was basic research in the engineering sciences which lacked movement and quantity in thi scountry. In other words, we engineers relied very largely on the theoretical work of the Old World, and application and technological development cannot progress unless it is backed