Page images
PDF
EPUB

I am most pleased to note some real growth in the Federal support of scientific research since fiscal year 1975, even taking inflation into account. Most importantly, the President

this year has proposed a budget that provides a substantial

increase for the NSF program and for research programs of many other Federal agencies. I urge you to consider authorizing

the total budget for NSF as requested by the President.

Additionally, I would like to acknowledge the President's support of science and technology as demonstrated by his personal presentation on January 14, 1980, of the National Medal of Science, our highest national scientific award, to 20 distinguished scientists and engineers. Eleven of these

persons at one time or another have received NSF support.

The Board has also developed the concept of the science indicator reports, which are similar to the Nation's valuable economic and social indicator reports. This series of reports has evolved into the acceptable and useful form with which you are now familiar. As you know, the President transmitted the latest of these reports, Science Indicators--1978, to the Congress on November 19, 1979, with a message commending it to your attention. The Board is continually expanding and refining the science indicator series in order to describe quantitatively better the condition of science, research, and technology in the United States.

During these past 12 years the Committee on Science and Technology has made major contributions to the scientific and technological enterprise of this Nation. Among many other accomplishments, it has guided and overseen this Nation's exploration of outer space, the development of energy research activities, and the improvement of science education.

In 1968 the Committee was chaired by the distinguished gentleman from California, Representative George P. Miller. He took a special interest in NSF activities, including inspecting certain national centers supported by NSF (among which were the Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory in Chile, Kitt Peak National Observatory in Tucson, Arizona, and the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado). He was succeeded by another of my fellow Texans, Representative Olin E. Teague. The Committee's efforts are now directed by Representative Don Fuqua (D.-Fla.).

Members of the Committee on Science and Technology, notably members of this Subcommittee, have familiarized themselves with many NSF activities and facilities, including the U. S. Antarctic Research Program (USARP). That ice-covered continent, has a great potential for the world in terms of international cooperation, weather prediction, natural resources, and

other aspects.

Most recently, Representative John W. Wydler (R.-N.Y.) of the full Committee was a member of the group late last year which commemorated the 50th anniversary of Admiral Richard E. Byrd's first flight over the South Pole. My colleagues on the Board appreciate the special interest evidenced by Committee Members in NSF programs and activities.

Dr. Hackerman and I have also seen many changes in the roles and relationships of the National Science Foundation, which according to the NSF Act consists of the "National Science Board. . .and a Director." Over the years numerous individuals

have served on the National Science Board, representing in some manner every aspect of the scientific, educational, and engineering communities. Many of these people have also

been widely active in public affairs.

We have served with four of the five directors, who are, as you know, ex officio Members of the Board. Each Director has played a significant, but different role vis-a-vis the Board. It has been my experience that the relationships between the Board and the respective Directors have been very good. They appear to be especially close with the incumbent, Dr. Richard C. Atkinson, whom we consider to be an outstanding "chief executive officer" of the Foundation.

[blocks in formation]

I think that the increments in the NSF activities the past

few years are due in part to the confidence of the Administration and the Board in the Foundation's able Director and his staff,

as well as to the important help of this and other Congressional

committees.

Although the principal role of the Board is that of policymaking, including counsel and guidance to the Director, an important aspect of the activities of Board Members is their relationship and liaison with the Congress, the Office of Management and Budget, as well as the scientific, educational, and engineering communities. Whereas some of these are quite formal, others are more informal. Most importantly, the breadth of experience and the widespread interest of Board Members ensure that a variety of perspectives are brought to bear on the issues and problems considered in the Board's wide-ranging deliberations.

Some elements of the world population have criticized science and technology and have attempted to blame them for many of our present problems. The responsibility lies not with science and technology, but rather on how people have utilized the fruits of science and technology. Problems generated by their misuse, as well as numerous other problems, appear to me, as a scientist, to be solvable through better utilization of existing scientific knowledge and the development

of new knowledge.

These problems cannot be resolved by

withdrawal or by ignoring the problems.

Shortly after I was appointed to the National Science Board the appropriation of the National Science Foundation amounted to about $400 million in 1969. Since then, the budget and the breadth of the NSF programs have grown substantially. As you know, the President's Budget for fiscal year 1981 contains a request of $1.148 billion for NSF, almost triple of that 12 years ago.

In 1968, for example, NSF funded only the research portion of USARP. Today, NSF manages and funds the entire U.S. Antarctic Scientific Program. NSF also funds the exciting new Very Large Array for astronomical research, supports 13 laboratories for materials research, funds a major submicron research facility at Cornell University, and performs

a list too long to name here of other major responsibilities as described in our budget request and as authorized by the

Congress.

I would like to conclude by emphasizing that the Foundation's budget estimates and proposed programs for fiscal year 1981 have been fully endorsed by the National Science Board. Our Committee on Rudget, in consultation with the NSF staff, examines program proposals, studies the balance among NSF activities, and recommends priorities to the Board.

Subsequently,

« PreviousContinue »