Page images
PDF
EPUB

Congressman George E. Brown, Jr.
February 11, 1980
Page 7

practice as well as providing knowledge through fundamental research and providing the educational basis for the enormously greater number of engineers outside of academia to be effective. Cooperative research with industry and elements of the public sector have great two-way value and should be expanded significantly. Many contributions also are made through individual consulting. Nevertheless, in addition to the formal education of engineers, the major national need that can be met primarily by the Schools of Engineering is for the continual progress of the engineering sciences and the subdisciplines of engineering through fundamental engineering research.

My recommendation would be that NSF assume this responsibility for the engineering disciplines in the same measure and with the same degree of devotion that it now has for the basic science disciplines. NSF is the logical organization to do so because the dominant federal mode of maintaining the health of the disciplines of engineering should be the support of fundamental engineering research, graduate education, and instructional equipment across the broad spectrum of each engineering discipline just as is true now for each of the disciplines of science.

NSF has already made a significant start in this direction but has not made the needed intellectual commitment. That commitment, so necessary for the future of the country, will require several substantial added steps of funding for the purpose because of the great breadth and scope of the many disciplines of engineering extending far beyond present NSF coverage, the large size of the highly qualified fundamental research community within and outside the universities,

Congressman George E. Brown, Jr.

February 11, 1980

Page 8

and the need for considerable expansion of graduate research and education

to meet industrial demand.

In assessing NSF's role in the engineering disciplines and in the science disciplines, the support of fundamental research by the many mission agencies of government must be taken into account. NSF should both fill in known gaps of coverage and move aggressively in new areas that develop and go unrecognized by others. Perhaps it is worth noting that contrary to conventional wisdom, the mission agencies provide far more support for fundamental research in the basic science disciplines than in the engineering disciplines. Again, applied research, valuable and needed as it is, does not substitute for a broad spectrum of fundamental research in maintaining the health of a discipline and its continued long-range contribution to the welfare of the country.

Thank you again for this opportunity to communicate with you and the Subcommittee.

My colleagues and I stand ready to be of any help we can.

[blocks in formation]

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW October 1978. Research Summaries

Table 3. Estimated supply and demand for Ph. D.'s, by fleld, 1976-85

[blocks in formation]

NOTE Field refers to the academic field in which the degree was received

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

MIKE MC CORMACK, WASH.
GEORGE & BROWN, IN CALIF.
JAMES H. SCHEVER, NY.
RICHARD L. OTTINGER, M.Y.
TOM HARMIN, HOWA

JIM LLOYD, CALLE

JEROME A AMBRO, NY.

MARILYN LLOYD EQUGUARD, TENN

JAMES J. BLANCHARD, MICH,

DOUG WALGREN, PA.
RONNIE G. FLIPPO, ALA,

GAN GUICKMAN, KANE
ALBERT DORE JA. TENAL
WEB WATKINS, OKLA
ROBERT A YOUNG MO
RICHARD & WHITE, TEL
HAROLD L. VOLKKMER, MD
DONALD J. PEASE, OHIO

HOWARD WOLPIE, MICH

MICHOLAS MAVROUILES, MASS.

BILL NELSON, PA.

BOXYL ANTHONY, JR., ARIL
STANLEY D. LUNDING, BLY.

ALLEN & ERTEL, PA

KENT HANCE, TEL

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

JOHN W. WYDLER, NY.
LARRY WINN, JR... KAB.
BARRY M. GOLDWATE, JR., CALIF.
HAMILTON FISH, JR...
BEANIEL LWAN, JR..
HAROLD & HOLLENB
ROBERT K. DORNAN,
ROBERT & WALKER. A
COWING. FORSYTHE. W.
KEN KRAMER, COLO.
VILLIAM CARNEY, M..
ROBERT W. DAVIS, M. M.
TOUT ROTH, WIS.

DONALD LAWRENCE
BILL ROYER, CALIF.

ITTER, PA.

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

I al rec ated receiving your April 11th letter regarding the U.S. Antarctic Research Program. I will see that it is included in the record of our hearings on the National Science Foundation's fiscaar 1981 budget as you request.

The Subcommittee has given particular attention to the Antarctic Program over the last few years, and we have acted to maintain the program budge at a sufficient level. For fiscal year 1981, the figure reported by our Committee for the Antarctic Program is a million dollars above the President's requested level.

Thank you very much for your interest and for taking the trouble to write.

Sincerely,

Ganon E. Brown J.

GEORGE E BROWN, Jr., Chairman
Subcommittee on Science,
Research and Technology

GEB:KLd

Hunter College

OF THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK | 695 PARK AVENUE, NEW YORK, NY. 10021 DEPARTMENT OF BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES

APR

(212) 380-2384

April 11, 1980

refer

SAT

The Honorable George E. Brown, Jr.

Chairman, House Subcommittee on Science Research

and Technology

House of Representatives

Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Brown:

The National Science Foundation is the major federal agency charged with advancing our nation's interests in a broad spectrum of scientific disciplines. Basic research provides the fundamental knowledge needed to adapt to changing conditions in the world. Funds must be provided for growth in this essential endeavor.

The U.S. Antarctic Research Program deserves special attention. This program of scientific exploration of the world's fifth largest continent supports research at the forefront of biology, geology, meteorology and other fields. The success of the program reflects the dedication of both scientists and supporting U. S. Navy personnel. I have had the opportunity to observe the program firsthand during the past two austral summer seasons. The medal given by the NSF, citing "courage, sacrifice, devotion", is no empty gesture. The heroic efforts after the New Zealand jetliner crash last December are just one example. On a day-to-day basis, this program represents one of the finest of American endeavors in science and international cooperation.

In many respects, in view of the magnitude and complexity of the effort spanning an entire continent, the program operates on a shoestring budget. The ski-equipped Hercules C-130's, which are essential for transport in Antarctica, are in need of major overhaul by Lockheed. Many laboratory buildings, harking back to the International Geophysical Year, are unsafe and inadequate for modern research. A major building program to replace these laboratories, as well as many of the ramshackle residences, has been stymied for lack of funds. Increasing fuel costs and ever-mounting maintenance costs for the aging aircraft are likely to absorb most of the projected budget increase for fiscal year 1981. Major developmental needs will once again be unmet.

« PreviousContinue »