COMMENTS

TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE

ON

SCIENCE RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY

February 19, 1980

BY

D. K. BAKER

PRESIDENT, HARVEY MUDD COLLEGE

CLAREMONT, CALIFORNIA

I am privileged to be asked to present these comments to the

Subcommittee on Science and Technology.

As president of an engineering

and science college, I experience firsthand the changing conditions which have formed the opinions I express in this report.

The Dilemma

During the past five years Americans have been awarded 21 of the 32 Nobel prizes (and shared prizes) awarded in physics, chemistry, medicine, and physiology. Predominately the awardees were products of American undergraduate and graduate institutions and American research. It is tempting to applaud the result, to glow in self-satisfaction, and to cheer the National Science Foundation (and other agencies) for providing the wherewithal needed for research.

The success of research is clearly in evidence, but in looking beyond that success we see disquieting signs that not all is well with the national activity which is derived from science in general and from

technology.

1. National productivity is declining. In three of the
quarters of 1979 productivity was negative, and the

year's results repeated the negative performance of

2.

Since 1948, Real Gross Product has shown a decline:

3.

4.

and again:

Deficits in balance of payments and the widespread impact
of foreign goods indicate in part the superiority of
foreign industry over the productivity of domestic
industry. Automobiles, communication equipment (including
home-sound and television), clothing, and steel are com-
petive product areas where innovative productivity gains
have provided a critical advantage to foreign industry.
Professor Kendrick of George Washington University has
stated: "The most important source of productivity growth
is the advance of technological knowledge when applied

to the ways and means of production through cost-
reducing innovations."

that "informal inventive and innovative activity,
including the myriad small technological improve-
ments devised by plant managers, (engineers,) and
workers, was the chief source of technological
progress in the nineteenth century and is still
significant" . . . (but has) . . . "declined"
(33% over the period of this study).

The Committee is already aware, from previous testimony, of the first three of these effects. I wish to bring your attention to the last point for I am involved with the education of the people who will produce the

myriad, small technological improvements mentioned there. I believe

The

that we are supporting basic research extremely well but we are neglecting that great bulk of science and engineering students who each year enter the work force and who are the source of applied innovation. dichotomy of declining industrial productivity and great success in research is a dilemma that must be a concern for the nation.

Science Education in the National Science Foundation

The National Science Foundation over three decades has had a significant impact on research. However, Science Education in the Foundation has fallen on difficult days since the excitement of the Sputnik era in the late fifties and early sixties. In dollar support, Science Education rose from a $60 million level in 1960 to a peak of $130 million in 1968 but then fell back to $80 million in 1979. percentage of total NSF spending, Science Education funding peaked in 1959 and has dropped substantially since. See Figure 1.

As a

In terms of constant 1972 dollars, funding for Science Education

By contrast, research funding has maintained a steady level of