The American Parents Committee wishes to see a national science foundation speedily established because of the long-felt need for basic scientific research in this country. We are particularly concerned about the need of basic medical research which we are hopeful will find the answers to those diseases that attack children, crippling our future citizens. During the war scientific research was channelized to the urgent problems of the armed services. Over $25,000,000 was expended on these problems with a consequent syphoning of research workers from all fields. Today the National Science Foundation would have the opportunity to equalize the amount of time, money, and workers to cover other urgent needs. Not least among these urgent needs is the basic scientific medical research in childhood diseases from which can come a healthier, stronger defense of our country. Your committee knows well that heart afflictions due to rheumatic fever kill five times as many children of school age as infantile paralysis, whooping cough, diphtheria, scarlet fever, measles, and meningitis combined. We believe that a national science foundation can attack the problem of rheumatic fever. Once the basic scientific research establishes the cause of this and other diseases, our applied scientists can step in with the preventives and therapies to save the countless children that are today affected. S. 2385 meets with the complete approval of the American Parents Committee. We believe that the commissions for cancer, heart, and infantile paralysis research should be excluded. Last year's bill froze into the act these three permanent commissions which might have been interpreted to give these diseases priority over other fields. This arrangement for mandatory commissions was felt to be extremely unsound because it left the foundation little discretion to exercise its judgment as to which fields of effort at any one given time present the most urgent problems and the greatest promise of results. The American Parents Committee believed that the House bill should be redrafted to provide greater flexibility so that the research work done by the National Science Foundation could be focused on the needs most pressing at any given time. This S. 2385 permits. We would like to point out, however, that H. R. 6007, although retaining the commissions, does permit more flexibility than last year's bill. By omitting the phrase on the duties of the commissions, "and constantly to review the manner in which such program is being carried out," H. R. 6007 does not freeze the commissions into permanence. Furthermore, H. R. 6007 in establishing the commissions delimits their duration with the phrase, "to establish for such period of time as it may determine." This we believe to be an improvement over last year's bill. But we also believe that S. 2385 permits wider flexibility which is advisable in the interests of sound administration of such a wide field of endeavor. We respectfully submit that creation of a national science foundation by the Eightieth Congress would prove a great step forward in making possible those basic research ventures which are needed to make this a healthier nation. Mr. ELTON J. LAYTON, GENERAL ELECTRIC CO., Schenectady, N. Y., May 28, 1948. Clerk, Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. LAYTON: Thank you very much for the invitation to participate in the hearings on H. R. 6007 to establish a National Science Foundation. I do not plan to be present at these hearings but would like to record herewith my comments. I am in favor of the establishment of a national science foundation and I believe that the proposal embodied broadly in H. R. 6007 and S. 2385 provides a satisfactory organization for this purpose. It seems to me that the difference between the House and Senate variation bills are so minor that they should not be allowed to delay the agreement on a suitable compromise. I feel whatever compromise is arrived at will be a satisfactory starting point for the Science Foundation. More important than the details of either the House or Senate proposal is the delay that has been incurred in the consideration of a national science legislation. If it should be impossible to enact this legislation during the present session of Congress, considerable doubts will arise in the minds of everyone as to whether the purpose of the bill has real support in the Congress. Although my enthusiasm for the idea has declined considerably since the time it was first proposed, it seems to me that there is enough merit in the plan to warrant a fair trial. The framework of H. R. 6007 and S. 2385 will permit a satisfactory trial and evaluation of the idea of Federal support for fundamental scientific research and training. I hope, therefore, that an act to establish a National Science Foundation will become a law during the present session of Congress. Very truly yours, C. G. SUITS. Representative CHARLES A. WOLVERTON, NEW YORK UNIVERSITY, New York 16, N. Y., May 27, 1948. House Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. WOLVERTON: I have received the invitation of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce to testify June 1 or 2 on H. R. 6007. Unfortunately, I will be unable to come to Washington, and I will be very pleased if you will place this letter in the record in lieu of my personal appearance. I see no significant difference between H. R. 6007 and S. 2385, except in respect to section 4 (7) of H. R. 6007 which authorizes the Foundation "to establish for such period of time as it may determine a special commission on cancer, on heart and intravascular disease, on poliomyelitis and other degenerative diseases, and such other special commissions as the members of the Foundation may from time to time deem necessary for the purposes of this act." I think it might be disadvantageous if such commissions were written into the law as permanent operating agencies within the Medical Division of the Foundation, but since the bill specifically states that they are to be established "for such period of time as (the Foundation) may determine," this possible disadvantage is obviated. I am therefore able to endorse H. R. 6007 heartily. May I add that, in my opinion, passage of this legislation this year is of paramount importance to medicine, to science generally, and to our national defense. May I take the liberty of urging you to seek and accept a compromise position with respect to S. 2385 in the hope that the legislation can be enacted in the present session of Congress. Yours sincerely, HOMER W. SMITH, Professor of Physiology. THE NEW YORK PATENT LAW ASSOCIATION, Re National Science Foundation bill, H. R. 6007. Hon. CHARLES A. WOLVERTON, Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. WOLVERTON: The purpose of this letter is to give you the views of this association on the patent-rights section of the above bill (sec. 12, corresponding to sec. 11 of S. 2385 as amended in S. Rept. 1151). We consider paragraphs (a) and (b) of the above section to be unobjectionable and therefore approve them. Paragraph (b) provides that officers and employees of the Foundation may assign inventions made in the performance of their assigned activities "to the Government or its nominee." It is thus contemplated, and it is likely to be the fact, that pursuant to this provision the Government will acquire title to patents, as it does from the activities of other Government agencies. The question then arises as to what the Government shall do with these patent rights which it issues to itself or to its nominees. It is presumed that the nominees will be officers or agencies of the Government and not private persons or corporations, but this would appear to depend on what rules or regulations are established by the Director of the Foundation. We submit that inventions covered by patents under the control of the Government should be open to the free use of the public, without the necessity of obtain ing licenses or other formalities. We, therefore, urge that your committee give careful consideration to the desirability of adding a provision to the bill specifically so providing. One possible provision which might be added to the patent section as paragraph (c) appears in Priest bill, H. R. 4852, section 11 (b), reading as follows: "All inventions produced by employees of the Foundation in the course of their assigned activities for the Foundation shall be made freely available to the public, or, if patented, shall be freely dedicated to the public." It may be desirable to consider appropriate modification of this provision with respect to inventions which should be maintained in secrecy in the interest of national defense. Any system of administering Government owned patents requiring the obtaining of licenses from Government agencies requires administrative personnel to handle the granting of licenses. The employment of such personnel to carry out this useless function appears to be a waste of public funds. Dedication avoids this possibility. It is requested that this letter be incorporated in the hearings on H. R. 6007. Respectfully, GILES S. RICH, First Vice President. [May 6, 1948, Congressional Record-Appendix, A2949]. SCIENCE FOUNDATION BILL Extension of remarks of Hon. Robert Nodar, Jr., of New York, in the House of Representatives Thursday, May 6, 1948 Mr. NODAR. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Record, I include the following article from the Chicago Daily Tribune of April 25, 1948: "SHAPLEY GROUP SEEKS CONTROL OF UNITED STATES RESEARCH-PUSH "(By Walter Trohan) "WASHINGTON, April 25.-Minutes of the Inter-Society Committee for a National Science Foundation, a group of scientists promoting a bill to spend $15,000,000 a year on research, disclose that the group intends to pick the personnel of the Foundation when and if it is approved by Congress. "Prominent in lobbying for the legislation is Dr. Harlow Shapley, director of the Harvard University Observatory. He is a member of various organizations designated by Attorney General Clark as subversive. Shapley is vice chairman of the group which would make the selections. "Shapley has a long record of affiliation with groups which the House UnAmerican Activities Committee has labeled as communistic or Communist fronts. Recently he was disclosed as the master mind of the Committee of One Thousand, a group formed to press for abolition of the House committee. "CITE HIS AFFILIATIONS "Shapley was a member of the American Committee for Democracy and Intellectual Freedom, which the House committee cited as a Communist front organized to defend Communist teachers in a report March 29, 1944. He was a member of the League of American Writers, which was described as a front organization in three committee reports. "He was revealed in the columns of the Daily Worker as the signer of various letters supporting the aims of organizations, described by the committee as Communist fronts, and of appeals in behalf of Communists such as Gerhard Eisler and Earl Browder. "Minutes of a meeting in Chicago last December 28 of the executive committee of the group sponsoring the research bill, report: "The executive committee agreed upon the desirability of preparing a list of persons to be proposed to the President for membership on the National Science Foundation if and when one is established. "It was agreed that the committee's recommendations should be ready for submission immediately upon enactment of the proposed legislation.' "Members of Congress have learned that the list has been prepared and is now ready for submission to the White House upon passage of the bill. "The science-foundation bill is sponsored by Senator Smith (Republican, New Jersey) and Representative Wolverton (Republican, New Jersey). Neither was aware until recently of Shapley's record in the House Un-American Activities Committee, they said. "A science-foundation bill, lobbied for by Shapley, was passed last year by Congress, but was vetoed by President Truman because he considered the organization unwieldly and because, as it was drawn, it would have vested determination of vital national policies in the executive group of the proposed organization. "In the new bill, scientific research related to national defense has been removed from the province of the Foundation. The most important of these are atomic bombs, bacteriological warfare, biological warfare, and climatological warfare. "Atomic fission is in the province of the Atomic Energy Commission. The use of germs to spread disease, the attacking of functions of the body, and the use of climate to carry disease are being developed within the Military Establishment. "DIRECTOR IS POWERFUL "It has been reported that the last three already have reached a high stage of development and that the United States could employ them with devastating effect on any enemy. "Under the revised Science Foundation bills, all authority would be invested in a director, who would be a dictator in the field of Government scientific investigation. The executive-council feature of the former bill has been removed, so that the Director is not subject to its supervision. "The Foundation is opposed by groups interested in research on heart disease, cancer, and infantile paralysis. These organizations would suffer, they say, if the Government were to take over, since funds for research in their fields would be reduced. "Also, it is argued that the hand of bureaucracy would slow research. At present it has been indicated that exception will be made for these groups under the pending plan. "The Foundation could be expected to take over all research ultimately, it has been warned." Mr. BUSBEY. Mr. Chairman, may I ask the privilege of the committee of inserting in the printed record a statement from my friend that I referred to in Chicago, Mr. Warner Wilhelm, if he cared to do so? I do not know that he would want to, but I would like for the committee to accord him that privilege if he should care to submit a statement. The CHAIRMAN. He will have the privilege of doing so, if he so wishes. We will also insert in the record at this point a group of communications which have been received regarding this matter. (They are as follows:) Hon. CHARLES A. WOLVERTON, AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY, INC., Chairman, Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. WOLVERTON: The American Cancer Society does not wish to be represented at the hearings on H. R. 6007, scheduled June 1 and 2. Testimony given by me before your committee on May 14, 1948, would appear to cover the points in question. I again submit the attached excerpts from that testimony for the record in the hearings on H. R. 6007, scheduled for June 1 and 2. Sincerely yours, DOUGLASS POTEAT. We are strongly of the opinion that commissions, councils, or any bodies set up to plan an approach on these diseases should be representative of both the lay and professional groups. Their purpose is to "make a comprehensive survey of the research both public and private being carried on in the field and to formulate and recommend to the executive committee at the earliest practicable date an over-all research program in its field." Thus the foundation provides a vehicle for public and private agencies in their respective fields to sit down together and make a survey of the needs, manpower, and facilities in that field and to intelligently plan together the national forward program in that field. The National Science Foundation is established to treat with the basic sciences. The separate bills cover both basic and applied fields. If the commissions as established in the National Science Foundation bill H. R. 6007 become law, together with the USPHS program and its proposed National Heart Institute amendment, the subject matter of the three bills now before the committee would be provided for. If the science bill fails to clear the House this session or again meets a veto, then the need for legislation similar to H. R. 3257 still exists. Failure to include the commissions in the science bill would be a handicap to the cancer and heart programs, but that handicap would be in the nature of a delay in effectuating their mass-attack programs rather than fatal to them. If the creation of the special commissions were permissive rather than mandatory, I would view their position in the foundation much as the social science position in the foundation bill. When and if the foundation feels studies in the social sciences should be undertaken, they are empowered to undertake them. My guess is that it may take some time for the Foundation, with its many other pressing problems to get around to studies in the social-science fields. The same thing can be said for permissive rather than mandatory special commissions in the Foundation. Considerable time may elapse before the Foundation gets around to setting up the special commissions unless they are directed by law to do so. I would not presume to advise the committee on the matter of the permissive or mandatory status of the special commissions. I am certain that Congress is far more able to make this decision. The American Cancer Society can and will live by the rules you gentlemen lay down. I would not favor a multiplicity of bills in the many fields which the bills before the committee now tend to develop if the objective can be gained by a single bill such as the National Science Foundation. I wish to thank the committee for this opportunity to submit this statement and for the generous recognition it has always given to problems involving the public health of the Nation. Hon. CHARLES A. WOLVERTON, AMERICAN COUNCIL ON EDUCATION, Chairman, Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee, House of Representatives, Washington 25, D. C. DEAR MR. WOLVERTON: The American Council on Education, through its Committee on Relationships of Higher Education to the Federal Government on May 7, 1947, expressed publicly approval of the National Science Foundation bill of 1947 and followed closely its passage through Congress. The Presidential veto of this bill did not destroy the determination of educators to push for the enactment of some law that would recognize the objectives for which the bill was drafted. On April 23, 1948, this same committee of the council examined the recently amended bill, S. 2385, and unanimously endorsed the legislation reported out of committee. It is hoped that such approval will be useful in future considerations of this legislation. Yours very sincerely, GEORGE F. Zook, President. |