Y . Sc.; 2. : 94 - 1/20

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION BRIEFING 10 THEN t

GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

Storage

jUrVIENTE:

JAN 14 19/6

STATE U.

•v•

-"HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NINETY-FOURTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JANUARY 31, 1975

[No. 20]

Printed for the use of the

Committee on Science and Technology

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

48-2700 WASHINGTON : 1975
:"‘ A,115. ,. a

; 4 • f4

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

OLIN E. TEAGUE, Texas, Chairman

KEN HECHLER, 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. SUPERATA, Minority Staff Counsel

WILLIAM G. CARTER, Publications Clerk

(II)

CHARLEkA. 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
1

CONTENTS

WITNESSES

January 31, 1975: Page

Dr. H. Guyford Stever, Science Adviser to the President and Director,

National Science Foundation; Dr. Robert E. Hughes, Assistant

Director for National and International Programs; Dr. Edward C.

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

Assistant Director for Education; Dr. Alfred J. Eggers, Jr., Assistant

Director for Research Applications; Dr. Russell Drew, Director of

the Science and Technology Policy Office (STPO) ; Dr. Paul F.

Donovan, Director of the Office of Energy R. & D. Policy; Dr. Joel

Snow, Director of the Office of Planning and Resources Management 2
o
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION BRIEFING TO THE

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

FRIDAY, JANUARY 31, 1975

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,

Washington, D.C.

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10 a.m., in room 2318,

Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. James W. Symington presiding.

Mr. SYMINGTON. The Committee will be in order. Today we are

privileged to be briefed by the Director of the National Science

Foundation, Dr. Guyford Stever. I understand that Dr. Stever will

describe the general programs of the Foundation and provide a perspective to the overall Federal research and development programs.

I know that the new Members of the Committee on Science and Technology will find this briefing to be of particular interest.

On behalf of Chairman Teague who could not be here this morning,

Dr. Stever, I am pleased to welcome you and those who accompany

you, and I invite you to proceed.

[Biographical sketch of Dr. Stever follows:]

DR. HORTON GUYFORD STEVER

Born—October 24,1916; Corning, New York.

Positions—Director, National Science Foundation, 1972—Present, Member,

National Science Board, 1970-72. President, Carnegie-Mellon University, 1965-72.

Head, Departments of Mechanical Engineering, Naval Architecture, Marine

Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1961-65. Professor of

Aeronautical Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1956-65.

Associate Dean of Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1956-59.

Chief Scientist, United States Air Force, 1955-56. Associate Professor of Aeronautical Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1951-56. Executive

Officer, Guided Missiles Program, United States Air Force, 1946-48. Associate

Professor of Aeronautical Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,

1946-51. Science Liaison Officer, London Mission, Office of Scientific Research and

Development, 1942-45. Staff Member, Radiation Laboratory and Instructor,

Officers Radar School, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1941-42.

Education—Colgate University, A.B., 1938; California Institute of Technology,

Ph. D., 1941.

Areas of Professional Specialization—Aeronautical, missile, and spacecraft

engineering, design and performance, particularly aerodynamics; radiation

physics; scientific and engineering education, university administration; science

policy.

Memberships—Member, American Physical Society, American Academy of

Arts and Sciences, National Academy of Engineering (Chairman, Aeronautical

and Space Engineering Board, 1967-69) ; Fellow, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics; Member, Institute of Aeronautical Sciences (VicePresident, 1958-59; President, 1960-62), Royal Aeronautical Association,

American Association for the Advancement of Science; Phi Beta Kappa, Sigma

Xi, Sigma Gamma Tau, Tau Beta Pi and others.

(1)
2

Additional Professional and Civic Activities—Member, advisory panel, U.S.

House of Representatives, Committee on Science and Astronautics; member,

President's Commission on the Patent System, 1965-67 (Chairman, Ad Hoc

Science Panel) ; Chairman, President's Pre-Inauguration Task Force on Science

and Technology, 1967-68; Director, Koppers Co., Inc., Fisher Scientific Co.,

United Aircraft Corp., Trustee, Sarah Mellon Scaife Foundation; Trustee, Colgate

University; Trustee, Shadyside School; former Trustee, Buckingham School;

Director, Pittsburgh Symphony Society; Director, Regional Industrial Development Corporation; Director, Pittsburgh-Allegheny County Chapter of the

American Red Cross; Director, Metropolitan Pittsburgh Educational Television

(WQED) ; member of Secretariat, guided missiles committee, Joint Chiefs of Staff,

1945; member, guided missiles technical evaluation group, Research and Development Board, 1946-48; member of the science advisory board to Chief of Staff,

USAF, 1947-49, chairman, 1962-69; member, steering committee of technical

advisory panel on ordnance to Assistant Secretary of Defense 1954-56; member

steering committee, technical advisory panel on aeronautics, Department of

Defense, 1956-62; chairman, special committee on space technology, National

Aeronautics and Space Administration; chairman, research advisory committee

on missile and spacecraft aerodynamics, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1959-65; member, Defense Science Board.

Awards—President's Certificate of Merit, 1948; Exceptional Civilian Service

Award, USAF, 1956; Scott Gold Medal. American Ordnance Association, 1960;

Distinguished Public Service Medal. Department of Defense, 1968; Pittsburgh's

"Man of the Year," 1966. Junior Chamber of Commerce; Eleven honorary

degrees.

Publications—Author of over forty-five published articles, papers, or chapters

on scientific, technical, educational, and science policy matters.

Home Address-1528 Thirty-third Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20007.

Family—Wife: Louise Risley Floyd; Daughters: Sarah Newell, Margarette

Risley; Sons: Horton Guyford, Jr., Roy Risley.

STATEMENT OF DR. H. GUYFORD STEVER, SCIENCE ADVISER TO

THE PRESIDENT AND DIRECTOR, NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION, ACCOMPANIED BY DR. ROBERT E. HUGHES, ASSISTANT

DIRECTOR FOR NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS; DR.

EDWARD C. CREUTZ, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR RESEARCH; DR.

LOWELL J. PAIGE, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR EDUCATION; DR.

ALFRED J. EGGERS, JR., ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR RESEARCH

APPLICATIONS; DR. RUSSELL DREW, DIRECTOR OF THE SCIENCE

AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY OFFICE (STPO) ; DR. PAUL F. DONOVAN,

DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF ENERGY R. & D. POLICY; DR. JOEL

SNOW, DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESOURCES

MANAGEMENT

Dr. STEVER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure for me and

my staff to be here this morning. I would like to extend my own word of welcome to the new members of the Science and Technology Committee. The Foundation stands ready to be of any assistance it

can to you.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to proceed informally. Each member has before them a copy of the visual aids and, if I may, I will talk from these charts.

Mr. SYMINGTON. That will be fine; proceed in any manner you wish. Dr. STEVER. The National Science Foundation is now a quarter of

a century old, and during these .:?,5 years, the Foundation has sup- ported and continues to support a solid base of scientific research and

•
3

scientific education. The long-range needs of the Nation are served

through providing an understanding of the structure of matter, of

the nature of the environment, of the processes of life, and of the behavior of human society.

The Foundation has a governing body appointed by the President,

the National Science Board which works closely with the leadership

of the Foundation. The Chairman of the National Science Board is

Dr. Norman Hackerman, who is also President of Rice University

in Houston, Tex. Dr. Hackerman will be with me when we appear

before the committee at the authorization hearings.

Most of the awards of the Foundation are to colleges and universities throughout the Nation. Some projects are supported in nonprofit

laboratories, mission-agency laboratories, and in the private sector.

Some of our Nation's needs to which the Foundation is responding are

shown on the chart.

[Chart shown entitled "Some Current U.S. Needs to which NSF

Programs Respond."]

SOME CURRENT U. S. NEEDS TO WHICH

NSF PROGRAMS RESPOND

• ENERGY RESEARCH

• BROAD BASE OF KNOWLEDGE NEEDED FOR HIGH TECHNOLOGY

ECONOMY AND SOCIETY

• SPECIFIC NEW KNOWLEDGE NEEDS: MATERIALS, FIBER AND

FOOD PRODUCTION 

• ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS CONTINUE

• SCIENCE EDUCATION AND MANPOWER NEEDS

• INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION IN SCIENCE

• CONTRIBUTION OF R&D TO PRODUCTIVITY

• NATURAL HAZARDS

O/D 74-2115

The organization of the National Science Foundation is shown in

the next chart.

[Chart shown entitled "National Science Foundation Organization."]
4

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION ORGANIZATION

NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGYI........., 1 GENERAL COUNSEL

POLICY OFFICE

DIRECTOR i■••+ EXECUTIVE COUNCIL ENERGY R&D POLICY

OFFICE L._

NATIONAL R&D MANAGEMENT COUNCIL

ASSESSMENT

DEPUTY DIRECTOR

PLANNING AND GOVERNMENT

RESOURCES MANAGEMENT 

H

& PUBLIC PROGRAMS 

RESEARCH

NATIONAL AND

INTERNATIONAL

PROGRAMS

RESEARCH

APPLICATIONS EDUCATION ADMINISTRATIVE

OPERATIONS

Research Research Research Research and

Programs Programs Programs Manpower

Management Support

and Logistics

CID 75-799

The organizational chart reflects my dual role as Director of the

National Science Foundation and as Science Adviser to the President.

As I discuss briefly this chart, I will indicate some of the individuals

responsible for the functions. The Deputy Director is currently an

unfilled position but we will be announcing a candidate shortly. In

the blocks to the left of the Director's block in the chart, we see the

operations which support the Science Adviser to the President. Dr.

Russell Drew is the Director of the Science and Technology Policy

Office. Dr. Paul Donovan is the Director of the Energy R. & D. Policy

Office, and Dr. Joel Snow is the Director of the Office of Planning and

Resources Management.

The Foundation has five Assistant Directors; one for research—

now, that is somewhat of a misnomer because others do research. The

research classification identifies basic research. Dr. Creutz is the

Assistant Director for Research. Dr. Hughes has just joined the

Foundation as Assistant Director for National and International

Programs. Dr. Eggers is Assistant Director for Research Applications

and Dr. Paige is Assistant Director for Education.

I would like to point out by law the NSF can do no science. I

would be breaking the law if I went off and took some of our money

and worked in a laboratory. So would any of the other NSF

employees.

We must draft or contract to others to do this. This is why we

depend upon the universities, the colleges, the nonprofits, and so on.

Our work is done in every State of the Union.

The NSF applies itself to the planning and administration of the

program, but we do not do science.

May I have the next chart?

[Chart shown entitled "Basic Research."]
5

BASIC RESEARCH

LEAD RESPONSIBILITY FOR:

• STRENGTHENING SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH POTENTIAL OF NATION

• PROMOTING THE PROGRESS OF SCIENCE IN ALL FIELDS

EXAMPLE OF NSF PROGRAMS:

• SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH PROJECT SUPPORT

• NATIONAL & SPECIAL RESEARCH PROGRAMS

• NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTERS

• RESEARCH APPLIED TO NATIONAL NEEDS

O/D 74-2108 4

We are recognized in the Federal Government as having the lead

for strengthening scientific research in the Nation and promoting

the progress of science in all fields. I am going to give you some

examples of various NSF programs coming up, scientific research

project support is our biggest one.

That is where the professors of the country and the researchers

and others come to us with their ideas about how they can strengthen

science, and we give them a report card and we fund the best.

Recently we have been running almost 25,000 requests for support

per year and we fund on-the-order-of half of those—about 12,000

requests. So half of them succeed. Actually, of those that don't

succeed, from the universities in your States and your areas, many

of those projects are just meritorious, but in fact they are a little

below some others and do not get support.

May I have the next chart?

[Chart shown entitled "Scientific Research Disciplines."]

The scientific research disciplines that we recognize are the environmental sciences, biological sciences, physical sciences, oceanography. We have physiology, ecology, and population biologies; the

physical sciences, physics, chemistry, math; in social sciences, engineering, materials research, and computer research.

To a Member of Congress, that immediately suggests one of the

most important problems that the National Science Foundation and

the Congress has with respect to us.

In none of those areas are we the sole supporter of that science in

the United States. In fact, in almost every one of those areas we are

the senior partners.

48-270 0 - 75 - 2
6

SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH DISCIPLINES

ENV I ORONMENTAL Sc I ENCES

• ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES

• EARTH SCIENCES

• OCEANOGRAPHY

BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES

• BIOCHEMISTRY AND PHYSIOLOGY

• CELLULAR BIOLOGY

• ECOLOGY AND POPULATION BIOLOGY

PHYSICAL SCIENCES

• PHYSICS

• CHEMISTRY

• ASTRONOMY

• MATHEMATICAL SC I ENCES

SOCIAL SCIENCES

ENGINEERING

MATERIALS RESEARCH

COMPUTER RESEARCH

OID 75-803

5

This is a very important thing to remember: The National Science Board, I, as Director, and the people in the administration do not

want to have the National Science Foundation in the sole supporting role of the sciences.

We want to be cooperative with the other agencies. It is part of

our job to cooperate with them to make sure that we have a total

program for the country in atmospheric sciences; that we have a total

program for oceanography and that we do not monopolize it. That is a

very important feature of NSF. We are not the senior partner in most sciences.

In biology, for example, we support perhaps a quarter of the total biological research. In the universities, I understand it is 40 or 45 percent.

We share that mostly with HEW.

We share Earth sciences with the Geological Survey and other Department of the Interior agencies. We share oceanography with NOAA.

We have the unique mission of looking at science in all its disciplines and making sure we have a balanced and strong program across the field.

[Chart shown entitled "Some Special Research Programs."]

We have some special programs that we have to organize in a

somewhat different way than just having the science community people send requests to us. For example, we are part of a major

program for global atmospheric research, where we share with NOAA, Office of Naval Research, DOD, AEC, and a number of agencies—and NASA, certainly—working in atmospheric programs in which we are doing worldwide experiments to improve our understanding.
7

SOME SPECIAL RESEARCH PROGRAMS

• GLOBAL ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH PROGRAM

• INTERNATIONAL DECADE OF OCEAN EXPLORATION

• OCEAN SEDIMENT CORING PROGRAM

• ARCTIC RESEARCH PROGRAM

• U. S. ANTARCTIC RESEARCH PROGRAM

• OCEAN FACILITIES AND SUPPORT

O/D 74-2109

6

We are the lead in the next program "International Decade of

Ocean Exploration."

When people got excited about pollution in the ocean and studying

what the ocean was like, as we wanted to use it more for food generation and so on, we discovered there was an awful lot we didn't know.

We didn't even have a good baseline on the pollutants and the trace

elements in the ocean. We now have a worldwide program of ocean

exploration; we cooperate with many other interested nations and

with many other units of the Federal Government.

[Chart shown entitled "International Decade of Ocean Exploration

Seabed Assessment."[

In exploring regions of our costs and other costs of the world,

the deep sea valleys, the abyssal plains where the manganese nodules

and other nodules are, we study the ocean building areas in the center

of the ocean to study the dynamics of the formation of the world

and the change in the world, and of course, wherever we go on science

we invariably run into some practical things like natural resources.

The ocean sediment coring program is a program that has had

immense success. We, in cooperation with other scientific nations,

have drilled in all of the oceans of the world, to study the pedentology

and also to study the dynamics of the Earth. We are not searching

for oil and gas, though occasionally we have struck signs of it. When

we do, we immediately plug the hole very thoroughly so that science

will not get involved in an unfortunate incident we don't consider

ourselves capable of handling. It isn't science. We will report it but

we will not continue drilling in such an area.
8

INTERNATIONAL DECADE OF OCEAN EXPLORATION SEABED ASSESSMENT

HEAVY MINERAL DEPOSITS

ON ANCIENT STRAND LINES

PHOSPHATE

OIL & GAS PROVINCES ON

THE CONTINENTAL MARGINS

MANGANESE NODULES OF

ABYSSAL PLAINS Ni.Cti Co ETC

HEAVY MINERAL

CONCENTRATION ALONG

RIFT VALLEYS

IDOE 73-1832 7

The Arctic research program is another one. We are not the leaders

there, but we are participants with many other departments.

United States and the Arctic research program. We are the lead(Ts

there.

[Chart shown entitled "South Pole Station."]

On January 9, I and Dr. Hughes here, and a former member of

this committee, Mr. Pickle, were at the South Pole to dedicate a new

laboratory at the South Pole to house our science laboratories. It

was an impressive occasion.

NSF is charged with handling the U.S. presence in Antarctica.

Most of that is involved in basic research. We immediately transfer

some of our money we get from Congress to the Navy and to the

services to help us with logistics. They do a superb job of logistics,

safety and so on. We handle the scientific program and the direction

of the program there.

Antarctica will be a continent of growing importance to all the

nations of the world. At the present time there is an international

treaty to preserve it for science and exploration and that is why

NSF is the U.S. representative there. We are fascinated with our

job there, but it is only a small part of total NSF.

Ocean facility support is another area. We do not own all the oceanographic ships nor do we, operate lots of them, but the oceanographic

ships that are used by the universities, many of them are owned by

us and we support those ships.

Mr. SYMINGTON. Did you lose a small ship off Maine not long ago?

Dr. STEVER. It was a ship we support the operation of. It was a

ship of Nova University. It was conducting at the time a research
z

9

SOUTH POLE STATION

8

program for NOAA, which was testing out some large buoys equipped

with scientific equipment. These tests were to be conducted in rough

weather—not disastrously rough weather; it was rough weather. It

was a small ship about 55 feet overall. It was an oceanographer from

Nova, one from Script Oceanographic and three crewmen. They were

all lost. We do not know how the investigation is proceeding. It is a

sad thing.

Several of the programs we are involved in do have an element of

danger in that we use ships and aircraft and so on. Many of our

research programs are as safe as any other occupation. In our oceanography and Antarctic research there is that element of danger.

We have the National Science Board, who passed a resolution to

take care of the families of these people.

I did not have personal friends aboard, but some of our NSF people

did. We support the operation of that ship by Nova.

We have had an accident with two of our C-130's in the Antarctic

assist program. They are not wiped out, but they will be in the summer and possibly beyond. They were seriously damaged in picking

up an international research party on the High Plateau.

I will go on to the next slide.

[Chart shown entitled "KPNO."]

Now, the National Science Foundation, though it cannot do

research, does own lots of research equipment, and here is the example

of one such place: We own several national centers. Many of them are

in astronomy or radio astronomy. One of them is in atmospheric

research. Then we hold smaller centers at various universities. This is

our Kit Peak National Observatory. That is an unusual photograph.
•

10

There aren't many lights in the observatory at night so you can't

take night pictures very easily, but this is where we capitalized on a

natural phenomena.

Mr. WAXMAN. Where did you say the observatory is?

Dr. STEVER. It is near Tucson on Kit Peak in the Papago Indian

Reservation. We have good relations with the Indians.

Every time I show a picture or give an example of NSF I back off

a little bit because I am so afraid somebody will say, "Oh, NSF, they

are the group that operates that place there."

We have about 25,000 different things that we are doing, that we

are involved in, and all of our children, large and small, receive equal

love and affection from NSF. It isn't just these peak facilities that we

have.

The largest top telescope there is a 4-liter telescope one of the finest

instruments in the world. We have a similar one, almost a twin sister,

but not quite, in Cerro Tololo, Chile, and we have other establishments.

[Chart shown entitled "NCAR."]

Here is our National Center for Atmospheric Research near Boulder,

Colo. It is a fine research center, participating in world research,

atmospheric research all over the world.

[Chart shown entitled "Research Applied to National Needs."]

In recent years, beginning really in 1968, Congress expanded our

operation into Research Applied to National Needs. So, for 6 or 7

years we have been growing in that area.

Our concept is not to grow out of hand in this area, but to take new

ideas of research that can be applied to some pressing needs to research

it until we find out whether it is good, if it is going to pay Off, and then

we want to pass it off to others.
11

RESEARCH APPLIED TO NATIONAL NEEDS

• CONCEPT: FOCUSSED PROGRAMS TO APPLY SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE TO SELECTED

NATIONAL PROBLEMS WHICH:

• REQUIRE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY FOR UNDERSTANDING OR SOLUTION

• FALL BETVVEEN MISSIONS OF OTHER AGENCIES

• LIE BEYOND EXISTING AGENCY CHARTERS

• ARE SUITABLE FOR RESEARCH BY NSF-SUPPORTED TEAMS

•AGENDA: ENERGY, ENVIRONMENT, PRODUCTIVITY, EXPLORATORY RESEARCH

•I MPLEMENTATION GOAL DEVELOP KNOWLEDGE OR PROGRAMS FOR

• TRANSFER TO MISSION AGENCIES OF GOVERNMENT

• TRANSFER TO STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT

• TRANSFER TO PRIVATE SECTOR

O/D 75-792

11

We focused our programs in those things that have a strong national need, that require science and technology, that fall between

mission agencies that lie beyond missions of existing agencies' activities, or are suitable for NSF operations with industry and universities.

We have the things listed on this chart.
•

12

We have had one of our greatest successes in energy, environment,

productivity, exploratory research.

We were spending considerably less than $1 million on solar energy.

We were given the lead agency role in our RANN program and this

year the program is $50 million and next year it will go higher.

We will not claim credit for any of these things. Our job is to find

ideas in any place in this country and research on them and bring them

along to where somebody deals with them who are bigger than we are.

Mr. SYMINGTON. I might say there, Dr. Stever, you knew there

was a momentum within NSF to do this science and research, but

that there was a lack of understanding in other parts of the administration which was hampering that?

Dr. STEVER. I think that is right.

I would point out that our ideas are ideas that have come through

this group here, many of them, and certainly our priorities go in that

direction.

By the way, it was last Sunday, January 19, at 12:01 a.m., we

transferred $50 million and 45 personnel slots of which 38 were filled

by NSF employees to ERDA. They are still in our building; we are

helping them as much as we can. Bob Seamans is very appreciative

of this. He has moved some of his people in with ours. We have agreed

there will not even be a hiccup in getting those programs going.

One of our important things is to transfer missions either to another

agency of Government or to State and local governments. We have

done that too. Or to transfer to the private institutions.

The next slide, please.

[Chart shown entitled "Sugar from Domestic Corn Starch."]

"SUGAR FROM DOMESTIC CORN STARCH"
13

This is an example of something. Corn starch and sugar are big

things. This is a project that is being done at Iowa State University.

Sugar is an important commodity today. We have got good corn

starch. Corn starch has been converted into sugar before. This is a

new process. Iowa State is working with industry in this case, jointly

with them, sharing the research program and getting support from

NSF for it.

It is taking information that we got out of our basic research

program in NSF on enzyme research and we are using that, introducing

it into this applied research program, and we hope to have out of it

something that will shift from university right into industry and

will be an important thing in the United States.

We use this not as an example because it is the only thing we are

doing of importance—it shows that flow from basic research to application; it also shows the NSF role.

Mr. SYMINGTON. Is there some estimate of the sugar requirements

to be met?

Dr. STEVER. Dr. Eggers is the Assistant Director for our applied

research area.

Dr. EGGERS. I think, Mr. Chairman, if it becomes economically

attractive—and there is substantial evidence this process will—the key

difference between this process and other processes used at the present

time is that the enzymes are immobilized.

The enzymes stay with the column and there is much less difficulty

in terms of handling the byproducts.

The indications are that one of the people involved with the

university is Corning Glass. The reactor involves a good deal of glass.

The indications are a substantial amount of our sugar needs could be

handled using this process and at less cost if the technology continues

to develop as it is; a rule-of-thumb that one might use in terms of

the magnitude of yield from this process relative to our total needs

is that it could probably substitute for our imports at the present

time which are dollarwise running well in excess of $1 billion a year.

Mr. HARKIN. I might add, Mr. Chairman, that I just had a briefing

on this at Iowa State and I find it is an exciting prospect.

I believe you are going to meet the industrial demands for sweeteners. They have been unable to crystallize it. There is no way to use

it for table use, but for sweetening canned fruits and that type of

thing it has wide application.

We are using the waste products from corn.

Dr. STEVER. My home town is Corning, N.Y., and I worked in the

Corning Glass Works to help myself through college, but I was not

the one who selected this project.

May I have the next slide?

[Chart shown entitled "Science Education and Manpower."1

We have science education and manpower assignments as well.

The improvement of education for careers in science is one of our

goals. Education for scientific literacy is another.

We are working to improve the effectiveness of the educational

processes. Of course, there are so many ideas in education that come up.

We have, been working with a group assessing how those problems

look, how the solutions look and are they worth supporting.

We are also the lead agency for energy-related science manpower,

not technician manpower.

[Chart shown entitled "Conceptual PLATO CAI SYSTEM."]

48-270 0 - 75 - 3
14

SCIENCE EDUCATION AND MANPOWER

• IMPROVEMENT OF EDUCATION FOR CAREERS IN SCIENCE

• EDUCATION FOR SCIENTIFIC LITERACY

• EFFECTIVENESS OF EDUCATIONAL PROCESSES

• PROBLEM ASSESSMENT AND EXPERIMENTAL PROJECTS

• LEAD AGENCY FOR ENERGY-RELATED SCIENCE MANPOWER

O/D 74-2111

3

HIGH SCHOOL

CONCEPTUAL PLATO CAI SYSTEM

UNIVERSITY

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

This is the project we have to improve the effectiveness. As you

know, with all that is done in computers, there is great hope some

day we will be able to do some of the teaching job with computers.

At the University of Illinois, the ILIAK computer, which is an immense computer, they have devised this scheme: This year there are

5,000 students involved in courses going all the way from kindergarten

to advanced graduate courses. A student will be assigned by his professor a job to sit in front of one of the PLATO terminals and essen-
15

tially learn and answer questions and ask questions and converse

with the computer.

If the price can be gotten down, it can aid immensely in the expensive educational process we have. It really is a fascinating thing and

I hope you people can sometime have a chance just for you to sit

down in front and take one of those courses, to see what it has done.

One of the interesting things in a certain Latin class, the class

which took the course from the computer were asked a number of

questions about their course and one of the questions was, how do

you rate the computer versus a teacher and they rated some things

good and some things bad, but one thing they said was that the

computer seems to be more sympathetic than the teacher.

Mr. MYERS. Would there be an impact if this system works on the

overall career potential for teachers? In other words, in numbers?

Dr. STEVER. We believe the teachers will have a different role and

possibly they will be more effective.

Mr. MYERS. Could that be one of the effects?

Dr. STEVER. I personally believe the effectiveness of teaching will

go up and certain roles will be shifted to this, and the teacher will

retain certain roles.

I don't think the answer is in yet at the present time and the

question isn't before us yet, because the expense of this relative to a

man-hour of this is still high.

Dr. SNOW. All of the uses of this system have been tried now. The

teachers are still there, but the teachers instead are able to work

individually with students while the students gain the main modules

of their course experience by working with the PLATO systems.

I have had the experience when I was at the University of Illinois—

and this was at an early stage of development—of actually going

through a short course in population biology. It is really just one heck

of a lot of fun because you can go back and forth in it. You can move at

your own pace and you still have access to people.

Mr. SYMINGTON. The National Training School was out on Bladensburg Road. In 1965, I was with the Justice Department in the juvenile

delinquency area; and they were experimenting with ways to motivate

hard core offenders, and they were permitted to live in single cubicles,

decorate them any way they wanted. The only thing they had to agree

to do was to study and they used machines that were rather primitive

of this kind because even though these boys were all of the same age

they did have different levels of education.

Therefore, one teacher trying to reach them all was a hopeless

situation; but with these machines for reading, writing, and arithmetic,

and a few specific courses perhaps they could go at their own speed;

and when they reached a point where they wanted to be tested, they

would be tested by the teacher.

They would get points for successful test scores which they could

then spend by being allowed to watch television. It was like money.

This was an attempt to acquaint them with what the real world is like.

For effort, there is an award which can be spent. There are a lot of

other aspects of it which are quite interesting. I remember going to

see the kids working. Normally when you walk into a classroom

everybody is delighted to put down a pencil and be interrupted. Well,

they didn't want to be interrupted because they were really fiddling

with these things and they didn't think of it as some kind of magic
16

arrival of a big shot that would somehow absorb some of their time

and interest.

They wanted to get out of there so they could go back to their

machines. That aspect of the motivation I think is an interesting one.

They couldn't wait to complete the project, get their points and get

on with their life.

Dr. STEVER. I think it will make the total teaching effort a lot

more effective. I have a son who is a teacher, a high school teacher,

and it is very clear that some of his best effort is spent with individuals, helping them over some rough part of their education. If

we can get away from some of the other parts of his teaching job to

do that, I think we will have accomplished something.

I don't think we want to predict when we will have great successes,

but this is a growing system and quite a number of organizations

are in it.

Mr. SYMINGTON. I would think it would have some importance

in adult education too.

Dr. STEVER. Oh, yes. It is a very important thing in technician

education, for example. I suspect you will find some of the best computer aid instruction systems in the world in the Middle East, where

the oil countries are trying to upgrade their population to take over

technology roles.

I don't want to be accused of pulling this interesting project out

and wasting it in front of Members of Congress to try to conceal

the problems we have had in the science education field. We are

still struggling.

In the 3 years I have been here, we have been in a struggle. Those

groups that contribute to the NSF program ideas which include

members of the administration, NSF Science Board, Congress, and

the community, are not marching on the same foot in the field.

We are still trying to get our programs alined to the modern problem. Some of them are going well, but others, there is not agreement on.

This continues to be one of the areas we are putting a lot of effort

in, to bring it around to where it should be.

I am sure in the hearings to come there will be considerable debate

about that.

I will go on to the next slide.

[Chart shown entitled "NSF Programs (Current Dollars)."]

Here is the last 6-year history and it includes 1976.

You are not going to be able to get too much accuracy out of

those 1976 figures, but if you can get any accuracy out of them,

they are going to be announced tomorrow in the press conferences

that we will have. They are embargoed by the press until next

Tuesday, so we would rather that you didn't use them too openly

on the 1976 figure.

Those show the principal areas of funding. SRPS is our shorthand

for Science Research Project Support. That is the kind of thing that

a university team would approach, or an individual, when it has an

idea it wants supported.

.The National Science Foundation budget for this coming year—I

will give you the preview—is going to be a good budget in a tight

fiscal. year.. It is not going backward, but when one considers

inflation it isn't bumping into new roads. There are some problem

areas which you will discover when we bring up the entire budget.
17

MIWONS OF DOLLARS

BOO

700

600

500

400

310

100

1971 1972

NSF PROGRAMS

(CIMRENT DOLLARS)

1973 1974

RSCAL YEARS

CHART 16

1975

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

1976

OID 75-773

Mr. MOSHER. Day before yesterday the witnesses before us were

emphasizing that NSF's roles in scientific research and education

should not be considered to be competing with each other and I certainly agree with that. We all agree that these things should be

mutually nourishing.

That chart certainly indicates that your education in terms of

dollars, in relative terms, has dwindled compared with all your other

functions.

Dr. STEVER. All research functions, basic and applied, have grown.

Mr. MOSHER. You are aware of our committee's persistant unhappiness with that.

That chart, as 1 see it, dramatizes very definitely that if we stay

within whatever budget figures are proposed for the fiscal year 1976,

and if we present, in science and education a later part of that budget,

we would have to put it in with something else, and probably SRPS.

Dr. STEVER. In the 3 years I have been here, Mr. Mosher, it has

usually evolved on me where to put it in the end, because in some of

those areas I have flexibility. In others, I don't. it usually comes out

of SRPS and RANN and the National Research Centers.

We have taken it out of all three areas and we have probably a

reasonable mix out of each.

Mr. MOSHER. How have the floors worked? Have they been a difficult thing for you?

Dr. STEVER. Only difficult in that short period in which I agonized

in which areas to take the money out of. The different parts of the

foundation are assigned the money they have to allocate and we go

forward that way.
18

Mr. MOSHER. This is a good time to recognize the facts of life.

Dr. STEVER. That is why I brought it up. I didn't want to conceal

anything from the new Members.

Mr. MYERS. Can you tell me whether the percentage of that budget

from one year to the next is previously committed?

Dr. STEVER. That is a very good question. We tried very hard to

make sure that NSF doesn't get committed with long-term projects

with all of its money or by putting in new ideas. In SRPS I think it

is between 40 and 45 percent which go to the continuing projects.

It is less than half. The other half is for new projects. Now even some

of the continuing projects have new components. For example, if

there is a continuing project, like the support of the accelerator at

Cornell University, the experiments they are doing with it, you see,

change from year to year.

The National Science Board has a very sharp eye out for this sort

of thing because of the nature of science.

Science would die if we only supported the old ideas. If we didn't

have the maneuvering room to consider new ideas we wouldn't be

doing our job.

That is a very important question.

Mr. SYMINGTON. Dr. Salter, in his statement day before yesterday

stated at page 6 that—

Because the quality of science education has the same long-range implications

for national leadership in science as does the quality of basic scientific research,

foundation support of the former should be funded at a level proportionate to that

of the latter. If, for example, in 1976, the Foundation budget in support of science

education is 33 percent of that allocated for basic scientific research, roughly the

same proportionality should be appropriate in looking into the NSF budget for

fiscal 1980.

I questioned him about this. I asked if they could be taken in tandem

and tied together and he said "Yes." Would you agree with that?

Dr. STEVER. I hesitate to attach research to the gross national

product. However, I do agree with him that the quality of science

education is as important in the longrun as the research we are doing.

I am a supporter of the education program. I do think it should

change from time to time and have different objectives. We have been

in the process of changing.

I think that one of the problems we have had in the past is, as one

aspect of our science education program, as it sort of became no longer

applicable, we haven't been able to build up the other aspects in a

replacement effort. There is just no question; we have not stayed in it

in the same personal way.

Mr. THORNTON. The proportional reduction language built into

the last bill where this committee tries to say certain objectives should

be met as a matter of policies, what was your experience with that?

Did you have any difficulty?

Dr. STEVER. As you will recall, that didn't last through the other

part of the congressional process.

Instead of doing the proportionality thing, I think the Congress

should aim at the specific programs. I think that is the best way to do it.

I think this committee is now sufficiently aware of how NSF works

and what our freedoms are and what our nonfreedoms are, that you

know if you do something to education and some other part of Con-
19

gress puts on a ceiling, you know where we are going to have to take

it out, although you don't see the details of the precise things that

are cut out—that is my job—but you know roughly what parts they

will be cut out of. I think that is a better way for you to do it than

going the proportional route.

Mr. BROWN. Obviously the support that NSF gives to education is

only a fraction of the total that goes to science education.

For example, DOD or NASA used to be involved, as well as HEW—

they all have some role in that. It is a little difficult in the way the

Congress functions to legislate when you are looking at but a small

portion of the overall picture.

The question that I think we should get into in the hearings on

your budget is the degree to which NSF support of science education

may have helped to split out the fluctuations that have been taking

place on an overall basis in science education; whether or not they

have smoothed it out or amplified it.

I suspect in some other departments it has been greater than

in NSF.

If I could at this point suggest this, that the committee have

before it not only the NSF program, but in some fashion we could

get a picture of what is the total effort 

Dr. STEVER. We will do that.

I think this is very important. When I talk on the science advisory

role, we will show you where we have had crosscuts in other aspects.

The chart you just saw with rising appropriations for NSF. This has

been modified by the use of the GNP deflater which we have thought

to be the most accurate number for deflating. In constant 1967 dollars,

the National Science Foundation has grown since 1971. In recent years

it is reasonably flat. In fact, all of our areas of basic research are also

flat. Education is the only exception.

I will go back to my introduction that the National Science Foundation Act, which came out of Congress, was very well worked over.

By and large it has proven to be a very important element of national

science policy.

[Chart shown entitled, "National Science Foundation Role and

Purpose."]

I do believe the United States is the strongest nation in the world

in science and technology and that while NSF can't claim all of the

responsibilities of that, I think we have had an important input into it.

Other nations of the world envy the United States for having this

kind of an operation. Many of them have established this kind of an

operation in their own government.

As a consequence, I think it is a good thing.

The details of how we divvy up money each year; there have been

problems. As other agencies make dropouts, we would rather have

them in basic research and share it with us but if they drop something,

it is a new impact on our program.

The good people in the programs who have been dropped have

come to us for support and the best we can do is put them into the

competition with the others.

I think that one other feature of our program which is one of its

greatest strengths is this: We in government service, 1,100 or 1,200

of us, do not make all the judgments about what are and are not
20

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

ROLE AND PURPOSE

•SUPPORT A SOLID BASE OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH AND EDUCATION WHICH SERVES THE

LONG RANGE NEEDS OF THE NATION THROUGH:

*UNDERSTANDING THE STRUCTURE OF MATTER

*UNDERSTANDING THE NATURE OF THE ENVIRONMENT

*UNDERSTANDING THE PROCESSES OF LIFE

*UNDERSTANDING BEHAVIOR OF HUMAN SOCIETY

•POLICI ES SET BY NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD

• PROJECTS CARRIED OUT PRIMARILY IN UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES

THROUGHOUT THE NATION

•SOME PROJECTS SUPPORTED IN INDUSTRY, NON-PROFIT LABORATORIES AND IN MISSION

AGENCY LABORATORIES

O/D 75-789

good projects. We call on the science community to help us, and they

do.

We have 18,000 members of the science community helping us

make judgments on these programs. When we get a request from a

university somewhere in the country, or an individual, that request

is given to people knowledgeable in the field and they give us a report

regarding several different features. Is the man capable? Is the idea

good? Is the institution capable of carrying this? And so on.

These people get a report card. There are few segments of our society

who are willing—in the adult world—to accept having report cards

on them. Young people are forced into it in school, but the fact is,

anyone entering our doors has a report card.

This enables us to get a great deal of help in these judgments that

we have to make all the time.

The National Science Foundation staff helps these people, works

with them, gets the team together, knows the new fields, and encourages people to put in proposals in new fields.

Sometimes we run into serious trouble because we know as a staff,

there is a new, important field of science where we need proposals

and we ask people in the field to put in proposals. They do that which

gets a bad mark and then we have to say no, after having encouraged

them to come to us, but they must compete.

I think the Foundation is well run. It probably is looked over as

much by people outside as any other thing. The outside members of

the National Science Board spend a great deal of time on oversight,

looking at how we are doing with new programs, et cetera. So, as I

say, I am a very strong enthusiast of this. I think it is a fine agency for

the Federal Government. I know from time to time that we run into

problems here and there and we try to work our way out.
21

Mr. MOSHER. Mr. Chairman, I always thought this new process

was your basic strength in National Science Foundation. I judge what

you are saying is that your use of the peer review process is not

diminishing.

Dr. STEVER. We are not concerned about freedom of information

in any letter or policy of the Foundation. I believe if the reviews from

reviewers had been published with their names we would lose some

strength from that. We would defend that as an internal confidential

communication. We paraphrase comments from reviewers and send

them to people who are reviewed so they are not in ignorance about

the comments on their projects, but we don't tell them who made

those comments.

Mr. MOSHER. Do you find any decrease in the inclination of people

to cooperate because of this?

Dr. STEVER. Not yet.

We have good cooperation. I will say there is no system involving

human beings that is perfect. There are imperfections in the peer review system. That is why we have a strong scientific staff to be involved. Cronyism is one thing it is accused of. You know, if a professor's proposal is sent out only to his cronies he is likely to get a good

mark. Therefore, we try to know the field well enough to make sure

it is a broad scale review.

Mr. MOSHER. To what degree, if at all, do you apply it to RANN?

Dr. STEVER. We do the same. We have users involved. Every RANN

program review group has use's as well as researchers involved.

Dr. EGGERS. We also involve RANN people as well as representatives of Federal, State, and local government, all of them being users.

I recollect clearly when the RANN program was initiated, there was

concern as to whether the peer review program would work. We believe it has worked very well and it is every bit as essential there as in

the basic research program.

Mr. SCHEUER. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. Scheuer.

Mr. SCHEUER. Dr. Stever, you have an enormous charter under

RANN in the field of social systems and human services to the extent

of dealing with selected urban service problems at the Federal, State,

and local levels to improve productivity in the public sector, to evaluate and make more efficient means of delivering human services, and

to apply research. Can you tell us some of the things that you have

been doing in this area?

Dr. STEVER. Dr. Eggers, would you be willing to give a few examples

from that area?

Dr. EGGERS. Yes, sir. That activity was a major component of the

RANN program. One of the early thrusts which I believe would be of

interest to you, Mr. Scheuer—and perhaps you are familiar with it

is the work that was supported through the State University of New

York at Stony Brook working with the sanitation commission in

New York City to study means for improving the removal of solid

waste from the city of New York.

Mr. SCHEUER. Excuse me, I am not talking about hard science

applications. I am talking about social systems and human resources.

The welfare system in our country has fourth-generation welfare

families on it, a totally disfunctioning system; a public housing system
22

that is crimigenic. That is a harsh comment, but it is true, from St.

Louis, to New York City, to everywhere.

Large scale public housing is built in the central town core.

You have a medical care system that is going into the stratosphere.

You have a Federal civil service system that many people think is

unresponsive, not very cost-effective, shot through with sloth and

laziness. What are you doing in terms of productivity and costeffectiveness and the measuring of these programs against their

original goals?

Dr. EGGERS. We have major assessments of the R. & D. that was

carried out in many areas you referred to. I referred to the sanitation

service in New York as an early example. It is one very expensive

form of delivery. There is about $130 million a year spent in New

York removing solid waste. The opportunities for reducing cost there

as well as anywhere else are very important to identify and to get

policy decisions on to get these reductions in cost and in that particular

case there were significant reductions in cost amounting to approximately $11 million a year.

In the area of health care which is a very important area, too, the

type of research we support is in connection with the utilization of

telecommunication technologies for improved health delivery at the

same cost or alternatively as a result of the research, can show means

for reducing the cost of delivery of the service and maintaining the

same quality.

Mr. SCHEUER. Wouldn't that mostly be for rural areas?

Dr. EGGERS. It has application both to rural areas and urban

areas. At the present time the major efforts underway are in Florida

in the Dade County prison system. That is a joint effort involving the

medical school at Miami University, the Westinghouse Corp. which is

involved in handling the telecommunication of hardware in the

prison system itself.

The reason we choose that particular area to carry out one of our

major experiments which is underway at the present time is that

you can work, rather obviously, with controlled population so you can

prepare the communication to put the doctor in touch with the

patient versus the effectiveness of the doctor being in direct contact

with his patient.

Mr. SCHEUER. I am trying to get you away from hardware and

technological systems.

Dr. EGGERS. Most of these things or at least a great many of them

involve both the hardware and the software where you are investigating the possibilities for increasing productivity.

We do also support research in the effectiveness of housing developments and community developments, in cases where they are

planned communities versus communities where they have evolved

in the fashions determined by the residents in a year-to-year basis.

Mr. SCHEUER. Have you done anything on public safety in urban

communities?

Dr. EGGERS. Yes, sir.

Mr. SCHEUER. Have you done anything, for example, on the very

depressing increase in the rise of violent personal crime among teenage

males in the 13- to 15-year-old area? This is a new phenomenon in

this country.
23

Dr. EGGERS. Yes, sir, these are very important areas. In the

juvenile crime we have not supported research of our own. We have

supported evaluations in that area.

Mr. SYMINGTON. I would like to say here that we have many

social problems. Juvenile delinquency, which I worked on for a

couple of years with Bob Kennedy, was entirely funded out of the

Office of the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of

Juvenile Delinquency. Later we got some funds through the Law

Enforcement Assistance Act through the Justice Department. I

think we have to exercise some care and judgment as to what we

expect NSF to do in social science research.

These programs were hard enough to get the money for even when

the Congress was asked directly for that purpose.

I remember trying to get the budget from $5 million to $15 million

after I came to Congress for the Office of Juvenile Delinquency, for

example. I think we could get into a very wide ranging discussion

of the possibility of getting NSF to stretch its funds and still attempt

to make meaningful contributions to research in this area because

it is research that we are talking about.

Now I think given our time frame we have to hear a little bit about

the President's Science Advisors' work. I think it would be helpful,

Dr. Eggers, if you could provide a memorandum for me and Mr.

Scheuer and all the members of the committee that attempts to

identify those areas of research that you are obviously touching

on that NSF is involved in.

I think it would take too long now to develop the yeas and nays

of it.

Mr. SCHEUER. I agree with you.

Mr. SYMINGTON. Then perhaps we can meet informally again.

Mr. SCHEUER. Fine. I have one more question.

I am very much impressed with your postdoctoral fellowship

program but I am depressed by the low-level funding of it and the

small percentage of the kids applying that you are taking care of.

I was in the Soviet Union on a trip that the Education Committee

took a couple of years ago. I visited their Center of Post-Doctoral

Study in their academic city. It is a spectacular experience to see what

the Soviet Union has done in terms of postdoctoral studies. They

have a system, a particular technique of identifying creative youngsters at the age of 5 to 7 and then all through school they get Stalin

prizes and Lenin prizes and what have you, which brings them from

150 to 200 rubles a month. They have a passport to all the education

they can absorb through their postdoctoral studies. They have a

very cost-effective way of spending education funds.

Here we are spending several billion dollars a year on the education

of disadvantaged children, which I am for and helped write the act.

But when a child is in the 10th, 11th, or 12th grade and he is reading

at a third or fourth grade level, you have to wonder in terms of the

cost-effectiveness of an additional dollar of investment in him as

against the cost-effectiveness of an additional postdoctoral fellowship under NSF, about where we should be spending our money.

I wonder if we are not far from the point of diminishing return in

your postdoctoral fellowship. In terms of payoff to society I wonder

if you would not be able to use a substantial increase in your postdoctoral studies programs.
24

Dr. STEVER. Both the Science Board and I and others believe

very strongly that we have to continue to educate our best and give

them opportunity and inspire them, et cetera. We have several

programs which you will hear about in the hearings. The Soviet Union

is continuing its growth in science and technology. I think in the

United States we are not increasing our growth relative to our gross

national product.

Our quality is fine. I think we still lead but we are concerned, too,

in that area. I think several of the programs will show you in our

hearings where those effect that particular area.

Would you like me to turn to the science adviser role?

MT. SYMINGTON. I think so.

Dr. STEVER. I have some viewgraphs here.

Dr. Drew, who is head of the Science and Technology Policy Office,

and Dr. Donovan, heading our Office of Energy R. & D. Policy are

here today. Dr. Snow, our Office of Planning and Resources Management is also here.

[The chart shown entitled "Science Adviser's Role."]

SCIENCE ADVISER'S ROLE

• ADVICE ON FEDERAL R&D BUDGETS

• COORDINATE FEDERAL R&D EFFORTS (FCST)

• OBJECTIVE PARTY IN S&T ISSUE RESOLUTION

• EARLY WARNING OF EMERGING PROBLEM AREAS

• ALERT AUTHORITIES ABOUT POSS I BLE

TECHNOLOGICAL "SURPRISES"

• ADVISE ON HEALTH OF S&T AND S&T MANPOWER

• RELATE S&T TO CHANGING NATIONAL GOALS

STPO 75-756

1-75

Dr. STEVER. Now, the science adviser's role for the new members.

was given to the Director of the NSF (actually assumed July 1)

2 years ago or a year and three quarters ago, though the shift was

planned before that. The job is to advise on Federal R. & D. budgets.

By the way, for you and the press tomorrow we will have, I think,

the most complete description of the Federal R. & D. budget in science

and technology that has come out yet, the most complete description

of it. That is in a report which will come out tomorrow.
25

Dr. DREW. That is embargoed like the rest of the budget until

next Tuesday.

Dr. STEVER. We will send you all copies of it. It not only talks

about the research programs of all the agencies but we give a crosscut

in all the fields which was pointed out to be very important. Also the

science adviser through the Federal Council on Science and Technology is asked to help coordinate the Federal R. & D. efforts. There are

others of coordinating mechanisms, including Congress, in the Federal

R. & D. effort.

The science adviser is to be an objective party in science and technical issue resolution. We have served in that role. Early warning of

emergent problem areas, we have helped on some of those. Our role

is to alert authorities about possible technological surprises; advice

on health of science and technology and science and technology manpower. That of course is a regular NSF and National Science Board

role. Relating science and technology to changing national goals,

that is one of the most difficult problems that any of us face.

Mr. MOSHER. It seems to me you have omitted there a very important role that I assume you have, a very positive role, unless you

are including this under the word "surprises." That is to alert Congress and others to opportunities. Maybe that is what you mean by

surprises, but awareness of science and technology opportunities tha t

would be advance awareness.

Dr. STEVER. I think this is an important point you have made.

I think we will word that list a little more positively rather than

negatively in the future. You are quite right. Yes; it is an important

one

[The chart shown entitled "FOST Organization."]

FCST ORGANIZATION

CHAIRMAN: H. GUYFORD STEVER

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY (ACTING): RUSSELL C. DREW

MEMBERS & OBSERVERS: 22 FEDERAL R&D PERFORMING AGENCIES + OMB

MAJOR COMMMEES: I CAS (ATMSOPHERI C SCIENCES)

I CMSE (MARINE SCIENCES)

I ARCC (ARCTIC RESEARCH)

COFL (FEDERAL LABORATORIES)

CAPP (PATENT POLICY)

COWRR (WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH)

CDTT (DOMESTI C TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER)

STPO 75-757

1-75 2
26

Dr. STEVER. The Federal Council on Science and Technology of

which I am chairman, Dr. Drew is the acting executive secretary, has

members and observers from all 22 Federal R. & D. performing agencies and the OMB. Some of our major committees are the atmospheric

sciences, an Inter-Government Committee on Atmospheric Science,

one in the marine sciences, one on arctic research, one on Federal

labs, patent policy, water resources, domestic technical transfer.

But we have others. We are just starting a new committee to coordinate astronomy in the Federal agencies. We will be working

with a number of crosscut issues in that organization.

The FCST, with help from other agencies, has put together a

report that will be out tomorrow. I recommend it to your use. I think

it will be the first time that you see a complete crosscut on the R. & D.

in many fields of science, including, Mr. Scheuer, social research.

Mr. SCHEUER. Will we get a copy of this sent to our office?

Dr. STEVER. Yes. We will make sure that every member and also

the staffs get copies of this.

What I am doing is putting in a plug that you read this one as

this is a new report.

Mr. HAYES. Dr. Stever, I wanted to ask one question on the FCST

organization chart.

The Domestic Technology Transfer Committee—I know a couple

of members of my delegation are interested in that. I was interested

in asking at this point: Is that particular committee functioning right

now in terms of actively beginning that process of technology transfer

throughout our establishment? If so, can you describe it briefly?

Dr. STEVER. Yes. The domestic technology transfer operation—all

of our agencies have wanted and been under pressure from the Congress to transfer technology from the cities and States and industry.

All of our agencies have set up programs to do that for their own work.

Recently this committee put together a review of all the techniques.

It turns out that just the interchange of information among the Federal Government major agencies was of great value because one agency

would evolve one technique and another, another. That is one important point we are working on.

This committee is the one that is working with the NSF program

to bring together the number of laboratories to work on this program.

Dr. DREW. We are also issuing a catalog to provide in one place, the

people to contact, the type of programs, the opportunities that are

available to the recipients, that is the people at the State and local

government levels; in one place they will know where they can

go to gain help and particularly what the character of the program is,

the relevant program managers, the telephone numbers, the size and

direction in which the services and opportunities are really pointed.

Dr. STEVER. When will that be out?

Dr. DREW. It is in the printer's now. It should be out within weeks.

Dr. STEVER. We think this is one of the areas where the Federal

Government is going to have to do a lot better over the years.

The Federal Government really is the guardian and supporter of

high technology and high science, yet the users out there are not

aggregated. We have to do a lot better job on this.

[The chart shown entitled "Federal Council for Science and Technology FCST."]
27

FEDERAL COUNCIL FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

FCST

• ESTABLI SHED BY EXECUTIVE ORDER IN 1959

PROVIDES:

• FOCAL POINT FOR COORDINATION OF FEDERAL R&D PROGRAMS

AND PROMOTION OF MORE EFFECTIVE PLANNING

• FORUM FOR DISCUSSION OF COMMON PROBLEMS FACED BY

R&D PERFORMING AGENCIES

• MECHANISM FOR ASSESSMENT OF SPECIFIC ISSUES BY MEANS

OF STANDING AND AD HOC COMMMEES

• FORUM FOR I DENTIFING AREAS NEEDING GREATER R&D EMPHASIS

• COORDINATION AND MANAGEMENT FOCUS FOR FEDERAL R&D

RESOURCES AND FACILITIES

• MEANS FOR FURTHERING INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION IN

SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY

STPO -75-754

1-75

3

Dr. STEVER. This was established by Executive order in 1959.

It has several functions. It does provide a focal point for the coordination of Federal R. & D. programs and promotion of more effective

planning. It provides a forum for discussion of common R. & D.

problems faced by these agencies. It is a mechanism for assessment of

specific issues by means of standing and ad hoc committees. Let me

mention an example along that line. There is a red flag being waved,

we are not sure whether it is a real problem yet, with respect to

Freon in the upper atmosphere and its effect on ozone.

One of the committees, the Government Committee on Atmospheric

Sciences, got together to compare notes, what did NASA know,

what did DOT know, what did NSF know, and what were we doing.

When the Domestic Council became interested the technical backup

for that committee's operation have come from one of the Federal

Councils looking over this program in advance. That committee has

recommended a research program aimed at finding out whether this

is going to be a real threat or not. Several of the agencies will be

doing research aimed at that project.

Mr. BROWN. Does the Federal Council have a separate staff of

its own?

Dr. STEVER. It is part of Dr. Drew's Science and Technology Policy

Office within NSF. When it was transferred from the White House to

my chairmanship the staff was assigned that job, too.

Dr. DREW. In addition we draw upon all of the Federal agencies.

Part of the principal is that for the operating committees the committee chairman provides integral staff support in addition to the

overall integrated support we provide from a central place.
28

(BILLIONS OF DOLLARS)

25 

20

15

TOTAL

.000, 

............

........................... 

•••••••••

10 ..........................

.......................

...

Dr. STEVER. For example, Dr. White, who is the administrator of

NOAA, is chairman of the Marine Sciences Committee. One of his staff

members will serve as the executive director and secretary of that

committee.

We provide a forum for identifying areas needing greater R. & D.

emphasis. That is particularly valuable, you know. NSF gets communication often from them and so do other agencies, saying, "Look, the

Federal Government is not covering this particular field of science

properly." So we begin to put it in our planning.

Coordination and management focus for Federal R. & D. resources

facilities and a means for furthering international cooperation.

You will have a much better picture tomorrow when our report

comes out of the total obligations for R. & D. in the Federal Government.

Here is a color chart which shows you the principal sums.

[The chart shown entitled "Obligations for Research and Development."]

OBLIGATIONS

FOR

RESEARCH

AND

DEVELOPMENT

DOD

ERDA 

...............................

........ . 

.............. .H..Ew

25

20

15

10

5

1963 65 

67/N7 69

71 73

.... ........... 0

0

a PRIOR TO 1975 CONSISTED MAINLY Of AEC. .................. YEAR (EST.)

........ ; ........ ; . OTIJERS 

75 76

ST PO 75-748

1-75

4

The next year we will discover, in the report to come out, the

Department of Defense is having a major increase because some of

their weapons systems development is growing to a point where those

particular ones are quite expensive.

ERDA has an increase. Energy pressures are there. NSF has some

increase and HEW some.

NASA, in R. & D., is reasonably constant next year.

The next chart is an important chart, I think, for showing where

the Federal Government is going.
29

[The chart shown entitled "Conduct of Research and Development

Obligations."]

CONDUCT OF

RESEARCH AND

DEVELOPMENT —

OBLIGATIONS

(BILLIONS OF DOLLARS)

12 

10 -

SPACE

DEFENSE _ _

.......... ... ....... ........

CIVILIAN

.........

12

10

8

6

4

2

1966 68 70 72 74 76

FISCAL YEAR (EST.)

0

STPO 75-747

1-75

5

Dr. STEVER. This is the last 10-years' history on R. & D. broken

up in three components, defense, civilian, and space. Civilian includes

transportation, health, urban problems, law, and social problems.

Defense, of course, is obvious. The space program is well known.

For a decade almost, the space program's R. & D. program has been

going down. It started down primarily because they were beginning

to complete their Moon mission. Now it is starting up again because

they are beginhing to get more deeply involved in their Shuttle and

other research missions.

The civilian program has grown steadily in this decade. It continues

to grow and will grow this next year. The Defense budget for R. & D.,

as you see, has been reasonably constant for a good portion of the

decade, well below, by the way, well below the inflation rate. This is

partly taken care of in the coming budget but it will not cover inflation.

Mr. SCHEUER. Is this in real dollars?

Dr. STEVER. This is in current dollars. Constant dollars of course

would go the other way.

Mr. SYMINGTON. Do you have a chart for that as you did for the

other?

Dr. STEVER. There is a chart. That gives you the constant dollar

for the total. This has two interesting things. It gives you the current

dollars and the constant dollars for the total of R. & D. and the same

for research.
30

[The chart shown entitled "Federal R. & D. Obligations, FY

1965-76 Est."]

FEDERAL R&D

OBLIGATIONS,

FY 1965 - 76 (EST.)

(BILLIONS OF DOLLARS)

25 

20

15

10

TOTAL R&D

.....

- CURRENT DOLLARS

---- CONSTANT (1967) DOLLARS

TOTAL RESEARCH

0

1965

..... ---

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

67 69 71 73 75 76

FISCAL YEAR (ESTIMATE)

STPO 75-7/6

1-75

25

20

15

10

0

6

It is very interesting to note that within R. & D. the research

budget level, the constant dollars have remained almost constant over

that decade.

Mr. SYMINGTON. This is broken down as the previous chart between

these three categories but it is the total?

Dr. STEVER. If you go back to the previous chart you will see how

they will work, Mr. Symington. You can see that civilian is the only

one in that period that has kept up with inflation. Space obviously

is down and so is defense.

Mr. BROWN. When we get the time, Dr. Stever, I would like to

have a little more information about how you decided to diistnguish

between research and development on the next chart.

[The chart shown entitled "National R. & D. as a percent of GNP."]

Dr. STEVER. I understand.

You know, there is a lot of definition in the whole thing. There

are some things that I think we would all have 100 percent agreement

that belong in one and there would be a gray area.

The gray area is troublesome.

Mr. BROWN. We assume the research has a large component of

what you might call basic science. The members of the committee

have over the years expressed an interest in how you distinguish

these various components in the whole picture. I think we are still

after it.
0

31

PERCENT

3.20 

3. 00

2. 80

2. 60

2.40 -

2. 20 -

2. 00 -

I. 80

1. 60

1.40

1. 20

1. 00 -

. 80 -

.20 -

NATIONAL R&D AS A PERCENT OF GNP

TOTAL

FEDERAL

INDUSTRY

/ OTHER

1961 '62 '63 '64 '65 .66 67 .68 .69

CALENDAR YEARS

'70 '71 '72 '73 '74

EST

STPO 75-758

1-75

7

Dr. STEVER. We would be glad to try to come to the committee with

a presentation on that. The fact is that different agencies go at it a

little differently, too. When you put together these summary charts

it makes it even a little more confused. We do the best we can to sort

of give a reasonably competent breakdown. There is no question that

there are lots of gray areas developed.

Mr. BROWN. There are some members of the committee who think

the Defense Department's R. & D. which is basically weapons development really should not be considered as R. & D.

Dr. STEVER. Any program in NSF or NASA where logistics represents a large portion, for example, we say we have $25 million in

research in Antarctica, but the fact is a lot of it is getting fuel down

there to keep people warm and transport them.

Mr. BROWN. That is true. A lot of that is manufacturing hardware.

Dr. STEVER. You have to manufacture the hardware to get a Shuttle

up or a probe up.

Mr. BROWN. That is also true when you start building nuclear

accelerators.

Dr. STEVER. It is true with other forms of research, but less true,

if something can be less true.

Mr. BROWN. In politics they can.

Dr. STEVER. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my unprepared remarks.

I will be glad to answer any questions.

Mr. SYMINGTON. Do any of the members have questions to present

at this time?

Mr. HAYES. I would like to wing out something broad. I appreciate

your inviting me to participate though I am not a member of the

subcommittee, but I do have an interest here.

A
32

Mr. SYMINGTON. Well, we want the sympathy of the full committee.

Mr. HAYES. Just as a general opinion, and this is directed at any of

you distinguished gentlemen here, but do you have or have you

attempted to make any kind of evaluation of the scientific research

establishment within industry, American industry and its various offshoots? The kind of thing I am thinking about is that there is a great

deal of discussion about the role of private laboratories and others.

Without answering my own question, I have some reservations

about those kinds of scientific research deliverers who seem to me to be

around mainly to confirm certain preconceived notions of their clients

for one thing. Then of course I tend to ignore the amounts they spend

in developing new forms of cigarette filters and that type of thing.

But as a general statement on whether or not that research establishment in industry is really effective, nationally oriented, I would like to

have your opinion.

Dr. STEVER. This is a good science policy question. It is looked at to

some extent. First of all the Federal Government as far as support of

research is concerned, puts in more than 50 percent, 55 to 60 percent,

actually. The other sources are from industry and private foundations

and so on. However, the performers of research are predominantly in

industry and in the universities. The Government has its own laboratories, too. But the performance of research as opposed to the support

of it is very heavily concentrated there.

The quality and the contribution nationally varies a great deal in

the different fields. There are some industries which traditionally have

a very high research component and a high quality, communications,

electronics, materials fields are reasonably good. Those fields which

have been heavily supported by the military for many years have

high research components, the chemical fields, the pharmaceuticals, et

cetera. But there are other fields in which we feel the research components are low. We do have a free society in which the industries

choose. They have a degree of freedom. In some cases I think we get

behind other countries because we are not dominating it. In some

areas like agriculture, chemicals, military, aircraft, communications,

electronics, our research is quite superior.

I think this is an important issue for Congress to address on an

even broader basis.

As times get tight for industry many of them are forced to take a

shorter rein. They will tend to drop off basic research. Basic research

is almost a Government monopoly now in its support, almost but not

quite.

It is getting more so. I think industry is capable of doing some basic

research. We have to address that as a country. Related to Mr.

Brown's question, in the R. & D. component supported by the private

sector there is that big range that you mentioned, developing new

cigarette filters, et cetera. But it may have some scientific components

to do something.

I think that the Federal Government has to look at this more

and make sure that our industrial base stays strong in science

because a lot of what we are paying for is done there.

If it is neglected by the individual industries then we will have to

turn somewhere else.
0

33

Mr. HAYES. Within the framework of the Foundation itself, do you

have sections that in addition try to feed in suggestions on tax and

finance policy?

Dr. STEVER. In recent years we have set up a couple of agencies

and areas where we are doing work. We have an R. & D. assessment area that is looking at the kinds of things which inspire and

improve research or push it down. Tax policies, patent rules, and

other legislation are all part of this. This is terribly important with

respect to how well our total U.S. system works in R. & D.

For example, we might put a tax policy in that drives all of our

companies to put their research out of the country. We think that

would be a disastrous kind of a move. But it may turn out advantageous for them. So we are studying that. We have a number of

reports that we can get to you in that area, examination of this

matter.

Mr. HAYES. Thank you.

Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. Scheuer.

Mr. SCHEUER. The NSF along with some of the other Government

organizations like NOAA, your earth resources satellite, et cetera, are

developing a tremendous volume of information and detailed data

almost on a daily basis about the atmosphere, the oceans, weather,

capability of charting plant diseases. A lot of this information would

be extremely useful to the developing nations, their agriculture,

industrialization and environment programs and what not. Is a

systematic program being developed to make this information available to the developing countries on a regular basis and secondly, is

there a systematic program for helping them to interpret this

information, to help them develop regional programs for their problems

such as the desert problem and the problem in the sub-Saharan area,

of Africa which has to be a regional problem which affects agricultural development and weather modification techniques? What efforts

are made to make this fantastic flow of information available and

what effort is being made to help them interpret and develop it in

a way to help their developing countries?

Dr. STEVER. Mr. Scheuer, as a nation we are doing some good things

and NSF participates with other agencies. I do not think it is as well

ordered as it might be. We are always dealing with different nations

and each wants to do it differently. So we tend to set up binational

arrangements rather than grouping.

One recognizes the common problem. For example, arid agriculture

is a problem of lower Sahara as well as the Middle East and our

West and other parts of the world. So in our exchanges we try to

make sure the right kinds of people exchange with the right people.

In helping to receive and interpret this data we can absolutely

inundate them there, obviously. We are working more and more to

help them where it appears that it can be done.

I will say that my experience in it, and this is a personal judgment

and not a thought-out administrative position, it is very hard to

make it efficient because each country is so different. They tend to

set up a one-way channel. In the science area it is not so true. Their

exchange is easy. We do it on a better basis.
34

Dr. HUGHES. I might add that this week there was a meeting of

the Sub-Commission on Science and Technology between the United

States and India. That very same question was raised by the Indians.

They put the issue of science and technology transfer very high on

their list. When they say science they mean technology. They are

interested in the area of arid agriculture and other major agricultural

and environmental programs.

Mr. SCHEUER. Thank you very much.

Are you doing anything in the field of biomedical research?

Dr. STEVER. We have some biomedical research.

Dr. CREUTZ. We do no work with human patients but we do a

great deal in cell cultures and studies of cells and the aggregated

way and also in microbiology. We also do some work in our engineering division on prosthetic devices and methods of health care delivery.

Mr. SCHEUER. Have you gotten into the medical engineering problem, the ideal contraceptive techniques, particularly for the developing nations?

Dr. CREUTZ. There is work on reproduction.

Mr. SCHEUER. I was the author of the 1970 population research

on the House side along with Congressman Bush and Senator Tydings.

Unfortunately all of us seem to have disappeared from the congres- sional scene for reasons having nothing to do with our sponsorship

of that act. We found the private companies were not interested in doing research in the kind of contraceptive technique we are looking

for which would be rather semipermanent, not requiring the services

of a medical professional and be cheaper and safer.

They are looking for a product that requires constant use and we

are looking for some kind of implant that would last for months or

years. So it was of very little interest to the private sector. So this almost by definition has to be a Government policy.

Dr. CREUTZ. We do the basic research and do not develop devices.

Mr. SCHEUER. I yield the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SYMINGTON. This has been a fascinating morning. I think

most of us would like to continue for many, many reasons because this is a wonderful way to discuss your work. We have just about concluded your second hour. I want to thank the members of the committee for attending. I thank you, Dr. Stever, and your colleagues, for making it a most stimulating and informative session. Thank you

very much.

[Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., the subcommittee adjourned.]

0

1111AI11600 .111 162112171

d

*