GOVERNMENT *;49

Storage

NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES ,

Y 4 PANEL ON BASIC RESEARCH AND NATIONAL GOALS 4s"

Sci

89- 1/3

HEARINGS

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON

SCIENCE AND ASTRONAUTICS

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

EIGHTY-NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

APRIL 26, 1965

[No. 3]

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Astronautics

*

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

50-977 WASHINGTON: 1965
gw.

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND ASTRONAUTICS

GEORGE P. MILLER, California, Chairman

OLIN E. TEAGUE, Texas

JOSEPH E. KARTH, Minnesota

KEN HECHLER, West Virginia

EMILIO Q. DADDARIO, Connecticut

J. EDWARD ROUSH, Indiana

BOB CASEY, Texas

JOHN W. DAVIS, Georgia

WILLIAM F. RYAN, New York

THOMAS N. DOWNING, Virginia

JOE D. WAGGONNER, JR., Louisiana

DON FUQUA, Florida

CARL ALBERT, Oklahoma

ROY A. TAYLOR, North Carolina

GEORGE E. BROWN, JR., California

WALTER H. MOELLER, Ohio

WILLIAM R. ANDERSON, Tennessee

BROCK ADAMS, Washington

LESTER L. WOLFF, New York

WESTON E. VIVIAN, Michigan

GALE SCHISLER, Illinois

CHARLES F. DUCANDER, Executive Director and Chief Counsel

JOHN A. CARSTARPHEN, Jr., Chief Clerk and Counsel

PHILIP B. YEAGER, Counsel

FRANK R. HAMMILL, Jr., Counsel

W, H. I300NE, Chief Technical Consultant

RICHARD P. HINES, Staff Consultant

PETER A. GERARDI, Technical Consultant

JAMES E. WILSON, Technical Consultant

HAROLD A. GOULD, Technical Consultant

PHILIP P. DICKINSON, Technical Consultant

JOSEPH M. FELTON, Assistant Counsel

ELIZABETH S. KERNAN, Scientific Research Assistant

FRANK J. GIROUX, Clerk

DENis C. QUIGLEY, Publications Clerk

II

JOSEPH W. MARTIN, JR., Massachusetts

JAMES G. FULTON, Pennsylvania

CHARLES A. MOSHER, Ohio

RICHARD L. ROUDEBUSH, Indiana

ALPHONZO BELL, California

THOMAS M. PELLY, Washington

DONALD RUMSFELD, Illinois

EDWARD J. GURNEY, Florida

JOHN W. WYDLER, New York

BARBER B. CONABLE, JR., New York
CONTENTS

STATEMENTS

Page

Blinks, Dr. Lawrence Rogers, Stanford University 23

Bode, Dr. Hendrik Wade, Bell Telephone Laboratories 13

Brooks, Dr. Harvey, Harvard University 16

Johnson, Dr. Harry Gordon, University of Chicago 18

Kantrowitz, Dr. Arthur, Avco-Everett Research Laboratory 17

Kaysen, Dr. Carl, Harvard University 23

Kistiakowsky, Dr. George Bogdan, Chairman, Committee on Science and

Public Policy, National Academy of Sciences 8

MacLane, Dr. Saunders, University of Chicago 19

Pfaffmann, Dr. Carl, Brown University 24

Seitz, Dr. Frederick, President, National Academy of Sciences 2

Teller, Dr. Edward, University of California:Berkeley 12

Verhoogen, Dr. John, University of California, Berkeley 25

Weinberg, Dr. Alvin Martin, Oak Ridge National Laboratory 14

Willard, Dr. John Ela, University of Wisconsin 26

BIOGRAPHIES

Blinks, Dr. Lawrence Rogers 29

Bode, Dr. Hendrik Wade 29

Brooks, Dr. Harvey 29

Johnson, Dr. Harry Gordon 29

Kantrowitz, Dr. Arthur 30

Kaysen, Dr. Carl 30

Kistiakowsky, Dr. George B 30

MacLane, Dr. Saunders 30

Pfaffmann, Dr. Carl 30,

Seitz, Dr. Frederick 31

Teller, Dr. Edward , 31

Verhoogen, Dr. John 31i

Weinberg, Dr. Alvin M 31

Willard, Dr. John E n

In

NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES

PANEL ON BASIC RESEARCH AND NATIONAL GOALS

MONDAY, APRIL 26, 1965

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND ASTRONAUTICS,

Washington, D.0 .

The committee met at 10 a.m., in room 2318, Rayburn House Office

Building, Washington, D.C., Hon. George P. Miller (chairman of the

committee) presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will be in order.

It is my pleasant duty today to convene this forum of the Committee on Science and Astronautics with the Special Panel on Basic Research and National Goals of the National _Academy of Sciences.

Our purpose, of course2 is to receive a particular report from the

Panel—a report which this committee requested and which the Panel

has had in preparation for a year.

Before we hear from the President of the Academy and from the

Panel, however, it may be helpful if I review briefly the background

of today's meeting.

Almost 2 years ago, in response to growing needs of the times, I

established a Subcommittee on Science, Research, and Development

under the chairmanship of Mr. Daddario of Connecticut. The first

task of the subcommittee was to endeavor to isolate and define the

major trouble spots in the complex Government science relationship.

Toward this end, a series of comprehensive hearings were held and

competent witnesses drawn from all parts of the Nation and from

many scientific and Government pursuits. The subcommittee soon

determined, and the full committee concurred, that we would need

outside assistance from experienced, trained, and talented people.

Shortly thereafter Mr. Daddario and I, with other members of the

committee began a series of informal meetings with Dr. Frederick

Seitz, President of the Academy, and members of his staff. We had

in mind a number of questions to which we hoped to find answers, and

it was our belief that the Academy could help.

We were fortunate to be able to work with Dr. Seitz, who not only

understands the political mechanisms of the American Government,

but who has been more than willing to lend us a helping hand. Difficult as our problems were, and as susceptible to criticism as any

proposed solutions to them might be, Dr. Seitz agreed to put together

a task force which would undertake the job.

As a result of our discussions, the committee and the Academy

entered into a contract—the first with Congress in the 102-year history

of the Academy—for a study which would seek to sort out the issues

and difficulties connected with two particularly important and vexing

questions. In oversimplified terms they were: To what extent is

1
2 NAS-PANEL ON BASIC RESEARCH & NAT'L. GOALS

Federal support of basic research needed in order to keep the Nation

secure, economically strong, and scientifically paramount, and, what

important areas of research are presently madequately supported

and why?

After consultation with members of the Academy's Committee on

Science and Public Policy, Dr. Seitz did indeed put together a distinguished panel to undertake the study for us. He was able to secure

the services of Dr. George B. Kistiakowsky, of Harvard University,

as Chairman of the Panel. For this we also feel most fortunate. Dr.

Kistiakowsky is a former Presidential science adviser and an internationally known chemist. He needs no introduction here. Nor, I

am sure, do the other members of the Panel who are present today.

I will not attempt to describe the mechanism used by the Academy

in drawing up this report. Dr. Kistiakowsky can do this far better

than I. But I do wish to emphasize several points about the Panel

and the study.

One is that all the members of the Panel have contributed their time

in this effort. So I want to take this opportunity to extend our grateful thanks. We on the committee are well aware of the fact that it

would be impossible for us to secure the services of a group such

as this on any other basis.

The second point is that this report does not end our working

arrangement with the Academy. We have other problems with which

we need assistance

'

other difficult questions to be answered, and we

fully expect to work out future agreements, perhaps similar and perhaps dissimilar, to the one under which this study has been conducted.

Our contractual arrangement has, in fact, been extended and preparations for new programs are under way.

In conclusion, the Committee on Science and Astronautics is fully

cognizant of its responsibilities in the field of science generally and

holds itself ready to fulfill them. Our work here today, I believe,

demonstrates this fact.

At this time I should like to recognize Dr. Seitz, the President of

the National Academy of Sciences.

STATEMENT OF DR. FREDERICK SEITZ, PRESIDENT OF THE

NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES

Dr. SEITZ. Thank you very much, Mr. Miller.

As you know from your own associations with the National Academy of Sciences, it is now over a century old. It was established in

1863 during the Civil War as a private agency. However, it was

granted a Federal charter, approved by Congress, and signed by

Abraham Lincoln, to advise the Federal Government on matters

related to science and engineering. So it is in the somewhat unique

position of being a private organization representative of the scientific

community but one that Congress, and other Government agencies,

can call upon for advice. I should point out, however, that it is only

one of the many voices that can be heard in matters of science.

I should emphasize also that the elected members of the Academy,

and those who serve on our advisory committees, serve without compensation. Of course, their travel expenses are taken care of. The

staff members who serve our committees do receive compensation.
NAS-PANEL ON BASIC RESEARCH & NAT'L. GOALS

At the present time we have about 700 elected members from 14

different fields of science, and in the present framework of the structure of the Academy these members serve somewhat in the nature of

the board of trustees of the overall organization.

I should also emphasize that the Academy is composed of both

scientists and engineers, since the advisory service which we are to

render encompasses both science and engineering.

We have about 400 advisory committees in the various fields of

science and engineering: The areas under study encompass such

things as medicine, agriculture, mathematics, the earth and space

sciences, psychology, chemistry, the biosciences. We are also concerned with matters related to scientific personnel in our country, and,

to some extent, abroad. We also handle many of the fellowships at

various levels, undergraduate, graduate, and postgraduate, for which

the agencies of the Federal Government provide funds. In many of

these cases we select the committees that choose the candidates for

fellowships.

We have an overall staff of about 700, most of whom reside in the

Washington, D.C., area.

Our committee members are drawn from scientists and engineers in

Government, Government laboratories or agencies, from industrial

organizations, and from the universities of the country. It is characteristic of these committees that they almost always manage to achieve

a high degree of impartiality in their views. The individuals who

serve on our committees tend to leave their origins behind them when

they meet around our conference boards.

About 80 percent of our advisory work is for the Federal Government; about 20 percent is for private or State organizations.

If you examine the studies that are made by the committees of the

Academy, you will find that they generally fall into three categories:

first, detailed technical studies; for example, an analysis of the effects

of certain drugs or matters related to prevention of fire under special

circumstances.

Second, matters related to guidance of policies within science; for

example, in attempting to set priorities within and among fields for

the expenditure of funds.

Finally, there are matters related to broad public policy, matters

which concern both the scientific community and the public at large,

matters, for example, such as population control and techniques that

might be considered for achieving it.

Much of the Academy's work for the Federal Government is carried

out for the agencies of the Executive Office. However, our work for

the Government is by no means exclusively for the components of the

executive branch. For example in 1908 the Academy was asked to

examine the question of wasteful duplication of Federal funds for

scientific research within Federal agencies. One could find other cases

in which we were called upon by Congress.

The policies, the traditions, and the structure of the Academy have

evolved over a century, and one finds that, at different periods in its

history, the Academy's techniques for providing advice are somewhat

different. In the first half of its history, for example, the elected

scientists and engineers of the Academy formed the committees which

rendered advice. By the time of World War I, that technique was
4 NAS—PANEL ON BASIC RESEARCH & NAT'L. GOALS

inadequate. Our country had become so strong in the fields of science

and engineering that it was clear that there should be a much broader

base than just the Academy membership.

At that time, as a result of a request from President Wilson, the

Academy examined ways in which it could provide advice in relation

to World War L As a result of this study, the Academy created the

National Research Council, which covers the same range of areas as

the Academy itself, but provides committees whose members come

from all areas of the country's scientific and engineering community

whether or not they are members of the Academy.

At the present time about 5,000 scientists and engineers serve on

the various committees of the National Research Council.

At the time of World War I we also created a section on engineering within the National Academy of Sciences.

In the 1930's President Roosevelt called upon the Academy to advise him during the great depression, and there was created a special

board, the Science Advisory Board, under the chairmanship of Karl

Taylor Compton, then recently the president of the Massachusetts

Institute of Technology. This Board studied for 2 years ways in

which the Federal Government could use the community of science

and engineers in helping to alleviate the depression.

Very little use was made of that report during the depression, for

complex reasons. However, when World War II broke out, both the

report of the Science Advisory Board and the individuals who participated in it were available to President Roosevelt, and from that

aroup of men and their work emerged the National Defense Research

ommittee and the Office of Scientific Research and Development,

both of which played such an important role in the war.

In recent years, the Academy has taken two steps to broaden its

advisory capabilities. After World War II the professional engineers of our country were not happy with their role within the Academy, even though they were represented in a section. It became clear

that, since so many engineers were used in the activities of the National Research Council, they felt that they should have a greater

formal role in generating those committees.

As a result, last winter, after several years of study by the National

Academy of Sciences, the Council of the Academy, agreed to create

within the framework of our original charter a National Academy

of Engineering.

The new Academy came to life on December 5, 1964. It now has

44 duly elected members. The new Academy will have autonomy in

the election of its members, but will work within the framework of

the National Academy of Sciences in helping direct the affairs of the

National Research Council. As a matter of fact, the National Academy of Engineering is meeting this week concurrently with the National Academy of bciences.

A second great step occurred somewhat before this. In 1961 my

predecessor, Dr. Detlev Bronk, working in cooperation with the

Council of the Academy, came to the conclusion that the National

Academy of Sciences should attempt to coordinate its activities related to studies of public policy in a much more definitive way.
NAS-PANEL ON BASIC RESEARCH & NAT'L. GOALS 5

As you will recall, Dr. Kistiakowsky had served for several years as

science adviser to the President of the United States and as Chairman

of the President's Science Advisory Committee. In consultation with

the Council of the Academy Drs. Bronk and Kistiakowsky concluded

that there should be a new Academy committee, a Committee on

Science and Public Policy. Dr. Kistiakowsky agreed to be its first

chairman, a post which he has held now for alma 4 years. He will

leave that post as chairman during the summer, and his position will

be taken by Dean Harvey Brooks, who is with us today as a member

of the Panel on Basic Research and National Goals.

After you and Mr. Daddario called on me, Mr. Miller, about the

questions which you and your committee wished to raise, the Council

of the Academy agreed that this was a matter that should be referred

for consideration to the Committee on Science and Public Policy

since they lay so near to the type of work which they had undertaken. The Committee on Science and Public Policy, usually known

as COSPUP, decided to create a special panel to address the questions,

and that is the way in which the Panel meeting with you today came

into existence.

Chairman MILLER. Thank you, Dr. Seitz.

Before proceeding there are two or three people in the audience

whom I would like to introduce before I recognize Mr. Daddario.

Dr. Hornig, the science adviser to the President, is down here.

Would you please stand, Doctor?

Dr. Haworth, of the Science Foundation, is here; and also Dr.

Waterman, former head of the Foundation, whom we all love.

Dr. Shannon, the head of the NIH, is also here. Thank you, Doctor.

I now want to call on Mr. Daddario, the chairman of the subcommittee.

Mr. DADDARIO. Mr. Chairman, this report of the Academy ad hoc

panel is indeed a significant one from two standpoints.

It is first of all a creative effort of genuine utility, and it is possibly

the only concentrated study which has thus far been focused on the

present question of how far and how fast Government should go in

its support of fundamental research.

Second, the report represents a new dimension in congressional relations with the scientific community, a new channel and a new method

of providing experienced guidance to the legislative branch in its consideration of the proper Federal role in scientific affairs.

What I have just said, however, requires some qualification.

It is necessary to add that while this study by the Academy panel

is an important step in the congressional-science relationship, it is still

only a step. We are even now working on ways to improve our

liaison and our mutual undertakings of the future. Without doubt,

new procedures will develop.

It is also necessary to add that while we are dealing with matters

of science and technology, we must not assume that the prOblems to be

solved are all scientific and technical problems. They are not. Many,

perhaps most, are problems of policy, of management, of evaluation,

and we are here seeking the views of the scientific community as an

imperative but nevertheless, single, input into the equation of political

decision.

50-977-65-2
6 NAS-PANEL ON BASIC RESEARCH & NAT'L. GOALS

The report submitted to us today does not have the answers to all

our science policy problems, nor even pat replies to the specific questions which were posed to the Academy by our committee.

In fact, the study raises more questions than it answers and I, personally, am glad that this is so. If the result had been different, then

it seems likely that the queries we set out would have been too simple

to begin with and perhaps obvious. Either that or we would be receiving here an unbalanced, biased assessment. Of course, neither is the

case.

At this point I would like to emphasize that this report, differs in

many respects from the study reports which are usually submitted to

the various agencies and branches of our Government. While it does

reach conclusions and does make recommendations, it does not present

a hard consensus which can be stamped as a fixed Academy position.

It is at pains to bring out the dissents and the varyincr

b

shades of

thought and opinion which provoked the panel during its considerations. This, I think, is a refreshing approach for a Congress which

has become accustomed to receiving requests for approval of scientific

and technological programs, or advice about them, in glossy, finished

packages where the ragged edges of doubt are invisible.

We in the legislative branch need, in my view, to be aware of and to

understand the diversity of thought which attends most modern policy

issues. Without this we will be, and to some extent we have been,

legislating in the dark.

So I am pleased to see the threads of controversy, and the differences

of opinion, which interlace this report.

We are not, for example, being given definite answers as to the advisability of increased support for applied science, on the many facets of geographical distribution, on the value of basic research within mis- sion-oriented agencies, on underwriting science education, on criteria

for levels of support by the Science Foundation relative to given dis- ciplines, on desirable growth for support of fundamental research, on the benefit of project versus institutional grants, to mention only a

few of the problems which bother us.

But we are getting some very specific and cogent thought on those

problems and a clear view of the factors which we in Congress will

have to consider as we close with these issues.

In addition to some of the foregoing problems I have raised, it is

my hope that in our seminar today we may be able to discuss a few

other point which the report brings to mind.

For example:

What kind of data relevant to research planning and administration

are needed and why have the responsible Government agencies not

been collecting them?

How should we classify or distinguish "free" basic research, which is

Dr. Waterman's term, from mission-oriented basic research?

How can we differentiate educationally related basic research from

noneducationally related basic research?

What is the significance of the tripling of university research fund- ing in the past few years—of increased enrollments—of increased

faculty salaries? How is this related to future needs?
NAS-PANEL ON BASIC RESEARCH & NAT'L. GOALS 7

How shall universities operate their research centers and applied

science labs in relation to educational needs?

What part of presently performed research should be used as the

base in determining a 15-percent growth rate?

What needs to be learned about the Federal versus non-Federal role

in funding research? About diversity of support among Government

agencies?

How, why, and to what extent does federally sponsored research

distort the university aim and function? Does it dilute undergraduate

teaching to a significant degree?

How should we handle the support of the younger scientists and the

smaller colleges?

How can we achieve mature growth in basic research or in engineering without greatly increased Federal support? Where can we look

for greater efficiency?

Since Congress must consider science as part of our overall evolving

culture, does the geographical concentration of "quality" science injure the Nation's total intellectual environment?

In considering the Federal role of nurturing basic science, what are

the alternatives to stepping up the activities and responsibilities of the

National Science Foundation?

The importance of basic research to the Nation has long been recognized, and questions about appropriate level of support and balance

between the various fields have been raised as matters of public policy

at least since 1946. These questions have assumed even greater significance today because research activities have grown enormously and

because the Federal Government has become the source of 75 percent

of all research and development funds, and about 90 percent of the

research funds going to universities.

But the era of rapid growth in Federal support seems to be drawing

to a close. So some difficult choices must now be made.

In doing this, our committee is seeking the 'views of all interested

parties of the executive branch, of university administrators, industrialists, economists, et cetera. Those of the scientific community, as I

have pointed out, are crucial hence, our request to the Academy for

aid, for more than just a point of view.

There has been little precedent for systematic advice to Congress

from the Academy. It has, instead, developed an identity mainly as

adviser to the executive branch, and in so doing it has also assured a

natural role as advocate for science. In their new mission of serving

both Congress and the Executive, and perhaps as adviser to each the

Academy's scientific leaders will surely find a rigorous test of their

objectivity, breadth, and vision.

I believe the report submitted today is an indication of a better

understanding in the time ahead, not only for what the report itself

contains, but because I feel a better relationship is developing with

the scientific community. And I sense, too, that the scientific community is developing a better understanding of the Congress.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Daddario.

Before going on, I would like to introduce Dr. Joseph Wyle, Chief

Scientist of the Office of Naval Research.

Thank you, Doctor.
‘,11

8 NAS—PANEL ON BASIC RESEARCH & NAT'L. GOALS

Now, it is my great pleasure to call upon Dr. George Kistiakowsky,

who has served as Chairman of the Committee on Science and Public

Policy ever since I have been on the Committee on Science and Astronautics I have depended a great deal on Dr. Kistiakowsky, and I know

that goes for many of us here. One of the highlights is to call him

my friend.

May I without further ado, Dr. Kistiakowsky—I was going to say

George—ask you to take over the Panel.

STATEMENT OF DR. GEORGE BOGDAN KISTIAKOWSKY, CHAIRMAN.

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND PUBLIC POLICY, NATIONAL

ACADEMY OF SCIENCES

Dr. KISTIAKOWSKY. Please do, Mr. Chairman, and thank you very

much.

We hope that the report which you see before you, Mr. Chairman,

and members of the committee, is a small but not worthless contribution to what I would like to think of as a continuing and

enlightened dialog between the scientific community and the Federal

Government on the place of science in our multifaceted, pluralistic

society.

There have been many attempts to theorize on various parts of

the problem • President Seitz referred to the so-called Steelman report. I would remind you also of Vannevar Bush's report to President

Truman, "Science, the Endless Frontier," which had a great deal

of influence in setting the course of the Federal Government's support of science since World War II.

This report is a little different or, rather, focuses on different aspects of this very complex problem since it is a response to questions

of the Congress of the United States, and, hence, emphasizes more

the problems which are of interest to Congress than those that may

be of interest to the executive branch, although I personally see no

fundamental differences.

The question which we have tried to answer, and, I would like to

emphasize, have not answered, but poked around, and discovered

many subquestions in the process, is: •

What level of Federal support is needed to maintain for the United States a

position of leadership through basic research in the advancement of science and

technology and their economic, cultural, and military applications?

As we faced this formidable question we realized that to attempt

to arrive at the least common denominator that would be acceptable

to every member of the group—by the way, I should mention that

the group is made up of very firmly convinced_ and vocal people----

would have led to a greatly watered down and almost meaningless

statement. Thus, the report contains 15 papers for each of which

only one man is responsible, the man who signed it. The papers differ

in their approach, in the aspect of the problem considered, and in the

answers which are suggested. In many meetings, exchanges of letters and discussions, the drafts have undergone major changes. Our

meetings were, shall I say, vigorous, at the very least, and to insure

that they wouldn't be lost to the author, he was given a tape recording

of everything that was said about his paper to take home to listen
NAS—PANEL ON BASIC RESEARCH & NAT'L. GOALS 9

to in the privacy of his office, there, perhaps, to think of the more.

cutting replies he might have made to the criticism.

As you look at this embarrassingly thick volume, you will find that

there are eight papers which are attempts to answer the question in

general. They have a somewhat philosophic, technical, or economic

point of view. Three papers emphasize the question of education of

,scientists. Two of these three emphasize a point which is perhaps

only tangential to the exact wording of the question as posed to us,

yet is absolutely fundamental for the welfare of the American Nation,

namely, that science, large science, is of real value to society only if its

findings can be translated into practical benefits to society.

Four papers are sketches of the substance of particular fields of

science because we were asked a second question, namely:

What judgment can be reached on the balance of support now being given

by the Federal Government to various fields of scientific endeavor, and on adjustments that should be considered, either within existing levels of overall

support or under conditions of increased or decreased overall support?

To answer that question one must know what is the substance of

science, what .are the requirements and material needs, and what are

the opportunities that could be realized from pursuing scientific work.

That question, to be frank, we haven't answered at all, because, to

answer it, as I say, one must know the substance of science, and this

is a mammoth task. These four brief outlines give you a flavor of

the needs and opportunities in certain fields of science. I would

like to add that the Academy's Committee on Science and Public

Policy is also engaged, on a continuing basis, in the preparation by

panels of experts, of much more detailed studies of the requirements

and opportunities in various scientific fields. .

As an example, I may point out to you a comparatively small volume

dealing with a very small science, ground-based astronomy, which involves only hundred's of people. Here, 'not yet published, I hold a

part of a very much larger study 'on needs and opportunities in chemistry.

These are examples of the kind of detailed 'studies that must be

undertaken before a real evaluation can be made on what there is in

science that is worth giving taxpayers' money for. It is in this light

that one must see the short 10- or 15-page sketches on the support of

several fields of science in our report.

In the writing of our individual papers we have had some very

vigorous group discussions, and I would like to say that, without

the very challenging questions by Dr. Johnson on the relevance of

science to society, and the emphasis by Dr. Teller that, without 'applications, science would lose much of its social value. I believe that we

would not have reached the level of understanding of the problems

.that, hopefully, you will discern in reading our papers.

It would be exceedingly difficult for me to summarize these separate

papers, and I will not attemptaito do so. However, I will mention a,

few conclusions that stand out.

In response to the first question put to us by the House committee,

I think without exception, although in different words, we all feel that

American science has now reached a position of leadership in the

world, but a leadership which is not so extreme as to represent domi-
10 NAS-PANEL ON BASIC RESEARCH & NAT'L. GOALS

nance. Other countries indeed, make vital contributions in certain

fields. But we are proud to say that American science, as a whole, does

have world leadership.

We also, I think, agree that this leadership, to a very substantial

degree, is due to the skillful and enlightened role which the Federal

Government has assumed, especially since World War II. Also, I

believe, it is due to the intellectual quality of the American Nation.

Without good scientists you cannot have good science.

Most of us think that the present situation is good, and that the

Federal investment in science is worth the cost and should continue

to grow at a moderate rate. However, some members of the Panel

sound warnings: Professor MacLane, for example, is concerned that

excellence not be drowned in mediocrity. Most of us don't believe

that there is such a danger.

Professor Johnson wonders whether investment of public funds

in science brings as much return, in a social sense, as some other conceivable investments, although he certainly does not take a position

on that issue.

As I mentioned before, Dr. Teller is concerned that perhaps the

emphasis on the high social prestige of pure science may be harmful

to something which is certainly quite essential: applied science.

In trying to assess the value of science, a problem which we all

encounter and which is a perennial problem, of course, is that the

results of scentific work and their value to society are totally unpredictable.

There are so many examples of this problem that I will mention

only one. When Dr. Towns was studying the microwave spectrum

of ammonia it was a highly esoteric subject—almost in the same class

as the question as to why grass is green, that a former Secretary of

Defense was so upset about. And yet, directly out of this study of

the microwave spectrum of ammonia grew the maser and the laser.

Examples such as this can be multiplied a hundredfold.

How then do you evaluate the social value of science? I should

emphasize that, naturally enough, I have picked an example where

there is a clear connection between basic research and practical value.

But I am sure that, if pressed hard enough by the members of your

committee, Mr. Chairman

'

I would have to admit that there are a

number of investigations that haven't led as yet to such practical

results.

However, as a scientist, I would be willing to make a bet that 50

or 100 years from now most of them will have some value. Fortunately, I cannot lose the bet. [Laughter.]

In looking into the problem of Federal support of basic research

in detail, we realized that trying to determine the magnitude of what

might be called the total science budget was not a very useful procedure, since the relation of the Federal Government to science, the

factors involved, create what, if I ilitay borrow the mathematician's

expression, is a multidimensional body. There is the Congress with

its concern for the expenditure of Federal funds, there are Federal executive agencies with their practical missions to carry out,

there are the interests of the performing organizations, be they the

universities, the Government's inhouse laboratories or the agencies'
NAS-PANEL ON BASIC RESEARCH & NAT'L. GOALS 11

laboratories, and, finally, there are the scientists who do the work

and privately each of them has somewhat different motives in this

complex undertaking. And yet they all work together and, I believe

deeply, in so doing they produce something which is essential to our

society, something without which the growth which all of us believe

to be necessary cannot continue.

So instead of trying to analyze the various subdivisions of science,

I might point out that one might talk, and I speak largely now for

myself, about distinctions between mission-oriented basic research

undertaken frequently in agency laboratories, in support, both intellectual and practical, of missions which these establishments have.

Opposed to this—not opposed, I should say, but different from it—

research which is sufficiently remote from the immediate practical

missions so that you cannot identify it as mission oriented. Yet, as

I just said, it well may be mission oriented 50 or 100 years from now.

That, in turn, has to be divided, I believe, into what may be called

academic or "little science," intimately and essentially related to the

training of new scientific manpower. There is also "big science";

people who don't like it sometimes refer to it as "science spectaculars,"

but I wouldn't do so, at least not before this audience. "Big science"

is certainly essential; it solves problems which "little science" cannot

solve, but it has its own levels of growth and requires a very different

budgetary and planning approach.

I think, by and large, that, without any strong exceptions, we came

to the conclusion that the pluralistic approach to the support of

science which has been adopted by the Federal Government is effective and appropriate. Perhaps I should say for those who haven't

heard this fact a thousand times before, that, out of the total Federal

R. & D. budget of $15 or $17 billion, only something like 10 percent

goes for science. Out of the eight agencies—there are eight agencies

with budgets of more than $100 million of which seven have practical

missions—only one, the National Science Foundation, is specifically

charged by Congress with supporting science in anticipation that

science as a whole will eventually be of benefit to society. And we

believe that this is a very good way of doing it; indeed this is where

the strength of American science lies.

But we also recognize that, as time goes on, it will be necessary, for

reasons which I won't go into here at the moment, to increase greatly

the strength of the National Science Foundation. To perhaps make

it into something like a balance wheel in the overall support of science.

In this way, it might currently be focusing primarily on support of

physical sciences, where there is now a danger that the mission-oriented

agencies, mainly those in defense, will not be able, from the point of

view of their missions, to give adequate support.

We are all confident that the American people will continue to insist on better health. Therefore, we are quite confident that the National Institutes of Health, which have done such spectacular work in

the past, will not fail to receive the support of the American people.

Therefore we are confident that the life and health sciences will be in

good hands in that agency.

I am afraid I may be repeating everything there is in the report,

and so I would like to conclude my remarks, Mr. Chairman, by simply
12 NAS—PANEL ON BASIC RE SEARCH & NAT ' L. GOALS

telling you that although we may not have contributed much in this

report, I would like to say that we enjoyed very much working on it.

We have learned a great deal. Most of us have never faced the complex social problems which face you in the Congress, and so this contact with a new world for us has been a very rich experience.

Thank you very much.

Mr. DADDARIO. Dr. Kistiakowsky, twice in your remarks you referred to the question of support for applied science, and I wonder as

a point of beginning if we could not have some discussion on that

subject.

Dr. KISTIAKOWSKY. Yes; Mr. Daddario, I would be very glad to

do so.

I will ask Dr. Teller to respond first.

STATEMENT OF DR. EDWARD TRLT,ER, UNIVERSITY OF

CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY

Dr. TELLER. Thank you, Dr. Kistiakowsky.

I believe that the question of applied science is closely related to the

one which has been raised by the congressional committee; namely, the

question of leadership. I think that a question like that of leadership

can be clearly defined only if one becomes specific.

At the beginning of this century, the United States was the unquestionable leader in applied science. At the beginning of the century, the United States was not among the foremost countries as far as

pure science was concerned. Today, the situation is almost reversed.

The United States enjoys unquestionable leadership in pure science,

and, in applied science, I believe, we have lost the leadership.

This is a very serious situation because, from every practical point

of view, our comforts and our safety as a people will be determined

by applied science, rather than by pure science. I am not saying this

with an intent to belittle the importance of pure science.

I believe that the Government's role in this question, in this situation, is a remarkable one. Of the $15 billion or more, most is

spent on applied science. Yet in our educational institutions, and in

the support that the Government lends to educational institutions, the

greater amount is given, the greater emphasis is given, to pure science.

The result is that our applied science efforts are not led as effectively

as they could be led, and as they should be led.

I would like to make a comment on the question: How soon will

pure science turn into applied science?

Dr. Kistiakowsky mentioned a period like 50 or 100 years. I would

like to suggest that in his particular field, in chemistry, 50 years is an

overestimate. In my field, physics, for instance high-energy physics,

I believe 100 years is an understatement. And I would be very glad

to take a bet with Dr. Kistiakowsky in the hereafter in any amount

he wishes to specify.

Dr. KISTIAKOWSKY. In what currency?

Dr. TELLER. In absolute currency.

I would like to make one last statement, because I have, I think,

sufficiently emphasized the importance of applied science, particularly

of applied science education. I believe that something must be done.

The question is, What? and I do not have the answer. I have at-
NAS-PANEL ON BASIC RESEARCH & NAT'L. GOALS 13

tempted an answer, but I am much more doubtful about the remedy

than I am about the diagnosis.

We have some excellent applied science laboratories. At the same

time, applied science does not enjoy sufficiently high prestige in our

universities. I believe that the answer might lie in better collaboration

between our applied science laboratories and our university education.

I hope that with sufficient support in our applied science laboratories applied science curriculums can be established which should

lead to the same general advanced academic degrees which are now

available in pure science.

I believe that the detailed way in which this kind of work can be

supported by Congress needs very specific consideration.

Thank you very much.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

Dr. KISTIAKOWSKY. I wonder whether some other members of the

Panel would be willing to comment on this issue which is vitally

important, and one in which, although there is no great disagreement,

there certainly are significant shades of opinion.

Dr. Bode, like Dr. Teller you are familiar with pure and applied

science.

STATEMENT OF DR. HENDRIK WADE BODE, BELL TELEPHONE

LABORATORIES

Dr. BODE. Thank you, Dr. Kistiakowsky.

I would like to go back to the last words you spoke about the great

complexity of these issues, because it seems to me that when one talks

about applied science and its utilization in the economy, he has to

recognize how complex the economy, in fact, is.

I don't believe that categorical statements here are very wise, at least

not categorical statements by me. I do feel as I look at the situation

that the problems of translating pure science into beneficial results,

through applied science, are difficult ones. I think they are difficult

because the age in which we live is different, technologically, from

the situation we lived in a generation or more ago. There is more

to be done, science is more copious, it offers more to the applied

scientists if he knows where to look.

On the other hand, what has to be done frequently turns out to

involve a combination of things. One needs to draw from here, draw

from there, draw from elsewhere, in order to make progress. This

is not easy. It takes a man who is better than a jack-of-all-trades to

make these decisions.

In addition, science, in its hurry, its justifiable hurry, doesn't run

down all the alleys very completely. I think that as soon as one looks

at an application of science, he finds frequently there is a great deal

more to be done before the job can even be started.

I would like to go back here to the Manhattan project, because I

think it is a classic example of how much had to be done before, in this

instance, the exploitation of fission energy could be verified and utilized. It was a mammoth undertaking. It took great planning it

took contributions from chemistry, chemical engineering, many contributions from physical engineering, some contributions from mathematics. It might, even so, not have worked. But a great deal of this

50-977---115 3
14 NAS—PANEL ON BASIC RESEARCH & NAT'L. GOALS

sort of thing exists, I think, in the applications of science, and we require a peculiarly great breadth of ability, high level of ability, to

make this kind of judgment adequately.

Dr. Teller in his paper, and Dr. Kantrowitz also in his, spoke more

about education than I would. I would like to stress the importance

of a certain generality of approach and say that the only part of modern science education that I deplore is the fact that it is sometimes

perhaps a little bit more specialized than one would like.

But I think the problem exists primarily because the situation is

new. We have more to draw on from pure science, and we have more

in the way of, as I say, complexity of structure to envisage than we

had before, and we somehow have to learn to do this.

Thank you.

Dr. KISTIAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, we would like to be as helpful

to you as we can; and, therefore, perhaps, rather than cOntinuing on

this subject, we should turn to another issue which is of particular interest to your committee.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Daddario.

Mr. DADDARIO. Dr. Kistiakowsky, in the discussion which has already taken place, the number of agencies which are involved in research has been referred to, and therefore the question comes to mind

as to why the Federal Government should undertake support of basic

research beyond the requirements of the specific missions of those

agencies.

Dr. KISTIAKOWSKY. I will turn to Dr. Weinberg, who has given a

great deal of thought as to what research is to be defined as missionoriented and what isn't.

STATEMENT OF DR. ALVIN MARTIN WEINBERG, OAK RIDGE

NATIONAL LABORATORY

Dr. WEINBERG. Science is an endless frontier, an endlessly expanding frontier

'

and, therefore, if the agencies of the Government are

conceived of as having finite missions, then ultimately there will be a

mismatch if they become responsible for too much of science. However, my own feeling about it goes something like this: The fundamental reason why the American people support science is that science,

somehow„ is eventually going to pay off. This is the fundamental

reason why the agencies were established in the first place. The

Atomic Energy Commission was established not primarily to study

nuclear science; it was, rather, established to make nuclear weapons or

to make nuclear reactors. Science, even rather basic science, was

deemed necessary for accomplishing that mission.

So the view that I hold is that as much of science as an agency

can accept as being relevant to the achievement of its mission ought

to be supported by that agency, because then one is viewing the

support of that science not as support of science for its own sake,

but rather as a means for achieving an end which has been argued

politically by the Congress and by the executive branch, and which

is therefore one of the national goals.

Now, the problem as I see it, however, is, as I mentioned before,

that the inner logic of science makes it expand, our educational

system expands, our desire to know more expands, and one gets into
NAS—PANEL ON BASIC RESEARCH & NAT'L. GOALS 15

the problem of the mismatch between the desire of science and the

scientist—to continue to expand along paths that may no longer

be quite so obviously relevant to the achievement of the mission of an

agency—and the capacity of the agency to support science of that sort.

So I have taken the attitude, and I think some of the other members

of the panel have also, that we ought to divide our basic science into

two separate pockets; one, basic science which is deemed to be

relevant to the achievement of a politically defined mission, a mission

of one of the nonscientific agencies, like the Department of Defense;

and I would go so far as to say that I would try to adopt as relaxed

an attitude as possible in defining what kind of science is in fact

relevant to the achievement of those aims. Two, when one exhausts

all the science that can be so defined, one will still have a big pot of

leftover science that is not so relevant, and since—and I really believe

this—in the national interest this is advantageous in the orderly

growth of science, I have concluded that after one has separated

this mission-oriented basic science, this overgrowing residuum of,

as I call it, intrinsic basic science—science done for its own sake—

it should properly fall into the lap of the National Science Foundation. It is on that account that I personally have felt very strongly

that the National Science Foundation ought to be viewed more and

more as a big:time Government agency, because science for its

own sake does in fact have merit; it will continue to expand; and

good as the job of the mission-oriented agency is in supporting

related basic research, it is insufficient, as I see it, in the long run;

we will, therefore have to face up to the question of what to do

about the National Foundation.

Mr. ALBERT. May I ask a question there?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. ALBERT. Do you feel, first, that the mission-oriented science

is overextended in our appropriations, as against pure science within

the agencies, and then as between the nonscientific agencies and the

National Science Foundation?

Dr. NITEINBERG. No, I don't think that the mission-oriented science

within the agencies is overappropriated at present. I think one

would have to look at it in detail.

In fact, in some respects I think one trouble is that some of the

agencies have not accepted sufficient responsibility for basic science

which is in fact relevant to their missions.

You see the problem is really that the Congress, I would suppose,

doesn't look at the matter so much from the point of view of science

per se. It uses science as a means to accomplish its work. It looks

at it from the point of view of missions. We have to get on with

the work of society; the work of the society is sending the man to

the moon, or getting cheap electricity with nuclear energy. Therefore, it seems to me that one helps Congress by saying that such and

such a nonscientific mission is, let us say, very important, and part of

the means for achieving that mission is to do relevant mission-oriented

research.

I started saying what things I think are wrong. Take NASA,

the Space Agency, which this committee is very intimately concerned

with. I think that it is wrong that NASA does not accept as part
16 NAS—PANEL ON BASIC RESEARCH & NAT'L. GOALS

of its mission the support, not only of solar astronomy, which is

directly related to the mission of NASA, but also of the other

branches of astronomy, which are rather indirectly related but

nevertheless bear on the NASA mission in the following respects:

One, the instrumentation that is developed in, say, stellar

astronomy is relevant to the exploration of the solar system; and,

two, and perhaps more importantly, the students that are created

in the schools of stellar astronomy are then available to help NASA

get on with its mission, which is to explore the solar system.

Another example is NIH, for which I have the highest regard

and which I think has done a magnificent job in the support of

biology. In fact I go so far as to say—and my colleagues on this

committee say that I go too far—I go so far as to say that all of

biology in a sense is applied science, because we know so little about

how we ourselves work, and how we work is so important to us

that anything we learn about the biological system is in one way

or another going to help us in alleviating disease and avoiding premature death.

But chemistry, especially organic chemistry, is really very relevant

to the problems of the biomedical sciences, and yet, because it is once

removed from those problems—not far removed, but once removed

from those problems—and because there is also pressure on the

mission-oriented agencies to interpret their responsibility with respect

to basic research in a rather narrow fashion, my impression is that

NIH has not been able to accept fully the responsibility of supporting

large parts of basic chemical research.

Now actually basic chemical research is rather cheap, and therefore

it won't make an awful lot of difference as far as their own budget is

concerned, but I am sure it makes a tremendous difference as far

as our chairman here, who happens to be a chemist, is concerned.

[Laughter.]

Dr. KISTIAKOWSKY. May I cut in and express my personal thanks

to Dr. Weinberg for all those good words?.

Dr. WEINBERG. Let me just end by saying that I am all for basic

research; don't misunderstand. I do believe, however, that Edward

Teller puts his finger on a very essential problem, and one that we

cannot disregard: the problem of the two classes of citizens in the

scientific world, those who are oriented toward applied research and

those oriented toward basic research. It is a very deep and profound

problem, and I have the highest regard for great basic scientists, like,

for example, Edward Teller or Eugene Wigner, who have been willing

to orient themselves strongly toward applied research when they

thought it was necessary, and therefore, have helped bring prestige

and standing to the pursuit of applied research.

Dr. KISTIAKOWSKY. Would you like to elicit perhaps a little different flavor in response to your question? If so, I would like to

ask Dr. Brooks who has had a long and distinguished experience as

adviser to the Defense Department, to speak on the same subject.

STATEMENT OF DR. HARVEY BROOKS, HARVARD UNIVERSITY

Dr. BROOKS. Well, I am afraid that the flavor of my remarks will

really not differ too much from Dr. Weinberg's. I really agree with

his general comments. I think the important thing to remem-
NAS-PANEL ON BASIC RESEARCH & NAT'L. GOALS 17

ber is that the goals, the new national goals that we set up today very

often are the product of the basic science of yesterday. We would.

not have a space program today or an atomic energy program, except as the outgrowth of basic science of a previous time.

The point is that, as a program of mission-oriented Federal agency

evolves, new opportunities develop as the result of this program which

no longer lie within the goals of the agency as originally defined. And

it seems to me that it is very important that there be some way of continuing and expanding the exploration of these opportunities as the

mission-oriented agency tends to become more and more focused on

the science which is clearly relevant to its particular goal.

I would also like to comment on the discussion of applied versus

pure science. I share many of Dr. Teller's and Dr. Weinberg's concerns in this area, being a dean of a department that includes the

word "applied" in its title. However, I would like to emphasize one

point, and that is that Dr. Teller had a very distinguished career as a

very pure scientist before he became an applied scientist, and I don't

think that this was an accident. I believe the excellence of his contributions to applied science had its origin in his experience and training

as a basic scientist. And while I think it is very important that we

train applied scientists, I think it is also very important that we have

basic scientists who move in applied science directions. I think that

the vigor of our applied sciences, as Dr. Bode has emphasized, depends

on this flow of people from basic science into applied science, and that

if we set them up too much in separate categories in our training,

applied science would be the loser.

On the other hand, there is certainly a problem of attitudes and

prestige which is a very difficult one to deal with.

STATEMENT OF DR. ARTHUR KANTROWITZ, AVCO-EVERETT

RESEARCH LABORATORY

Dr. KANTROWITZ. I would like to make one point about this relationship of pure and applied science that has not been set forth perhaps as completely as it should be. That is that the most important

element in the education of a scientist is the motivation that he is provided with during the later phases of his education.

In the universities as they exist today, with the higher prestige that

is accorded to pure science, it is very difficult to find an atmosphere

in which one can simultaneously be very well trained and at the same

time motivated to achieve great things in the application of science.

Now, I believe that it is essential, if we are to repair the very urgent

loss of leadership in applied science, that we address ourselves to the

problem of providing an atmosphere in which a substantial fraction

of the very best students in our universities will be motivated to

achievement in applied science.

I believe that it is absolutely essential that students be exposed to the

fact that applied science is of great importance in the outside world.

It has an importance which far trancends its importance in the

academic community. We are not presently so exposing students. I

think that it is essential that there be a deep and intimate exposure of

students to atmospheres in which applied science holds a prestige that

is as high or higher than that of pure science. There are Government
18 NAS-PANEL ON BASIC RESEARCH & NAT'L. GOALS

and industrial laboratories which have missions in applied science, and

I think it is essential that many more of our students be exposed in the

formative periods of their careers to this atmosphere.

Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. How would you suggest this, Doctor? Through

interneships or what?

Dr. KANTROWITZ. As a matter of fact, in the paper that I have

written I have suggested one such plan that includes something

exactly 'like an interneship. I propose something like this. I propose that something analogous to the motivation of physicians be

called forth, in which the physicians are in an early part of their

training brought in contact with the missions of hospitals, or the

mission-oriented agency, if you like. This I think is also essential

in the education of physical Science.

Mr. HECHLER. I would like to raise a new question. We in Congress work within the context of trying to get the best job done for

the minimum amount of public dollars, and in doing that I would like

to raise a question whether the new institutions or the younger research scientists or certain sections of the country perhaps suffer by

this approach? I noted in Dr. Seitz' opening remarks the interlocking between science and economics in the Science Policy Board established by President Roosevelt. I would like to raise the question

which I believe Dr. Johnson touches on in his paper about whether

the problem of geographic distribution of scientific funds is getting

serious, whether this problem has changed any over the past few years

with the advent of automation, cybernetics, and all of the new

developments?

STATEMENT OF DR. HARRY GORDON JOHNSON, UNIVERSITY OF

CHICAGO

Dr. JOHNSON. Well, sir, I haven't made a detailed study of this. I

raised the question in my paper because it seemed to me an important

one. I think there are two interacting forces, both of which may be

sources of inefficiency. One is the Congress desire, which is perfectly

appropriate, to get jobs done at the least possible cost; and this has

quite a centralizing influence on the location of science activity, I

think.

The other is the tendency of the scientific centers to grow by what

we commonly call economics of scale, specialization, and division of

labor. So there is some natural tendency for places to get better and

accumulate more people and more facilities, and, therefore, to be able

to offer more economical contracts, and so forth.

I feel, myself, that while I have a number of doubts about just how direct and significant the influence of scientific activity is on various kinds of economic developments, that, if we are going to have this kind of society, the location of research is a matter which ought to be

looked at from a national point of view, and that there may well be a

case for incurring higher costs of activity as a sort of investment in spreading the scientific capacity to parts of the country where it is

now very weak.

I specifically would think that location of more science facilities in the South would be of considerable importance. The South has long
NAS-PANEL ON BASIC RE SEARCH & NAT ' L . GOALS 19

had an income differential as compared with the rest of the country.

If public money is to be spent on this, there is a case to be made for

using it deliberately as an instrument of policy for leveling out the

stage of advancement of the country and changing the economies in

various parts of it.

Dr. KISTIAKOWSKY. May I try a little different response and ask Dr.

MacLane, who is the purest of the pure scientists, to respond to this

question, also?

STATEMENT OF DR. SAUNDERS MaeLANE, UNIVERSITY OF

CHICAGO

Dr. MACLANE. Thank you, Dr. Kistiakowsky. I will endeavor to

stay pure.

Certainly I think one of the important features of the future health

of science, pure and applied, is the maximum stimulation to the young

scientists that are coming along. It is my impression that the stimulation is most effective when you get the promising young men sitting in

institutions that are at the top of the scale, that are really full of excellence and ideas.

Now, given the nature of human efforts, there aren't always too

many top scientists to train the young men. So efficiency in the expenditure of public funds, I think, does call for having somewhere in

the country centers of excellence collecting the leading scientists to

train what are hopefully leading young people, and I suspect in this

case that one can remark that it is tolerably easy to move the students

around from one location to another, getting the able students into the

places where they will be stimulated best.

So I stand for having somewhere leading centers with full panoplies

of sciences.

Dr. KISTIAKOWSKY. Since the word "South" was mentioned, I could

see that Dr. Weinberg has an urge to respond, and I will ask him to do

so now.

Dr. WEINBERG. I should explain that I come both from the South

and from Appalachia. I am sensitive on precisely this point. But I

really believe that we have almost within our grasp of partial solution, or at least a means of making great progress, on this problem,

and it is one that my friend George Kistiakowsky has mentioned

before congressional committees 'before.

If you look at the distribution of Federal funds for science, then I

think you will find that, although Federal funds for science in the

universities tend to be polarized toward the ocean rims of the continent, Federal funds for research in the Federal institutions the Federal laboratories, tend to be much more widely dispersed, and, in fact,

for various reasons, there are many very excellent Federal research

institutions as opposed to grant universities in some of the areas that

we are speaking of.

I can enumerate. There are the space installations in the general

Southland, there is Los Alamos in New Mexico, the atomic energy

installations in Tennessee; there is the radio astronomy establishment

in West Virginia, and I think, therefore, one can use this investment

by the Federal Government already in these areas and combine it with

the suggestions that Dr. Teller and Dr. Kantrowitz have made, to
20 NAS PANEL ON BASIC RESEARCH & NAT'L. GOALS

accomplish a quantum leap in the degree of excellence of the nearby

universities, by making it possible for the universities to really cooperate educationally with these very expensive and, to my mind—and

I am prejudiced in this matter—very excellent, Federal research

institutions.

A good deal is being tried along these lines. I know that some

things are going on at Los Alamos, at our laboratory, at Tulahomat

at Huntsville • the University of Alabama already has a branch of

some 1,000 students at Huntsville. And I have no doubt that, within

the next 5 to 10 years, probably the best education, or probably one of

the best educations that a young fellow will be able to get in aeronautics will be at the University of Alabama with the branch in

Huntsville.

I do believe, however, that Congress has a problem here because

there are at present various regulations that make it difficult—make

it a little equivocal—to bring to bear these fine Federal facilities to

the advantage of the educational institutions in the neighboring areas,

and I therefore go along with Dr. Teller in the suggestion that the

matter should be looked at—should be taken seriously. To my mind,

there is lots of potential here.

Dr. KISTIAKOWSKY. If I may for a couple of minutes drop my cloak

as a chairman and become a chemist, I would like to point out that this

very detailed study of chemistry, which I mentioned earlier, has shown

that the number of Federal dollars flowing into various educational

institutions per Ph. D. produced is extraordinarily uniform among the

125 educational institutions which give Ph. D.'s. So the problem isn't

that the big universities get too much money per student, and that the

little ones don't. I think that the problem is a much more fundamental

one. It may be, of course, different in other sciences; I can speak only

for chemistry, for which this study has been made. The problem,

therefore, is something different, and I would like to emphasize what

Dr. MacLane has said: One has to create an environment, an atmosphere in a given community in a given educational institution, which

will attract to it the best students, students capable of doing graduate

work, and that is really the key to a geographic spreading of excellence

in the country.

The CHAIRMAN. This, then, you say, has to be found in the university, itself? It isn't something that can be imposed on it?

Dr. KISTIAKOWSKY. This is what I believe. Perhaps it is not only

the university; it is the community surrounding the university which

has to believe in the importance of higher education, the so-called

general education, of which scientific education is only a part; the

community must believe that this is important, and provide this

environment, and this has to be done locally.

And then I think that the job will be done.

Mr. DADDARIO. Dr. Brooks wishes to be recognized.

Dr. BROOKS. I was just going to remark that I think we have a

built-in opportunity in the present situation to start balancing things

out, in the sense that we face, during the next 10 years, a very rapid

rate of growth of the number of graduate students. It is perfectly

clear that the existing institutions are not going to be able to take

care of this flow of students, so that it is essential 
1

NAS-PANEL ON BASIC RESEARCH & NAT'L. GOALS 21

The CHAIRMAN. That isn't a fire. That is merely the announcement that Congress will be in session, the House will be in session in

15 minutes. That is the three lights or rings. So just hold your seats,

,don't panic.

Dr. BROOKS. So that, with the requirement of having to train an

increasing number of students—and I will remind you that this growth

rate projected for the 1960's, due to the birth rate in the early 1940's,

is very much faster than it was in the 1950's we are given the opportunity to create new centers of excellence in new areas of the country.

Mr. HECHLER. Would not the requirements, however, necessitate

some additional Federal support in order to meet those requirements?

Dr. BROOKS. Oh, yes.

Mr. RU1VISFELD. Mr. Chairman.

Dr. KISTIAKOWSKY. Mr. Rumsfeld.

Mr. RITMSFELD. I would like to go back to a question that was commented on by Dr. Weinberg. I guess he is busy now. I will wait.

Mr. KARTH. While you are waiting for Dr. Weinberg, I would like

to ask Dr. Teller a question.

I was somewhat surprised about the positivity with which you made

one of your statements. I suppose as a result of that positivity you

felt so considerably about the matter that you could in the same terms

answer the question which is based on the conclusion you drew.

You said that we had lost the leadership in applied science. I was

somewhat surprised at that. So my question would be: Who has it,

and what positive evidence do we have upon which that conclusion is

based?

Dr. TELLER. Thank you very much, Mr. Karth. I will respond to

your question by contradicting myself.

1 have said that we have lost leadership. This was an exaggeration.

T should have said that there is some evidence that we have lost it, in

the space efforts, for instance, with which your committee is very

,deeply concerned.

In the space effort, there are three ways to assess leadership. Who

,can lift more weight.? What is the value of the weight lifted? And

what publications come out of it?

In the first respect, the Russians can lift more weight. In the second

respect, we put more valuable things into space vehicles, so we claim.

But this is harder to check, and I am worried when, in the things

that can be checked, we have lost leadership, and in the things that

,cannot be checked, we are ahead.

Who publishes more? Undoubtedly we. But this means only, perhaps, that the Russians are more addicted to secrecy than we are.

imilarily, in meteorology, in oceanography, there exists substantial evidence that points toward more activity and more successful

activity in Russia. I understand that in metallurgy, another very

important field, the Russians are making very great progress. I am

afraid that we are losing and might have lost leadership to the

Russians.

The CHAIRMAN. To respond to the doctor, particularly in the field

of oceanography, I think we have lost in this field. I think this is

the fault of Congress, that it hasn't done its job properly.

You find the responsibility for oceanography resting in eight different departments of Government. We have never pulled them together
22 NAS—PANEL ON BASIC RESEARCH & NAT'L. GOALS

properly to exploit and to make the necessary investigations in this

field, and I believe this is our direct responsibility, and I hope sooner

or later we will come to this realization, perhaps do something for

oceanography, just as we have for space and as we did for the Atomic

Energy Commission. What would have happened to atomic energy

had we left it scattered in three or four branches of Government?

Dr. TELLER. Let me make a positive comment to this point of

oceanography.

There appears an important development in the exploration of the

ocean bottom, particularly in connection with oil exploration, and I

see this developing in some of the States bordering on the Gulf of

Mexico.

It seems to me that by emphasizing, as Dr. Kistiakowsky has said,

excellence in different respects, one can reconcile the statement that

we need excellence, the statement that we need applied science, and

the statement that we have to spread these around the country.

Dr. KISTIABOWSKY. Mr. Daddario, you have other questions?

Mr. DADDARIO. Mr. Rumsfeld.

Mr. RUMSFELD. Yes. To go back to Dr. Weinberg's comment, and

I would paraphrase him, and if I am inaccurate I hope you will say

so, but, as I recall, you indicated a little distress about the lack of

communication or the apparent present inability to get maximum

value in a communication between a Federal center and an educational institution in the same general geographic area. Is this correct ?

Dr. WEINBERG. It is even more specific than that. That is, there

is no legal basis for allowing people in the Federal institutions to

spend some of their time teaching in the neighboring universities.

That is a specific problem that I had in mind.

Mr. RUMSFELD. This is specifically what you meant when you said

there are even some current regulations or provisions which forbid

this?

Dr. WEINBERG. Yes. I think Congress could do a great deal to

help.

Mr. RUMSFELD. This is interesting because, as most of the members

of this committee recall, we have heard unlimited testimony from a

variety of people who have urged the *location of these centers near

these institutions solely on the basis that there was this communication and that this would be the case. If it is not the case, I think it is

disturbing, at least to this one member.

Dr. WEINBERG. Well, I think that in those cases where the institution is an integral part of the university, for historical reasons like,

for example—

Mr. RUMSFELD. You mean the centers?

Dr. WEINBERG. The centers historically and traditionally have been

part of the universities, and where this is so there is no difficulty.

But most of these centers that have been established throughout the

South, Appalachia, New Mexico, and so on, the connection with the

universities is very much more remote, and there I think there are

difficulties in making this exchange between the university and the

federally run institution.

Mr. RUMSFELD. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. It is a matter of geography?
NAS-PANEL ON BASIC RESEARCH & NAT'L. GOALS 23

Dr. WEINBERG. Geography, yes, but also administrative relations,

that is the Government isn't very convinced that Government money

should be used by these people to help in the educational process.

Mr. DADDARIO. Dr. Kistiakowsky, I wonder if there are any remarks members of the panel would like to make without being

prompted by any questions—things that they as individuals may have

on their minds.

Dr. KISTIAKOWSKY. I would now like to ask those members of the

panel who have had no chance to say anything to speak. I will start

from the left. Dr. Blinks.

STATEMENT OF DR. LAWRENCE ROGERS BLINKS, STANFORD

UNIVERSITY

Dr. BLINKS. I would like to carry on from what Dr. Weinberg said

and some of the questions directed toward him. I feel there has been

a historic and a good reason for establishing many of the research

laboratories under Government auspices in universities because, of

course, the centers of scientific activity were already established and

there were also students. I would like to urge that these are just as

important a part of the universities and of scientific dovelopment as

the teachers. Students are good for teachers and students ought to

be good for researchers who don't have the chance to teach. I would

urge, therefore, that these bright young people be given a chance to

ask questions in the already excellent scientific centers which the Government does support, and I think the advantage would be not only

for the students but also for the researchers themselves. These people

are very stimulating to have around, including undergraduates.

I have recently had some experience with that at a small research

laboratory where I work, and it has been perfectly amazing how these

people have stimulated us.

Dr. KISTIAKOWSKY. Dr. Kayseri..

STATEMENT OF DR. CARL KAYSEN, HARVARD UNIVERSITY

Dr. KAYSEN. Thank you.

I would like to emphasize two points that are related to the question

that you, Congressman Daddario, asked, and to Dr. Weinberg's comment upon it. The question was, what is the argument for the Federal

Government supporting basic research over and above the basic research done by mission-oriented agencies? I think this is a very

important question.

I want simply to add some further emphasis and perhaps a slightly

different viewpoint in agreeing with what has been said. I would

emphasize the great uncertainty of the contribution that basic research

or new scientific knowledge will make to any applied problem. It is

uncertain just what the nature of the contribution will be, it is uncertain how soon it will be realized, it is uncertain what kind of applied

effort will best take advantage of the new knowledge. And I think

that, just as the business firm tends to concentrate its research expenditures on applied goals or new products or new processes which are

relatively near in the future, and to give relatively little effort to gen-
24 NAS—PANEL ON BASIC RESEARCH & NAT'L. GOALS

eral basic research support, the payoff from which is distant, the

mission-oriented agency tend § to have, to some extent, the same kind

of built-in shortsightedness.

I use the word "shortsightedness," but I think there is a sense in

which the mission-oriented agency ought to have this shortsightedness.

Its primary job is to get the mission done. And this seems to me to

argue that, just as we take the view—I take the view and some of my

colleagues here do—that the Federal Government as a whole has an

obligation in the national interest to support science over and above

the extent to which it would be supported out of private finance—that

is, supported by business enterprise, within the Federal Government

a parallel kind of argument leads to the conclusion that the National

Science Foundation or some agency like it ought to have a responsibility to support basic science for its own sake, not for the sake of

a particular mission or oriented agency.

I would not, however, conclude from this that all support of basic

science should be funded through a single basic science agency. I

think a combination, in which mission-oriented agencies support that

which seems to them of most interest to their missions, at the same

time that an agency like the National Science Foundation can support

that which seems most interesting to science—to scientists from their

,own point of view—is a desirable combination.

My judgment, and it is a personal judgment because information

in this respect is not very great and our experience is pretty brief,

would be that at present the National Science Foundation is too small

and the mission-oriented agencies relatively too large in terms of the

share of funding of basic research that is allocated to each of them.

Dr. KISTIAKOWSKY. Before I turn to the next speaker, I remember,

Dr. Kaysen, that you are quite upset about a very amusing misprint

That crept into your paper and you would like to correct it for the

record.

Dr. KAYSEN. Yes, thank you very much; I certainly would like to

'correct that. On page 150 there is a sentence which says:

Our experience in World War II showed the tremendous reliance placed on

so-called scientists.

I meant to say, and wrote in my manuscript, "placed on so-called

pure scientists in military research and development."

The point here was to emphasize that a great deal of the first-rate

applied science during the war was done by people who were formerly

pure scientists.

Dr. KISTIAKOWSKY. Dr. Pfa,ffmann will you discuss here what has

recently begun to be called behavioral sciences? You can tell us all

why we do what we do. Would you like to say something?

STATEMENT OF DR. CARL PFAFFMANN, BROWN UNIVERSITY

Dr. PFAFFMANN. Yes; I would like to answer that point by indicating that I have been the proponent, in an otherwise largely physical,

natural, biological sciences group, of behavioral sciences, and in speaking on behalf of this, with my essay in this document, I wanted to

make the point that, although there have been or could be many statements that we have major problems in this area, we need more concern

for behavioral sciences, I wanted to examine the justification for this
NAS-PANEL ON BASIC RESEARCH & NAT'L. GOALS 25

kind of support in terms of its scientific merit. This is a report concerned with basic research, and therefore I was thinking of the basic

research aspect of behavioral and social science.

However, several of the earlier speakers mentioned the intimate

relation between basic and applied research, and I am sure Dr. Weinberg—since he includes biology as an applied science—would say there

is no such thing as basic social or behavioral science. But there is an

important distinction which can be made, I think, in terms of what the

studies are being focused on.

As a matter of fact, before the National Government became so

important a supporter of the traditional base, pure sciences, it had a

very big stake in the support of behavioral sciences, or social sciences,

as it was more typically known. The work in economic and business

statistics, the work of the Census Bureau and a good many other agencies, really have considerable applied support the studies to answer

specific questions were very significantly supported by the Federal Government. But these are really mission-directed studies. They are

aiming to aid agencies in getting their tasks accomplished. With the

development of the support of scientific work for its own sake—and

you look at the National Science Foundation reports—you find that

the behavioral and social sciences are always very low in the 'percentages of dollar support. And there is the problem of satisfactorily

explaining how some of the psychological or behavioral sciences studies do relate to practical needs. The problem is to try to get some of

these studies away from the applied and practical situation in order

to approach the related problems in a more disinterested or objective

way. Typical of the present period is the increasing sophistication

and scientific character of the behavioral sciences.

I am the spokesman in this group for considering this particular

phase of the general scientific enterprise. Now,we are not in a position yet to come up with the specifics of what the support in these

areas ought to be. The planning reports that Dr. Kistiakowsky mentioned would be a means of getting a much more valid and focused

estimate of what the support in this area should be like. Thus, my

essay is primarily a presentation of the situation. The fact is support

not only for research but also for training in these areas is an important component of the overall Federal support of science.

Dr. KISTIAKOWSKY. Mr. Hechler.

Mr. HECHLER. I would just like to say that I am pleased it is not

only Members of Congress that are interested in their own districts.

rLaughter.]

Dr. KISTIAKOWSKY. Sir, that is universal.

Dr. Verhoogen.

STATEMENT OF DR. JOHN VERHOOGEN, UNIVERSITY OF

CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY

Dr. VERHOOGEN. Mr. Chairman, we have heard a great deal this

morning about pure and applied research and pure and applied

science. I actually dislike that distinction because I don't see where

the lines can be drawn between the two.

But if we have to make a distinction between applied and pure,

then I think it can be said that we cannot have good applied science
26 NAS-PANEL ON BASIC RESEARCH & NAT'L. GOALS

without having good pure science. We have been told that we now

have leadership in pure science. I would just like to point out, in

connection with the growth in pure science and the leadership in pure

science, the fact that the curve pointing out the growth of pure science

is exactly parallel to the growth of the funding of pure science by

Congress.

Dr. KISTIAKOWSKY. Thank you.

Dr. Willard.

STATEMENT OF DR. JOHN E. WILLARD, UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN

Dr. WILLARD. Since one typographical error has been called to

the committee's attention I would like to mention one other. On

page 299 of my section there is in the top line a number, 0.5 million.

This should read 0.5 billion. It appears a little more reasonable, I

think.

There have been a number of comments on the subject of the reason

for supporting basic research outside of mission-oriented agencies.

I would just like to add a little further emphasis to the training aspect

of basic research in universities.

Here, as you all know, research and training go hand in hand.

The graduate student is acting as an apprentice in research, learning

to do it while doing it, and so money invested in basic research in

the universities is achieving a twofold end.

Part of this end is supplying people to teach in the developing

institutions. I believe with others on the Panel that it is only by

making the most of our capabilities in the now strong institutions

for training people of excellent quality that we can hope to build

up the institutions which should, grow. This growth cannot be legislated; it has to be a slow evolutionary process built on quality personnel made available by training in the institutions that are now

capable of this training.

And I would like to make just one comment with respect to the

national laboratories; their educational potentialities have been emphasized. I would like to say that in my experience a number of

these that are now associated in an informal fashion with universities

serve as very valuable sites of specialized equipment and facilities

that graduate students, faculty, and postdoctoral people can use to

augment what is available in the universities. Thus these centers

of specialized equipment are currently of great importance.

I would add with respect to the national laboratories that, in my

mind, one of their greatest potentialities in contributing to education

is in educating people at the postdoctoral level after they have had basic training in the universities. And as a chemist I would return

to the point of the training of applied scientists with just special

reference to the field of chemistry. I believe that in round numbers

some 75 percent, 70 to 75 percent, of the Ph. D.'s trained in chemistry 

industry.

In 

into 

this particular discipline the transfer from the basic science training of the university to the applied science work of industry is

good. This has built up over many years. Possibly there is a trend

continuing into the other sciences, physics, and other areas, as there is more demand in industry along the same line.
NAS-PANEL ON BASIC RESEARCH & NAT'L. GOALS 27

Thank you.

Dr. KISTIAHOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I am very glad that we have

completed our presentation by emphasing the inextricable and vital

connection between higher education and scientific research. And

with this, we stand ready to answer further questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Doctor, I want to thank you and Dr. Seitz and the

members of the Panel for their participation in this work. It has

made a great contribution to the work of this committee. I think

you can understand the position in which this committee finds itself,

being charged with the development and encouragement of science,

when laymen have to talk to scientists. I think more than this, the

-dialog between us has been great, and it indicates that it should be

continued so that we will get to know you better, and you will get to

know us better.

Mr. MOSHER. I think Dr. Pfaffmann has discovered another typographical error.

Dr. PFAFFMANN. Yes, on page 208, line 16, "all out of decreased income," should be "increased income."

The CHAIRMAN. So with that correction, and again thanking you—

Mr. Daddario, have you anything you would like to say?

Mr. DADDARIO. I would just like to add that I am grateful for the

'support this committee of the National Academy has given to us.

This has been a most stimulating morning, which is exceeded only by

the report itself.

I have tried to read through it, and on two or three occasions have

found myself even more activated by what it says. And this is just

-a good indication, I think, of what can be done if people do have

an opportunity to sit down and discuss their own problems together,

and this is only a step in that direction, and I know with your support, Mr. Chairman, that it will be the beginning of much more

activity leading to many more quality papers such as this which can

be of help to the Congress as it comes to its policy decisions.

We all, therefore, are grateful to you for your leadership in this

direction.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I want to pay my compliments to Mr.

Daddario because I turned the committee over to him, and he has

done a wonderful job.

Without further ado, then, we will adjourn.

(Whereupon, at 12:13 p.m., the committee adjourned.)

BIOGRAPHIES

DR. LAWRENCE ROGERS BLINKS

Lawrence Rogers Blinks, biologist, was born in Michigan City, Ind., April 22,

1900. He attended Kalamazoo College, Stanford University, and earned the

S.B. (1923), A.M. (1925), and Ph. D. (1926) at Harvard University. He is a

fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the American Association

for the Advancement of Science, a member of the National Academy of Sciences

(Committee on Science and Public Policy) and a number of other professional

societies. His contributions to professional journals have included papers on

electrohiology, permeability of cells, photosynthesis, and algal physiology. Dr.

Blinks is currently director of the Hopkins Marine Station of Stanford

University.

DR. HENDRIK WADE BODE

Hendrik Wade Bode, research engineer, was born at Madison, Wis., December

24, 1905. He received his B.A. (1924) and M.A. (1926) at Ohio State University

and the Ph. D. at Columbia University (1935). Dr. Bode received the Presidential Certificate of Merit, 1948. He is a fellow of the Institute of Radio Engineers, the American Physical Society, the American Mathematical Society, and

a member of the National Academy of Sciences. Dr. Bode holds patents in the

fields of electric circuit theory and military devices. He is author of a book on

electric network theory and feedback-amplifier design, and has published a

number of technical papers in his fields of research. Dr. Bode is presently vice

president of military development and systems engineering of the Bell Telephone

Laboratories, and a director of Bellcomm, Inc.

DR. HARVEY BROOKS

Harvey Brooks, physicist, was born in Cleveland, Ohio, August 5, 1915. He

earned his A.B. at Yale (1937), engaged in graduate study at Cambridge University (1937-38) and received his Ph. D. from Harvard (1940). He is a member of the President's Science Advisory Committee, the Naval Research Advisory

Committee, the National Science Board. He received the Ernest Orlando Lawrence Award in 1960. Dr. Brooks is a fellow of the American Physical Society

and holds memberships in the American Nuclear Society, the Acoustical Society

of America, and the National Academy of Sciences. He is editor-in-chief of the

Journal of the Physics and Chemistry of Solids and author of numerous technical

papers. He is now dean of engineering and applied physics, Harvard University.

DR. HARRY GORDON JOHNSON

Harry Gordon Johnson, economist, was born May 26, 1923, in Toronto, Ontario.

His academic degrees include B.A. (1943) and M.A. (1947), Toronto; B.A. (1946),

M.A. (1951) Cambridge; fellow, King's College (1950-56) ; M.A. (1948) , Ph. D.

(1958), Harvard; M.A. (1960) Manchester. He is a member of the American

Economics Association, Canadian Political Science Association, Royal Economics

Society, Economics Study Society. He is editor of the Journal of Political

Economics and is professor of economics, University of Chicago.

29
30 NAS—PANEL ON BASIC RESEARCH & NAT'L. GOALS

DR. ARTHUR KANTROWITZ

Arthur Kantrowitz, physicist, was born October 20, 1913, in New York City,.

He received the B.S. (1934), the M.A. (1936) and the Ph. D. (1947) from Columbia University. He is a member of the American Physical Society, the

International Academy of Astronautics, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. His contributions to profesional journals have included papers on gas dynamics, shock

waves, and magne,ohydrodynamics. Dr. Kantrowitz is director of Avco-Everett

Research Laboratory, and vice president and director of the Avco Corp.

DR. CARL KAYSEN

Carl Kaysen, economist, was born March 20, 1920, in Philadelphia, Pa. He

holds the A.B. from the University of Pennsylvania (1940) and the M.A. (1947)

and Ph. D. (1954) from Harvard University. His public service posts include:

Deputy Special Assistant to President Kennedy for National Security Affairs;

Consultant to the Departments of Commerce, Defense, Justice, and the Civil

Defense Administration. He is a member of the American Economics Association, the Econometric Society and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

Professor Kaysen is associate dean of the faculty of public administration,.

Harvard University.

DR. GEORGE B. KISTIAKOWSKY

George Bogdan Kistiakowsky, chemist, was born in Kiev, Russia, November 18,.

1900. He holds the Ph. D., University of Berlin (1925) and the D. Sc., Harvard

(1955). He was Special Assistant to the President of the United States forScience and Technology, 1959-61, and member of the President's Science Advisory

Committee, 1957-61. His professional memberships include the Royal Society

of London, the American Chemical Society, the National Academy of ,Sciences ;

he is chairman of the latter's Committee on Science and Public Policy. He haspublished papers on chemical kinetics, photochemical reactions, shock and detonation waves and enzymatic reactions. He is now professor of chemistry,

Harvard University.

DR. SAUNDERS MACLANE

Saunders MacLane, mathematician, was born August 4, 1909, in Taftville,

Conn. His academic degrees include the Ph. B., Yale (1930), the A.M., University of Chicago (1931), and the D. Phil., Goettingen, Germany (1934). He

is a member of several professional societies, including the American Mathematical Society, the American Philosophical Society, Sigma Xi, the Association

for Symbolic Logic, and the National Academy of Sciences (Council 1958-62).

He is author of one book and coauthor of another, a contributor to professional

journals, and has held editorial posts with several distinguished mathematical

journals. Dr. MacLane is professor of mathematics, University of Chicago.

DR. CARL PFAFFMANN

Carl Pfaffmann, psychologist, was born May 27, 1913, in Brooklyn, N.Y. He

received the Ph. B (1933), and the M.A. (1935) from Brown University, the

B.A., from Oxford University (1937) and the Ph. D. from Cambridge University

(1939). Dr. Pfaffmann is a fellow of the American Psychological Association,

a member of the Society of Experimental Psychologists, the American Physiological Society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and

the National Academy of Sciences. He is now professor of psychology, Brown

University.
NAS—PANEL ON BASIC RESEARCH & NAT'L. GOALS 31

DR. FREDERICK SEITZ

Frederick Seitz, physicist, was born in San Francisco, Calif., on July 4, 1911. He graduated from Stanford University with an A.B. degree in mathematics in 1932. He earned a Ph. D. in physics at Princeton University in 1934. In 1965 he

was elected to serve a 6-year term as the first president of the National Academy of Sciences to serve on a full-time basis. He had been serving as President of the Academy since 1962.

He was science adviser to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, 1959-60. 'le- is a member, President's Science Advisory Committee; member, President's Com- mittee on the National Medal of Science; Chairman, Defense Science Board, De- partment of Defense; member, Advisory Board to the Industrial College of theArmed Forces; member, Naval Research Advisory Committee (Chairman, 1960- 62), Office of Naval Research; member, Scientific Advisory Group, Office of Aerospace Research; member, Statutory Visiting Committee for the National:

Bureau of Standards.

He is vice president of the International Union of Pure and Applied Physics;

a member, Governing Board of the American Institute of Physics; and a member, Council of the American Physical Society (president, 1960-61).

DR. EDWARD TELLER

Edward Teller, physicist, was born January 15, 1908, in Budapest, Hungary.. He received his Ph. D. from the University of Leipzig, Germany (1930). He is

a member of the Scientific Advisory Board of the U.S. Air Force; he was as- sociated with the Manhattan District of Columbia University and was Assistant Director, Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory, 1949-51. He holds fellowships in the American Nuclear Society and the American Physical Society, and is a mem- ber of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the American Ordnance As- sociation, and the National Academy of Sciences. He is coauthor of two books, "The Structure of Matter and Our Nuclear Future," ttnd author of "The Legacyof Hiroshima" and "The Reluctant Revolutionary." Dr. Teller is now AssociateDirector of the Lawrence Radiation Laboratory, University of California.

DR. JOHN VERHOOGEN

John Verhoogen, geophysicist, was born February 1, 1912, in Brussels, Bel- gium. He received a degree in mining engineering, University of Brussels (1933), another in geological engineering, University of Liege (1934), and the Ph. D. Stanford University (1936). Dr. Verhoogen is a member of the International

Association of Volcanology, the American Geophysical Union, the Geological

Society of America, and the National Academy of Sciences. He has authored

books as well as journal articles on petrology, volcanology and geophysics. He is professor of geology and geophysics, University of California.

DR. ALVIN M. WEINBERG

Alvin Martin Weinberg, physicist, was born April 20, 1915, in Chicago, Illi- nois. He holds the A.B. (1935), the A.M. (1936) and the Ph. D. (1939) from

the University of Chicago. He was a member of the President's Science Ad- visory Committee, 1960-62. Dr. Weinberg received the Atoms for Peace Award

(1960). He is a member of the American Nuclear Society and the National_ Academy of Sciences. He is Director, Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
32 NAS—PANEL ON BASIC RESEARCH & NAT'L. GOALS

DR. JOHN E. WILLARD

John Ela Willard, physical chemist, was born October 31, 1908, in Oak Park,

Ill. He held the S.B., Harvard (1930), and the Ph. D., University of Wisconsin

(1935). •He was a member of the Physical Chemistry Panel, Office of Naval

Research (1948-50), and the Panel on Basic Research and Graduate Education

of the President's Science Advisory Committee (1959-60). He is a member of

the American Chemical Society, the American Physical ,SOciety, and the Radiation Research Society. His professional publications include papers on the

chemical effects of nuclear transformations, radiation chemistry and photochemistry. Dr. Willard is presently professor of chemistry, University of Wisconsin.

1111 111111111

A11600 765257