to problems which are the concern of all. We therefore believe that international activities of the Foundation should be channeled through UNESCO and the already existing international scientific unions which have worked for an integration of scientific knowledge without regard for political considerations. Very truly yours, RICHARD M. NOYES, Secretary. BETA SIGMA PHI CANCER RESEARCH FOUNDATION, Representative CHARLES H. WOLVERTON, Chairman of the Committee on The National Science Foundation Act, Washington, D. C. DEAR REPRESENTATIVE WOLVERTON: In connection with your interest in the National Science Foundation Act of 1948, I am writing to request that every effort be made in the organization of the act to provide more representative distribution of the funds. Although Western States have not been the leaders in medical research of the past, recognition should be given to their efforts in developing research projects. The present method of dispersing funds has several additional weaknesses, such as having directors of institutions represented on boards to select research projects, etc. I hope that you will give due consideration in correcting some of the present faults in the method of dispersing funds. Very truly yours, MARGARET A. KELSALL, BOHN ALUMINUM & BRASS CORP., Re H. R. 6007, National Science Foundation. House Office Building, Washington, D. C. GENTLEMEN: I am sending you herewith a brief statement opposing the National Science Foundation bill. As a patent lawyer I have spent all of my life in the fields of science and invention, and I would regret very much to see this important field of free enterprise invaded by a totalitarian device such as the proposed National Science Foundation. I am a member of the committee on federally financed research of the patent section of the American Bar Association, and in connection with the work of the committee I have spent considerable time in investigating the proposed National Science Foundation. Our committee has not yet rendered a report for the current year. Hence the inclosed brief represents only my own views, not those of the committee or of the American Bar Association. I am also a member of the American Patent Law Association, the Engineering Society of Detroit, and I am past president of the Michigan Patent Law Association. Yours very truly, KARL B. LUTZ NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION BILL The reasons advanced for establishing a National Science Foundation will not hold water when examined critically. The following brief outline will indicate the main line of reasoning which could be expanded and fortified by detailed references if time and space permitted: SCIENCE IS IMPORTANT The Government propaganda for the Foundation spends much ink expounding on the importance of science. Everyone knows that science is important. However, it must not be built up into a demigod out of proportion to other branches of learning. The spectacular results of the atom bomb have led many nonscien tists to give science a greater place than it deserves. Most scientists are glad for this opportunity to increase their importance and stature in the community, but they should not be permitted to go beyond reasonable bounds. THE GOVERNMENT AND SCIENCE The chief argument for the Science Foundation is that because of our tax laws the private research institutions are losing out financially and only the Government can supply the needed funds. This is the same as saying that the Socialist-minded national administration has rigged the tax laws so as to destroy private institutions; therefore, the Government must take over. They planned it that way. I contend that the situation can be corrected without a direct Government subsidy. Suitable changes can be made in the tax laws to revive the private institutions, if we have in Washington an administration that really wants to achieve that end. SCIENCE AND THE NATIONAL DEFENSE We are already so far ahead of Russia in science and technology that it is ridiculous for us to adopt a totalitarian scheme-central control of science-in order to prepare for any future war. A scheme of this kind will not take the place of an intelligent and consistent foreign policy. A GOVERMENT FOUNDATION IS NOT THE BEST WAY TO PROMOTE SCIENCE The Science Foundation is supposed to limit its work to basic or pure science. By the power of the purse the Foundation will inevitably try to direct the course of research. Not long ago Chicago University refused to accept Federal funds for a certain project. In making the refusal, Prof. Thorfin R. Hognness said, "If we take it, the American taxpayer foots the bill while the bureaucrat in Washington calls the tune." That scientific research cannot be controlled or directed is conclusively shown by an English professor, John R. Baker, in his book, Science and the Planned State, the Macmillan Co., 1945. He points out that the scientist must be free to follow his own ideas, wherever they lead. As an example, he points out that penicillin was a chance byproduct of other research. "It would have been impossible to plan a research to find such a substance because the existence of such a substance was not envisaged by anybody." WHAT IS THE SUPPORT BEHIND THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION? A study of the House hearings (March 6, 7, 1947) shows the nature of the support for the Foundation. It is the old Santa Claus story. Practically everyone who appeared expected that he or his institution would benefit by receiving Federal funds. The only one who appeared in opposition was Dr. Frank Jewett. Others who opposed lacked either courage or the opportunity to appear. A careful study of the House hearings shows that the only thing the witnesses had in common was a willingness to accept Federal funds. On other points the witnesses contradicted each other to the extent that any court of law would rule out their testimony on the ground that they canceled each other out. PRESERVE OUR FEDERAL SYSTEM The expenditure of Federal funds for such purposes as general support of education or science is contrary to the spirit as well as the letter of our Constitution. Further encroachments in this field should not be made. If Congress is sincere in its expressed intention of reducing Federal spending and Federal bureaucracy, it will not pass legislation authorizing the National Science Foundation. Hon. CHARLES A. WOLVERTON, CORNELL UNIVERSITY, Ithaca, N. Y., May 29, 1948. Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR REPRESENTATIVE WOLVERTON: Much to my disappointment, I have recently been drafted into a special meeting with my trustees which will make it impossible for me to attend the public hearings before the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce scheduled for next Tuesday and Wednesday, June 1 and 2. I had fully expected to attend these hearings on behalf of three national organizations which have vital interest in the pending National Science Foundation legislation. These three organizations are (1) the intersociety committee of the numerous scientific societies holding membership in the American Association for the Advancement of Science, (2) the Association of Land-Grant Colleges and Universities, (3) the National Association of State Universities. It happens that the views of all three of these bodies largely coincide with respect to the National Science Foundation bills which are now before the two branches of the Congress. I venture to let you have these views in a brief summary. In the first place, the three broadly representative bodies are unanimously of the opinion that a national science foundation is urgently needed and should be established without delay. The present world situation makes it perfectly evident that it would be folly for this country not to maintain a position in the forefront of advances in the basic science. If such a position is to be assured there must be both an assiduous Nation-wide promotion of research activities and an immediate development of program looking toward the training of a larger number of able scientific workers. Neither one of these undertakings can be expected to secure adequate financial support without the provision of governmental funds through some such organization as the National Science Foundation. With respect to these points, there is no appreciable difference of opinion among either scientists or educational administrators. In the second place, all three of the representative organizations for which I have been authorized to speak are agreed that a satisfactory National Science Foundation can be established under either one of the pending bills, H. R. 6007 and S. 2385. The three associations are prepared to give support to legislation in either one of these forms, or to any measure which falls within the range of these two. In some ways the greater simplicity of S. 2385 is attractive, but it is generally felt that satisfactory operations could be readily effected under the provisions of H. R. 6007. It is hoped by the three associations that no effort will be made to introduce amendments outside the range of the pending bills since past experience has clearly proved that any more radical revisions are likely to precipitate controversies which will further postpone the actual establishment of the Foundation. In the third place, the three bodies are persuaded that the Foundation should be so set up as to grant broad powers to the Director of the Foundation under regulations and policies prescribed by the Foundation's Board. This seems to be specifically provided in H. R. 6007 and, judging from the exchanges which occurred in the debate on the floor of the Senate, is also fully intended in the provisions of S. 2385. The arguments set forth in the President's veto last summer of S. 526 would appear to make it perfectly clear that this is a point which cannot wisely be overlooked or overridden in shaping the National Science Foundation law which finally goes on to the statute books. It is expected that a separate statement for the intersociety committee will be presented by the secretary of that committee, Dr. Dael Wolfe, in connection with the public hearings either on Tuesday, the 1st, or Wednesday, the 2d. This statement will be in entire accord with the views I have expressed above. As I have already stated, all of the three bodies for which I am reporting are in essential agreement with respect to the action which should be taken looking toward the early establishment of a national science foundation. All three of the organizations wish to do all they can to support sound measures for getting such a foundation immediately established. I trust you will not hesitate to let me know if the three organizations can, in this connection, render any further assistance. Very truly yours, EDMUND E. DAY. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, Hon. CHARLES A. WOLVERTON, Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, House Office Building, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. WOLVERTON: This is to acknowledge receipt of your letter of April 16 with the enclosure of H. R. 6007, and to thank you for the opportunity to comment on the provisions of this proposal to establish a national science foundation. Organized educators of this country have given very careful consideration to the many problems incident to the establishment of a national science foundation and have agreed upon certain principles which they believe are fundamental to sound legislation in this field. I shall endeavor to comment on H. R. 6007 in terms of these basic principles. Apparently H. R. 6007 has provided for the full application of scientific discoveries to military methods and plans without directing the program of the Foundation primarily toward military ends. We believe that this is fundamentally sound and in keeping with our strong endorsement of the broad proposal for encouraging not only scientific research but research and education in other fields as well. It is our belief that financial subsidies for research, and especially fellowships and scholarships, should be extended to all fields of useful knowledge. We appreciate the fact that H. R. 6007 seems to go further in this direction than any previously introduced bill. We believe, however, that it is essential that provision for inclusion of research in the social sciences and humanities in a position of equal emphasis with that of the other sciences should be specifically stated in the legislation. We believe that complete freedom of research and education under Federal subsidy is of utmost importance. Organized research might be expected from Federal influence and there will be advantages in cooperative effort; but most fruitful research arises from the diverse curiosity of scholars in fields which they have made their own rather than from direction of effort by a central body to selected ends. Therefore, no condition pertaining to the direction or control of research or ideas should be permitted by the Foundation. Since the Director of the Foundation should be as free and independent as the program which the Foundation encourages, he should be selected by the Board and responsible to it. For this reason it is our belief that section 6 (a) of H. R.. 6007 should be amended accordingly. The Federal Government should finance or aid in the financing of a system of competitive scholarships and fellowships to encourage young men and women of high capability to secure advanced education and research training without limitation as to fields of study. This would mean that the recipient would be free to elect any course provided by an accredited college or university. It is our fear that the limiting of scholarships and fellowships to specifically named scientific fields would drain off the most promising leadership from other essential fields and consequently weaken the social leadership of the Nation in succeeding generations. If section 10 (a) of H. R. 6007 were drafted so that there would be no limitation on field of study it would be in complete accord with our views. It is my belief that the strong endorsement which organized educators give to the broad proposal for encouraging scientific research and education should be reemphasized. The recognition which you and your committee have given to the importance of the establishment of a national science foundation is wise and farsighted. Apparently H. R. 6007 has attempted to incorporate the soundest features of the previously introduced bills on this subject and with the exceptions outlined above, coincides with our basic principles. We heartily endorse it with the hope that it can be broadened sufficiently to include these suggestions. It seems appropriate to point out in closing that a more adequately financed program of education at the elementary and secondary level seems absolutely essential to the success of a program of advanced study and research. Such a program cannot be built from the top by subsidies at the top level alone. Therefore a companion measure to H. R. 6007 would seem to be the proposal for Federal aid to elementary and secondary education now before the House Committee on Education and Labor. I should like to express again my appreciation for the opportunity to review H. R. 6007 and to comment to you in terms of the views of the educators whom I represent. Sincerely yours, RALPH MCDONALD, DUKE UNIVERSITY, Durham, N. C., April 22, 1948. Hon. CHARES A. WOLVERTON, Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. WOLVERTON: This is in reply to your letter of April 16 concerning H. R. 6007 with regard to a national science foundation. First let me thank you for sending me a copy of this bill and for writing me about it. I have been greatly interested in this legislation since the start. I feel that this bill (and its companion, S. 2385) is a better bill than the one of 1947. As drawn, it represents genuine statesmanship. I would like to mention the following points as especially appealing to me: (1) The general organization: While this is not a major point with me, I believe that the proposed organization is sound. (2) Keeping the Foundation open for creating divisions as the need and justification may arise, as in section 4 (a) (7) and particulary 7 (b). Anything other than this would be folly, and short-sighted. We cannot at this time foretell what divisions may in the future be needed to serve the interests of our country. (3) Recognizing that one purpose of the Foundation is to strengthen research in many places, as provided in section 4 (b). This is something like placing small orders for military equipment with many firms over the country in order to get them prepared to fill large orders. (4) The statement in several places (sec. 4 (b) and elsewhere) that research by individuals is to be recognized and encouraged. This is in line with both historical and psychological logic. The day has not passed when individuals will contribute important ideas to basic science. Where else can we get the variety of thinking? It is true that polishing up ideas wil require large organizations, but not the forming of original notions. These points to which I refer may not be the center of argument, but I feel they are points of real strength in getting good research done. I should say further that, if the debate on the bill should result in an amendment which closes the opportunity to create new divisions, then it would be in the public interest to add another amendment which would definitely provide for research in education. Public education is entirely too important to our country to have it slighted at this time. Whether we are thinking of maintaining the peace or preparing for the next war, education is basic to every phase of our national endeavor-and education can get along without research no better than can industry or military developments. Certainly public education is on a plane with public health. They both go together. So long as section 7 (b) and other phrases in the bill (specifically, "and other sciences") are left as they now stand, I should not regard it as necessary to introduce the special amendment covering educational research specifically. But I should wat to take every step possible to make certain that research in public education was in no wise precluded. You will recall that the testimony in the fall of 1945 concerning this legislation was strongly in favor of making provision for social study. Further, you will recall that the intersociety committee for the NSF voted almost unanimously for the inclusion of social study. (This committee is composed predominantly of physical scientists.) There has been an abundance of articles published during the 3 years-in many cases by physical scientists-emphasizing the importance of social studies. For these reasons I should urge that the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce do everything possible to maintain the bill in its present liberal form when it comes up for debate on the floor of the Senate. In fine, my conviction is that the present H. R. 6007 is the best bill that has yet been presented; I hope that its good points can be preserved. Yours truly, DOUGLAS E. SCATES. |