ducting a focused study in a foreign society. Both Mead's and Redfield's classic works were based on three-society comparisons; thus, it would probably cost about $180,000 to replicate either of them today.

(b) Severely limit the kind of research which could be undertaken. In the formal presentation, the examples used-human origins research and "ecological anthropology"-are successful only because they are multidisciplinary; to be effective each one requires cooperation among anthropologists, biologists, geologists, and other scientists. These are among the most interesting areas of research in anthropology. Because of the numbers of specialists involved and the types of equipment and supplies used, such undertakings are relatively expensive and generally are beyond the financial resources available in universities and private foundations. Both in the U.S. and in other countries, "origins-ofman" research is pursued primarily with direct governmental support. Without it, this and other large-scale efforts would come to an abrupt halt.

(c) Markedly change the composition of the research community. Anthropology (especially archaeology) has been in the past highly elitest. Before World War II, good research departments were associated with concentrations of old wealth-in Boston, New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, and Pittsburgh-and depended on contributions from wealthy patrons. Many of the early researchers were themselves wealthy and directly financed their own work. It is largely through Federal support that this picture has changed. Without it, basic research might, over the long run, once again become an occupation of the wellto-do.

Dr. ATKINSON. Mr. Brown, let me add a footnote.

This is an area where the Chinese have a superb history of research and expertise. Our desire to work jointly with the Chinese scientists in exploring some problems is one of the exciting aspects of the United States-Chinese exchange.

Mr. BROWN. Well, I presume that is so.

So, what you are referring to also involves Mexico and Central America?

Dr. YELLEN. That is correct.

Mr. BROWN. I think we have a large interest in encouraging this kind of exchange.

Dr. FRIEDL. Mr. Chairman, on the subject of universities and support of research: During the past decade, the universities have not been able to keep up with the cost of new equipment for scientific research, in general, as I am sure you are all aware. They are in the process of retaining funds for research and saying to the faculties, "If you want the equipment to do research and keep on in your field, you have to try to get the money from outside." The universities have all they can do to maintain the teaching process; they don't have extra funds for research.

Mr. BROWN. Well, I understand and I don't want to press the point but this is going to be a fundamental objection coming from a variety of sources as to why the Federal Government needs to be involved and those who have some knowledge about anthropology are going to say that we didn't finance Margaret Mead's work, unless I am mistaken. We didn't support Robert Redfield. We didn't support a lot of other eminent anthropologists and they contributed a great deal to the science.

Dr. ATKINSON. We didn't support mathematics before World War II, and we didn't support much work in physics or engineering in the universities. Since 1950 and the Bush report, "Science-The Endless Frontier," the world has changed. The shift in the amount of private versus Federal funding in any of these other fields has been much more

dramatic than in the social sciences. You have raised an interesting point.

Dr. CLARK. I might also add that the approaches have become more scientific. Some years ago, radioactive carbon dating was used to identify fossils; the approach has changed vastly as the science has evolved and become more developed.

Mr. BROWN. Mr. Ritter?

Mr. RITTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The comment, by the way, that the Federal Government is called upon to provide support for activities such as this is a little bothersome to me. Not that it is not an accurate statement, but it represents, I think, the problem that we face within the scientific community and perhaps one of the reasons that we run into taxpayer dissatisfaction, that is the general public support of science.

I think it has a lot to do with the way tax reporting has been changed in recent years as regards private foundations. The Federal Government has a way of squeezing off the private side once it gets involved in something. Probably not purposefully, but these things happen. Often, the Federal support is more extensive, often offers a greater variety of support for goods and services and overhead. No one even knew what overhead was at universities until we started defining it for the Federal Government and the foundations never accepted it for a moment. Dr. Atkinson makes a good point, the world has changed and science may be a handmaiden to some of these activities but it has been a very powerful handmaiden in pushing the forefront ahead. But I am disturbed by the kind of competition within our scientific community and within our human services community as well. I think you can draw some parallels. There is probably a lot more initiative out there than we think of on a daily basis that could be tapped if the right incentives were present. Certainly, the tax reporting on contributions and the increasing attack that private sector philanthropic organizations have come under is leaning toward the federalization of many of these functions.

I guess that brings me back to the idea of where are the conflicts coming from in our Federal support of the anthropological sciences? It seems to me that they are not coming out of projects like this. They are coming in projects that have something to do with human values and social values and I want to tell you that there is a perception that your so-called soft science community is also soft on some basic American values and they are not hard on things like family. These are perceptions.

They also tend to be antagonistic toward things like capitalism and free enterprise and the Project MACOS. To be honest with you, I was stunned by some of the concepts that were being actively promoted in that one social science endeavor. I guess I am more interested, I think our committee is more interested in not hearing the NSF's success stories but looking on that kind of cutting edge conflict between Federal support of things that do relate to people's values and traditions and NSF's role in those particular areas.

I would like to hear some comment on that.

Dr. ATKINSON. Mr. Ritter, I agree with your remarks. Some of NSF's programs have been intended to draw in groups that have removed themselves from the support of research. I am disappointed

in the private foundations of the United States. I do not think that they have shown proper initiative in pursuing fundamental research. Most of the private foundations seem to want to do what the Federal Government often wants to do. The foundations want to mount programs that the public will say the programs are useful in solving societal problems. But I do not think private foundations are directing enough of their money into fundamental issues rather than into issues that appear to the public to deal with immediate needs. I am concerned about the private sector.

Some people will tell you NSF has been more adventurous than the private foundations in the social sciences. The first response is that NSF shouldn't be so adventurous; I would much prefer to see the private foundations be a little more adventurous.

The private foundations probably will say, "Well, we were so shaken by the tax inquiries in the early 1960's and late 1950's that we have been reserved in the sort of approach we have taken."

Mr. RITTER. I would agree with you, that many foundations have been caught up in sociological fads and I think we won't mention names here but I am sure we have our own personal experiences.

But I would like to still get back to where NSF is running into its problems. After all, I can tell you that this is going to be a rugged battle this year because inflation is on everybody's minds and there are just going to be a lot of people who are going to try and get up and wing it. I guess I would like to find out more of where some of the problems are and how we can work together to perhaps avoid these rather than simply patting each other on the back. I know it is important to lay the groundwork of success.

Dr. FRIEDL. You have raised a very difficult question, of course, and one that is almost impossible to answer in any simple way.

One try at it might be to explain the significance of anthropology and its study of the Eskimo in the MACOS project and of other people, in general. Such studies are undertaken to learn about different ways of doing things, different kinds of family or food systems, different kinds of adaptations but these are not meant to be models for Americans. That is, the discovery that there are other ways is not, therefore, a statement that we must adopt these ways. It is important to keep in mind the primary function of these anthropological studies, which is to discover the universal processes in human behavior and how these universals function in very different settings.

The second thing is that if Americans want to have some influence on the rest of the world. as I think we do and would want to, it is absolutely essential to have some understanding of what processes we can use that will successfully present our point of view to the rest of the world. You can't know that unless you know, in detail, how other people are functioning. Part of our problem, I think, in the United States and part of the difficulties in our foreign policy-has resulted from our tendency to assume that everyone else is like an American. I think it is absolutely essential for us to learn how other peoples are different. By learning that, we will then be able to function in a world that is getting more and more interdependent.

Mr. RITTER. I think you have made an excellent point and I think that it is that very point which needs to be brought out in that gray area where the public is questioning. You can't turn off the public

many

questioning because it is the public's money. So, there is a need somehow in our communication and as we make these kinds of presentations to deliver the underlying purpose for a particular effort. I am not sure that comes across. You see the effort full-blown but, in cases, there is a need to introduce some of these things, particularly if some levels of public opinon are less than totally educated as to the whys and the wherefores. I think, again, we need to make a stronger effort toward providing the kind of background that you so eloquently provide here.

Dr. FRIEDL. Thank you. You give us good advice.

Mr. BROWN. Well, we have to move on but let me just say, Dr. Yellen, in more or less the form of a comment, that when Margaret Meade and Benedict and others were investigating sexual mores in the South Seas. it was controversial even without a special report. I am not sure, in the light of changing cultural attitudes toward sex in our own culture today, that it would be quite as controversial now as it was then. Thank you very much, Dr. Yellen.

Dr. CLARK. Dr. Newlon, I am sure will be very quick. He will be discussing the final topic of our presentation on the question of public choice and new studies that give us decisionmaking in small groups. Mr. BROWN. This is from the economics program? Dr. CLARK. This is from the economics program.

STATEMENT OF DR. DANIEL H. NEWLON, ASSOCIATE PROGRAM DIRECTOR FOR THE ECONOMICS PROGRAM, NSF

Dr. NEWLON. This is, in fact, from the economics program, the sociology program, the political science program, and even the geography program. We picked this topic because of the interdisciplinary nature of the research and the fact that all of the programs in the social and economic science division are involved in this area of research.

But if there are other areas of controversy in sociology, political science, or economics that you would like to discuss; now or at another time, we would be delighted to go over those areas of controversy and explain the significance of the research.

Small group decisionmaking is, of course, a daily concern in Congress. Congressional committees such as the House Science and Technology Committee shape legislation and help determine budget. More generally, small groups influence and, at times, determine some of the most important social, political, and economic decisions.

The National Science Foundation supports theoretical and empirical research on the way small groups decide. This presentation will emphasize the relatively new NSF-supported experimental research at the University of Arizona, Carnegie-Mellon Institute, and others.

The NSF-supported research is exciting because of developments in three areas. First, there is evidence that the way small group decisions are organized matters in a manner that can be captured mathematically and tested experimentally.

Second, experiments differentiate among the many competing explanations of small group decision. These theories are very important. These theories are now used to study cartels, union management relations, arms control negotiations, jury decisions, and other bargaining situations.

Third, the methodology developed for basic research with NSF funding can provide timely and relatively inexpensive sources of new information on the effects of proposed policy changes.

Since time today is limited, I have 20 copies of 2 papers that go at length into a discussion of the significance of this research and describe some complicated experiments. I would be delighted to discuss these papers and this research at more length when we have more time.

I constructed a simple experiment to illustrate the nature and the way these experiments are conducted. Let me run through it quickly. In this experiment, we would select three participants, at random. These participants would form a group. The group would select one of three options, labeled "x," "y," and "z." Conflicting preferences for these options would be created by different patterns of the words for the decisions selected by the small group. Let me be more specific. The first individual would receive the largest reward if the group selected option "x." The next largest reward is for "y" and the smallest reward is for option "z."

A different pattern of rewards for the second and third individuals would produce different preferences for the choice of this group.

The agenda, the organization, the way issues are structured influences the outcome, the option which this committee will choose using a majority decision rule. For example, if we could compare "x" and "y," we have a majority vote between these two issues-"x" will win. If we then compare "x" and "z," a majority will select "z" and "7" will be the option selected by majority vote. If we change the agenda to start with "x" and "z," we end up with "y." If we change the agenda again and start with "y" and "z," we end up with "x."

The experimenter, by controlling the agenda, the organization, the structure of this very simple group, can influence the outcome in any one of these three options.

Mr. BROWN. That is a very interesting experiment which has obvious implications right here in Congress.

Dr. NEWLON. I was going to say, the importance of the agenda will not surprise you. Politicians sense intuitively the importance of the way issues are considered. Amendments or other motions are often timed to affect decisions.

This research is not new theoretically, either. The three individuals, three-issue example that I used here is taken from the seminal theoretical research over a generation ago by Nobel Laureate Kenneth Arrow on democratic voting systems.

What is new is the ability of social scientists to induce through rewards a structure of preferences in an experimental group similar to an actual group, to predict from theory the influence of different agendas on the decisions by the two groups, and then to test these predictions experimentally on the experimental group. Eventually, this theoretical and experimental research could lead to experimentally confirmed mathematical laws on the ways organization influences small group behavior.

The importance and difficulty of analyzing small groups is reflected in the large number of theories from economics, political science, psychology, mathematics, sociology, and other disciplines on bargaining