President and become law, so that the Foundation can be established within the least possible time. We feel that the present world emergency is such that the Nation must marshal all of its resources as a measure of insurance against another such conflict as gripped the world a decade ago. The best insurance against such a catastrophe, we feel, would be a high state of preparedness all along the line. A chief element in this would be the development of our national scientific and technical resources, and to this end the establishment of the National Science Foundation is a first requisite. We can no longer depend upon European scientists for the sources of our basic scientific knowledge and its applications through engineering and industry; furthermore, the work of the Foundation would serve not only in the interests of national defense against foreign aggression, but would also build up in this country a store of knowledge and new developments of science that would advance our entire welfare and economyindustrial and medical. We have been familiar with the progress of national science legislation through both sessions of the present Congress, and agree that the bills as now formulated, which delegate to the President authority in appointing the Director, are satisfactory. We feel also that S. 2385 is a satisfactory bill as it was passed by the Senate. We are not familiar with the difference of view concerning the inclusion of subparagraph 7 of section 4, which relates to research in cancer, poliomyelitis, and heart diseases. We do feel, however, that it would be far more important to pass a bill at this session than it would be, through disagreement on this particular measure, not to take action and thus to leave the bill where it was at the conclusion of the last session, namely, in a state of indefinite suspension. I would personally, therefore, favor the adoption by the House of the bill as passed by the Senate, rather than at this late time to risk delay and possible failure of passage of the bill in the future. I think you will recognize that this statement is made without regard to the merits of the inclusion or exclusion of the particular provision of the bill that has been mentioned, and that it is based solely on a very strong desire, which has been expressed over and over again by engineers and engineering educators, that a measure be passed at the preset session of the Congress. Passage of the Senate bill seems to be the best expedient at present to insure that this will take place. Very truly yours, H. P. HAMMOND, Dean, School of Engineering. Mr. HINSHAW. We are very glad to have you come before us, Doctor, and to express the views of the organizations which you are authorized to represent; and particularly are we glad to know that they have perhaps changed their views in some respects, particularly in relation to the so-called geographical distribution matter. Mr. HAMMOND. I was only speaking for myself when I said that, Mr. Chairman. Our committee of the Land Grant Association was quite willing to support this measure as it stands. Mr. HINSHAW. That is of great interest to the committee, and we thank you for presenting it to us. Mr. HAMMOND. I have two colleagues here, Mr. Chairman, and I shall not be here this afternoon, but Dean Stanburg of the University of Maryland, and Dean Moyer of Ohio State University are here to answer questions. Mr. HINSHAW. Do these gentlemen desire to be heard before the committee? Mr. HAMMOND. Not unless there are questions. Mr. HINSHAW. Thank you very much, sir. We are very happy to have you here. We will insert in the record at this point two letters which I have received. One of them is from Robert W. King, dated May 27, and one from the Engineers Joint Council. (The letters are as follows:) Hon. CHARLES A. WOLVERTON, NEW YORK 14, N. Y., May 27, 1948. Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, Congress of the United States, MY DEAR MR. WOLVERTON: I am opposed to a National Science Foundation as proposed in H. R. 6007 because I believe the purpose for which it would be created can be more simply and safely achieved in other ways. I know that I but echo the view of every member of your committee when I state that under a republican form of government the wise course is to avoid doing by legislation whatever can be achieved as well by free and independent action of the citizenry. Let me explain, therefore, how the desired goal could be attained without taking the legislative action contemplated in II. R. 6007 and therefore without forcing any permanent political affiliations upon American science. First, let us note that it is quite within the power of our scientists to organize and operate a central bureau or administrative body to receive and allocate funds offered to it for the support of science. American science has never possessed such an agency. So long, in fact, as private giving met the needs of research there was no special call to create it. But now that a new approach must be made, a central agency of this pattern could render material service in several significant respects. It is obvious, however, that the spontaneous creation of such a foundation cannot be a matter of days or weeks and the propensity of human beings to take the path of least resistance being what it is-we observe a natural, yet unnecessary, appeal that Congress rescue American science and do it quickly. A foundation which owes its origin to the free and independent action of scientists themselves would possess none of the weaknesses or dangers which all recognize to be inherent in the foundation envisaged in H. R. 6007. This latter would function within the executive department of the Government and could scarcely fail to be influenced in divers ways by the policies of each administration in power. These weaknesses and dangers have been clearly recognized even by the advocates of H. R. 6007 and its antecedent bills, but have been accepted by them as necessary evils. I wish to emphasize that they are not necessary but that all of them can be avoided by American scientists taking the initiative in their own behalf. "But," you will ask, "if scientists do take the initiative and organize a foundation for science, where will it obtain the needed funds?" The answer to this question is threefold. During the first few years or so of the life of this new foundation, I should expect that Congress would make such appropriations to it as in the judgment of Congress were suitable. There is, it is believed, no legal restriction nor bar to Congress taking such action, or, indeed, of continuing it indefinitely. Contrary to the impression that President Truman has created, Congress can and often does appropriate money to organizations over which the President has no control. Thus, there seems to be no basis in fact for the objection voiced in his veto of the science foundation approved by Congress at the last session. I might point out that a striking instance of Congress appropriating funds to agencies over which the President has no control resides in the current bill to provide Federal aid to primary and secondary education. In this case we do not see the President objecting. In fact, he is doing his utmost to win the House over to the bill. As one of its most enthusiastic advocates, he insists that the bill preclude the possibility of the Federal Government influencing the educational policies of the States. Yet, when it comes to the proposed appropriation of Federal funds to science and scientific education, he demands administrative supervision over them. I might remark here that it is disappointing to us who fear the juxtaposing of science and politics that the authors of H. R. 6007 (and its companion bill S. 2385) have yielded without a struggle to the President's demand for control. Moreover, the wide-open inconsistency between the President's stand on these two bills high lights one of the gravest reasons for concern as to what might ultimately befall American science if most of its funds were controlled by the executive department. Political expediency and opportunism recognize no law and remember no promises. Numerous illustrations can be cited in which the type of congressional aid I am suggesting has not merely been proposed but has become an established fact. A very sketchy list might include the land-grant aid to certain colleges, as well as funds to assist in operating the Hague Tribunal, the old League of Nations, the present United Nations, and the UNESCO. In none of these cases has the President a voice in the spending of funds which Congress has appropriated. It can scarcely be doubted, therefore, that congressional aid could be extended to a science foundation on similar terms. Turning, then, to the problem of how to continue the flow of funds to science, we should bear in mind that support of American science must always come from American income earners and from nowhere else. The Federal Treasury can have no funds which do not at one time or another come from the taxpayer. The question, therefore, arises as to how the direct flow from the Nation's incomes (personal and corporate) to science can be reestablished. Until all reasonable possibilities have been explored it seems premature to place science on the tax collector's list. There is, for example, good reason to believe that if our income tax laws were modified-and only slightly-the direct flow from private incomes to science could be reestablished.1 As a matter of fact, the present corporation income tax law is not so much in need of attention as is the personal tax law. The rate of 38 percent is uniform for all but the very small corporations, whereas the personal rate ranges from about 20 percent or so to around 85 percent. Moreover, the figure of 38 percent is not so great as to kill all incentive toward philanthrophy. It is believed that many large corporations, now fully mindful of their debt to science, would make significant contributions even under the present circumstances, were it possible for them to do so without playing favorites. But a corporation engaged in Nation-wide business necessarily hesitates to aid one or even several universities, if thereby it seems to give affront to many others. Were there, however, a central science foundation of the type which American scientists could by their their own initiative create, it would by its very availability draw forth considerable corporation giving. Upon amendment of the personal income tax formula, this foundation would also draw extensively from personal incomes. Even people of relatively modest means but of keen interest in science would render significant aid, were there available a ready mechanism for handling and bunching small contributions. On the other hand, one must indeed be an idealist who can believe that a foundation attached to the executive department would attract any appreciable number of private gifts. On the contrary, the foundation stipulated in H. R. 6007 would certainly tend to dry up even the present vestiges of private giving; it would therefore constitute a double-barreled threat to the independence of science, one barrel killing off private giving while the other would arm political schemers. In conclusion, I regard a foundation of science, for science, and by scientists, to be the wise and permanent solution of the problem. Through it Congress could at once aid research in all necessary ways, and then, in due course, could effect such remedial tax changes as to place American science back in its traditional relationship to those who are its well-wishers, and who, because they are so numerous and have so great a catholicity of interests and in the mass are never actuated by political motives, will encourage exploration of all possible avenues of new knowledge. Giving credit where credit is due, let us not forget that the American system of free institutions performed brilliantly and effectively prior to and in the recent war when the nationalized science of certain other countries was found lacking. Yours very truly, ROBERT W. KING. 1 A plan of tax modification is discussed in the attached reprint from the American Scientist. It has also been broached informally to certain members of the Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee, where it is believed to have found significant support. It also appears to be winning support in both scientific and lay circles. The attached photostat of a recent editorial in the Chemical and Engineering News supplies a bit of evidence to this effect. STATEMENT SUBMITTED TO THE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, AT PUBLIC HEARINGS BEFORE THE FULL COMMITTEE ON H. R. 6007 AND S. 2385-NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION ON JUNE 1 AND 2, 1948 By Dr. Boris A. Bakhmeteff, honorary member, American Society of Civil Engineers, Chairman, Engineers Joint Council Panel on Science Legislation This statement is submitted on behalf of a special panel on science legislation, appointed by action of the Engineers Joint Council and consisting of representatives of the five major national engineering societies, viz: American Society of Civil Engineers; American Institute of Mining and Metallurgical Engineers, Inc.; The American Society of Mechanical Engineers; American Institute of Electrical Engineers; American Institute of Chemical Engineers. The Engineers Joint Council is a body composed of the head executives of the aforesaid societies, the aggregate membership of which approaches 100,000 qualified American engineers. The Engineers Joint Council thus constitutes the crowning body of the organized engineering profession as a whole. The Engineers Joint Council and the organized American engineering profes sion are vitally interested in the purposes aimed at by the National Science Foun dation Act. In fact, on repeated occasions the engineers have actively endorsed legislation in favor of a National Science Foundation, having recorded their views first in a statement before a subcommittee of the Committee on Military Affairs of the United States Senate in October 1945, and subsequently in March 1947 in a statement to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce of the House of Representatives. (Hearings before the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, on bills relating to the National Science Foundation, March 6 and 7, 1947, pp. 272 and 277.) The engineers have consistently maintained that the establishment of a National Science Foundation is a matter of vital national urgency which should suffer no further delay. The engineers have been cognizant of the difference in views which have delayed the enactment of science legislation in the past. They are convinced, however, that there is and has been substantial agreement on the broad objectives of the National Science Foundation and on the principles essential to the successful organization and administration of the latter. In particular the Engineers Joint Council is on record in recognizing "the need to establish the Foundation according to sound principles of Government," while maintaining, on the other hand, that "involved in the consideration of the form of the organization is 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's affairs." These principles have been happily incorporated in H. R. 6007 and S. 2385. In fact the Engineers Joint Council panel on science legislation, after carefully considering the aforesaid bills, has given them unanimous endorsement, in the conviction that the proposed legislation constitutes the best possible practical approach towards the establishment of a National Science Foundation. In considering H. R. 6007 and S. 2385, the engineers panel took notice of the amendments introduced into the original draft of S. 2385 by the United States Senate. The engineers panel does not feel that such changes modify in any substantial manner the basis of the proposed legislation. The panel felt nevertheless that S. 2385 in the form passed by the United States Senate embodies certain preferable features, in that it eliminates statutory details with regard to the Executive Committee and leaves it to the authority of the Foundation to decide upon matters of internal organization, which by necessity may have to be changed from time to time in the light of experience and practical needs. It is the earnest hope of the Engineers Joint Council on behalf of which this statement is presented, that the wise and practical legislation embodied in H. R. 6007 and S. 2385 will be enacted in the nearest possible future, thus fulfilling a most urgent national need. Respectfully submitted. BORIS A. BAKHMETEFF, Chairman, Engineers Joint Council, Panel on Science Legislation. Mr. HINSHAW. We will recess at this time until 2 p. m. (Whereupon, at 12:05 p. m., a recess was taken until 2 p. m., of the same day.) AFTER RECESS (The hearing resumed at 2 p. m.) The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. I regret that there are not more members of the committee here at this time, but there is a very interesting matter on the floor that is holding a good many of them. I realize the importance of our continuing the hearing, to the end that we may accomplish it today. So I will proceed in the meantime to make an endeavor to have some additional inembers of the committee in attendance. We will hear Mr. George E. Folk, patent adviser to the National Association of Manufacturers. STATEMENT OF GEORGE E. FOLK, PATENT ADVISER TO THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS, WASHINGTON, D. C. Mr. FOLK. Mr. Chairman, my name is George E. Folk. I am patent adviser to the National Association of Manufacturers, and I am speaking here today on behalf of that association, a voluntary organization of more than 16,000 manufacturers, 70 percent of whose members have less than 500 employees each. We have a very carefully prepared statement which we would like to have appear in the record, and I can either read that statement or use the digest of it that I have prepared, whichever you prefer. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Folk, I can assure you that your statement in full will be made a part of the record. Mr. FOLK. The National Association of Manufacturers favors in principle legislation for the creation of a National Science Foundation along the lines recommended by Dr. Vannevar Bush in his report entitled "Science, the endless frontier." A comparison of H. R. 6007 and the amended S. 2385 discloses that the House bill, generally speaking, conforms more nearly with the outline for the creation of a National Science Foundation as set forth in the above-mentioned report of Dr. Bush, and, except for certain provisions, follows the lines favored by the NAM. The NAM, therefore, appears before your committee in support of H. R. 6007 with, however, recommendations for certain specific changes which we believe would be helpful in the establishment of an efficient Foundation. The NAM does not approve of certain changes made in the amended S. 2385, as set forth in discussion of that bill. We approve of the provisions in H. R. 6007 whereby the Foundation set-up is for a relatively simple organization consisting of persons eminent in the fields of "basic sciences, medical sciences, engineering." However, also included are persons eminent in "education or public affairs," and, while it may be desirable to have such persons serve on the Foundation, we believe the Foundation should be composed primarily of eminent scientists, and that there should be some limitation on the number of the members of the Foundation appointed merely because they are versed in education or public affairs. It is not entirely clear as to whether the Foundation membership is to consist of a part-time board or a full-time board. It might be inferred from section 15 (b), providing for compensation of members |