.s 2,: 94-1/6

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

1976 POSTURE HEARING

GOVERNMENT

Storage

M F rvr 7.1

AtiGi 3 197t HEARING

THE LIE3i-RARY BEFORE THE

KANSAS STATE UNIVERS!

611IMITTEE ON

SCIENCE. AND TECHNOLOGY

U.S. HOUSE i0F REPRESENTATIVES

NINETY-FOURTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

FEBRUARY 5, 1975

[No. 8]

Printed forthe.use ofthe

Committee on Science and Technology

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

48-153 WASHINGTON : 1976

A
" • r •••• • ..!4.

a y

COMMITTEE ON

OLIN E;

KEN HECFILER, West Virginia

THOMAS N. DOWNING, Virginia

DON FUQUA, Florida

JAMES W. SYMINGTON, Missouri

WALTER FLOWERS, Alabama

ROBERT A. ROE, New Jersey

MIKE McCORMACK, Washington

GEORGE E. BROWN, JR., California

DALE MILFORD, Texas

RAY THORNTON, Arkansas

JAMES H. SCHEUER, New York

RICHARD L. OTTINGER, New York

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

PHILIP H. HAYES, Indiana

TOM HARKIN, Iowa

JIM LLOYD, California

JEROME A. AMBRO, New York

CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut

MICHAEL T. BLOUIN, Iowa

TIM L. HALL, Illinois

ROBERT (BOB) KRUEGER, Texas

MARILYN LLOYD, Tennessee

JAMES J. BLANCHARD, Michigan

TIMOTHY E. WIRTH, Colorado

JOHN L. SWIGERT, Jr., Executive Director

HAROLD A. GOULD, Deputy Director

LEON F. DROZD, Jr., Chief Clerk

JAMES E. WILSON, Technical Consultant

PHILIP B. YEAGER, Counsel

FRANK R. HAMMILL, Jr., Counsel

J. THOMAS RATCHFORD, Science Consultant

WILLIAM G. WELLS, Jr., Technical Consultant

JOHN D. HOLMFELD, Science Policy Consultant

THOMAS N. TATE, Technical Consultant and Counsel

RALPH N. READ, Technical Consultant

ROBERT C. KETCHAM, Technical Consultant and Counsel

L. KIRK HALL, Technical Specialist

CARL SWARTZ, Minority Staff

MICHAEL A. SurERATA, Minority Staff Counsel

WILLIAM G. CARTER, Publications Clerk

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

TEAGUE, Texas, Chairman

CHARLES A. MOSHER, Ohio

ALPHONZO BELL, California

JOHN JARMAN, Oklahoma

JOHN W. WYDLER, New York

LARRY WINN, JR., Kansas

LOUIS FREY, JR., Florida

BARRY M. GOLDWATER, JR., California

MARVIN L. ESCH, Michigan

JOHN B. CONLAN, Arizona

WILLIAM M. KETCHUM, California

GARY A. MYERS, Pennsylvania

DAVID F. EMERY, Maine
CONTENTS

WITNESSES

February 5, 1975: Page. Dr. 

Dr. 

H. Guyford Stever, Director, National Science Foundation 3

Norman Hackerman, Chairman, National Science Board 5

Dr. H. Guyford Stever (continuation of prepared statement) 10

(m)
I
9

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

1976 POSTURE HEARING

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 1975

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE' AND TECHNOLOGY,

Washington, D.C.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 p.m., in room 2318,

Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Olin E. Teague (chairman of

the committee), presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order.

As all committee members are aware, the National Science Foundation has come within the purview of this committee ever since the committee was formed in 1959'. We have also had responsibility for authorizing the Foundation's budget on an annual basis since the 196S:

Amendments Act which partially revised the Foundation's charter.

This afternoon we are meeting primarily in the latter capacity, to

begin hearings on the programs, plans and budget of the Foundation for

fiscal year 1976.

The hearings today will be general in nature, but they will be pursued in depth by the Subcommittee on Science, Research and Technology—chaired by Mr. Symington—in .the'near future.

I am happy to be able to welcome this afternoon the Director of

the National Science Foundation, Dr. Guy Stever. Dr. Stever is well

known to many of us, having served as an adviser to this committee

on aeronautical and other matters in the past., He is a former Dean of

Engineering at MIT and came to the Foundation after serving for a.

number of years as President of Carnegie-Mellon University. He is

also the President's Science Adviser and has served in that capacity

since July 1 1973.

It is also my pleasure to welcome the Chairman of the National

Science Board, Dr. Norman Hackerman, who is President of Rice

University. The Board, of course, serves as the policymaking body

for the Foundation and we shall be hearing some of its viewpoints

very shortly from Dr. Hackerman. Dr. Hackerman, Chairman of the

National Science Board, will be presented by a former member of our

committee, Mr. Bob Casey.

Mr. CASEY. Mr., Chairman, I am indeed pleased and privileged

that you invited me to have the honor of introducing one of my most

prominent constituents and informed friends. This is his first appearance before this committee and his appearance, of course, is in his

capacity as Chairman of the National Science Board.

Dr. Norman Hackerman is a man that we can all admire. He

took his undergraduate and graduate work at Johns Hopkins, as he

says, back in the days when it was tough to get an education. He had

(1)
2

to have something on the ball to get into that closed school as you

know, Mr. Chairman. He has proven that he does have a lot to offer

to our country.

He has majored, of course, in chemistry, and he has been an instructor in several institutions of higher education. And not only

that, he has also been in the private industry field. So he has seen

both sides of the coin.

He first became prominent in Texas as President of the University

of Texas at Austin, having started out at the University of Texas,

though, as an instructor and professor in the chemistry department.

Ile became President of the University of Texas in 1967.

In 1968, President Johnson appointed him as a member of the

National Science Board. Rice University, though not as large as the

University of Texas, is considered to be of tremendous, high caliber

in its faculty- and students. In 1970 they sought out Dr. Hackerman

and prevailed upon him to come to Rice University where he has been

since 1970 and still is President of that fine institution. We in Houston

are very proud of the people that are trained there, particularly in the

scientific field.

Now, Dr. Hackerman served on the board since 1968, and was

reappointed by President Ford last year. Upon his reappointment,

his colleagues on the Board elevated him to Chairman of the Board

and, Mr. Chairman, I think you are going to find that working with

Dr. Norman Hackerman is not only going to be a pleasure, but a

stimulating experience, and he is going to be of great assistance to

your committee and to this country- in its goal of broadening our

broad-base of scientific achievement in the present era in which we

find ourselves.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Bob.

Dr. Hackerman, we are very pleased to have you before our committee for the first time and I am sure it won't be the last time.

I am going to recognize Dr. Stever, and then come back to you.

[A biography of Dr. H. Guyford Stever is as follows:]

DR. H. GITYFORD STEVER

Dr. H. Guyford Stever assumed the post of Director of the National Science

Foundation on February 1, 1972. In addition to his duties as NSF Director, he

has been named Science Adviser and Chairman of the Federal Council for Science

and Technology by the President. He also serves as Chairman of the Energy

R&D Advisory Council; Chairman of the Technical Advisory Committee on

Research and Development, National Power Survey, Federal Power Commission;

U.S. Chairman of the U.S.-U.S.S.R. Joint Commission on Scientific and Technical

Cooperation; and Chairman of the Board of Governors of the U.S.-Israel Binational Science Foundation. He serves on a number of additional committees,

including the National Science Board and the President's Committee on the

National Medal of Science.

Born in Corning, New York in 1916, Dr. Stever received his A.B. from Colgate

University in 1938 and his Ph.D. in Physics from California Institute of Technology in 1941. He has received 12 honorary degrees and other honors, including

the President's Certificate of Merit in 1948.

Prior to his appointment as NSF Director, Dr. Stever had served as President

of Carnegie-Mellon University and, before that, Carnegie Institute of Technology,

since 1965. During his presidency, Carnegie Tech merged with Mellon Institute

to form Carnegie-Mellon University, with a total endowment of almost $120,000,-

000. Before going to Carnegie Tech, Dr. Stever served on the MIT faculty for more

than 20 years, including the positions of Head of the Departments of Mechanical

Engineering, Naval Architecture, and Marine Engineering. He is an internationally

known expert on aeronautical engineering and space technology.
3

Among other organizations, Dr. Stever is a member of the National Academy

.of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Aeronautical Sciences,

American Physical Society, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics,

and Phi Beta Kappa. He is married to the former Louise Risley Floyd and has

four children.

STATEMENT OF DR. K. GUYFORD STEVER, DIRECTOR, NSF

Dr. STEVER. Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee and

Mr. Casey.

I am pleased to discuss the National Science Foundation's plans

for fiscal year 1976. Dr. Norman Hackerman, Chairman of the

National Science Board, is with me and, will make a statement a little

later. When I am part way through my testimony, Dr. Hackerman

-will present his statement after which I will complete mine.Incidentally, it just occurred to me when Mr. Casey was introducing Dr.

Hackerman who has served as president of Texas and Rice Universities, that he is the only longhorn—horned owl we know.

Is that correct?

Dr. HACKERMAN. That is correct.

Dr. STEVER. In my statement today, I will give you an overview

of the purposes of NSF and describe our plans for the coming year

including the Foundation's posture on basic research, applied research, and science education in the context of the overall Federal

program.

Mr. Chairman, I believe all Americans share the hope that the

Nation's science and technology enterprise will be equal to the tasks

and challenges that confront us. Scientific knowledge provides a

powerful tool to deal with a broad range of problems affecting society,

both now and in the future, including the unforeseeable as well as

those we can predict. Increased scientific knowledge and understanding

are the driving forces behind our program.

I would first like to comment about the character and responsibilities

of the Foundation.

We consist of the National Science Board, the Director, and a staff

of almost 1,300 persons. We are fortunate to have the help and advice

in our decisions of considerably more than 10 times that number of

scientists throughout the Nation. The Board is the policymaking

body of the Foundation and is made up of 25 Presidential appointees

including the NSF Director. There are other Presidential appointees

in the National Science Foundation, and I believe some of them are here.

Dr. Creutz, Assistant Director for Research; Dr. Paige, Assistant

Director for Education and Acting Deputy Director are here and I

believe, Dr. Hughes is in Israel, substituting for me as Vice Chairman of the Israel-United States Bi-National Science Foundation

with Israel.

• Today, as the Foundation approaches its 25th birthday, we play

a key role in the Federal support of basic research and the Federal

use of scientific knowledge. It is interesting to recall that, when the

Foundation began, there was some question as to how permanent the

agency might be. Some supporters felt that building a permanent

building for NSF would not be wise and besides, as one put it, "it

would take too much time to draft plans."

By the way, I believe that quotation is from Dr. James B. Conant,

the former President of Harvard, and the first Chairman of the National Science Board.
f.miht say that we havO never found dine. tO: draft those plans;

w e are now rocated in leased SPace...

The Foundation_ has,broact.responsibility for the,support of science.

The National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended-, and. title

IX of tlae,National..Defen.se_Education Act, authorize and direct the

Foundation. to- initiate- and- support - •

Basic ,research to strengthen the Nation's, research potential

in all the sciences and engineering; •

Applied research at academic, and other nonprofit institutions

and,. to a lesser extent, profitmakinc,

b

institutions;.

Science education programs at, all levels;

Fellowships for science, and engineering,;

Scientific activities relating to inteimational cooperation;

Science information. activities;

Research designed to: appraise the impact of R. & D. on

industrial development and the general welfare; and

Studies and other efforts aimed at gathering scientific and

technical data pertinent to national science poliey decisionmaking.

These are our assigned tasks.- We have a few .others, too, in the

fine print, but tliese.are the Major ones. .

.1-Tow shall - we do this job? These are challenging times for the N';.-1 fion.. -

As the President has indicated, the Nation must unravel very complicated problems in the economy, energy, the environment, and many

other areas. I will not dwell on these problems here today, but ,must

emphasize that it is clear that science and technology will plty an

iinportant role in resolving many of -them. The Federal budget for

fiscal year 1676 reflects this and includes a, strengthened ,,program for

the NatiOnat Science Foundation. The Foundation, of' course, is just

one part of the total, Federal Science picture.

Among the major items in the President's R. & D. program for

fiscal-year 1976 are briefly:

A total of $21.6 billion for the conduct of Federal R. & Di., up by

more than 15 percent over the fiscal,year 1975-lever - of $18.8 billion.

$7.3 billion .of the Federal' total: is for civilian R. & an increase

of 12 percent over the fiscal year 1975- program. About 25 percent of

this is for energy-related • R. & a with other majorefforts in health,

agriculture, environment, transportation, housing, and urban

problems:

About $225 billion is for R. & D: at colleges and universities, an

increase of- about $110, million from the fiscal. year 1975 level.

Even though we are experiencing economic stress,, the proposed

budget reflects the fact that our investments in science require

continuity. Funds for research and development are substantially

strengthened.. In particular, this is reflected- in the proposed programs

of the National Science Foundation which would. rise from $697.1

million in fiscal year 1975 to $775.4 million in fiscal year 1976. Over

the period.from fiscal' year 1969 to fiscal, year 1975, the Foundation's

share of total Federal bask research has grown from about 12 percent

to more than 19 percent'. That is in the last 6' years. Mr. Chairman,.

all Federal agencies need programs of basic research- that can help

them achieve their mission objectives over the long term. The

Federal R. & D. program of' fiscal year 1976. makes a step toward

accomplishinc,

b

this objective by increasing the research programs of

nearly all' Federal agencies:
5

In my view, t4bre is now A reasonably good balance in tile total reearch funding resp94sibili4es,ass1gned ,to the various Federal agencies

including NSF and tbfis balance should be niaintained, recognizing

:that baslic rescitirch• sho,uld continue to be strengthened.

Before going into a more detailed discussion of NSF programs, I

would like (to 4:14 for the views of py. Norman Hackerman, chairman

of the National Science Board an4 president of Rice kini\;ersity in

Houston, Tex.

The CHAIRNI4N. Pr. 'Jacket-man.

[A biography of Dr. :Norman ilackervan is as follows:]

DR. NORMAN IACK11MAN

Bern Baltimore, Maryland, March 2, 1912;. ,son ,of Jacob and Anna (Raffel)

lilackerinan; married C,Tene ljisoii Coulbourn, August 25, 1940; ,children—Pa- , •

trichi (;zde, Stephen Sally, .160erine.

A.-B., Johns Hopkins University, 1932, Ph.D., -1935.

Assistant professckr

'

Loyola ,College, •Baltirriore, 1935-39; research chemist,

:Conoid.CorptFMion, )1910749; chemist, u,s. (.;oast Guard, Staten Island, •1939-4i1

assistant professor, •Virginia Polytechnic ,Institute, ;Blacksburg, 1941-43; research

chemist, Kellex Corporation, 1944; assistant.professor of chemistry, University of

;Texas, 1945-46, associate professor, 1946-59, professor, 1950-70.. chairman of

department, ,1932-61, director, corrosion research laboratory, 1948L-,61, . dean,

research and sponsored proorams, 1960-61, vice president, provost, 1961-03; ,vice

chancellor lor academic arairs, ,1963-67, president, .1967-70; professor ,of chemistry, William Marsh ,,Rice University, Houston, 1970-- president, 1970-7-;

consuhant in corrosion, 1946--, in surface chemistry, 1948' .

• ,Chairman, ,Gordon Corrosion Research Conference, 1950; chairman, Inter

.Society Corrosion •Committee, .196-,-58;,•chairman, Gordon Research.Conferenee

on Chemistry, 1959. Member, National:Science .Board [1968--,1; chairman, NAtional Science Board, 1974—; chairman ,board of 'trustees , Algol n .VQrsities 15111

Association, -1969 ; board of directors:Gordon:Research-Conferences, 1970-:—.

.Recipient, Whitney award, National Association of fCorrosion Engineers, :1956;

Joseph J. Mattiello Memorial lecturer, Xederatipn of SocIctics of Paint Technology, 1964; Southwest .Regional award, American ,chernical ,,,4ociety, .1963;

Pall iditun medalist, Electrochemical Society, 1965..Fe1low, New York Academy

of Sciences, American Association for the Advancement Of Science; member National Academy of Sciences, American ChemicalSociety (board of editors, 1956-,62;

,executive committee, colloid ,division, 1955-58), :Electrochemical Society (presi-

,dent, 1957-58), Faraday Society, National .Association of ,Corrosion ,Engineers

(director, 1952-53, chairman, committee on education,, Corrosion Research Coincii ); Sigma Xi, Phi ,Lamda Upsilon, Alpha Chi Sigma, 'Phi Kappa 'Phi.

Technical editor, Journal of the -Electroeheniical Society, 1930-68, editor

1969--; interim editor, .Electroehemical Technology, 196o-68 adviser editorial

board. Corrosion Science; editorial. board, Catalysis Reviews.

Home: President's House, William Marsh •Rice. University, Houston, Texas

'77001.

STATEMENT OF DR. NORMAN HACKERMAN, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL

SCIENCE BOARD

HACKERMAN. 'Mr:Chairman and members of the committee:

I want to thank you for this opportunityto testifybefore the'Committee on.Science and Technology in support of the National Science

Foundation program. although I have met .with some.of you on other

occasions, this is my 'first opportunity to address this committee as

Chairman of the National Science Board (NSB). We on the 'Board,

like the members of this committee, want to assure that science

continues to ,contribute fully to the future of .the Nation. For this

reason we have involved ourselves 'fully in helping to develop the

NSF program that ,is included in the President's budget and Which

4S-153-75 2
6

is being presented by Dr. Stever today. We believe that the NSF

programs continue to be responsive to the needs of the Nation, and to

the responsibilities assigned to NSF by the Congress and the administration for the support of a broad range of programs in the basic and

applied sciences and engineering.

Among Federal agencies the National Science Foundation is unique

in its responsibility to make certain that science in all its ramifications

will be of maximum use to the Nation. The Board is particularly

pleased to note that the program plan proposed for fiscal year 1976

includes increases for basic science both in individual research project

support and in the larger research programs and facilities that are

also necessary for fundamental inquiry into our planet, major natural

processes, and the universe. The fundamental programs of basic

research support, awarded on a competitive basis with primary emphasis on research quality and contribution to scientific understanding,

represent key elements in developing the knowledge base that will

be necessary in the future. These programs, combined with NSF programs in problem-oriented research, graduate student support, science

education, and others, represent a balanced effort to increase scientific

understanding and to apply that understanding to meeting national

needs.

I have been on the National Science Board for over 6 years, and I

have never seen a period in which the Board had greater involvement

in the development of the Foundation's program plan than this year.

As Dr. Stever stated, the Board consists of 24 members and the Director

of NSF, appointed by the President upon the advice and consent of

the Senate. These members are selected on the basis of distinguished

records in the sciences, engineering, education, research management,

public affairs

'

or related fields. The present Board represents a broad

cross section from science-related institutions with 15 members from

the academic community, 5 from industry and 4 from nonprofit

research and educational institutions. These members have broad

backgrounds of research in the physical, biological, and social sciences,

in engineering, and in public administration and management. Responsibility rests with the Board to establish policies and provide oversight for the Foundation, to recommend and encourage the pursuit of

national policies for the promotion of basic research and education in

the sciences, and to provide the President and the Congress an annual

report on some aspect of the current status of science and engineering.

NSB activities in these areas have increased significantly since I

first joined the Board, and I anticipate an even greater involvement

in the future. Recognizing the need for change, and in order to meet

its responsibility more effectively, the Board and Dr. H. E. Carter,

who served as Chairman before me, carried out a reorganization and

established several standing committees.

The Committee on Budget, chaired by Dr. Grover E. Murray,

President of Texas Tech University and Texas Tech University

School of Medicine, has been working with the full Board and the

Foundation staff on a continuous basis to develop the fiscal year

1976 plan. Beginning with a session designed to identify and examine

new opportunities and needs, where the Board and staff provided

inputs based on their own expertness and perspective, the ideas were

shaped by interaction of the Board and staff with each other and with

the scientific community, the administration, and the Congress. As a.
7

result, the program NSF is proposing here has the strong support of

the Board.

The Programs Committee of the Board is responsible for coordinating Board oversight and review of Foundation programs. This Committee is chaired by Dr. Joseph M. Reynolds, Boyd Professor of

Physics and vice president for instruction and research at Louisiana

State University. - It reviews for the Board all large NSF awards as

specified in the Foundation Act, as well as other selected awards and

programs. To provide increased Board guidance for new programs and

program elements, this Committee reviews all awards, regardless of

size, until the Board is convinced that the program is firmly established

and operating within the policies established by the Board. Ongoing

programs also may be reviewed by this Committee; for example, 2

years ago the U.S. Antarctic Research program was reviewed by the

Board. The Programs Committee is currently examining Foundation

efforts in energy, the environment, and the social sciences. I mention

the Board's Antarctic program review because I have recently returned

from the Antarctic where I had an opportunity to participate in the

dedication of the new Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station and to

observe first hand the effective research that is being done there.

IMPORTANCE OF INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION IN SCIENCE

One of the most encouraging aspects about the Antarctic is the close

cooperation and support among the scientists of all the nations represented there. Equipment and logistic support are shared as needs

arise, and on many occasions research teams made up of representatives

from several nations pool their efforts and abilities to work on a common problem. As cooperation has become more and more a way of

life, a number of new programs jointly planned and funded by several

nations have been started.

The close cooperation found in the Antarctic has its counterparts

in many other areas of research. As research projects become in-*

creasingly large and complex, and as research on 'global scale" events

continues to grow, international cooperation in science becomes more

important. You will hear from Dr. Stever and others about many of

these programs during the authorization hearings. NSF is playing a

vital role in these activities. I am convinced that these activities will

be even more important in the future and that the NSF role in them

must be maintained.

THE SOCIAL SCIENCES

I would like to discuss the social sciences briefly, since the interaction

of individual and group interests plays a key role in many problemoriented areas of research such as the economy, urban affairs, energy,

and environmental quality.

The Board has been looking at both the directions of the programs

and at some of the types of projects which have been or are being

supported. I believe that the long tradition of high quality research

in the social sciences, both basic and problem oriented, will continue.

Nevertheless, much research remains to be done in this area in developing a solid base of understanding. Therefore, we must continue to

strive for a strong and effective program.
INSTRUMENTATION AND EQUIPMENT

A problem occupying the Board's attention is the need for increased

support for research equipment and instrumentation. With the changes

in funding patterns that occurred in the late 1960's, one response was

.to maintain research teams and programs intact, even at the expense

,of new instrumentation. As a result, in many areas of science, a

significant backlog of obsolete equipment has developed. Meanwhile,

the advances of science have shown the need for increasingly complex

instruments in all fields. In fact, application of instruments, often

originally developed in physics and chemistry, to other fields has led

significant improvement in understanding. Indeed, improvement in

insight in physics and chemistry is also due in no small part to more

sensitive, more precise, and more searching instrumentation. You will

see research instrumentation emphasized in the 1976 budget in

response to these needs. The growth in Foundation support in this

area will help significantly, although it will not fully solve the problem.

MAJOR FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT, AND CENTERS

Since last June, the Foundation has completed a new 4-meter

optical telescope at Cerro Tololo in Chile, and has dedicated the

upgraded radiotelescope facilities at Arecibo, Puerto Rico, and the

new South Pole station mentioned earlier. The Board is currently

examining the need for other facilities as well as the implications that

a further significant trend toward such facilities might have for the

conduct of basic research.

SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL MANPOWER

In an attempt to clarify some of the trends in science and engineering

manpower, the Board through its Manpower Committee sponsored a

.Seminar on Scientific and Technical Manpower Projections in 1974.

The report from this committee is currently being printed. Although

there remains much uncertainty about the accuracy of such projections, it is clear that major problems such as energy

'

environment,

and food production will require large numbers of highly skilled,

flexibly trained people in the years ahead. The Foundation staff, at

the Board's request, is sponsoring studies in a few critical problem

areas to estimate manpower needs. For example, that has been done

in environmental policy.

Educational institutions face the challenge of producing people

with the capability to move from task to task and apply their skills

to new problems and areas of research as they emerge. Institutions

and the Federal Government share the responsibility of insuring an

adequate manpower training program, but one that does not overreact

to short-term trends and problems.

PLANNING AND POLICY ACTIVITIES OF THE BOARD AND BOARD REPORTS

Many of the planning and policy issues are reviewed for the Board

by its Planning and Policy Committee. With Dr. Lloyd M. Cooke,

director of urban affairs and university relations at Union Carbide

Corp. in New York, as chairman, this committee is responsible for
9

examination of major policy issues affecting the Foundation and

science, and for coordination of the Board's longer range planning

acti vitie,s.

As you know, the Board annually reports to the President and the

Congress on the status and health of science. The next report, "Science

and the Challenges Ahead," is currently being printed and will be

available soon. This report examines examples of the contribution of

basic research to societal progress and attempts to identify some of

the specific areas. of science that hold high potential for contributing

to the Solution of today's problems. • •

Another report, "Science Indicators1974," will be the second

edition of .the Science Indicator series begun in 1972. In addition to

updating the data which were developed for the 1972-report, "Science

Indicators-1974" will expand its data base with particular •attention

to indicators of _scientific output. This report will be printed this

spring.

The Board has been concerned with the need for the mission agencies

to maintain active programs in basic research related to their objectives, about which Dr. Stever spoke to you. Basic research provides a.

strong foundation for the applied research and development activities

of Mission agencies; therefore, it Is important to provide for fundamental research programs in the mission agencies as well as in NSF..

The National Science Board views this matter as being vital, and on

October 18, 1974, adopted a resolution' which "* * * encourages

mission agencies of the Federal Government to maintain strong basic

research programs in areas that have the potential of contributing to

their mission objectives over the long term.

This resolution was sent to all the major mission agencies of the

Federal Government. The response has been encouraging. Many of

the agencies have responded to •the Board, expressing appreciation

for the Board's statement. Some have held meetings within their

agencies to examine the problem.

The Board has also established a Committee on National Science •

Policy, with Dr. Frank Press, ehairman, Department of Earth and

Planetary Sciences at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, as

committee chairman. This group has the responsibility to examine

national science policy issues- and to develop recommendations for

the Board and through it for the Foundation, Federal decisionmakers,

and the scientific community. Major national reports, such as the

National Academy of Sciences' December 1973 report entitled "Materials' and Man's Needs," have been studied, as have issues related to.

the formulation and implementation of major policies for science; for

example, chemistry and health. The 'NSF Act assigns to the Boara

and the director responsibility to "*• * * recommend and encourage

the pursuit of national policies for the promotion of basic research and

education in the sciences." I believe that the Board's National: Science

Policy,Commit tee will greatly strengthen this activity.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, this continues to be a time of major

changes for .society and the Nation. These changes will place new and

increased demands on our science, scientists, and scientific inStitmtions.

To meet these demands cooperation must be strengthened among

universities, industry, arid Government to provide a smooth flow of

ideas from basic research into the marketplace. Scientific capability.
10

must continue to grow so that the Nation will have suitable options

for the century ahead. I believe that the program proposed for the

National Science Foundation in fiscal year 1976 is a solid and positive

step toward meeting that goal.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Doctor.

Does anyone have any questions or comments?

Mr. Mosher?

Mr. MOSHER. Mr. Chairman.

Dr. Hackerman, on page 10, I believe you omitted a sentence

which seems to me one of the most interesting sentences in your

report. I wonder if there is any significance?

Dr. HACKERMAN. I omitted that because it was redundant. The

sentence before that says the same thing.

Mr. MOSHER. Current fiscal, social-political, and demographic

trends, if continued, may produce significant shifts toward such

facilities, from the traditional 

Dr. HACKERMAN. Yes; that is entirely possible, and it is important

that we recognize the problem long before it becomes an acute problem.

Mr. MOSHER. Do you want to be a little more specific?

Dr. HACKERMAN. Large installations and large programs do take a

good deal of funding.

Mr. MOSHER. You are talking about budget constraints?

Dr. HACKERMAN. Yes, sir. The nature of the science is such that it

is becoming more complex. The approaches to it may become more

and more team-like and less and less individual. That would follow

a little later.

Mr. MOSHER. You are saying then, in future budgets there may

be a trend toward more funding for these large facilities?

Dr. HACKERMAN. I am saying it would be easy to foresee; yes. And

the Board's province is to make certain that this does not inadvertently

impair the scientific strength of the country.

Mr. MOSHER. OK.

The CHAIRMAN. Further questions?

Dr. Stever.

STATEMENT OF DR. H. GUYFORD STEVER—Continued

Dr. STEVER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

• Our Board Chairman has explained how our policies are developed

and our goals are set. I Will DOW discuss the budget and program for

this year.

As I stated earlier, the Foundation's total proposed budget for

fiscal year 1976 is $775.4 million. This includes $755.4 million in new

obligational authority and $20 million in fiscal year 1975 funds pro-,

posed by the President for deferral to fiscal year 1976.

Most of this—about $680 million, or 88 percent—is for support of

scientific research. This includes scientific research program activity,

five national research centers, research centers, research applied to

national needs, international cooperative scientific activities, the

research portion of science education improvement, and some smaller

science policy- study programs and planning activities. Most of this

88 percent of our budget which goes into research is Conducted by

scientists in the Nation's colleges and universities, with smaller
Ii

amounts being conducted in independent nonprofit organizations

and in industry.

The creative results of research accomplished by U.S. scientists not

only provide for the progress of science, but they also build the

knowledge base needed for improvements in economic growth and

productivity and other important aspects of our national welfare.

Basic and applied research support cuts across most of the Foundation's budget activities, with basic research accounting for about $563

million, or 83 percent of the nearly $680 million in NSF funds earmarked for research support in fiscal year 1976. The remainder, or

17 percent, is for applied research, much of which is concentrated

in the program of research applied to national needs. Incidentally,

since there has been much debate and questions on this in recent

years, the 83-17 percent split between basic research and applied

research is an increase for basic over last year when it was 81 percent

for basic and 19 percent for applied, and that in turn was an increase

for basic over the year before, when it was 79 percent for basic and

21 percent for applied.

Basic research is an essential investment for the Nation's future.

It builds an expanding base of knowledge which: Provides us with

new understanding of how nature works; improves the methods of

measurement which make it possible to recognize changes or threats

to humanity at early stages; and helps prepare the Nation to meet

emerging new and unexpected needs.

Mr. Chairman, let me just add parenthetically to my previous

statement at this point about improving the method of measurement

-which makes it possible to recognize changes or threats to humanity

at early stages. The other day we were having a discussion about the

possible problem of the plural fluorine chemicals, such as freon and

,others, reducing the ozone in the upper atmosphere. This'is a subject

which is very widely talked about today. In the discussion it was

pointed out that the measurement we must make before we know the

answer to that question is one part in ten to the 10th. One molecule

.out of 10 billion. It wasn't many years ago that was beyond the

,capability of science. But our basic work has brought us to the point

where we can now begin to try to measure these things.

Much of the Foundation's applied iiesearch is concentrated in the

program of research applied to national needs. This program is aimed

at selected problems of national concern. Research projects are moved

from the laboratory toward demonstration, field testing, and other

user applications. When research reaches the user phase, RANN

programs and projects are properly the responsibility of other organizations—such as Federal agencies, industries, and State and local

governments.

Solar and geothermal energy research provides a good example of

the RANN program concept in practice. Two years before the energy

crisis forced national attention on alternative energy sources, the

RANN program began to accelerate solar and geothermal energy.

research. This emphasis was motivated by both environmental concerns and the recognition that a broad range of options would be

needed for the Nation's future energy mix. The Foundation participated in the development of Government-wide planning for energy

research and moved the technical nonconventional energy effort

orward vigorously.
12

rMr bliairinan, I would also like to .Say parenthetically, that this

committee and other committees of Congress were fully supportive

Of otti effort and in fact, iirg6d•t0' to be Strohg in this area.

With the creatiOn of the Energy Research and. Development

Administration (ERDA), it beedme timely ftif smooth and quick

transfer of majOr. NSF sblat aittl geothermal energy research respOnsibilities to ERDA. The transfer involved hearly:$52 million, 36

p,edple and 9 additional unfilled positions. The RAN' N -VrOgra.m retain§

a limited energy, research effort On innovative energy alternatives

that might not otherwise be .fully explored.

Again, let me repeat, the Congress, Of Course, played a very major

role by enacting several impertant pieces of energy legislation in

1.974 and in annually authorizing the Foundation's program of research applied to national -needs. I believe that Dr. Eggers and his,

staff and Dr. Teeth Of AEC, aild now at ERDA, and his staff have

done a fitte job in Making this transfer effective. The Whole seqUelice

shOuld give us confidence that the CdfigreSs and the oceentiVe agencies

can work together .effectively to nurture vitally needed science and

Move it tdWard initjor.deveilipMent.

Mr. Chairinati, I have described the Value of both basic and applied

research to the Nation. The table On page 16 Of my testimony summarizes the, Foundation's fiscal year 1976 program loY major budget

activity. In. the .COniiiig aiithOrizatibn stibcOinmittee 'hearings, my

associates and I will discuss the ttital. NSF program - in detail. I Would

nOW like to higtiliot the Major items prbposed for fiscal year 1976

that aecomit for nearly all of the total increase in program.

SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH PROJECT SUPPORT

The $39.4 Million increase proposed for scientific research project

support will extend fundamental scientific knowledge in astronomy,

physics, mathematics, and the other science disciplines and engineering. A prime objective in this area is the strengthening of basic science; much of the incitase will be devoted to advancing our kithwledge

of fundamental processes phenomena, and natural laws, particularly

in physics, chemistry; arid engineering. There will also be increased

etiiiThasis in such areas as catalysis, because of its significance to

iiidustrial processing techniques; agriculture-related work in the biolbgical sciences including plant sciences and biological pest control;

energy-i-elated research on advanced technology, materials, and the

orivir`ohment; and research ifl economic theory and other aspects of

the social Sciences.

NATIONAL AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS,

The major increases in our national and special research programs

are the following: ,

A nonrecurring amount of $18 million for the procurement of two

LC-130R aircraft for the Antarctic research program. These aircraft

are essential to continuing Our science presence-, indeed; our national

presence, in the Antarctic. We also need to increase this program by

nearly, $4 million, ,in part, to coVer the final transfer of logistic costs

from the Pefense Pepartment budget.

A provision of $4 million is included for the climate dynamics program which builds on climate research efforts supported by NSF over
13

tile past seterat years.. There have been indications of possible Major

changes it the -world's climate patterns. These changes, Over tine,

cOuld hate - significant effects On the world's food production and other

matter's of vital iniportanc0 fd the world's population. This national

program is directed to ealilifiati6ii Of short- and long-term 'climate

fluctuations and ways of iniproving our ability to predict climate and

its impacts 'on man.

A $:3.0 Million increase is proposed for the ocean sediment Coring

prOgrani. A number of natiOns •hare expressed their interest in participating in the international phase of ocean driliing—IPOD that iS

scheduled to commence in fiscal year 1976, growing out of the Foundation's deep sea drilling project. The program should increase our

knoWledge Of the processes of Sea floor spreading and the nature and

origin of the Earth's crust,

NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTERS

As the committee is aware, the Foundation provides support for

fiye national research centers, four in astronomy and one in the atmospheric sciences. All are managed and operated by nonprofit groups or

universities under contract to the National Science Foundation.

The proposed increase of nearly $10 million will provide for the

long-planned upgrading of the computer capability, at the National

Center for Atmospheric Research; for operating support for the newly

installed 4-meter telescopes at the Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory in Chile, and the Kitt Peak National Observatory in

Arizona, and for the upgraded radio telescope at the National Astronomy and Ionosphere Center in Arecibo, Puerto Rico.

Let me now discuss the major areas in which the proposed fiscal

year 1976 budget is below our current level.

RESEARCH APPLIED TO NATIONAL NEEDS

The fiscal year 1976 proposed budget for the program of research

applied_ to national needs is $79.5 million. This is $3.2 million less

than the current level, after taking into account the transfer of nearly

$52 million to ERM on ,January 19, 1975. The HANN program confihues to be concentrated on promising opportunities for the use of

scientific knowledge to deal :with current national needs, particularly

th4Ose concerned with the scientific measure of human needs and the

Use of 'social rescarees. In the coining year, we will intensify research

efforts in three important areas of public interest, including productivity, the .environment, ,and resources. me decrease is in energy and

reflects-the transfer 'of major energy responsibilities to ERDA.

SCIENCt EDUCATION

As the table on page 16 indicates, the Foundation's proposed science

education improvement program in fiscal year F97 is significantly,

below the level -authorized for fiscal year 1975. This decreased budget'

level was developed after thorough review within the-highest 4evels of

the Foundation and the 'administration. Most of the reduction occurs

at the precollege level, where the Foundation shares respoasibility

and concern with many groups, both public and private. It reflects the

fact that our first priority, under difficult budget constraints, must be

to maintain the strength of the research enterprise.
14

The committee is well aware that there has been, in recent years, a

difference of view among those who have an interest in science education. Within the Foundation, we have examined our science education

programs and determined the directions which we believe the program

should take in the future. I will not claim that the level of effort

proposed here is the most desirable over the long term. However,

under the budget pressures, I believe it is adequate within the Foundation's priorities. Our report, "The Future of the National Science

Foundation's Science Education Program," which has been furnished

to the committee, and Dr. Paige's testimony at the recent oversight

hearings on science education describe this program. I should point

out that the Foundation's fiscal year 1976 program does provide for

an increase in graduate support for highly talented young people

who have chosen to follow careers in science.

We will work closely with other agencies having responsibilities in

education, and with the Congress to reach an effective implementation

and development of this program. I hope that, in the months ahead,

we can progress toward this goal through a constructive dialog that

will lead to a better understanding on the proper NSF role in this

important area. 

Mr. Chairman, the achievement of national objectives in science

requires a blending of many types of research and science education

efforts. Each makes its own contribution. This is well illustrated by the

variety of contributions of our programs in the field of energy, and a

similar story could be told in a wide range of other areas of national

concern.

The Foundation'stesearch, science education, institutional improvement for science, and other science pr9grams are intended to provide

an effective mix and balance of program activities to meet the Foundation's statutory responsibilities.

Basic science knowledge is essential to the maintenance of a vibrant

and dynamic culture. Man, seeking answers to unresolved questions,

pursuing his curiosity, learning why things behave as they do--this

has provided the sparks that have led to new discoveries. Gallileo,

Newton, DaVinci are joined by such eminent scientists of today as

Watson, Leontieff, and Bardeen who, with a host of others, both

ancient and modern, have brought us to our present state of understanding.

I think we all recognize that science and technology are important

tools to be used for the Nation's benefit. Our past investments in

science have led to:

The technology needed for national security;

Vital contributions to economic growth and productivity;

Important advances in human health care; and

Major improvements in innumerable activities in society that

contribute to the efficiency of social processes and to individual

well-being.

Most of the things that we depend upon in our daily lives would not

be available today but for past scientific research. There is still much

to be learned, and the Foundation's fiscal year 1976 program will

provide opportunities for continuing our ventures in new understanding.
15

Let me summarize the major points that I have made in my statement today which constitute the Foundation's posture for fiscal year

1976.

First, basic research is essential to the Nation's future. It deserves

continuing strong support, through individual projects and through

large-scale programs. It is the central focus of NSF.

Second, the RANN program concept was put to a critical test with

the solar and geothermal energy research programs. The effective

transfer to ERDA demonstrates that the RANN program principle is

sound and deserves continued strong support in exploring new opportunities.

Third, mission agencies of the Federal Government need basic research. It is essential that their programs be strong. I believe that there

is now a reasonably good balance in research funding responsibilities

on a federalwide basis. The mission agencies should continue to be

major supporters of basic research, and

Fourth, the Foundation is committed to strengthening science

education and mill work with interested parties in meeting science

education goals geared to the Nation's requirements and the Foundation's proper role.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my formal statement. Dr. Hackerman

and I will be happy to respond to your questions.

[A summary of budget by program activity is as fo]lows :1

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION, SUMMARY OF BUDGET BY PROGRAM ACTIVITY

Iln millions of dollars]

NSF budget activities

Fiscal year 1975

Difference fiscal

Fiscal year 1976 year 1975-76

Current

Fiscal plan Total New

year net of Plus fiscal obliga- Total

1975 1975 fiscal year tional program

Fiscal program defer- New year 1976 author- increase/

yearfunded rals and obliga- 1975 program ity decrease

1974 by ERDA tional defer- (col. (cols. (colst

actual Congress transfer authority rals 4+5) 4-3) 6-3)

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

Scientific research project

support 289. 8 341. 3 340.6 380.0 380.0 +39. 4 +39.4

National and special research

programs 85.6 87. 2 86. 5 115. 5 0. 5 116.0 +29.0 +29. 5

National research centers_ _ 43.2 52.5 50.4 60.2 2.0 62.2 +9.8 +11.8

International cooperative scientific activities 6. 3 8. 0 8. 0 8.0 8.0 0

Research applied to national

needs 75. 1 142. 1 82.7 71.5 8.0 79.5 -11.2 -3.2

Intergovernmental science

and research utilization 11.5 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 +1.0 +1.0

Institutional improvement for

science 10.0 5. 5 0 0 5. 5 5. 5 0 +5. 5

Graduate student support 13. 0 13. 2 13. 2 14.8 14. 8 +1.6 +1.6

Science education improvement 67.7 65. 1 61.2 50.0 4.0 54.0 -11.2 -7.2

Planning and policy studies 2.6 2.9 2.9 2.7 2.7 -.2 -.2

Science advisory activities 3. 5 6.0 6.0 4.0 4.0 -2.0 -2.0

Program development and

management 31.7 38. 1 38.7 41.7 41.7 +3.0 +3.0

Subtotal, salaries and

expenses appropriation 640.0 763.9 692. 2 751. 4 20. 0 771.4 +59. 2 +79. 2

Special foreign currency appropriation 5.7 4.9 4.9 4.0 4.0 -.9 -.9

Total, NSF 645.7 768.8 697. 1 755.4 20.0 775.4 +58.3 +78.3
16

The CHAIRMAN. Any questions or comments?

Mr. Symington?

Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. Chairman, I simply want to commend Dr..

Stever and his associates for this testimony and the hard work they

have done putting the budget together. Dr. Stever and his colleagues

were kind enough to visit informally with the members of the Subcommittee on Science, Research and Technology. And since I will be

bolding hearings shortly on the NSF authorization, I will defer my

questions at this time and give other members a chance to explore

their concerns.

But I .did want to express my gratitude to the Chair for giving the

full coyninittee this opportunity and to the witnesses headed by Dr.

Stever for giving us such a full and helpful presentation.

Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Mosher?

Mr. IVIosnER. Mr. Chairman, a couple of questions concerning

priorities and I have sort of lost my place here—just a second—I

think it is on page 6—where you are talking about the relative percentage in the budget which goes for basic research, and also, then for

applied research.

I think you made the point that there was a slight improvement in

the percentage for basic research in this current budget, is that correct? In this present fiscal year it was 81 percent as compared to 19.

In the new budget it will be 79 and 21.

Are those percentages figured after taking out the programs that

went to ERDA?

pr. STEVER. Yes, sir.

fact if ERDA hadn't come along in time, we probably wouldn't

have included this in our statement. [Laughter.]

Mr. MosHErt. I was going to say, if those figures were after taking

out for ERDA, you would be kidding us. I hope you weren't trying to

do that?

Dr. STEvER. No, sir. That certainly was not intended. And by the

way., as you know, we were strong supporters of the ERDA legislation, and told the committee that ERDA was very important and

would enable us to transfer developments in solar and geothermal

esearch to them.

Our programs in this area were growing. They were becoming development and demonstration programed and NSF does not have

this in its charter so it was important that ERDA arrive on time for

us.

I am very pleased that on the instant ERDA. was formed, that

transfer took place.

Mr. MosiiEu. Well, the point is, genuinely, in your proposed budget,

basic research has a slight growth in relative terms as compared to

applied?

Dr. STEVER. Yes; it does indeed.

Mr. MOSHER. On page 12, where you speak of the decrease in funds

for education—science education, and you say that this reflects the

fact that our first priorities must be to maintain the strength of research enterprises. Then later you refer to the Foundation's priorities.

I don't know that there is the slightest support for that priority in

your basic charter, in the public law. I have reviewed the public law—

in fact, I have it here in front of me—certainly there is nothing in the,
17

public law that says the Foundation has a priority greater .for basic

research than it does for support of science education. In fact, they

are given certainly in the law, and in your mandate from this Congress—

they are given equal status. 

I realize the cost may vary, but in terms of priority in maintaining

relative positions, I would dispute very strongly that that priority—

that you assert here exists.

Dr. STEVER. Mr. Mosher, I think that is a very good point. I would

like to say something; then, .1 would like to ask Dr. Hackerman to

speak to that.

I agree. We have several children, and it is as hard to talk aboutwho

is your favorite child, as it is to assign a priority in this instance.

'the National Science Foundation, however, has a much stronger

role to play at this time. It is playing a much stronger role in the support of basic research of this Nation—in fact, with respect to the

-university and college basic research, it is a very strong role. We have

a much larger lever arm in basic research than we do in science

education.

There are many organizations contributing to science education.

I do believe NSF over the years has assumed a more important relative

role in basic research for this country than it has i a science education.

Mr. MOSHER. You say the Foundation has assumed?

Dr. STEVER. Yes, sir. And by the way, with the approval of Congress. I did not mean to imply in any sense that we are not interested

in strengthening our science education efforts.

Mr. MOSHER. You say, however, with the approval of Congress.

You know Congress has been sort of growling, kicking, and screaming

each year in giving—reluctantly giving that.

Dr. STEVER. Yes; there are certain elements of Congress that are

in that position, sir. I agree with you.

You also know that we kicked and screamed with respect to some

aspect of this budget. But I do think the committee should note that

NSF does have a -bigger crowbar to lever the basic research program

of this country to a stronger position than it does in the science education field.

Mr. MOSHER. I happen to think you really should argue since so

much of your support in research goes to the universities. You are there

contributing to science education.

Dr. STEVER. Of course.

Mr. MOSHER. As well as in those line items that are science education.

Dr. STEVER. There are many thousands of your research workers

on our basic and applied research who are in fact getting their education in science.

Mr. _MOSHER. I indict you, and then I contribute to your defense.

[Laughter.]

Dr. STEVER. I would like you to hear Dr. Hackerman on that

.subject, sir.

Dr. HACKERMAN. Having been myself through this educational

process and having been involved in it for many years, you can be

sure, Mr. Mosher, I have a very considerable, interest in science

education.
18

But I was going to make the point with which you ended. That is,

that the formal part of the science education is what we are really

talking about. It would be pointless to educate a large number of

people and not have any outlet for them. We want to be sure that the

research activity, aside from its vital importance to this country,

does indeed continue apace of these well-versed, well-educated, and

highly interested young people.

In a real sense, I have no more to say once you made your last

point.

Mr. MOSHER. I will cut off, Mr. Chairman. I only wanted to make

the point for the record that I don't know of anything in the charter

which supports the suggestion that there is a distinction in priorities

here.

Dr. STEVER. May I clarify my testimony for the record?

Mr. MOSHER. Sure.

Dr. STEVER. Thank you.

As you pointed out, Mr. Mosher, much of the Nation's basic research

is carried out in colleges and universities. The Foundation supports a

substantial part of these efforts, accounting for more than 30 percent

of the total Federal support for this purpose. About 500 academic

institutions in all parts of the Nation are participating in NSF-supported research of this type, and more than 10,000 graduate students

and some 15,000 research scientists are engaged in these activities. So

in a real sense our research programs are contributing to science

education.

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Hackerman, do you have additional comments?

Dr. HACKERMAN. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Any further questions?

Mr. Wydler?

Mr. WYDLER. Doctor, like all Members of Congress, I get letters

every year which go something like this:

You fellows down there must be crazy. Is it true what it says in the included

article? That the Government is funding the following programs * * *.

And then there follows a list one, two, three, four, five, or a longer

list of programs such as: "$10,000 for the study of the mating call of

frogs,' or "$25,000 to investigate the frequency of Yugoslavia

yodeling," or something along this nature, that sounds when you read_

them, practically idiotic, incredible, unbelievable, indefensible, and

whatever else you might say about them.

My typical reply to that is to write back and say, "Well, we don't

approve specific programs here in the Congress, and we kind of send

somebody a lot of money and tell them to spend it wisely and

well * * *." And kind of let it go at that.

I think most of these programs probably are funded by the National

Science Foundation that we read about. What would you write to an

anguished constituent and explain the need for these programs, their

order in the national priority, and why we fund them at a time of

great economic strain and stress?

Dr. STEVER. Mr. Wydler, let me say that not all of these programs

are funded by NSF.

Mr. WYDLER. Who else is to blame then?

Dr. STEVER. I would say a large percentage of the letters arrive

due to the fact there is a program funded by somebody, and sometimes it is NSF.
19

Secondly, I hope every time you get one, you will ask us for the

reasons why it was funded. Because, don't forget, this research

support is not one man's whim. The title may be misleading often.

That proposal has gone through not only Government employees on

the NSF staff, but also referees who are scientists, who look at it

from many points of view. In our literature, there will be the data

of what this relates to; why we do it; what is the field of science;

what is expected to be gotten out of it.

I would say this, that titles consists of a small number of words.

We have a limited number of words which we can put together. There

are some people who have just a little sense of humor and put them

together in the wrong way. Sometimes they put together a title

which is not supposed to be humorous, but doesn't seem to relate to

an object. We can give you the information to write to your constituents and tell the purpose of the research. I do not think that you

would satisfy all the constituents, because some constituents do not

think the Federal Government should support basic science.

Some don't think we should be in environment. Some don't think

we should be in social sciences. And yet, this is the authorization we

have from Congress.

I would suggest that you send us those letters so that we can give

you the best replies possible. It wouldn't answer all of the objections,

but we would at least show that we are not being either cute or

humorous or lighthearted, or trying to be wastefuCAt least we can

give you some background.

Mr. WYDLER. I also heard you mention something in your testimony

concerning—are you digging a core or a hole of some type in the ocean?

Dr. STEVER. Yes.

Mr. WYDLER. What relationship does that project have with the

old Mohole project we had, the one where we were digging it on the

land in Hawaii, and we used to call that the rat hole because there

was so much money going down it. [Laughter.]

What is the difference between that project and this one that you

are doing at the bottom of the ocean?

Dr. STEVER. Well, let me say the Mohole was a very expensive

single experiment where purpose was to get to the special layer of the

Earth's mantle under the sea known as the Mohorovicic discontinuity

since it is closer to the surface under the sea than it is on the land.

I think this was abandoned both for practical reasons and the fact

that the contracting got terribly expensive. It was abandoned in part

because there were serious management problems. Also, it was

abandoned in part because the expense for the one experiment became

very high.

The other experiment that we are performing now is not as expensive, in the first place and it covers a much broader area of exploration.

We drilled in every ocean, except in the Arctic.

Most of the oceans then, have a very broad coverage.

We are studying, as far as basic science is concerned, the motion of

the Earth's crust; and seeking knowledge that will give us an understanding of earthquakes and volcanism and so on.

We also learn where resources are and we studied the history of

the movement of the Earth's crust.

Mr. WYDLER. Maybe you could make it easier for me.
20

How deep were we trying to go in the Mohole project and how 'cleep

are we going here?

Dr. JONES. About 25,000 feet. This one probably about 3,000 feet.

Dr. STEVER. However, may I add that •other countries are joining

us in this project, and contributing very nicely to this exploration.

This is one of ,our best projects in science.

Mr. MOSHER. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. WYDLER. Certainly.

Mr. MosaEa.,Getting back to your firstquestion.

I think there has been an increase in these inquiries ,that .all of us

have had from ,concerned citizens who get excited ,about newspaper

reports, about federally funded research that would sound silly.

The most recent list has been distributed. J forget the name of ;the

organization, a taxpayers' organization, -it has that title, but the

,GAO, very carefully, examined that list •and the background of those

,projects and found that the criticism was largely ,not ,warranted.

In fact, this-groupinpublicizing,the list had dug wayrback more.than

40 years to dig up some-of these quaint names. But nevertheless, they

excited the public, ,and the public had the impression they were all

current projects.

I would suggest to-any Member who wanted to respond to .these

people—and we have been .doing ,this in our , office is to send them

a .summary of the GAO report which is a responsible answer.

The,CHAIRMAN. Mr. Symington?

Mr. SYMINGTON. Only to refer to Mr. Wydler's -very good question,

about 'these less understood research projects: II ,think Dr. Stever's

suggestion that they -be ,more carefully entitled would ,be .a big .11,4

because there are people who do nothing else except read through these

lists-for-titles that sound bizarre.

I remember during my first attempt to win this office, -my opponent

very logically called attention to a particular research project entitled

"Studying why aborigines, don't sweat." .Since I had, come out of.the

administration more or less-that was then in power, it was considered

to be the folly of that administration. I was just as interested /as he.

I think we dearned very quickly by asking NSF, that it .was the

'Defense Department .that was, conducting this investigation-and that

they were trying to learn why it was that aborigines ,don!t, sweat.

Apparently, they don't very much and that. means ,they can hold

their moisture a lot longer ,than American GI's were able -to in the

jungles , of 'Vietnam. They -wondered if -there -was a particular way

that talent could-be transmitted. [Laughter.]

Mr. SYMINGTON. It was an interesting discovery, -because my

opponent in that particular race was very anxious for us to pursue-that

involvement, much more, than I.

And so it was good-to-be able.to tell hirn,why. That-was-something

like a $50,000 investment and by the way, I don'tre,ally.know whether

they did or didn't—whether they can,do anything-aboutitdor theirest

of us.

.Perhaps you canilook,into.that. [Laughter.]

Dr. STEVER. We may need another: grant.

Mr.'SYMINGTON. I think that could ,have been ;better titled, yon

know; how to help the GI, or something like-that.

Dr. STEVglt. A'bettertitle certainly would have helped.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. COIllan?
21

Z70iNI-L A N . Since 1063, the' National Science- Foundation has

spent more than $6‘million'itt grants to develop • and'evalnate. a rather

ControVersial gradeschool' Social studie onrse called, "Man: A

Course ,of Study," known, as MACOS. I understand NSF fun& have

been used to put' M4A-COS- into more than 1,650' schools nationwide on

an experimentanasis.

The MACOS developers are now looking fbr Federal support to put

the course into' many more schoolSall they can sell,the course to.

Is there any additional funding' for MACOS in your fiscal year. 1976

NSF budget proposal, or are there any 1976' fiscal year funds- from

your agency likely to be spent for further development of MACOS;

pilot testing or for information in public and private schools?

Dr. STEVER. Actually the number is higher, 1,725 schools and 47a

school districts now are using the course MACOS., "Man: A Course of

StudSr."

There are no funds for MACOS in our fiscal year 1976 budget

request.

Mr. CONLAN. Has any other FederaIdepartrnent or agency funded

MACS in any way or are.they planning to?

In other words, it is exclusively a NSF project.

Dr. STEVER. Outside Government, the Ford Foundation, Carnegie,

and others have had'small contributions in this.

Mr. CONLAN. A: $312,000 grant for the first major study of the

impact of MACOS on-young students especially compared to students

not using MACOS w as approved by NSF in 1972: Do we have the

results of that study yet?

Dr. PAIGE. We -do not have the results of' the study yet. We will

have it.

Mr. CONLAN. Do you have any estimate of the timetable of when

some analysis might be made?

Dr. STEVER. The interim report is available and will furnish a

copy to you.

Mr. CONLAN. The final report will be- completed about April of

1976.

I. am asking these questions because like a number of other Congressmen, I have had dozens of telegrams and letters from concerned

parents in our district about the-MACOS' program. We have been sent

newspaper clippings andindependent studies of it.

. Of course, as we all know, it is extremely controverial and has

vocal critics from all walks or life, not just parents.

I know my own mail is overwhelmingly opposed to it. Parents,

educators, and doctors have stated MACOS is deStroying children's

attitudes and values and hurting them. psycholovicall . I think- there

are a number of us in Congress who would like to pursue the matter,

lboli into' it, get better informed' about it, and' fully explore these

criticisms. As a committee, we should know more about what is going

on before we can conscientiously vote to commit more fund S into this

particular area. We certainly must question whether it is warranted

to move in on a totally subsidized' basis with a controversial course

affecting rather impressionable 10- or 12- or 11-year-old students.

I personally think NSF' is' doing a great job, in the hard sciences

particularly. I' think while we' are operating' under budget constraints

at this time in our national economic existence; both you,and we have
22

to count rather carefully and evaluate programs in the soft sciences

that may unfairly detract from NSF's good record.

I don't want something to give NSF a black eye, as well as us in

the Congress.

Dr. STEVER. We appreciate that and we will keep you fully informed.

For your information, we know of seven schools, where there has

been considerable discussion such as in Phoenix. The rest of the large

number of schools involved have not had this kind of public controversial discussion. In the schools that do, apparently, the school

boards normally have hearings, local hearings, and listen to all sides

and views. Five of those seven, by the way, have said we will make

this course an optional one and parents can keep their children out

of it or not.

Most of the parents do have their children going back. Of course

some did not choose to attend this course. I'm not trying to say it

was unanimous on either side.

However, we want very much to get the results of an evaluation

and we will keep you fully informed.

Mr. CONLAN. I think you should, because if you are saying in

those instances where there were hearings, five out of seven of them

went to an optional program and moved it out from a mandatory

curriculum, the problem is significant. In Arizona, parents were not

given proper access to the materials until the outcry became so

substantial that reaction became almost violent.

Then the administrators of the program let them have access to

the materials. Of course the roof blew off.

If it is that controversial, I think, you know, let's look at it, let's

get the facts. Because I noticed also in research that NSF had granted

over $180,000 for two conferences to develop ways of overcoming

parents' opposition in implementation of MACOS.

When you have to fund techniques to overcome parents' opposition,

I just wonder if maybe NSF is going a little too far. If the thing can't

sell on its own, we shouldn't be in the business of trying to sell it that

hard.

Dr. STEVER. We agree.

I might say it is either another example of a poorly selected title

for one of our programs, or we shouldn't be doing it.

Mr. WYDLER. Would the gentleman yield to me?

Mr. CONLAN. Yes.

Mr. WYDLER. Is the opposition to this program in the method of

teaching or the material taught or used in the teaching?

Mr. CONLAN. I think it is primarily the material.

It is an anthropology course for fifth through seventh grade students,

emphasizing the social habits of certain animals—baboons, salmon,

herring gulls, and so forth—and the Netsilik Eskimos. Its developers

made no attempt to downplay its purpose as a behavorial social

studies course that is designed to direct children's attitudes and mold

their beliefs along specific socioeconomic lines. It is opposed by parents

who believe it is destructive of Judeo-Christian values, the family,

and traditional American economic and political ideals. They also

criticize its veiled predominant emphasis on sex, pragmatic attitudes

about respect for life, shocking film segments displaying gore and

immoral acts, and its invasion of students, and parents, privacy.
23

The course is taught for either one semester or a full year, using

about 30 booklets, 16 to 25 films, 5 filmstrips, 3 educational games,

records, maps photos, posters, and photomurals.

The cost to schools using the program is $8.50 for each student set

of booklets, $133 for each teacher set of guides and classroom materials,

and $2,350 for 13 16-millimeter color films. The total cost for each.

class of 30 students is thus about $395, with additional one-time investment of $2,350 for films.

Mr. WYDLER. I am going to suggest to the gentleman, if they are

still having trouble getting material they should see, what was requested by the committee. It would be quickly available if requested,

if that is a problem.

Dr. STEVER. We can get you a complete package if you would like.

Mr. CONLAN. Fine. I think that would be good, including the

films.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Hechler?

Mr. HECHLER. Dr. Stever and Dr. Hackerman, I think you are

both in an unique position to look into the future and assess and appraise where some of our real brainpower shortages are going to occur

10, 15, 20 years hence.

Could you quickly put into your computer all the various factors

such as student enrollments, university interest, problems of the

Nation, problems of the world, jobs, the state of the economy, and

other things, and would you care to sound any kind of alarm or blow

any kind of whistle for us as to what we need to be doing in order to

protect ourselves 10, 15, or 20 years hence?

Dr. HACKERMAN. Mr. Hechler, I would like to make the point that

there is a basic interest among people in a variety of fields. There are

always certain people who have creative interest in the field of science

and engineering, including social science.

I suspect they will continue to involve themselves with these fields,

provided we do not put a penalty on them for that interest, as was the

case until recently when the fields become socially acceptable once

more.

If, indeed, we are just neutral, a reasonable number will enter the

field and will do good work. If we are biased positively, we will interest

a large number.

One of the important things we have to learn how to do in a very

short time period is how to make these people a little more mobile,

more willing to move from discipline to discipline or problem to

problem.

Many of them for some reason in the last 20 years had the impression that they were ordained to work in certain kinds of fields. In fact,

that cannot be the case.

So our problem as educators is to improve the flexibility with which

we instruct, improve the flexibility with which we lead these younger

people. Our major gain will come in the next 10 years, if, indeed, we

interest people, not in a central core of a given discipline, but in the

central core plus the understanding that they have the capability

of moving to other areas.

Dr. STEVER. Mr. Hechler, I agree with Dr. Hackerman.

I think a strong central core in any science and engineering, as far

as the young people are concerned, are going to get there no matter

what, because it is so attractive to them.
24

do think we have had our ups and downs in recent times—unavailablity of jobs is a very quick "turner offer" of people going into

a field.

I think the other one was the morale factor that Dr. Irackerman

noticed. There was a time when scientists and engineers were getting

criticized for having destroyed the environment, and so on. I think.

in: the last decade this was felt by a number of people. Personally I

think the antifeeling has disappeared to a considerable extent—not

completely.

Young people are more attracted, the job situation is better now,

and I think they will move in the right direction.

I still think our most important problem from the Federal Government standpoint is to sow the seeds of high quality in the important

fields we need. Obviously chemistry is one involved in many of the

problems as well; some form of fields of engineering; materials, and so

on.

Probably if you start naming them' that way- you will get a pretty

good contribution from all the sciences to tackle the problems that

are lined up.

It is certainly true that in the past areas not emphasized in our

educational instruction suddenly become important to us.

I am sure you were familiar with the fact that mining engineering

was not stressed in some of our schools and there are other examples.

On the other hand, that is not the worst. You know, our electrical

engineering departments have turned away from power engineering

operation in droves over a large number of years. It became solid state

electronics

'

communications, all very good and very successful. But it

left a hole. And I think our job really is to make sure we are not leaving

some holes at this time.

Mr. HECHLER. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Any further questions?

Thank you gentlemen, we appreciate you appearing before the

committee.

Thank you very much.

Dr. STENTtR. Thank you.

[Whereupon, the committee was recessed at 3:25 p.m., to reconvene

subject to the call of the chairman.]
;A

A
I

II,,, 111211/, .1 ,1,11,1111 1_ 1 1 41, 1,111 v

e