the country: the use of State and city bonds to raise funds for largescale instruments.

Mr. Moss. The other point, again related to these alternate funding and instructional arrangements, is the idea of institutes in the specific theory and the mathematics institute.

I guess the question would be: Do you have in mind a good way to evaluate the effectiveness of those things as alternative modes of supporting research alternative to the strictly university-based system? Dr. ATKINSON. Let me give you some history. About 3 or 4 years ago, and even as recently as 2 years ago, there was much debate at the National Science Board about an expanded program of "group grants"; that is, grants where the funds were relatively free on a 5-year basis. Groups could be put together without collecting every detail of the research plan, and then be evaluated at the end of the 5-year period. We thought it was an important idea. Until 3 or 4 years ago, DOD supported a large number of group activities, and we thought the DOD mix was healthy; but DOD's activity declined sharply. Now, once again, DOD is coming back in a vigorous effort to support group activities.

We just had a review at the Foundation by DOD officials of their effort. The grants are called coherent grants. About 300 already are in place, and DOD will be adding quite a few more. Consequently, NSFs' activities must be balanced against those of other agencies. We are absolutely delighted with what DOD is doing, but it does mean that NSF's initial plans are certainly going to be modified.

That is not an answer to your question about the theoretical physics institute, but it is a partial answer. The issue of the mathematics institute, as you know, is complicated. Is it new money that will provide an add-on, or is it mathematics money that will be distributed somewhat differently? You need only follow the literature on mathematics to realize the incredible fluctuation that has occurred in the mathematics community on this issue. We are still trying to face that issue. Mr. Moss. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Dr. ATKINSON. Mr. Chairman, I want to inform the committee of an item I consider important, although you may already know about it. On Friday, Secretary Hufstedler and I received a memorandum from the President. The President has been concerned about the issue of science and engineering training in this country, particularly at the postsecondary and university level. I personally have heard him discuss his concern with projections, needs, and quality of the training.

That has resulted now in a request to the Secretary and to me to prepare, by July 1, a report concerned with future requirements for scientists and engineers and quality of training. We will be engaged in the task during the next few months. You certainly will be welcome to participate in our deliberations.

Mr. BROWN. We thank you for that information. Of course such a directive is well within the existing scope of the pact, and it is a matter which I think this committee and the Congress would look with great deal of favor on an as important aspect of national policy.

There are a few other areas we wanted to touch on without necessarily exhausting them.

In your program for next year there are some increases in funding for the President's innovation, and that includes the university-indus

try cooperative research program and the small business innovation program.

I don't want to pick at specific funds, in each case I think we are talking about something in the order of a $10 million increase.

I think the fundamental thing we are interested in is the degree to which you have analyzed existing programs in the fashion that I trust you examine all your programs, to determine whether they constitute satisfactory models for expansion in order to meet this need which is reflected in the President's budget, and whether you consider that the level of increase proposed is reasonable in the light of the urgency of the President's national need in this area.

Do I make myself reasonably clear?

Dr. ATKINSON. Yes; let me note that the first component of the NSF program is the university-industrial research center, such as the Polymer Research Center at MIT. The second is the industry-university cooperative research program. And the small business innovation research program has a large increase; we have had much experience with it. Finally, NSF will emphasize in the cooperative automobile research program the activities that match those mentioned in the President's message.

Yesterday, Mr. Brown, you commented on Dr. David's editorial. I believe Dr. David was saying that he favors the types of programs singled out at NSF. He had some doubts about the Government getting into development and innovation on its own, but he certainly emphasized the importance of these cooperative activities. I see all of them in accord with Dr. David's conclusion.

Whether this effort is enough, I am not sure, but I am sure that NSF can handle this increment with wise and careful selection of projects. Mr. BROWN. Well, the question will come up again in future years when we face the question of whether we have reacted adequately to the seriousness of the problem, if the problem is still with us. I think what we would need are objective indicators as to the value of these programs, and I would assume that you will be making every possible effort to establish evaluation criteria which you can suggest to the Congress whether this is correct or not.

Now, I recall one line in which Dr. David said he expected more failures than successes in this effort of stimulating innovation. I think that's the comment he made, and that may well be the case. It is not necessarily bad if we can learn from our failures as well as from

our successes.

So I am suggesting to you that we need to make a special evaluation, in this regard and to structure our policies based upon the best possible analysis and results.

Dr. ATKINSON. Mr. Brown, there is a great deal of flexibility in the NSF plans that has not been realized. For example, in the university research centers, it is not clear what type of research the university will carry out on a proprietary basis with an industry. But I have been impressed with what some of the German universities can do, funded by the government, to carry out private research in the university centers. Am I making myself clear?

Mr. BROWN. Yes; reasonably clear.

I want to conclude with just one final area, and I am not sure what I have can be phrased as a question, but one of the problems that faces

the Foundation and which I am guilty of contributing to is the pressures, frequently divergent, sometimes even conflicting, to respond to expressions of congressional interest, and the deformations, I guess you might say, that might occur in your programs as a result of this. These kinds of congressional pressures occur in every program, not just the Foundation, and they are not necessarily either good or bad, they may be some of each; but they do create certain kinds of problems. They aggravate the task of making a meaningful whole out of your program, and of being able to defend the thrust and content of what you are doing.

I continue to be concerned that the Foundation maintain a coherent sound policy structure, that meets a national need, and I wonder how you are grappling with this. Do you feel that you are able, in view of all the pressures that you receive, to continue to function effectively with long-range defensible policies, and that you are not being diverted too much by some of the considerations that we bring up here, for example, which are all excellent, but which may tend to distort priorities to some extent.

Dr. ATKINSON. Mr. Brown, you recognize this is a filtering process that involves not just this committee but other committees.

Mr. BROWN. Certainly.

Dr. ATKINSON. Those are the kinds of things that filter back to the Foundation and are probably quite healthy. I don't feel we are being driven by unrealistic pressures of Congress at all.

I am pleased that in the entire time I have been Director I have never felt any pressure from the Congress on individual projects or individual grants. That is the type of pressure that would really disturb

me.

The pressure for new program thrusts, as it filters through OMB and the congressional committees, is a healthy pressure. I don't feel uneasy that we are being driven too much by such pressures.

There are times, of course, when we don't quite like the ceilings and floors put on specific programs, but by and large, I have been satisfied with the general thrust of such direction.

Mr. BROWN. Well, I urge you to look upon it as a challenge, something that would keep you on your toes, and that you would be prepared to defend yourself through strengthening your policy planning program work; in other words to have a coherent structure which you defend as meeting national goals in a fashion, whichever one can support and which should not be unnecessarily perturbed by too many extraneous factors. It is another version of my plea for better teaching policy planning.

There are some other issues, gentlemen, we have not had a chance to cover, but I suspect we will never have a chance to cover all of them.

We have another hearing on the Foundation which we are going to seek to enter into the more sensitive areas involved in science education and social science problems, and if we need to we can take up some of these additional questions at that time.

I want to thank you very much for your willingness to cooperate as fully as you have this afternoon, and we look forward to seeing you again.

The subcommittee is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 3:55 p.m. the subcommittee was adjourned.]

1981 NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

AUTHORIZATION

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 1980

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:15 a.m. in room 2318 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. George E. Brown, Jr. (chairman of the subcommittee), presiding.

Present: Messrs. Brown, Hance, and Pease.

Mr. BROWN. The subcommittee will come to order.

This is the next to final day of hearings on the proposed program of the National Science Foundation. This morning, and again this afternoon, we will be focusing exclusively on science education. I want to welcome the distinguished witnesses who will be giving us their views on the several topics we have selected for emphasis. It is a rather full program, and I don't want to waste time discussing the menu.

I would, however, like to stress my concern about the disparity between the importance of science education and the budget it has been given in recent years. This year is no exception. While increases of 15 to 25 percent are being sought for basic and applied research, the budget request for science education is only 9.6 percent greater than last year, a "gain" that will, more than likely, be wiped out by inflation.

Although the education budget steadily falls behind our investment in research, we have steadily growing expectations of what science education should be doing. There are professional shortages to fill, and there is a widening gap in general public understanding of how technology does or might--affect our world. Somehow, between the Science Foundation and the new Department of Education, the Federal reaction to those needs must be determined and carried out.

These are, generally, the topics we will be discussing today. This morning and again this afternoon we will be focusing exclusively on science education.

I want to welcome Dr. James Rutherford, Assistant Director of Science Education of the National Science Foundation.

At the end of this morning's session, for the last few minutes, we will have Dr. Dustin Heuston, who is president of WICAT, who has some disc teaching equipment to tell us about, and he will be demonstrating it during the noon hour for those of you who may be interested.

I would now like to call on our first witness this morning, Dr. James Rutherford, who is the Assistant Director of Science Education of the National Science Foundation. Dr. Rutherford.

[A biographical sketch of Dr. Rutherford follows:]

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20550

DR. F. JAMES RUTHERFORD

Assistant Director for Science Education

Dr. F. James Rutherford was nominated by President Carter and confirmed by the Senate on September 28, 1977 for the position of Assistant Director for Science Education at the National Science Foundation. In this position he is responsible for the development, coordination, direction, and evaluation of programs designed to improve the science and mathematics education of all students from elementary school through college; for programs to assist schools, colleges, and universities in developing high quality education for professional careers in science and technology; and programs to improve the public understanding of and participation in science.

Prior to his NSF appointment, Dr. Rutherford had been Professor and Chairman of the Department of Science Education at New York University since 1971. In that position he was responsible for a complete reorganization of the science education doctoral-and master-level programs and for the development of new courses in the social, organizational, and human aspects of science. He also instituted and became Director of Project City Science. This project, funded by the National Science Foundation, began in 1974 with a long-term goal of improving science teaching in the junior high schools.

From 1964 to 1971, he was Assistant and Associate Professor of Education at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. He was also Executive Director of the Project Physics Course, a curriculum project which resulted in the production of a widely acclaimed introductory physics course. This course because of its humanistic and historical approach proved of interest to a much broader spectrum of students than the traditional physics courses.

From 1949 to 1964 he was a science teacher, head of a science department, science consultant, and director of a science-humanities project in various California high schools.

Dr. Rutherford was born in Stockton, California, on July 11, 1924. He attended California public schools and, after service in the U.S. Navy during World War II, completed his baccalaureate studies in biochemistry at the University of California, Berkeley, in 1947. He received an M.A. from Stanford University in 1949 and a doctorate in science education from Harvard University in 1962.

Dr. Rutherford is a member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Association of Physics Teachers, Association for the Education of Teachers of Science, and the National Association for Research in Science Teaching.

He has authored and co-authored various papers, books, and articles dealing with science education.