having in mind the necessity of their wholehearted cooperation in doing these many things which are contemplated in such a bill? Dr. COMPTON. I will try to answer those questions briefly and then amplify just a bit.

I believe the Foundation should run the show as far as basic policies and scientific objectives are concerned, the Director being an executive officer to carry out those policies but having one additional function which I think is important, having the veto power over any action which is contrary to Government administrative policy. In that sense he would safeguard the executive branch of the Govern

ment.

There are many scientists, I think I can almost say a majority of scientists and maybe a very large majority, who are very much worried about this science foundation bill, for fear that it may be strait jacket science, or that it may be misused. Perhaps I shouldn't say this, but they are afraid it would get into politics. It has been pretty free of that. I think they have enough faith in the way in which things have been handled during the war that that will not happen and their faith will be supported by the fact of having this large board of men who presumably will be distinguished scientists and men of public affairs. Any director of the Foundation I think would find himself in a very difficult position if he acted in such manner as to bring about a condemnation by that board of 24 men. So I think the scientists feel that with this large board appointed by the President after consideration of recommendations of such scientific agencies and other public groups as wish to make recommendations for personnel, they would have a good assurance against the things that they fear, and if those things that they fear continue to be protected against, then I think they are all for this bill.

So personally I believe the bill is wisely drawn.

Mr. O'HARA. One other question, Doctor, and that will complete the questions I had in mind. That relates to the problem of the distribution of scholarships. Do you feel that that should be done on something of a geographic basis, regardless? You have the very nebulous proposition as to who develops the most scientists. Sometimes I am rather confused myself. There is a genius here and there in some little school, and it is remarkable. Do you feel that the bill provides well in the matter of scholarships a fair distribution throughout the geographic sections of the country?

Dr. COMPTON. I listened with much interest to Mr. Celler's testimony on that point, and I wholeheartedly agreed with his objective. However, I do not believe that it would be either necessary or wise to try to spell that out in detail in the bill. I think any sensible, reasonable foundation or director would see that that is done.

But I might support that by a little back testimony because I had about 10 years' experience as a member of the National Research Fellowship Board operated by the National Research Council with funds from the Rockefeller Foundation, through the years of the 1920's. I served on the board for physics, mathematics, and chemistry. There the objective was to pick postgraduate students on the basis of their promise. That was the sole objective. There was no consideration given geographical distribution at all. As a matter of fact, however, the geographical distribution was just as perfect as Mr. Celler or anyone else could have desired.

In long experience I found wide distribution of talent in the State that Mr. Celler indicated as one of the possible backward areas, which was Oregon, where I started my teaching career, and then at Princeton and then at MIT. It has been interesting to see what a large proportion of the excellent postgraduate students have come from small colleges, many of them colleges that you seldom hear of, other ones that you do hear of. But the great potential resource of scientists is spread all over the country, and there is just no question about that. There are little colleges in Ohio, Oregon, Indiana, all over the place. Any scholarship scheme that is set up would just have to recognize that.

Personally, I think if I were right now given the job of saying how this would operate, I would make the suggestion that the scholarships would be handled in two ways. Perhaps the most advanced scholarships or postgraduate or even postdoctorate fellowships would be awarded to men selected on their merit and the men would be given the opportunity to go to whatever institution or research laboratory they wished to go to carry out the objectives of their research. Have part of it in that way. That is the way those national research fellowships were handled. Then another part of the fund might be allocated to institutions in order that they could offer scholarships and attract men to the institutions and in that way increase their drawing power. That would be one feasible way of operating, but I think the Foundation itself should have the privilege of working out the system that it thinks will have the best over-all result. I think you have to have both area and concentration considered in that.

Mr. PRIEST. Mr. Wilson?

Mr. WILSON. No questions.

Mr. PRIEST. Mr. Dolliver is not a member of this subcommittee, but he is a very interested member of the full committee, in this legislation, and he has indicated he has a question or two he would like to ask and we are hapy to have him with us. Mr. Dolliver.

Mr. DOLLIVER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Dr. Compton, I have a question to which I think I know your answer, yet I feel it should be a part of the record in this inquiry about the National Science Foundation.

There have been some people who have expressed apprehensions about the possibility of the Government's becoming dominant in the field of scientific research, and they base their apprehension upon what happened in Germany during the Nazi regime when the Nazis came into control of education, medicine, and all other activities relating to science. Recently I read a short brochure upon the subject of how the nationalization of medical science in Germany brought about ultimately the idea of experimentation upon human beings and ultimately to the horrors of Dachau and Buchenwald.

I wish you would comment upon that subject, Dr. Compton, and give us your ideas of the distinction which exists between this situation and the one which we know grew up in Germany.

Dr. COMPTON. It seems to me that the danger in Germany arose not because of Government support of science, but from a difference of the attitude of the people toward government and leadership, combined with the onset of the ideology which was the Nazi development. I just have enough faith in the people of America not to be led around by the nose by any leader. I don't believe we are in danger of that.

If we should by any misfortune go down that road, I don't think this National Science Foundation legislation will either help it or stop it. I think that the basic issue is the character and the ideals of the American people, and I have confidence enough to think that we are going to come through all right.

Mr. DOLLIVER. As I said in asking the question, I knew what the answer would be. So is it fair to say that as far as you are concerned, you have no apprehension that this is a step in the direction toward nationalization of science or any branch thereof?

Dr. COMPTON. No, sir; I have no such fear.

Mr. DOLLIVER. Thank you, Dr. Compton, and thank you, Mr. Chair

man.

Mr. PRIEST. Mr. Sadowski?

Mr. SADOWSKI. I have listended to these hearings for the last several years on this matter of the National Science Foundation, and I am still puzzled about these two things: One is the question which was raised by Mr. O'Hara and which has been pretty well answered by you, Doctor. The other is the one of patents. Those are the two questions that still bother me. I agree with you and the rest of the people interested in this work that there is no doubt that some aid and assistance must be given to further the basic science program. From private sources, money is not available in the amounts necessary to carry on the program properly. As the Federal funds are made available for this purpose, a different situation arises than where private funds become available. If I have a lot of money, if I were Mr. Rockefeller and I wanted to give to this institution or to that institution, to my favorite institution, if I want to give my money, that is my business. That is the way things have been done, and in many instances those who had the best promoters connected with their institutions were able to get the most money. Other institutions that did not have such good salesmen or promoters didn't get as much money. So, when we dish out Federal funds, the important thing is to see that it does not become a grab bag for a few of these specialists in the field of picking up dollars.

I wouldn't want to think that eminent doctors and great educational leaders would be tempted to dig into the grab bag for everything they could get for their own favored institution, but somehow in the back of my head I have the fear that perhaps that might happen, for the sake of old alma mater and things like that. You know that goes deep in folks, and even though they become great doctors they have a feeling of greater sympathy for one institution as against another.

As I see it, I would not want to see too much Federal control over the Foundation as far as its work is concerned, but I am of the opinion that there must be some pretty definite control and some pretty definite rules set up as far as the distribution of the funds is concerned. That should not be left entirely to the 24 directors and then always to have it subject to argument between them and the manager or director who is set up for the board. It ought to be spelled out quite clearly as to how these funds will be distributed.

Don't you agree that that is correct?

Dr. COMPTON. Sir, I agree that the objectives that you have in mind should be secured. I do not believe that this can all be spelled out wisely in the authorizing legislation. May I come back to that in

just a moment and explain why I feel that, but before doing so, there is an additional check that the Congress has on this, because every year there will be an appropriation bill that comes up, and if Congress does not feel that there has been proper area distribution or proper handling of inventions or something of that sort, there is always a chance annually to make a check on the basis of the report of the Foundation and the handling of the funds.

Mr. O'HARA. May I suggest, Doctor, we would also receive word from the folks back home if they feel there hadn't been.

Mr. SADOWSKI. In order to avoid pressure from back home, maybe we could do something to stop all this undesirable reaction by spelling it out more clearly in the bill as to how these funds are to be distributed.

Dr. COMPTON. You asked specifically about the patents. I have struggled a long time with patent problems, starting when I came to MIT. We tried to work out a patent policy for our institution. Then I made a study for the National Academy of Sciences, where I happened to be chairman of a committee for the purpose as to how the National Academy of Sciences, as an institution under congressional charter, should handle any inventions that are made under grants, made from funds of the National Academy of Sciences. Incidentally, the young man who was my assistant on both those studies is Carroll Wilson, now the General Manager of the Atomic Energy Commission. During the war I did not have the responsibility; Dr. Bush had the responsibility of handling those things in the Office of Scientific Research and Development, but I saw some of the problems there. The thing that impressed me in all that experience was the great diversity of situations which arise and the danger of having a hard and fast rule, because the next one that comes up doesn't fit that rule, for what appear to be very good reasons. As far as I know, all of us who have worked in that field have come to the conclusion that if you set forward an objective, a basic objective which is to handle the patent in a way that would be of greatest benefit to the public and then handle the situation that arises to work that thing out, you have a safer situation than if you tried to set down rigid rules. Of course, in that process of doing that, you do naturally come out with certain patterns to fit certain cases. I don't know whether you want me to go into details of examples to describe some of the kinds of situations that you run into, but I will do that if you wish.

Mr. SADOWSKI. Give us one or two examples.

Dr. COMPTON. Suppose you make a grant to support some line of research to an individual who is a member of an organization that has a long background of research and development in that field and this man makes an invention, it is likely to be something which is an outgrowth-perhaps an advance in some special feature of the big background that has been developed in the past. If that man is required to dedicate that particular invention that he makes there to the public, it may make it impossible to handle in a way to bring into production a whole background of things that have gone before. You may find in industrial organizations-I don't think it would be true very often in universities-that with a rigid patent clause men would not feel justified or feel it safe to take a grant for research.

Another thing: When you come to dedication to the public, which sounds fine and is the ideal thing you would like to do, very often the

invention is only part way toward the stage of putting the thing into use and so made available to the public. The only way the invention benefits the public is having it made available to the public at a reasonable cost. There usually has to be some development work, some production methods developed and an introduction campaign to get the public acquainted with it. Unless some organization has some incentive to do that, it won't spend the money to do it, and that is where the greater sums of money are spent-not in making the invention, but in getting the thing ready for production and for sale.

Mr. SADOWSKI. In other words, you fear if it were made available to everybody for all industry, then no one would go into it and expand and develop it.

Dr. COMPTON. In some cases that is true. In the first place, I think nonexclusive licensing probably should be a rather basic principle in this thing, so that you don't have monopoly. But within that principle you have to do some things that will bring these devices into use where they wouldn't otherwise. For example, you can say to XYZ Company, which is very much interested in this thing and competent, "Somebody has to do some development work on this before it can be put into use. While we hold to the principle of nonexclusive licensing, we will give you a license without royalty, without the necessity of paying any royalty." Or we may say, "We will give you a license which will be exclusive for a period of 3 years to get this thing started, so you can put your money and effort into this thing, and after that it will be free and open. But you get a little advantage of a head start for the money and effort you have put in."

That is just one way. In some cases that thing works. In other cases some different method can be used.

Mr. O'HARA. Will you permit me to ask a question? That is the patent problems that worries me.

Dr. COMPTON. Yes, sir.

Mr. O'HARA. Here we have this great Foundation which develops thousands of patents, we will say. Here is an investor who wants to invest millions of dollars into development along certain lines. If that company will have to hire some patent lawyers and a group of scientists to determine whether, if they went into that manufacture or development of that particular line of industry, they would immediately run into numerous patents which the Foundation has developed and which would stifle that industry. That is a very grave problem, I think, that my colleague has brought up here, of what to do about that subject. If you make the Foundation, doctor, a licensing proposition, then it may become one of the greatest monopolies we have created by legislative act.

Dr. COMPTON. When I was speaking of the licensing I had in mind the priblem at MIT, which, of course, was a very much smaller thing. We turn our things over to a research corporation in New York City which is chartered as a nonprofit organization to handle patents. That is a much smaller proposition than yours, and I recognize that. The only thing I was trying to point out is that the number-and as you, as a lawyer, know far better than I do, of kinds of situations that you can run into are very great indeed. Let me give you another example. The National Academy of Sciences has had a policy for a long time that it dedicates all patents to the public. Perhaps they