up actively all the time by this basic engineering research, and since the source has dried up, it is very important we lose no time in doing it here.

The only other short remark I will make is about patents. No one is more interested really in patents from a practical point of view than engineers, because the life of the engineer is invention and development. We feel, however, and it has been our consistent point of view, that the patent legislation is something which stands on its own feet and is covered by general law. That law, whatever it is at the moment, applies to everything, applies to National Science Foundation. Congress, in its wisdom, might change that law. The new law will apply then.

Just as Dean Hammond would deplore if these rather controversial questions would defer the enactment of the National Science Foundation Act, we believe that the patent provisions as they stand there are all right. We have no objection.

If there is anything Congress in its wisdom wants to omit, we will not mind. But I reiterate again time is the most important thing, and anything that would postpone it as it has been postponed in the past, would, in our opinion, be very detrimental to the most urgent and important interests of the Nation.

That is all I have to say.

Mr. PRIEST. Thank you very much. Your statement will appear at this point in the record.

(The statement is as follows:)

STATEMENT SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE ENGINEERS JOINT COUNCIL BY ITS PANEL ON SCIENCE LEGISLATION TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC HEALTH, SCIENCE, AND COMMERCE, OF THE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AT PUBLIC HEARING ON NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION BILLS: H. R. 12, 185, 311, 359, 1845, 2308, AND 2751 ON MARCH 31, 1949 The engineers joint council is a body composed of the head executives of the five major national engineering societies viz: American Society of Civil Engineers, American Institute of Mining and Metallurgical Engineers, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, American Institute of Electrical Engineers, American Institute of Chemical Engineers, with an aggregate membership exceeding 100,000 qualified American engineers. The engineers joint council constitutes thus the crowning body and acts as the spokesman of the organized American engineering profession.

The engineers are vitally interested in basic scientific research and have consistently and actively endorsed legislation purporting to establish a National Science Foundation. The views of the engineers have been recorded repeatedly in statements submitted by this panel at public congressional hearings, first to the Committee on Military affairs of the United States Senate in October 1945, and subsequently to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce of the House of Representatives in March 1947 and May 1948.

In all such depositions the engineers have expressed their conviction that the establishment of a National Science Foundation is a matter of vital importance for the defense, health, and general welfare of the country. Moreover, they have stated that time is of essence in the case and that the highest interests of the Nation imperatively demand that the enactment of proper legislation suffer least possible delay.

In regard to the form of the organization of the National Science Foundation the engineers joint council has put itself on record in recognizing "the need to establish the Foundation according to sound principles of government," while maintaining, on the other hand, that the form of organization needs "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."

In the views of the engineers panel, these principles were happily incorporated in the bills H. R. 6007 and S. 2385 presented to the Eightieth Congress, to which

bills the engineers panel gave unanimous endorsement in its statement of June 1948, in the conviction that the proposed legislation constitutes the best practical approach toward the establishment of a National Science Foundation. Since the present bills H. R. 12, 185, 311, 1845, 2308, and 2751 are practically identical with the above-mentioned legislative proposals, the engineers panel, on behalf of the engineers joint council, states its wholehearted and unequivocal endorsement of such bills.

The engineers panel is cognizant of certain differences between bills H. R. 12, 185, 311, and 2751 identical to bill H. R. 6007 of the Eightieth Congress and bills H. R. 1845, and 2308 identical to S. 247 recently passed by the United States Senate. The differences are considered not substantial, and while giving preference to the stipulations of H. R. 1845 and 2308 the engineers panel wishes to state that the organized engineering profession will gratefully welcome the enactment of a National Science Foundation bill in either of the aforesaid forms.

The engineers panel is cognizant of certain endeavors to revise the patent provisions of the bills. While the engineers by reason of their profession are directly and deeply interested in matters of patent protection, it has been consistently maintained that patent legislation is a subject in itself which lies outside of the direct purpose and scope of science legislation. In the opinion of the engineers panel the patent provision of the present bills H. R. 12, 185, 311, 1845, 2308, and 2751 are fully appropriate and adequate to science legislation. Since a speedy enactment of a National Science Foundation is a matter of urgent national necessity, the engineers panel would consider any delay arising from matters not pertinent directly to the subject, as detrimental to the best interests of the Nation.

Respectfully submitted.

MARCH 28, 1949.

PANEL ON SCIENCE LEGISLATION ENGINEERS JOINT COUNCIL,
BORIS A. BAKHMETEFF, Chairman.

Mr. PRIEST. Any questions, Mr. Sadowski!

Mr. SADOWSKI. No questions.

Mr. PRIEST. Mr. O'Hara ?
Mr. O'HARA. No questions.

Mr. PRIEST. Mr. Wilson?
Mr. WILSON. No questions.
Mr. PRIEST. Mr. Bennett?

Mr. BENNETT. No questions.

Mr. PRIEST. We appreciate your appearance today. We regretted you could not be with us yesterday because of plane delay.

We did hear from Mr. Cox, one member of your panel yesterday. Are there other members of this panel who wish to make a statement here?

Mr. BAKHMETEFF. Dr. Bowles is here, representing the mining engineers. I think he endorses completely what I said.

We had a gentleman of the mechanical engineers here yesterday, and from the chemical engineers who could not come today. We are absolutely unanimous and wholehearted on this. There is no difference of opinion.

Mr. PRIEST. We certainly appreciate your appearance.

Thank you, sir.

Mr. BAKHMETEFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. PRIEST. Dr. Hugh Wolfe, will you come forward, please.

STATEMENT OF DR. HUGH WOLFE, PROFESSOR OF PHYSICS, NEW YORK CITY COLLEGE, NEW YORK, N. Y., REPRESENTING FEDERATION OF AMERICAN SCIENTISTS

Dr. WOLFE. Mr. Chairman, I am an associate professor of physics at the City College of New York, graduate of a small midwestern college, and Ph. D. from the University of Michigan.

I am here representing the Federation of American Scientists which is an organization made up largely of working scientists as contrasted perhaps from administrators from whom you have heard in some detail.

I have a prepared statement which you already have, and I am not going to try to read it to you either.

I want to comment on just a few points in connection with that prepared statement.

One of them has to do with the matter of the scope of the Foundation. I think it has been quite clearly agreed by everybody I have heard on this that the actual operation of the Foundation should be in the field of basic research.

It seems to me perhaps that a survey function which goes beyond the limits of basic research might very well be housed in this same Foundation, survey and recommendation but not actual function beyond the range of basic research.

Then there is a point that I am very concerned with which has to do with the matter of the security classification procedures that are provided for.

I am talking, I think, both about H. R. 12 and S. 247, where there is provision for security classification.

It seems to me rather important that the National Science Foundation should not deal with materials which require security classification; that it has a stultifying effect on the rapid development of research if the material is compartmentalized and one is not able to discuss with his colleagues the work he is doing.

I recognize the need for security classification in certain fields: atomic energy, where it is unfortunate but necessary we have it, and military research which is primarily applied rather than basic research.

I think it is quite necessary and proper to have those classifications. I think in the field of basic research, which is the fundamental job of the National Science Foundation, there should be no security classification, and that any work which was done in a field requiring such classification should be carried on under other auspices rather than those of the National Science Foundation; under military auspices if it is military research that is involved.

It seems to me it would be very much better for the whole development of science in this country if the Science Foundation could be kept clear of those activities.

Mr. PRIEST. Pardon me for interrupting at that point. We do not usually interrupt the witnesses during their statement, but I wanted to ask this question:

It is your position that so far as the general program is concerned, the Foundation should not engage in research that might constitute classified information resulting from research?

Dr. WOLFE. That is right.

Mr. PRIEST. However, if, as all of us know, you perhaps far better than I because you are a scientist, we can never tell just what direction research may take or what we might stumble on that might immediately become classified-have you thought of how that should be handled?

Dr. WOLFE. In the prepared statement I have a proposed wording and I will cite briefly the idea and go on from there without reading it in detail.

Mr. PRIEST. Thank you.

Dr. WOLFE. Which is that if research which is being carried on under the Foundation is found to require classification that it shall be classified by the Director in consultation with the Secretary of Defense pending its transfer to an agency which can appropriately handle classified work.

Mr. PRIEST. Thank you, sir.

Dr. WOLFE. Then there is one other point that I want to make, and I think that is all.

This point has to do with the business of international cooperation. We are strongly in favor of international cooperation in science. We believe that science is essentially not restricted to national lines and national boundaries. It is the long tradition of science.

We do think it is a little unfortunate that the last paragraph of the bill states that our international cooperation shall be definitely coordinated with our foreign policy. It seems to make a provision which says that science shall be explicitly an agent of foreign policy for our country.

I would recognize that no international cooperation could be undertaken without the approval of the President and it would necessarily involve some consultation with the State Department, but I think the language of the bill which says explicitly that our international cooperation shall be directed along the lines of our foreign policy is perhaps unfortunate.

Mr. PRIEST. If I might read that language:

It shall be conducted in such a manner as is consistent with the foreign policy objectives of the United States.

Do you think that language should be clarified somewhat to give more latitude, not make it primarily apply to a governmental operational foreign policy?

Dr. WOLFE. Yes. Again there is some specific language proposed in my prepared statement, but the essential idea, while I recognize that our foreign policy will have some bearing on the international activities that we undertake

Mr. PRIEST. It says: "consistent." The word "consistent" here was chosen because we would not want it to be inconsistent with our foreign policy.

Dr. WOLFE. I would not want it to, either, but I think it lays us open to charges by people unsympathetic with the way we do things that any interest we show in foreign science is really a matter of trying to implement our national interests and foreign policy rather than a genuine interest in the advancement of science. It is a matter of language rather than fundamental intent, perhaps.

Mr. O'HARA. What would be horrible about having it consistent with the national interests? After all, is not that of some importance to the people in the country?

I have a real concern in the objectives of the State Department as consistent with national interests and what they think is international. Personally, I am a nationalist; first, last, and always. I think when we get to the point where we are thinking about everybody else in the world and forgetting our own national welfare and our own people, we are in a rather bad shape. Maybe that is isolationism. Call it what you may, that is the way I feel.

Dr. WOLFE. I do not want to take up your time, but the tradition of science for hundreds of years is that science is essentially the same thing wherever it develops and benefits people wherever it develops. I think that is all I want to comment on at this time, unless there are questions.

Mr. PRIEST. Mr. Sadowski, do you have any questions?
Mr. SADOWSKI. No, I have none.

Mr. PRIEST. Mr. Wilson.

Mr. WILSON. No.

Mr. PRIEST. Mr. Bennett?

Mr. BENNETT. No.

Dr. WOLFE. I did not comment on the administrative provisions, and there I would make one further comment if I may.

Mr. PRIEST. Yes.

Dr. WOLFE. As between H. R. 12 and the Senate version, we are inclined to approve and prefer H. R. 12 in that it seems to make more explicit the relationship of the Director to the Foundation, authorizes him to carry out the work of the Foundation within the policy directives laid down by the Foundation Board.

We favor that provision as does the NAM; I think for precisely the opposite reasons.

Mr. PRIEST. May the Chair state, after the past few years that particular provision which finally has emerged has been the result of quite a number of conferences, and if those conferences and that committee work has brought approval for two opposite reasons, we feel we have not done too bad a job on it.

Dr. Wolfe, we appreciate your appearance today.

Dr. WOLFE. Thank you very much.

(Dr. Wolfe's statement is as follows:)

VIEWS OF THE FEDERATION OF AMERICAN SCIENTISTS, WASHINGTON, D. C., ON NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION LEGISLATION (H. R. 12, 185, 311, 359, 1845, 2308, 2751, And S. 247)

The statement which follows was presented at the hearings of the House Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee on H. R. 6007 and S. 2385 (June 1, 1948). Since the National Science Foundation legislation now before the Public Health. Science, and Commerce Subcommittee is very similar to that considered last year, and since the views of the Federation of American Scientists remain unchanged, the statement has been revised only slightly so as to conform to current bills.

The Federation of American Scientists urges the earliest possible establishment of a National Science Foundation. Despite the lessons of the recent war, and not minimizing the importance of the contributions made to the support of science by both public and private agencies since the war, it nevertheless remains a fact that the United States has no agency specifically charged with the responsibility for reviewing, evaluating, and financially aiding the national science effort as a whole. We Americans have shown a tendency to concern ourselves with the exploitation of past discoveries, but to neglect the processes of education and basic research which will lead to new discoveries. For the future, we cannot count on benefiting to the extent that we have in the past from basic research in other countries and from the importation of fundamental scientists trained abroad. We must discover and develop new scientific talent amongst our own people in order to increase the benefits from basic and applied scientific research. Thus, funds allotted to the National Science Foundation can be expected to yield a handsome return to the national welfare.

At its December 1947 meeting the Council of the Federation of American Scientists adopted a resolution calling for National Science Foundation legislation embodying the following: