of animal, the rat. For those 200 or 300 animals, a good deal of time and money has been spent, but over a long period.

There have been many demands for all parts of these animals for different problems. You cannot satisfy the number of demands. As far as I know, this place is the only place where this work is done. It is complicated technically.

Now, the point that I want to make is that our purpose in doing this work is to study the animal in the absence of these microbes, to define it as such and not to use it. That is the problem of other agencies. Other people and other experts will do that. We want to provide the material for these people eventually.

But as I have said, we have had so few.

In the course of the past 3 years, ONR moneys have been granted to us; and in the course of that time, that is, for the past 18 years, we reared these few numbers, the few hundred of animals that I mentioned. And in the course of the past 2 years, by enlarging the facilities we have reared almost that many. We have in preparation an outfit for rearing 2,000 of them at a time.

Now, that, in my mind, is important. Of course, these problems are rather personal, but in my mind it represents a basic type of research, the purpose of which is to examine into a form which does not exist of life, life which does not exist, for the purpose of defining it. It is not our purpose or intention to use it as such.

Now then, finally, what comes out of research of this kind? During the war this same apparatus or equipment that was used to keep germs out of the animal was used by the services for keeping germs inside the system, so that it was possible to study air-borne infections of plague and other very dangerous organisms without danger to personnel.

I think that this might illustrate in part the problems before a person such as myself, charged with doing basic research and directing it, and the help which a foundation or the Government can provide in this instance.

Thank you.

Mr. KEOGH. May I ask the doctor whether it is your understanding that this legislation intends to set up a foundation for basic research? Dr. REYNIERS. That is correct.

Mr. KEOGH. And you think that that is the field in which there is great need?

Dr. REYNIERS. That is correct. I think it is absolutely fundamental, whether it is a problem of preparation for war or a problem of war or a problem of peace. Unfortunately, in the testimony that I have heard in the past and that I have read, very often the need for basic science, lip service is paid to that. There really does not seem to be a real basic feeling for the absolute need of it.

You often hear the expression, "But in timeof war, unfortunately, basic science or basic research must be sacrificed." Of course, I do not think that you can sacrifice it at any time. I think that it must be kept going at all times.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask a question.

This question has been bothering me all through these hearings, and perhaps it is basic in itself, up to now we have operated in this country with scientists being employed by private corporations, and they have done their basic research, and then they have gone on and applied it and developed new techniques and new equipment; and

with that new equipment and new ideas, they have made money. That money has supported the Government and has established the high standard of living that we have in this country.

Now, is it wise or is it necessary to have the Government go into this field as extensively as some people apparently think that they should, and what effect is it going to have on the future private development of new ideas, out of which will come profit and out of which will come taxes? Somewhere in the next 100 years or 200 years, we have got to dig up $300,000,000,000 to retire our national debt, and every time the Government does something and controls something that previously would have been in the hands of private capital and developed by private capital, to that extent are we not lessening the revenues of the Government?

I do not know whether I am making myself clear, but all through this thing that has been bothering me.

Supposing you were using Federal funds, and you develop something or through your basic research you do something that has never been done before, and it has a dollar and cents value, a very large dollar and cents value to some corporation in this country. That is going to be controlled by the Government under this set-up, as I understand it.

Dr. REYNIERS. May I answer you there? I believe that you have made the question a clear one.

On these points, I can only give the point of view of a scientist like myself. I have the feeling that the results of basic research do not belong to any one person or any one group; they belong to the people of the country. I believe they should support it. The scientists doing basic research are doing it primarily without the intention of gain from it at all.

Mr. MILLER. Pardon me, but you say they should support it. Up to this point, the scientists have supported the country through their ideas. That is just the thing that is bothering me; we are reversing that system. As a nation we have been supported by the brains of our citizens and the things that they have developed, and the new techniques and the know-how.

Dr. REYNIERS. Well, it appears to me, sir, that as far as basic research is concerned, it is not the sole duty of Government or the sole duty of industry or the sole duty of philanthropy to support it, but it can be supported by all of these.

I see your point, and I have no answer to the tax situation. I do not know anything about that.

Mr. MILLER. Who would use your germ-free rats, or animals of that kind, when you get that 2,000 animals a year?

Dr. REYNIERS. The present request for them numbers several hundred, and they come from people who are interested in basic nutrition problems again; problems, for example, of the interrelationship between the intestinal flora and the utilization of food. That is the interrelationship and the action of bacteria on the food.

In a normal animal you cannot get at that problem too well because the bacteria are numerous and of many different kinds, and you cannot really isolate one from the other. With a germ-free animal you can.

You have those people, and you have the people who are interested in problems like cancer; for example, the simplest that comes to my

mind immediately is the problem of the milk fat. You see, we rear these from caesarean birth, and there is the elimination of all possible microbic contamination.

Then you have numerous other uses of the animals in problems, for example, when you are studying resistance; and these animals, for example, the lymphatic system is totally undeveloped, and so on. You have, then, many uses of that kind.

From the point of view of resistance, you apply that to specific problems with respect to certain diseases, and so on.

Mr. MILLER. It is your idea that as a result of your research and the applications made of it, you will be improving the health of the Nation?

Dr. REYNIERS. Yes, sir; that will be done.

Mr. MILLER. Nobody will profit, from your research, in dollars and cents?

Dr. REYNIERS. I suppose it has its industrial applications, but that is of no particular interest to me.

Mr. MILLER. That is just the point; you say it is industrial, and I am wondering whether, under this set-up, we are denying industries the opportunity to expand and do things.

I am all in favor of helping the health of the Nation and adding to the knowledge that we have on the subject, and to improve the whole health of the Nation; but if there is an industrial use that comes from your basic research, I want to see that industrial use made available to the industries of the Nation so that they can expand it in a mercenary, dollars-and-cents point of view.

Dr. REYNIERS. I suppose they will.

Mr. MILLER. How will that get to them?

Dr. REYNIERS. I have just given you my own interest in the problem, but supposing that coming out of this comes a new vaccine or a new preparation of some diagnostic sera. It would have to be moved into an agency or industrial concern that could manufacture it widely enough or enough of it to make it useful.

Mr. MILLER. I am wondering how that would come about. After we have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in basic research and development to bring that article to the point where industry wants it, that has been paid for by all of the taxpayers; who is going to return that or what corporation is going to get the benefit? Will it be turned over to them for nothing?

Dr. REYNIERS. I think that problems of that kind are handled through the National Institute of Health. They determine the agency to manufacture, and they regulate the materials of that type. So I do not know exactly how that could be done.

Mr. MILLER. I will try to find out from that point on, when you get through with it.

Mr. BUSBEY. I think that was the point that I had in mind also, Doctor, when I was discussing the other situation with this friend of mine who has a commercial laboratory, and I think that you explained it very fairly when you said that most of these scientists, we will say in the educational institutions particularly, are not motivated by the socalled profit system; whereas, these scientists in these commercial laboratories are motivated by the profit system, and they are digging into this thing from a different viewpoint entirely. That was the reason I was interested in the fact that they should not be left out; not

that I want the others eliminated, but I wanted some consideration given to the private commercial laboratories that are doing scientific research.

Dr. REYNIERS. Well, I can see no reason that basic research should be limited any place. The country needs all of it and in every field that it can get it, of basic research.

Mr. HINSHAW. We are very happy to have had you here, Doctor, to present your views to the committee. Thank you very much for coming.

The next witness will be Dean H. P. Hammond, of the Pennsylvania State College.

STATEMENT OF DEAN H. P. HAMMOND, DEAN OF ENGINEERING, PENNSYLVANIA STATE COLLEGE, REPRESENTING THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR ENGINEERING EDUCATION, STATE COLLEGE, PA.

Mr. HAMMOND. I represent the American Society for Engineering Education, which is the association of engineering colleges and teachers of the country, but I am also a member of two other committees that have been concerned with this national science legislation. One of them is the committee of the Association of Land Grant Colleges and Universities, and the other is the committee of the Engineers Council for Professional Development.

I might say also that I have attended meetings of other groups of engineers and physical scientists on this matter for the last 2 years. So I think that I can express the views of those groups with confidence, and I will do that very briefly.

In a word, they are almost identical with the views that Dr. Reyniers expressed, that the chief issue and the whole issue is to get a bill passed as promptly as possible. Both S. 2385 and H. R. 6007 would be satisfactory bills.

In my own view, the omission of the special commissions in the Senate bill, when it was passed, strengthens the measure rather than weakening it. That is, I think that a comprehensive science foundation should have rather broad authority and should not be restricted by particular commissions or assignments. I would leave it to the Foundation itself, if it is well staffed, and I believe this one will be, to decide what directions its research work at a particular time should take.

There is a question of geographical distribution of funds that has come up. You remember that that was an issue in the last Congress, and the Morse amendment was passed by the Senate. While Senator Morse has now withdrawn his support, or at least he has acquiesced in the omission of that provision in the present bill, from my own standpoint-and I am speaking for myself I think the present wording, which calls for the efficient administration of research, and at the same time indicates in broader language that the function of the Foundation Board shall be to develop scientific research throughout the country, is better than the allocation or prescribed geographical allocation of funds. It gives the Foundation itself authority over those matters, and leaves it to them to see that the funds are expended wisely, and that research facilities and research personnel are developed all over the country.

I would like to repeat what Dr. Hafstad said, namely, that to me the most important provision of the entire measure is that the development of research personnel will be aided. I can speak of this from my own experience right at the moment, because at our college our severest limitation is neither space nor money, but it is on the personnel that we can obtain for the projects that would come to us or that do come to us or are offered to us, for which we cannot find a staff. Seven thousand persons a year is none too many, over a period of some time, to fill the gaps in the research personnel of the country that now exist, and to keep them filled in the future.

May I express my own view, a personal one, again, on the matter of the cost of research? The amount which would be spent through the Foundation, even if it expands considerably, would be a relatively small fraction of the total amount spent in the country now. If I remember the Steelman Report, it was about $1,200,000,000 that is being spent in the country now, and about half of it from Government sources and the other half chiefly from industry, and a small fraction from university laboratories. The National Science Foundation would increase that amount by a small proportion, and not a very large proportion.

The question has been raised as to whether it would be wise for the Government to take over any portion of the research activities. Well, they are already conducting about half of them, but not in the field of basic research, and many laboratories and many individuals who have ideas or projects that they would like to sponsor or like to undertake are unable to do it because of the restriction of funds.

In our own college, our funds have to be applied for the sponsored projects, which we have not had, and it is very difficult for us to finance some individual member of the staff who has a good idea but does not have the money to carry it out.

I am reminded, if my information is correct, that the development of insulin finally rested, on the completion of that project, it rested on a $3,000-grant from the Carnegie Foundation. Without that, the work that the University of Toronto did would never have started. Such instances as that have been multiplied very much, and the work of the National Foundation would be very helpful.

I have no prepared statement. I do have a letter which I wrote to Congressman Van Zandt, who represents our district, in which I said to him, on the belief that I might not be able to attend the sessionand if I may, I will leave this as a part of the record.

Mr. HINSHAW. We would be very happy to have it, sir. (The letter is as follows:)

Congressman JAMES E. VAN ZANDT,

1020 New House Office Building,

Washington, D. C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN VAN ZANDT: I have been requested by Dean C. E. MacQuigg, president of the American Society for Engineering Education, to represent that society, and thus the engineering colleges of the country, at the hearings which the House Committee will hold on June 1 and June 2 on National Science Foundation bills, namely, H. R. 6007 and S. 2385. I should be glad if you would submit for me the following statement as the expression of views which I know to be held by the great majority of engineering educators of the Nation.

These views may be summarized in a few words, namely, that we hope legislation for the establishment of the National Science Foundation will be passed at the present session of the Congress, and that it will then be signed by the