COMMITTEE ON RELATIONSHIPS OF HIGHER EDUCATION TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE AMERICAN COUNCIL ON EDUCATION MEMBERSHIP Arthur H. Compton, chancellor, Washington University, St. Louis, Mo.; James B. Conant, president, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.; Carter Davidson, president, Union College, Schenectady, N. Y.; Virgil M. Hancher, president, State University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa; Edward V. Stanford, rector, Augustinian College, Washington, D. C.; Raymond Walters, president, University of Cincin nati, Cincinnati, Ohio, chairman; Roscoe L. West, president, State Teachers College, Trenton, N. J.; Goodrich C. White, president, Emory University, Emory University, Ga.; George F. Zook, president, American Council on Education, ex officio. AMERICAN EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH ASSOCIATION, Hon. CHARLES A. WOLVERTON, Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: In view of the introduction into the House of H. R. 6007, on the National Science Foundation, you may be interested in having a copy of the enclosed resolution adopted by the American Educational Research Association at its annual convention, February 22, 1948. Cordially yours, FRANK W. HUBBARD, Secretary-Treasurer. AMERICAN EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH ASSOCIATION RESOLUTION OF THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION As passed by the executive committee and by the membership at the annual business meeting, Atlantic City, N. J., February 22, 1948. We favor the early establishment of a National Science Foundation to support basic research in localities widely distributed over the Nation. We believe that the National Science Foundation should contain provisions for research in social science. Man has as much to learn about himself as about physical nature. We urge that research in education be mentioned as specifically included in the coverage of the bill, because of its significant role in one of the largest and most fundamental activities of our people. This inclusion is necessary for the same reason that it is necessary in the physical sciences to make special provision for basic research. The funds which are spent for the regular support and operation of an enterprise, whether an industry or a public-school system, do not extend to cover research of a fundamental nature. The Foundation will affect the distribution of talent; and if it emphasizes only the physical and biological sciences, it will in each oncoming generation drain off the most promising leadership from other essential fields, placing these fields in a more unfavorable position than they are at present, and thus progressively weaken the social leadership and fabric of our Nation. We urge that scholarships and fellowships be made available to students without specific designation of the fields in which the individual will study. Hon. CHARLES A. WOLVERTON, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR, Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, MY DEAR CONGRESSMAN: I have looked over H. R. 6007 and would like to make the following observations: Under section 4 in describing the powers and duties of the Foundation, no mention is made of the social sciences. This is, of course, a new and developing field. There must be something more than appraising the impact of research upon industrial development and upon the general welfare. The social sciences comprehend the positive side of general welfare and should develop principles to guide material development. Just a few days ago Dr. Conant, of Harvard, pointed to human relations as the most basic field to be studied. Unless it utilizes technical and material progress to promote human development and welfare, the foundation would not be able to perform a very basic function. Section 6 makes the Director of the Foundation a Presidential appointee. Since the Director's functions are executive and administrative and not policy-making, there seems no good reason why he should be a political appointee. Instead, better administrative and management relations suggests that he be appointed by the Foundation whose agent he will be. Section 12 delegates to the Foundation responsibility for writing into contracts provisions governing the disposition of inventions without formulating the principles to be followed. In view of the tremendous importance of patents in the business world, this provision is inadequate. Tremendous economic power is at stake in the determination of patent rights. It is a well-established practice in both industry and the Government that patent rights go to the agent furnishing the funds for research. Sincerely yours, LEWIS G. HINES, National Legislative Representative, AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION, INC., Hon. CHARLES A. WOLVERTON, 'House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. WOLVERTON: The Inter-Society Committee for a National Science Foundation, which represents some-75 organizations of American scientists, wishes to endorse the National Science Foundation bill, H. R. 6007. We very earnestly hope that that bill will soon be approved by the House of Representatives. The amendments which were made by the Senate in the companion bill, S. 2385, create a number of differences between that bill and H. S. 6007. The Inter-Society Committee for a National Science Foundation has one specific recommendation which we believe will resolve the differences between section 6, "Director of the Foundation," of H. R. 6007 and the corresponding section 5 of S. 2385. We suggest that the sentence "In addition thereto he shall be the chief executive officer of the Foundation," be revised to read somewhat as follows: "In addition thereto he shall be the chief executive officer of the Foundation and shall, with the approval of the Foundation, award such grants, contracts, fellowships, and scholarships as are provided for in this act." We believe that this wording would satisfactorily replace section 6 (b) to which the Senate had objections that it would constitute a specific statement in the act itself of the method of operation which Senator Smith anticipated. in describing the bill before the Senate (copy of part of Senator Smith's statement is enclosed), and that it would have the approval of American scientists. If such a change is made it would probably also be well to revise the first sentence of section 10 to read "the Foundation is authorized to award * * *"" This change puts the scholarship and fellowship authority of section 10 on the same basis as the authority to make grants and contracts described in section 4. It will make the relations between the Foundation and the director the same for contracts and scholarships. We submit these proposals for your consideration as a desirable method of resolving one of the differences between the two bills. Sincerely yours, DAEL WOLFLE, Secretary. The executive committee of the Inter-Society Committee for a National Science Foundation: Edmund E. Day, president, Cornell University, chairman; Harlow Shapley, Harvard University, vice chairman; Dael Wolfle, American Psychological Association, secretary; Ralph W. Gerard, University of Chicago; R. G. Gustavson, chancellor, University of Nebraska; C. G. Suits, vice president, General Electric Co.; Douglas Whitaker, vice president, Stanford University. AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION, INC., Hon. CHARLES A. WOLVERTON, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. WOLVERTON: President Edmund E. Day, chairman of the InterSociety Committee for a National Science Foundation, has telephoned that he will not be able to appear at the hearings to be conducted on June 1 and 2 by the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. Since Dr. Day cannot testify in person, we are submitting the following recommendation for the committee's records: The Inter-Society Committee for a National Science Foundation is willing to endorse H. R. 6007 in its present form, S. 2385, as that bill was passed by the Senate, or any reasonable compromise between those two bills. We believe that either will be satisfactory to the scientists, and wish to urge upon the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce the importance of early favorable action in order that the National Science Foundation Act may be approved before Congress adjourns. With this statement included in the record, I do not believe that it will be necessary to schedule additional testimony from the Inter-Society Committee, I will, however, attend the hearings; if in your judgment our point of view should be represented in greater detail, I will be available. Sincerely yours, DAEL WOLFLE, Secretary, Inter-Society Committee THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR ENGINEERING EDUCATION, Hon. CHARLES A. WOLVERTON, Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, Room 1334, House Office Building, Washington 25, D. C. DEAR SIR: In reply to your inquiry respecting my opinion on H. R. 6007, I wish to advise as follows: 1. H. R. 6007 follows pretty much the principles which were adopted in the legislation on this same subject, which passed the Congress last year and was vetoed by the President. That legislation was pretty well gone over at the time and received the endorsement of most well-informed and competent persons who were in a position to comment on the provisions embodied in the final act. I therefore believe that the present bill should be enacted. 2. Personally, I would have preferred a 9-member board rather than the proposed 24 members in H. R. 6007; this in the belief that the smaller number would be sufficient and, in general, more efficient. The matter does not seem to be sufficiently important to slow down the progress of the legislation or to warrant risking its passage through delay due to "tinkering." 3. Line 18, page 4, should read "members * ical error.) * (Obviously a typograph I appreciate the great interest you have shown in this legislation and sincerely hope that it will be enacted and approved without delay. In view of my long interest in this legislation and frequent consultation with distinguished Members of Congress with whom I am personally acquainted, I am taking the liberty of sending copies of this letter to the gentlemen whose names are shown below. Very truly yours, C. E. MACQUIGG, President. cc W. E. Brehm, C. J. Brown, H. Carson, R. Crosser, T. A. Jenkins, J. M. Vorys. AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS, Hon. CHARLES A. WOLVERTON, COMMITTEE ON RESEARCH, New York 19, N. Y., April 23, 1948. Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN WOLVERTON: This will acknowledge your letter of April 16, 1948, enclosing bill H. R. 6007 to establish a national science foundation. In regard to your desire to have an expression in writing with respect to the provisions of H. R. 6007, may I say that a plenary session of the panel of the Engineers Joint Council on Science Legislation has been called for May 7, 1948, after which I shall convey to you the authoritative expression of views of the official body of the spokesmen set up by the organized engineering profession. In the meanwhile, as chairman of the Engineer Joint Council Panel, and as one who from the very start has been handling matters relating to science legislation for the Engineers Joint Council, I unhesitatingly state my own attitude by giving unreserved endorsement to H. R. 6007. In fact, the bill as drafted most satisfactorily conforms to the principles, which over these years have been advocated by the organized engineering profession through the Engineers Joint Council and its panel. More specifically, the latest draft H. R. 6007 very adequately embodies the desiderata expressed by the Engineers Joint Council in a letter addressed to the President of the United States on December 29, 1947, in which "the need to establish the Foundation according to sound principles of government was recognized," but there was equally emphasized "the need to command and retain the confidence and support of scientists and qualified laymen by giving them an effective responsible place in the Foundation affairs." In reporting the aforesaid views on H. R. 6007 to the Engineers Joint Council, I have ventured to state that "the engineering profession should be looking forward with anticipation and hope toward an undelayed enactment of the National Science Foundation Act." Respectfully yours, BORIS A. BAKH METEFF, Panel on Science Legislation.. IOWA CITY, Iowa, June 1, 1948. Congressman CHARLES A. WOLVERTON, Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives: Re hearing on National Science Foundation bill engineering college research council of the American Society for Engineering Education wishes to endorse the statement dated May 27 submitted by the Engineers Joint Council signed by Dr. Bakhmeteff, chairman of the panel on science legislation. We earnestly desire that the joint committee now studying the Science Foundation bill recommended that version which it believes most likely to receive approval. F. M. DAWSON, Chairman, Engineering College Research Council. AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS, COMMITTEE ON RESEARCH, Hon. CHARLES A. WOLVERTON, Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN WOLVERTON: Pursuant to my letter of April 23 I take pleasure in advising you that the panel on science legislation of the Engineers Joint Council at its meeting this day, carefully considered H. R. 6007 and has given its unanimous endorsement to such bill. As you may be aware the Engineers Joint Council is a body composed of the head executives of the five major national engineering societies, viz: The American Society of Civil Engineers, the American Institute of Mining and Metallurgical Engineers, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, the American Institute of Electrical Engineers, and the American Institute of Chemical Engineers, with an aggregate membership of near hundred thousand qualified American engineers. The panel on science legislation is constituted of special appointees of each of the participating societies, entrusted to deal with all matters concerning science legislation. In considering H. R. 6007 the panel was cognizant of the fact that an identical bill was introduced in the United States Senate by Mr. Smith, and all under S. 2385, and that such bill was recently unanimously approved by the Senate with certain amendments introduced by the Committee on Labor and Public Affairs. The members of the panel directed me to say that these amendments improved, if anything, the original bill, and that such amendments were considered by the panel with favor. Respectfully submitted. BORIS A. BAKHMETEFF, Honorary Member, American Society of Civil Engineers, Chairman, Panel on Science Legislation, Engineers Joint Council. ASSOCIATION OF NEW YORK SCIENTISTS, The Honorable CHARLES A. WOLVERTON, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: The Association of New York Scientists, a member association of the Federation of American Scientists, expresses its hope that during the present session the Congress will enact satisfactory legislation establishing a national science foundation. At its meeting of December 27, 1947, the council of the Federation of American Scientists adopted a resolution stating that any such legislation should include the following provisions: 1. An organization integrated into the Federal Government, with a full-time Administrator appointed by the President, and with direct responsibility for disbursal of Federal funds, and assisted by an advisory council from representative fields of science, government, and the public. 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. 3. Full discretionary power for the Foundation to set up necessary divisions and commissions without prior legislative enumeration. 4. Pending the establishment of a general education program, responsibility of the Foundation for developing the Nation's scientific personnel through scholarships and fellowships. 5. Provision for distribution on a geographic and population basis, to privately and publicly supported institutions alike, of part of the funds allotted for support of research and for training of personnel. 6. Authority for the Foundation to publish and disseminate to scientists and the public results of scientific inquiry, and to promote international scientific cooperation. 7. Free availability or dedication to the public of all patentable discoveries made during research financed through the Foundation. 8. Provision that all research supported by the Foundation be nonsecret. 9. Provision for a military liaison committee to insure that results of research supported by the Foundation are brought promptly to the attention of military agencies. Although some of the above provisions are included directly or tacitly in the measure S. 2385, recently passed by the Senate and now before your committee, others are omitted entirely or even directly violated. In particular, the executive council of the Association of New York Scientists voted to express its concern over the provision of the bill which states that international activities of the Foundation shall be "consistent with the foreign policy objectives of the United States as determined by the Secretary of State after consultation with the Director." We feel that such a provision violates the international character of fundamental scientific research. The objectives of such research is to attain a clearer understanding of the nature of the universe in which we live, and such an understanding can hardly be attained unless all workers are free to exchange ideas in order to discover their own mistakes and to learn of fruitful approaches |