beginning a relatively small number of demonstration instances, part of whose function would be teaching and training, would in some ways be a more intelligent program. Senator Nelson. You observed that it is difficult to educate people in large countries, the United States. I might point out that part of the objective of the bill is to educate the Federal bureaucracy, too, since there are a number of national problems which should be approached in this fashion which are handled in a thousand piecemeal ways. Thank you very much. We will give the reporter a 5-minute break and we will resume with Paul Grogan, Director; Martin Bobbins, Assistant Director, for the Special Programs Office of the State Technical Services of the Department of Commerce. (Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.) Senator Nelson. We will resume hearings at this time. I am glad to welcome Mr. Paul Grogan who, as I said, is Director, and Martin Robbins, Assistant Director for Special Programs, Office of State Technical Services of the Department of Commerce. We will be glad to hear Dr. Grogan. He was a former professor of engineering at the University of Wisconsin. We are glad to have you here to present your testimony. Do you have a prepared text that will be printed in full in the record? You may read it or extemporize, however you wish to proceed. STATEMENT OF PAUL GROGAN, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF STATE TECHNICAL SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, ACCOMPANIED BY MARTIN ROBBINS, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR SPECIAL PROGRAMS Mr. Grogan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I will use it to guide my remarks arid try to tighten it up in the interest of time. I appreciate your reference to Wisconsin. I have a word or two to say about that in the course of any remarks. We are pleased to have this opportunity to appear before the Special Subcommittee on Scientific Manpower Utilization of the Senate Committe on Labor and Public Welfare to present some of the experiences and examples in ongoing programs under the State Technical Services Act of 1965 that we believe relate to the subject of your hearings. The Office we represent was established November 19, 1965, to administer the State Technical Services Act of 1965. The association of Mr. Robbins and myself with this work therefore has been correspondingly brief. However, we believe that our experience in the field of State technical services is pertinent to your deliberations. In addition, Mr. Robbins' immediate previous assignment was with the Denver Research ] e of those nonprofit organizations Dr. Kimball refer e gained an appreciation of the interplay between technological and sociological forces that seem increasingly to dominate our life and times. I have only recently interrupted a 15-year association in university extension at the University of Wisconsin, where, as you well know, Mr. Chairman, they practice daily the involvement of a major institution of higher learning with the total environment of the State. In the interest of your time and to avoid possible duplication with what already has been said, we will attempt to confine our remarks to experiences in administering the State Technical Services Act. First, a few words about the structure and purposes of the Office of State Technical Services. The Office was established to deal with many of the scientific and technical needs of American business and industry. In particular, we are concerned with the ability of industry to acquire and apply new technology. The basis for this concern is the relationship between the rate of application of new technology by industry and the overall economic growth of the Nation. This sense of mission with respect to the application of new science and technology in the civilian sector of our economy has taken on a new urgency in recent years. Certain segments of the economy, particularly those related to military preparedness, space exploration, and atomic energy, have forged ahead of the civilian sector of the economy in terms of the generation and application of new knowledge. Correspondingly slower growth and expansion by other segments of American business has resulted in a number of problems and imbalances having a generally unfavorable effect on the national economy. Major program concerns resulting from these imbalances fall into five general categroies: We see technological change as causing unfavorable imbalances in our economy. Individuals, companies, metropolitan complexes, States, and regions share unequally in the benefits to be gained from the acquisition and application of new technology. This is demonstrated by the uneven concentration of scientific, technological, managerial, and financial resources between potentially similar regions, industries, and educational institutions. Traditional practices and policies with respect to the national research and development effort tend to accentuate this condition. 2. Technological change has caused obsolescence among men and machines: Technological obsolescence and pockets of unemployment develop into major problems as individual job skills and whole segments of industry can no longer compete effectively in the American economy. Scientists, engineers, technicians, and craftsmen must acquire and practice the new knowledge in their respective fields or face obsolescence. The same threat applies to organizations and machines that are not adapted to changes in technology. Programs addressed to this problem, to date, have not realized the full potential of transferring advanced technological practices and skills to the improvement of organizations and people. 3. Technological change has become an economic determinant in our society: The general prosperity of this country depends, in large measure, upon the ability of industry to apply new technology. Industry has not always directed a sufficient measure of its resources toward developing new technology, nor has it taken full advantage of the technology derived from Government-supported research. The more broad application of new technology by industry should result in higher profits, greater productivity, increased employment, new products, and general local and regional prosperity. 4. Technological change abroad has increased foreign competition: As foreign industry becomes more selective in the application of new technology to produce goods used in the civilian economy, competition becomes more intense and displaces American goods, jobs, and business opportunities. Comparable emphasis is lacking in this country with respect to the use of advanced technology to produce goods for consumer markets at home and abroad. 5. Technological change has impaired some aspects of the quality of life: The bright promise of the 20th century begins to pale for want of solution to the problems of urban sprawl and central-city slums; of wasted water resources and polluted air; of freeways that destroy sense of neighborhood while failing to solve traffic problems; of great expenditures and advances in education while culture and personal integrity are often said to be lacking; of social and economic pressures inducing more and more people to take up living in large cities where menaces to public health and safety more often abound. The State Technical Services Act of 1965 applies to the 50 States, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Eico, and the Virgin Islands. The planning process required by the act before engaging in technical services began almost immediately and universally a year ago. We now have, in other words, 53 political entities engaged in the planning process and 42 States have prepared and submitted State technical services programs for our review. The State Technical Services Act calls for a designated agency in each State, appointed by the Governor, to administer and coordinate the technical services programs of that State. The gubernatorial designations are nearly equally divided between State agencies responsible for economic development and State universities. We note, Mr. Chairman, that the proposed legislation on the utilization of scientific manpower makes reference to a similar Statedesignated agency or office. The subcommittee may find of interest this list of designated agencies and principal personnel contacts by States who administer and coordinate the STS programs. We offer this information for the record. (The document referred to follows:) U.S. Department Op Commerce, Office Of State Technical Services State designated agencies State Designated agency and official Working contact Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut.- Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa... Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Dr. Wilford S. Bailey, director of research. Auburn University, Auburn, Ala. Mr. William M. Dickson, commissioner, department of economic development and planning. Post Office Box 1421, Juneau, Alaska. Dr. F. Pendleton Gaines, dean of continuing education, University of Aritona, Tucson, Ariz. Dr. Barton A. Westerlund, director, Industrial Research and Extension Center, University of Arkansas, Technology Campus, Post Office Box 3017, Little Rock, Ark. President Clark Kerr, University of California, Berkeley, Calif. Mr. Dwight E. Neill, director, division of commerce and development, 600 State Services Building, Denver, Colo. Mr. Harold F. Heintz, executive secretary, Connecticut Research Commission, room 411, State Capitol Building, Hartford, Conn. Mr. George M. Worrilow, vice president, division of urban affairs, University of Delaware, Newark, Del. Most Reverend Edward B. Bunn, chairman, Consortium of Universities of the Washington Metropolitan Area, 1903 N St. NW, Washington, D.C. Dr. J. B. Culpepper, chancellor, board of regents, office for continuing education, Box 1562, Tallahassee, Fla. Dr. George L. Simpson, Jr., chancellor, board of regents of the University System of Georgia, 244 Washington St., Atlanta, Qa. Dr. Shelley M. Mark, director, department of planning and economic development, 426 Queen St., Honolulu, Hawaii. Miss Louise Shadduck, executive secretary, Idaho Department of Commerce and Development, State Capitol Building, Boise, Idaho. Mr. Gene Graves, director, department of business and economic development, Springfield, 111. Hon. Roger D. Branigin, Governor of Indiana, Indianapolis, Ind. Mr. Stanley Redeker, president, State board of regents, State Office Building, Des Moines, Iowa. Dr. Christopher E. Barthel, Jr., executive director, Research Foundation of Kansas, Topeka, Kans. Miss Katherine Peden, commissioner, Kentucky Department of Commerce, Frankfort, Ky. Mr. William T. nackett, Jr., executive director, Louisiana Department of Commerce and Industry, Post Office Box 4185, Capitol Station, Baton Rouge, La. Dean Thomas H. Curry, department of Industrial cooperation, Boardman Hall, University of Maine, Orono, Maine. Dr. Wilford S. Bailey, director of research, Auburn University, Auburn, Ala. Mr. William M. Dickson, commissioner, department of economic development and planning, Post Office Box 1421, Juneau, Alaska. Dr. Benjamin S. Mesick, professor of mechanical engineering, office of continuing education, /University of Arizona, Tucson, Ariz. Mr. Daniel B. Howard, manager, business and technical services. Industrial Research and Extension Center, University of Arkansas, Post Office Box 3017, Little Rock, Ark. Dean Robert L. Wicgel, director. State technical services, 714 University Hall, University of California, Berkeley, Calif. Mr. Dwight E. Neill, director, division of commerce and development, 600 State Services Building, Denver, Colo. Mr. Harold F. Heintz, executive secretary. Connecticut Research Commission, room 411, State Capitol Building, Hartford, Conn. Mr. Robert W. Cook, director, technology and business services. University of Delaware, Newark, Del. Dr. Elmer West, executive secretary, Consortium of University of the Washington Metropolitan Area, 1903 N St. NW., Washington, D.C. Dr. Robert W. Long, State coordinator, Post Office Boi 1562, Tallahassee, Fla. Mr. Alton J. Jenson, senior research engineer, Rich Electronic Computer Center, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta. Ga. Col. Wilbur W. Hurt, research and development coordinator, department of planning and economic development, 426 Queen St., Honolulu. Hawaii. Mr. Lloyd Howe, economic analyst, State of Idaho Department of Commerce and Development, State Capitol Building, Boise, Idaho. Dr. Louis A. Volnp, associate provost, University of Illinois, Urbana, 111. Hon. Roger D. Branigin, Governor of Indiana, Indianapolis, Ind. Mr. Waldo W. Wegner, director, Center for Industrial Research and Service, 201 Building E, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa. Mr. Kenneth Razak, associate dean of engineering, Research Foundation of Kansas, Topeka, Kans. Mr. Damon W. Harrison, executive assistant, Kentucky Department of Commerce, Bush Building, Frankfort, Ky. Mr. Gene Wallace, economic development specialist, Post Office Box 4185, Capitol Station, Baton Rouge, La. Mr. F. Philip Dufour, coordinator, ST8 program, department of Industrial cooperation. Boardman Hall, University of Maine, Orono, Maine. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, OFFICE OF STATE TECHNICAL SERVICES—Con. State designated agencies—Continued State Designated agency and official Working contact Maryland... ------- Massachusetts.... Michigan. Minnesota... Mississippi... Missouri..---- Montana...------ Nebraska..... Nevada... New Hampshire...---- New Jersey......... Mr. George W. Hubley, Jr., director, Mr. John Hosford, chief, economic Building, Annapolis, Md. Massachusetts Technical Resource Mass. department of commerce, Lansing, agent, Michigan Department of Economic Expansion, Stevens T. Mason Building, Lansing, Mich. of administration, 120 State Capitol, of administration, 120 State Capitol, St. Paul, Minn. Mississippi Research and Develop Mississippi Research and Develop- Jackson, Miss. sion of commerce and industrial State technical services, 130 Engi- Missouri, Columbia, Mo. Missoula, Mont. University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebr. Nevada, Reno, Nev. of Technology, University of New Hampshire, Durham, N.H. Commissioner Robert A. Roe, depart. Mr. Howard L. Woll, special assistant ment of conservation and economic to the commissioner, department of development, Trenton, N.J. conservation and economic develop ment, Trenton, N.J. President T. L. Popejoy, University | Mr. Arthur A. Blumenfeld, director. of New Mexico, 1821 Roma Ave. bureau of business research, 1821 NE., Albuquerque, N. Mex. Roma Ave. NE., Albuquerque, N. Mer. Department of Commerce, 112 State New York Department of Commerce, 112 State St., Albany, N.Y. department of administration, Post sity extension, Holladay Hall, North Office Box 1351, Raleigh, N.C. Carolina State University, Raleigh, N.C. North Dakota State Planning Dakota State Planning Agency, N. Dak. Board of Regents, 88 East Broad St., Ohio Board of Regents, 88 East Broad St., Columbus, Ohio. homa State University, Stillwater, extension, Oklahoma State Univer Okla. sity, Box 1008, Stillwater, Okla. Mr. Samuel Mallicoat, administrator, | T. G. La Follette, consultant, technical division of planning and develop- services, Commerce Building, 158 Portland, Oreg. Pennsylvania State University, PENNTAP, Pennsylvanis State t niversity. t'niversity Park, Pa Commonwealth economic develop nator, office of technical services, ment administration, San Juan, P.R. University of Rhode Island, King- New Mexico.. New York North Carolina...... North Dakota. Ohio......... Oklahoma. Oregon.. Pennsylvania....... Puerto Rico........ Rhode Island. |