The large-scale research effort of the Military Establishment has clearlydemonstrated the present shortage of adequately trained scientists and technologists. Even now it is difficult to establish new research projects for lack of manpower to carry them on intensively. We are in a position, therefore, of weighing the relative urgency of desirable projects and diverting scientific talent from those less urgent to those more pressing. We must provide now for our future security by assuring the training of scientists in adequate numbers. There exists in this country a vast reservoir of technical ability, much of which will be irrevocably lost to science without the scholarship and fellowship program envisioned for the Foundation. It is of utmost importance, therefore, that we begin at once to tap the supply of young men and women with scientificability regardless of the economic status of their families. Of the three National Science Foundation bills with respect to which the Military Establishment has been asked to comment-H. R. 6007, H. R. 6238, and H. R. 4852-the first, I understand, is the product of extensive discussions between yourself and representatives of the Senate, scientific groups, and the President. I am gratified indeed that the final issue in controversy-the form: of organization of the Foundation--has been resolved to the satisfaction of the principal groups concerned. It is the view of the Military Establishment that the organization intended by the bill is sound and workable. It would assure full responsibility of the Foundation to the President on those administrativematters which are properly the function of the Executive. At the same time,. real authority is matched with responsibility in a representative group of scientists with respect to matters involving scientific evaluation and basic policies. This arrangement can be effective and it has the tremendous advantage of being acceptable to the interested groups. H. R. 6238 being identical with H. R. 6007 is, of course, subject to the same considerations. In view of passage by the Senate of S. 2385, I feel that some comment may be helpful with respect to the changes made in that bill as originally introduced. The debate on the floor indicates that the Senate and the Director of the Bureau of the Budget are not really in disagreement as to the functions of the Director and his place in the Foundation organization. I share the desire of the Senate to clarify this matter, for I too have been troubled by the relevant language of H. R. 6007. Accordingly, in the attached memorandum, I am suggesting. certain amendments which-I believe will more clearly express the evident pur-pose of H. R. 6007 as well as carry out the objectives of the Senate and the Bureau of the Budget. I notice that the Senate has struck out specific mention of special commissions on cancer, heart diseases, and poliomyelitis though retaining authority on the part of the Foundation to establish such commissions if it so desires. I have no doubt that the Foundation would wish to do so for special commissions of the type prescribed in both bills would be valuable wherever particularly close integration of public and private research is necessary. Such integration would be especially useful in fields of research in which large and active private organizations exist, particularly where they derive the bulk of their financial support from popular contributions. Placing such commissions within the Foundation would assure that the Government's effort in their special fields is properly balanced with other fields and that whole is carried on under uniform general policies. Specific provision in this legislation for special commissions on cancer, heart and intravascular diseases, and poliomyelitis would' serve to accelerate their creation and therefore appears to be desirable. In case you do not wish to go this far, a commission on cancer would be particularly helpful. H. R. 4852 retains the administrative features of S. 526 in the form vetoed by the President last year except that the Director is to be appointed by the President confirmed by the Senate. However, his powers and duties would be prescribed by the Executive Committee and exercised under its supervision. There is some doubt, therefore, whether H. R. 4852 would cure the defects of S. 526 set forth by the President last year. In addition, H. R. 4852 reintroduces a highly controversial issue concerning patent policies by providing for the dedication to the public of inventions by employees of the Foundation. I feel very strongly that legislation of this type is not the place to settle the complex problem of disposition of Government-owned inventions either as applied to one small portion of the executive branch of the Government or on a Government-wide basis. Finally, H. R. 4852 would require revision to reflect the changes in the military departments made by the National Security Act of 1947 and the creation of an interdepartmental coordinating committee by Executive Order 9912. As above stated, H. R. 6007 is satisfactory to the Military Establishment. It is the product of a great deal of thought by many persons in the Congress, the executive branch of the Government, and in private life. All issues have been thoroughly examined and agreement has been reached. It is not a perfect bill-in fact, I am attaching a memorandum suggesting certain amendments, but it provides for an organization which I am sure can function efficiently and effectively to fill a very great need. I urge, therefore, that it be passed at the earliest possible date. These comments have been coordinated with the Departments of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force, and represent the views of the entire Military Establishment, except that one additional amendment proposed by one service but not accepted by the others, after consultation with Mr. Forrestal, has not 'been included. The Bureau of the Budget has expressed general agreement with the views contained in this report and its attachment. Very truly yours, PROPOSED CHANGES IN H. R. 6007 V. BUSH. Section 11 (c) authorizes the Foundation to make contracts or other arrangements for basic scientific research. I know we are all agreed with the fundamental purpose and reason for the Foundatiion is to sponsor and support basic research. However, the statement of powers and duties of the Foundation in section 4 by design omits the word "basic" when referring to the support of research relating to the national defense. This, I think, is important, for in the event of an emergency it might well become necessary to call upon the Foundation for a brief period to perform much the same function as that performed by the Office of Scientific Research and Development during the recent hostilities. Moreover, in some cases it may be desirable to carry_particular scientific studies into application. Although I am sure that the Foundation will in peacetime concern itself primarily with basic research, nevertheless it should not be precluded from undertaking applied research in case of need. I suggest, therefore, that the word basic in line 3 of page 12 be deleted. The theory of operation of the Foundation could properly be set forth in the report of your committee to the full House, if you desire to furnish authoritative directions to the Foundation. The organizational structure provided in this bill while workable in the hands of men of good will, nevertheless is somewhat confusing to me. The word "Foundation" appears to be used in different parts of the bill in different senses. For example, in section 4 (a), which grants basic authority to the Foundation, that word appears to refer to the entire agency as an entity and this view is supported by the careful reference made in section 4 (a) (7) to "the members of the Foundation." Section 11 grants to the Foundation specific operational authority, again as an agency, for this authority is of the type which normally would be delegated to the executive officer. On the other hand, in section 6 (b) and 10 (a) the word is apparently intended to refer to the membership of the Foundation acting as a body (which I shall term for the purpose of this discussion "the governing body"). Section 6 (a) uses the term in both senses. This confusion is further complicated by the probability that in practice some of the powers vested in the "Foundation" would be exercised by the Executive 'Committee. Now, such apparent reference to the National Science Foundation as an agency is perfectly proper and good draftsmanship, for the agency could act through any of its components in its discretion provided that ultimate residual authority is clearly fixed with respect to matters not set forth specifically. In this bill, however, the divisions of responsibility and authority are subject to doubt. Section 6 (b) authorizes the Director to "exercise the powers set forth in this act." This might be interpreted to mean all powers granted to the Foundation except those so defined that the word "Foundation" by its context could only refer to the governing body. As I read the bill these would be limited to the establishment of special commissions under section 4 (a) (7), the rendering of a report to the President under section 4 (c), the development of general policies under sections 5 (a) and 6 (b), the election of the Executive Committee under section 5 (a), and the approval of scholarships and fellowships under section 10 (a). All other references to the Foundation in view of the language of section 6 (b) could be interpreted to refer to the agency, and, therefore, to be vested in the Director. However, many of the powers apparently vested in the Foundation as an agency are of a policy nature of the type the governing body itself or through its Executive Committee should exercise. See, for example, section 4 (a) (1) and (5). With respect to Executive Committee, the division of authority is also not wholly clear. It might be stated that since specific duties are expressly allocated to the Committee, it would be limited to those particular powers, for no power of delegation is expressly granted to the governing body. The value of the Executive Committee might therefore be greatly diminished. I have set out below specific amendments designed to clarify these points. (1) In section 4 (a) (7), page 4, line 18; section 5 (d), page 7, line 9; and section 7 (b), page 9, line 1, delete "the member of." (2) In section 5 (a) delete "The Executive Committee shall implement the policies developed by the Foundation under this act," appearing in lines 22 to 24, on page 6, and insert in lieu thereof "Subject to the general supervision and control of the Foundation, the Executive Committee shall exercise and perform the powers and duties specifically vested in it by this act and such additional powers and duties as may be delegated to it by the Foundation." (3) In section 6 (a), in line 1 on page 8, after the word "Foundation" insert: "As such he shall, in accordance with policies established by the Foundation, exercise and perform the powers and duties specifically vested in him by this act and such other powers and duties as may be delegated to him by the Foundation, notwithstanding any other provisions of this act, with the approval of the Foundation, formulate the budget estimates of the Foundation, enter contracts or other arrangements pursuant to section 11 (c), and award scholarships and fellowships pursuant to section 10 (a). (4) In section 10 (a), on page 10 in line 11, delete the words "the Director with the approval of" and delete the comma after "Foundation" in line 12. (5) Delete section 6 (b). It will be seen that these amendments, by eliminating any expressed distinction between the governing body and the agency, vest ultimate authority in the governing body with certain specific exceptions. The most important of these is primary authority over the expenditure of funds which is placed in the Director but subject to the approval of the Foundation. This arrangement, I believe, would carry out the intention of the Senate and fix authorities and responsibilities with sufficient clarity to meet the President's objections. In addition, the nature of the Executive Committee as a branch of the governing body acting for and fully responsible to it is made clear. Alternatively, the same purpose can be accomplished by using the phrase "the members of the Foundation" wherever it is desired to limit particular authority to the governing body alone. This alternative, of course, is also designed to make clear the division of authorities among the governing body, the Executive Committee, and the Director. Again let me emphasize that this group of amendments is offered not as something new but solely in an attempt to resolve the difference in language between S. 2385 and H. R. 6007 while retaining the intention of both. I do not urge them as necessary for the effective functioning of the Foundation for either S. 2385 or H. R. 6007 would be acceptable in their present form. Rather, they are suggested only in order to secure a meeting of minds. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Hon. CHARLES A. WOLVERTON, Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives. DEAR MR. WOLVERTON: Further reference is made to your request of March 29, 1948, for a report on H. R. 6007, and your request of April 17, 1948, for a report on H. R. 6238. These are bills to promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense and for other purposes. The bills have the objective of stimulating scientific research and scientific education through the establishment of a National Science Foundation which would support research activities and the dissemination of technical information and would issue scholarships and fellowships in science. The Department is in hearty sympathy with the objective of the proposed legislation and feels that it is in the public interest for the Government to support scientific investigations and education. The Department reported favorably on similiar bills considered earlier in this session of Congress. The Department considers that the plan of organization proposed in these bills would prove more satisfactory than the one set up in earlier National Science Foundation bills. Making the Director of the Foundation responsible to the President of the United States would make it possible for the organization to function through clear-cut channels of responsibility. Our only general recommendation affecting the substance of the proposed legislation is that provision be made in section 7 for the inclusion of a Social Science Division for work in the social science field. In our own research work in the Department of Agriculture, we have found that research in the social sciences, especially in economics and economic statistics, is essential to a clear understanding and functioning of the agricultural economy and the development of an adequate agricultural program. We also feel that research in this same field is just as important to an understanding of other segments of our national economy and, as a result, we believe that careful consideration should be given to including a Social Science Division in any National Science Foundation which may be established. One modification in detail appeals to us as a desirable improvement in the bills. On page 2, lines 5 and 7, the members of the Foundation would be required to be "eminent in the fields of the basic sciences, medical science, engineering, education, or public affairs." This phraseology might be interpreted as preventing leaders in applied science fields, such as agricultural research, from being appointed to the Foundation, since medical science and engineering are the only applied science fields referred to. It is suggested that eminence in "science, engineering, education, or public affairs" would constitute a broader description of the type of leadership desired. The Bureau of the Budget advises that it has no objection to the submission of this report. Sincerely yours, N. E. DODD, Acting Secretary. Hon. CHARLES A. WOLVERTON, TREASURY DEPARTMENT, Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Further reference is made to your request for this Department's views on H. R. 6007 and H. R. 6238, bills to promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense, and for other purposes. On April 23, 1948, the Department submitted a report to your committee on H. R. 4852, a similar bill. The comments in that report, a copy of which is attached, are applicable to corresponding provisions in H. R. 6007 and H. R. 6238, with one exception. With respect to patent rights, section 12 (a) in H. R. 6007 and H. R. 6238 does not authorize release to the public of Government-owned patents, as did section 11 (b) of H. R. 4852, and there is thus no question, in these bills, of release of Government-owned patents for narcotic drugs. Very truly yours, Hon. CHARLES A. WOLVERTON, A. L. M. WIGGINS, Acting Secretary of the Treasury. Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. APRIL 23, 1948. MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Further reference is made to your request for the views of this Department on H. R. 4852, to promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense; and for other purposes. The subject matter of this bill does not primarily involve the activities of this Department. Certain provisions of the bill, however, are of interest to this Department and are commented on below. Section 11 (b) of the bill would provide that all inventions produced by employees of the National Science Foundation to be established under the bill shall be made freely available to the public, or, if patented, shall be freely dedicated to the public. It is recommended that an exception be made, by proviso to section 11 (b), with respect to the discovery or patenting of a new narcotic drug or synthetic substitute. If in the course of scientific research an employee of the Foundation discovers a new form of drug or synthetic substitute, it should be withheld from the public unless or until a determination could be made that it would be in the public interest to release the drug or synthetic substitute to the public, conditionally or unconditionally. Section 10 (b) of the bill would authorize the Foundation to make such expenditures as may be necessary for carrying out the provisions of the bill. Executive Order 6166 of June 10, 1933, established the Division of Disbursement in the Treasury Department as a centralized disbursing service for the executivebranch of the Government. The Foundation would be established in the executive branch, and it would be desirable, to avoid possible uncertainty, that section 10 (b) of the bill explicitly provide that disbursements be made by the Division of Disbursement. This could be accomplished by adding "through the Division of Disbursement, Treasury Department" after the word "make" in line 12, page 10, of the bill. Section 10 (g) of the bill would authorize the Foundation to receive and use funds donated by others. The Department recommends that the subsection be amended to provide that the donations be deposited as trust funds in the Treasury and appropriated for the stated purposes. It is noted that section 10 and section 13 (b) of the bill would exempt the Foundation from various restrictions of existing law with respect to the expenditure of public funds. It is assumed that this freedom is warranted by the special nature of the work in which the Foundation would be engaged. It would be desirable, however, that the need for exemption from the usual restrictions be very explicitly set forth in the record, to avoid establishing any precedent for the future; frequent use of such provisions would impair existing safeguards and procedures. The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there would be no objection to the submission of this report. Very truly yours, JOHN W. SNYDER, Secretary of the Treasury. ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION, Washington 25, D. C., April 26, 1948. Hon. C. A. WOLVERTON, Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington 25, D. C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN WOLVERTON: This is in reply to your letter of March 29, 1948, requesting the comments of the Atomic Energy Commission on H. R. 6007, a bill to establish a National Science Foundation. The Commission is strongly in favor of the establishment of a Science Foundation. The formulation of a national policy for the promotion of fundamental research and education in the sciences, the coordination of Government support of research relating to the national defense, the fostering of interchange of scientific information and the granting of scholarships and graduate fellowships are of great importance in assuring the continued leadership of the United States in science and technology and thus strengthening the national welfare and security. The Commission has examined the provisions of H. R. 6007 with particular reference to the relationship of the Foundation to the Atomic Energy Commission and has concluded that there is no objection to the terms of this bill as they relate to the operations of the Atomic Energy Commission. It is understood that it is not intended by this legislation to effect any amendment to the Atomic Energy Act of 1946 in view of section 15 (k) which provides that "nothing in this act shall supersede or modify any provision of the Atomic Energy Act of 1946." It would also seem that the provisions in that section providing for the prior concurrence of the Commission in the case of research and development activity in the field of atomic energy undertaken by the Foundation would help in bringing about a sound working relationship and the proper coordination of effort of the two agencies in atomic energy. The Atomic Energy Commission has not been advised by the Bureau of the Budget as to the relationship of this bill to the program of the President. Sincerely yours, UNITED STATES ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION,· |