« 이전계속 »
along in that campaign and carried that frontier for us. Now, by the same token, we need a biologist, and a great leader. We need every biologist we can get, not now or next week, but as soon as we can get them. The Science Foundation is very important for that.
I would like, if I may, to enter for the record a recent editorial from the New York Times on the Science Foundation. (The editorial is as follows:)
[New York Times editorial, March 22, 1949)
THE SCIENCE FOUNDATION
The last frontier melted away in the nineties, but the frontier of science remains a vague intellectual region that recedes ever farther and ever widens as physicists, chemists, and biologists make new discoveries. Even while we were in the national defense stage bills had been introduced that called for the creation of a Government-supported foundation to carry on research on a scale that no single industry could match. The spirit of science was so much in the air by the time war was declared that the Office of Scientific Research and Development was established under the direction of Dr. Vannevar Bush. The success of the Office is now a matter of history. Because of it only a few voices have been raised against the creation of a National Science Foundation which would carry on the work of the Office with an eye for the needs of peace as well as of
In 1947 Congress, after long debate, passed a bill which had the approval of the scientists because it gave them complete control over the proposed Foundation. Science does not stand apart in a democracy. It is entitled to no more privileges and rights than are commerce, the law, or economics. Besides, the record of Government science answerable to Congress or the President is creditable, so that the fear of political pressure on the managers of a Science Foundation had not much justification. The President vetoed the bill reluctantly.
The bill which has now been adopted by the House and which has an excellent chance of Senate approval is free from the more serious defects of the older measure. Under this bill the social sciences are not to be pursued. Dr. Vannevar Bush and his group, who played a conspicuous part in drafting all the Science Foundation bills that have been discussed since 1944, seem to feel that research in the social sciences spells political trouble. It does. We have an example in the controversy that has raged for years over compulsory health insurance. But even with the social sciences omitted the National Science Foundation bill in its present form deserves Presidential approval. Much more than research is provided for. Promising students are to receive free scholarships to assure a supply of research scientists. Fundamental science is to be cultivated. There is to be wide dissemination of the fruits of research, except where secrecy is expedient for military reasons. We need such a Foundation because the continued prosperity of the country is partly dependent on the exploitation of fundamental discoveries and partly because in the present temper of the world we cannot afford to let science shift for itself, as we did after the First World War.
Mr. TEETER. I would like to say to you that we in the medical fields, cancer and heart and others, are badly in need of the National Science Foundation, particularly to supply what we might call venture capital; that is, the risk capital as understood in an investment program. You have 100 percent of your money to be invested, and perhaps a part of it is reserved as cash and part of it is in stocks and part of it is in bonds, but if you are a successful investor you will take 5 or 10 percent of your money and put it on venture capital, the long bet. Perhaps it is a mine and perhaps it is an invention. By the same token, the National Science Foundation or some agency should take a certain small part of its money, maybe 5 percent, and put it into scientific and medical ventures. Venture capital is the risk, the invention, the idea or the concept, or perhaps the belief that somebody has that they have a new approach in a new area that has not previously been tried.
I should like to pass around to the committee at this time such a development which occurred when the Polaroid Co. of Cambridge, Mass., attempted to build a microscope that would view a cell, using ultraviolet techniques. These are techniques, gentlemen, which allow you to look into the inside of a cancer cell and see, in color definition, the chemical constituency of that cell. That development will cost approximately $200,000, financed by the Navy and American Cancer Society, and should be ready in instrument form in about 6 to 8 months, at a cost of $6,000. It will be the greatest development that we have had since the microscope itself.
This is just one example of what the Science Foundation and agencies of this type could create.
Gentlemen, I have taken enough of your time.
Mr. Priest. The Chair wishes to express a very deep personal appreciation for the continued service of Mr. Teeter in connection with this legislation. It was my privilege to be with him, Dr. Vannevar Bush, Senator Magnuson, and Mr. Mills in a meeting in 1945 at Dr. Bush's apartment, when plans were made to draw up the first bills on national science legislation; and from that moment on, he has continued his interest and his help to this committee.
Are there any questions?
Mr. WOLVERTON. I would like to add, if I may, Mr. Chairman, my personal appreciation of the assistance that has at all times been readily available from Mr. Teeter to those of us who have been interested in this subject over a period of years. It has always been a helpful and intelligent service that he has rendered, with only one thought in mind, of accomplishing that which we all deem necessary for the welfare of our Government.
Mr. O'HARA. I would like to join in what Mr. Priest and Mr. Wolverton have said with reference to Mr. Teeter's cooperation.
Mr. PRIEST. Are there any other questions?
(Thereupon, at 11:45 a. m., the hearing was adjourned until 10 a. m. Friday, April 1, 1949.)
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
FRIDAY, APRIL 1, 1949
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10 a. m., in room 1334, New House Office Building, Hon. J. Percy Priest (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. PRIEST. The subcommittee will come to order.
We will continue hearings on the National Science Foundation legislation. The first witness will be Mr. George E. Folk.
Mr. Folk, will you state your full name and your title for the record ? STATEMENT OF GEORGE E. FOLK, ADVISER TO THE COMMITTEE
ON PATENTS AND RESEARCH OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS
Mr. FOLK. Mr. Chairman, my name is George E. Folk. I am adviser to the committee on patents and research of the National Association of Manufacturers and I appear here on behalf of that association, favoring a National Science Foundation bill.
The bills we have before us are divisible into three groups. The first group are the bills H. R. 12, H. R. 185, H. R. 311, and H. R. 2751. These bills are the same as the original House bill of the Eightieth Congress, H. R. 6007, referred to as a compromise bill, introduced in the Senate as S. 2385.
It is this group of bills which more nearly meets the views of the National Association of Manufacturers.
The second group of bills are H. R. 1845 and H. R. 2308. They are the same as the bill, S. 247, recently passed by the Senate. This was a so-called compromise bill, but I think when we look at it we will find out the compromise features of it were eliminated, and for that reason, the National Association of Manufacturers is opposed to certain provisions of that bill.
The third group is the bill H. R. 359, which is the same as S. 525 of the first session of the Eightieth Congress.
There has from the beginning been a number of controversial points which have been raised. One of them was, of course, the scope of the Foundation itself. That, I believe, has been taken care of satisfactorily, certainly in the groups 1 and 2, and so it is unnecessary to refer to that.
The second controversial point is with reference to the method of appointing a Director of the Foundation, and the third controversial point is the powers and duties to be exercised by that Director.
You will find that the provision in groups 1 and 2, originally found in the bill introduced as 2385, before it was amended, are very similar and while there are a number of changes made, as it is now in 247, most of those changes are certainly not objectionable and we will refer, therefore, only to those ones to which we wish to call particular attention.
You will not that section 5 of this group 1 bill, corresponding to the original S. 2385 of the Eightieth Congress before it was amended, had a section 5 which is eliminated from the present S. 247.
Well, that elimination in itself does not amount to a great deal, except when read in connection with other sections-section 6 of the group 1 bill or section 5 of the group 2 bills.
Now, to review a little of the history of these bills very briefly. When the Eightieth Congress in 1947 passed the bill, which died as a - result of the pocket veto by the President, the House committee in reporting out that bill made this statement which I think will explain some of the controversies that have arisen. I quote from that statement in which it is said that the bill provided for the Director being appointed by the Foundation. The reason given by the committee's report is as follows:
In order that the Foundation will have a free hand to sele pt a Director whom it deems to be competent, and to replace such Director at any time as such action seems desirable.
Now, the President in his memorandum after he had allowed the bill to die as a result of pocket veto, stated that he being the Chief Executive of the Government should be perfectly free to appoint the Director. We can sympathize with that position of the President, but on the contrary, the Foundation in order to function successfully must have a Director who is satisfactory to the Foundation, otherwise it is perfectly obvious that things will not run smoothly.
Now, at the time that compromise bill was introduced in the second session of the Eightieth Congress, a statement was made in connection with its introduction to the effect, and I will read that:
Early in the second session of the Eightieth Congress, a series of conferences designed to reconcile the divergent views of the executive and legislative branches of the Government (as reflected in the President's memo of disapproval and S. 526, respectively) was conducted by a number of Congress and administration representatives. As a result of these conferences and in the light of the most recent development in this important field, a new National Science Foundation bill, S. 2385, was introduced in the Senate on March 25, 1948.
That compromise bill is the same as the group 1 bills I referred to, beginning with H. R. 12 of this Congress. That bill was passed by the Senate in the Eightieth Congress, but no action was taken by the House of Representatives on the corresponding bill.
Now, one might get the inference that this S. 247 is a compromise bill. Such is not the fact, it seems to me. It was as originally introduced a compromise bill.
The report of the Senate committee on S. 247 is, I think, misleading. I quote from it as follows:
The pending proposal, S. 247, is identical with S. 2385, as approvel by the Senate in the Eightieth Congress, and it represents the culmination of the year's study and experience outlined above.
This does not bring out the fact that before it was approved by the Senate of the Eightieth Congress, some very important changes