Page images

Mr. SCOVILLE. I am less interested in the particular mechanisms, which no doubt have to be explored to be perfected.

What I really wanted to do is get the attitude which says to support the best or highest quality of science you simply support the pool of best scientists at this particular moment, as opposed to over the longer run.

Mr. PEASE. Dr. Cota-Robles, we thank you very much for your testimony.

I would like to thank all of our witnesses today, even though most of them have left.

I think it has been an excellent day of hearings.

And finally, I would just like to acknowledge the patience of Dr. Rutherford for sticking with us all day long.

The hearing is concluded.
[Whereupon at 5 p.m., the subcommittee was recessed.]






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.

Mr. Brown. The subcommittee will come to order. We anticipate there will be some additional members here shortly but, in order to use all of the time, I am going to make a few opening remarks.

The witnesses don't need to listen to these, but, for the record, I will make them.

Today, we come to the last in our series of authorization hearings on the National Science Foundation, and we will consider research in the behavioral and social sciences. I believe we should try to view these in relation to the whole of science, and to the current system of research support.

This year, we are paying particular attention to these areas because of questions raised last year on the House floor as to the adequacy, appropriateness and eventual utility of some of this research. With our witnesses today, we hope to address some of these concerns in the most straightforward fashion.

Looking back to the beginnings of the Foundation, we might note that the sciences in these areas did not start out with a most favored status. In fact, they were not officially included in the original charter but have instead been obligated to fight for a rightful place at the Foundation over the years. And, so, characterized perhaps as "hardened by time and circumstances,” they should be accustomed to the kind of careful, if well meaning, scrutiny represented by hearings such as this. In fact, I have reason to believe that most of these researchers welcome a chance to speak as an opportunity to tell us about the best and most promising work in their fields.

We will be unable to cover, in detail, all of the disciplines representing the behavioral and social sciences at the Foundation. Nevertheless, I hope we will be made aware of the many contributions in economics, education, and health produced by these sciences. We may even learn something about their lessons for designing government and societal programs for maximum efficiency and best use of tax dollars. We also hope to hear a little about the interdisciplinary nature of research in these fields which would seem to be one of its added strengths. Our list of esteemed witnesses for this morning includes Dr. Eloise Clark, Assistant Director for Biological, Behavioral and Social Sciences at the Science Foundation, who will be accompanied by many assistants, I see. After the witnesses from the Foundation finish, Dr. Herbert Simon, winner of the Nobel Prize in economics, coming to us from the psychology department of Carnegie-Mellon University. We will look forward to hearing from him.

At this point we will include opening statement of Mr. Hollenbeck. PREPARED OPENING REMARKS OF MR. HOLLENBECK, RANKING MINORITY MEMBER

OF THIS SUBCOMMITTEE Mr. Chairman, it's a pleasure to join with you in welcoming our distinguished guests here today. As I made clear in my remarks which I submitted in writing at the beginning of these hearings, I believe the social sciences are of highest importance. We only need to recall the recent Three Mile Island disaster to see how our inability to understand the human factors in the design of a complex technical system very nearly led us to a catastrophe which could have rendered a large section of the nation unhabitable for many years. In numerous other instances, we can think of situations where the pure technological hardware solution to a problem simply failed to work because it did not take into account the human beings with whom it must interact and with whom it must work.

That does not mean, of course, that every piece of social science research is perfect. There is good and bad research in every discipline and, indeed, in every form of human activities—whether it is manufacturing, science, the arts, or agriculture. Not every piece of research or every commercial venture is an earthshaking innovation. And the failure to achieve objectives are not limited to social science as indicated by the fact that 90% of all new businesses fail. Yet, we still believe it important to stimulate and support innovative new businesses.

By and large, I believe that we are beginning, through very slow, long hard work by social scientists around the world, to gain a greater understanding of human psychological and social relationships. This will prove vital to the solution of our problems of material and energy shortages. But enough-today we are here to listen to the social scientists themselves speak about their work. And I am sure that it will prove interesting.

One final point that I would make. Namely, that there has been a lot of controversy about so-called "silly grants" which the public has failed to understand. They lead to accusations about wasteful expenditure of government money. Upon better understanding of the subjects, in 99.9 percent of the cases, concerns have been relieved. Therefore, I think it would be helpful if the Science Foundation were to direct that its grantees place on the title of their research projects the purpose for which research is being undertaken so the people can understand why it is that we choose to investigate for example, homosexual seagulls. This does not mean that every purpose must imply an immediate application. The purpose itself may be filling links in our basic understanding of, for example, hormone systems, as in the case cited here. Nevertheless, I believe that this simple change of procedure would do much to alleviate public misunderstanding. In our Subcommittee and Committee deliberations, I intend to offer amendments or Committee views which are appropriate to achieve this aim.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses.

We will start with Dr. Clark, this morning, and you may proceed in any way that you wish, Dr. Clark.

Would you like to introduce Dr. Friedl ?
[The biographical sketch of Dr. Clark follows:]


Dr. Eloise Elizabeth Clark joined the National Science Foundation in 1969 as program director for Developmental Biology. Since then she has been program director for Biophysics; section head for Molecular Biology ; division director of Biological and Medical Sciences; deputy assistant director and acting assistant director of the Biological, Behavioral, and Social Sciences Directorate. She was nominated by the President in July 1976 and confirmed in September by the Senate to her present position.

NSF's Biological, Behavioral, and Social Sciences Directorate supports re search in the major areas of: (1) physiology, cellular, and molecular biology ; (2) environmental biology ; (3) behavioral and neural sciences, including phychology, anthropology, and linguistics; and (4) social sciences, including ecoinomics, sociology, and political science. Specialized research facilities, equipment, workshops, symposia, and conferences, as well as doctoral dissertations are also supported.

Dr. Clark completed a Bachelor of Arts degree in 1951 at the Mary Washington College of the University of Virginia. She completed her Ph. D. at the University of North Carolina in developmental biology in 1957 and continued postdoctoral research in physical biochemistry at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, and at the University of California, Berkeley. Dr. Clark came to NSF from the biology department of Columbia University where she taught graduate and undergraduate students. Her research interests were in the physical biochemistry of proteins molecules. She also taught at the Woods Hole Marine Biological Laboratory for several summers.

During her tenure at NSF, Dr. Clark has worked on a number of interagency and professional committees. She is a member of the Board of Regents for the National Library of Medicine and the policy committee for the competitive grants program at the Department of Agriculture; she serves on two White House committees : the Interdepartmental Task Force on Women and the Interagency Task Force for the Conference on Families, and two FCCSET' committees: the Committee on Health and Medicine and the Committee on Food and Renewable Resources of which she is vice chairperson. She is a member of a number of profession societies, including the American Institute of Biological Sciences, American Society for Cell Biology, Marine Biological Laboratory at Woods Hole, Society for General Physiologists, Biophysical Society, and Sigma Xi. She has served on the council of several of them and is currently on the Board of Directors of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

She is a member of Phi Beta Kappa and a Distinguished Alumna of Mary Washington College; she holds an honorary degree from King College and is listed in a number of biographical references.

Dr. Clark resides in Washington, D.C.


FOR BIOLOGICAL, BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES, NSF Dr. CLARK. I would be happy to. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to introduce my colleagues, Dr. Ernestine Friedl, dean of arts and sciences at Duke University, an anthropologist and member of the National Science Board ; Dr. Richard C. Atkinson, Director of the Foundation, and Dr. George C. Pimentel, Deputy Director. Later, other witnesses will describe some of the research results, and I will introduce each, in turn.

Let me briefly present a setting: First, the social and behavioral science activities are the smallest part of the Federal effort in basic research. Basic research in the social sciences, collectively $133 million, represents about 3 percent of the total Federal basic research budget; including support for psychology increases the amount to 5 percent. Those numbers cover a variety of research by individual agencies, but they reduce to a relatively small investment when considered in light of the difficult problems the Nation faces. Research support for these fields represents 4 percent of the Foundation's budget-and a smaller portion of the Federal total.

When viewed from the perspective of university-based support of basic research, these amounts take on greater importance; they repre

1 Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering, and Technology.

« PreviousContinue »