40 percent, are references to work conducted by the academic community. One obviously does not want to push this kind of evaluation too far, but a first impression would be that the academic community has been an active and productive partner in the Nation's search for con

trol of its environment.

The universities have responded to the charge of weather modification research. For example, in 1957 there were only 12 to 15 universities where weather modification research could be carried on under competent scientific direction. Today the number of universities has increased to 40 and 50.

In addition, although it is possible to contribute to scientific and engineering discovery without formal training, significant instances are extremely rare. The academic community has the exclusive responsibility for preparing the minds and imaginations of the people who will bring us the important discoveries to advance the technology. In view of the above observations, I would like to comment specifically on the relationship of the academic community to the National Science Foundation. The Academy report does offer a hope that, with very carefully devised engineering-oriented tests, more progress could be made in weather modification. The report also points out the very many areas wherein our basic knowledge is deficient on details that are needed for careful planning and analysis for larger programs.

Although the universities can conduct and have conducted modest cloud-seeding programs, larger programs depending on sophisticated and complex logistics, including large amounts of heavy aircraft time, should be able to be more efficiently and effectively conducted by the Federal Government assisted by commercial contractors. However, the parallel study of the "gaps" in our knowledge is a role in which the academic community makes a great contribution; such study is indispensable to good progress of the larger programs.

The enlargement in size of a study does not, by itself, eliminate deficiencies in details of knowledge but more often encompasses more deficiencies to confuse the picture. The partnership between Federal Government and the academic community, as exemplified by the relationship with the National Science Foundation, has been an extremely fruitful and healthy arrangement with even greater potential for the future.

In this latter regard, we should also observe that both reports put heavy emphasis on the alternatives and opportunities of atmospheric modification by, for example, changing the energy transfer processes at the ground or by modification of the agricultural microclimate, and both offer new speculations for ameliorating arid climates. The attainment of a measure of weather control has implicit in it a strong interdependency of food and power production with water production. To consider any of these without due regard for the others is to be delinquent in our concern for the total health and welfare of our society.

There is already some evidence that we can modify or control aspects of our environment that may have much greater impact than will weather control, as we use this term today. Not only must we have the full impact of the physical scientist, but there is clearly an important role for the biological and social scientist. Since it is almost certain that the final realizations of our dream to control our environment can

not even be imagined in our generation, we must maintain the opportunity for one group of scientists to give full rein to the imagination while another group studies and implements ideas that we have today. The National Science Foundation is ideally organized for effective mobilization of the entire scentific community to maintain the flow of new basic information so badly needed for effective applications today and also to nurture the new, but perhaps seemingly impractical, ideas that will form the basis of our technology tomorrow. It is hard to imagine that our country cannot afford both avenues to the great goals set up by the bill under consideration by this committee.

I strongly endorse the principle of the bill to authorize the Secretary of Commerce to carry out a program in weather and climate control research, development, and experimentation. I do not believe it is in the best interest of the public to restrict by law the activities of another agency with the competence to contribute to this enormous task. We cannot know now all the possible areas of science and technology which will contribute to our mastery of our environment, and any limitation of our ability to draw on the total manpower of our Nation can only delay achieving our goals. There are more than enough problems with more than enough work for many decades for the several Government agencies with interest and competence to do this important work. I believe, as resources become available, the contributions of the academic community, which have been great in the past, will be even greater and more significant in the years to come. Thank you very much.

Senator CANNON. Thank you, Dr. Kassander.

Dr. Haworth, do the other gentlemen intend to testify?
Dr. HAWORTH. No.

Senator CANNON. They will be available in the discussion, as I understand it.

I think it would be well, at this time, for me to note for the record that it is not the intent of the committee, through these hearings, to affect weather modification activities presently underway or the appropriation needed to carry these programs forward. To stop any of these programs would be a great waste in money and effort and it would be a mistake, in my view, for Congress to hold up appropriations for presently authorized programs, because of these hearings. In other words, what we are trying to do is to go into the future picture of what we might do in the way of planning and where we go from here with this legislation if it is approved.

The 1957 report of the Advisory Committee on Weather Control said that seeding of winter-type storm clouds in mountainous areas produced an increase of 10 to 15 percent, and in 1966 the National Academy of Sciences reported precipitation increases of 10 percent.

Does this mean that no further progress can be made with this type of seeding? Would you care to comment on that? In other words, is this about the limit of where we can go with this type of activity? Dr. HAWORTH. I will answer that in only a very general way and perhaps Dr. Roberts will add some detail.

I don't feel that we have in any sense reached the limit, although there certainly are limits. As was said by Dr. Roberts and as has been said many times, there is still a great deal that we don't know about

how to do this sort of thing most effectively and under what circumstances, what time, what place, how we can best get seeding into the clouds, etc. We don't even know what is the best particle size or what is the best way to make it.

So there is room for progress.

Senator CANNON. Have we made any progress in this area in the past few years?

Dr. HAWORTH. We certainly have. But it is difficult to determine how much we have made. We certainly are surer of what we are able to do now than we were in 1957. And here I think it might be worth pointing out that one of the very great difficulties and this is one of the reasons why statistical questions come up so much-is that the effects that people have been able to produce so far are relatively small compared to the naturally occurring differences. Clouds that seem to be just the same will give a lot more rain on one occasion than another, for reasons that we don't thoroughly understand.

It is not as extreme as looking for a needle in a haystack, but it is trying to find a not very large effect under circumstances where natural causes may have brought about changes much bigger than the seeding can now be expected to do.

There are, of course, cases where apparently there have been very large effects, and other occasions where there seems to be very little. Dr. Roberts might want to add to that.

Dr. ROBERTS. I think you have covered the point quite adequately, Dr. Haworth. I think it is going to require somewhat of a new approach, perhaps even a quite different approach to weather modification if we are to visualize very large increases, increases comparable with the naturally occurring increases which are sometimes by factors of two in certain locations.

It may be that if we are ever to achieve results of this sort we will have to go about weather modification by completely different kinds of techniques, such as the effort to modify the general circulation of the atmosphere that brings the moisture and the temperature variations into the region.

Dr. Kassander is quite an expert on these questions. I think perhaps he would want to comment.

Dr. KASSANDER. I don't consider myself sufficiently expert to add very much. I think the most important problem-it appears on the surface that we have not made very much progress. This has been stated by the Australian group, for example, that there is some evidence showing very large increases and there is equal evidence in the same experiment showing decreased precipitation, such that in the average the difference is rather small.

The thing we have to do now is to try to determine the cloud situations where, in advance, we could have predicted which efforts would have made the larger increase and which situations might actually produce a decrease. Under those circumstances we might anticipate that the net result on the days that we attempted to augment precipitation would have been much, much more satisfactory.

Senator CANNON. Of course, the thing that disturbs me, and the point that I am trying to make, is that we were talking in 1957 of a 10- to 15-percent increase. Supposedly we have made or should have

made some progress in this period of time, and yet we are still talking about generally, in terms of a 10-percent increase.

I am curious to know whether you think there is a good chance for progress beyond this point.

Dr. ROBERTS. Certainly there is good prospect for progress beyond that point. I think the real difference that has occurred between 1957 and now is that when the Advisory Committee on Weather Control estimated that a 10-percent increase might be produced, the evidence on which this estimate was made was not universally or even perhaps very widely agreed upon. In the intervening time we have convinced ourselves that there is indeed good scientific evidence that such an increase can be achieved.

Given that, the efforts of a much larger group of people are likely to be involved in developing adequate theories of why precipitation increases can be achieved.

If by trial and error, so to speak, you have discovered the possibility of producing a 10-percent increase, it seems likely, by sophisticated application of scientific and engineering techniques, you will be farther than the first empirical trials. Beyond that, it is difficult to say any. thing authoritative.

Senator CANNON. In that connection, Dr. Haworth indicated that there would be a corresponding decrease in the downwind areas. And I think Dr. Chamberlain indicated that there was disagreement as to whether there would be less in the downwind areas.

Dr. HAWORTH. I think I said, Mr. Chairman, that this was very uncertain, that in certain circumstances certain observers seemed to have found that effect. But this is considerably less certain than the general positive effect in the target area.

Senator CANNON. Mr. Orville, Chairman of the 1957 Advisory Committee, said there was an extreme shortage of competent scientists and engineers in the field of weather modification, and we have had testimony on that effect today.

Has the situation improved in this area since 1957, or is it still about the same?

Dr. HAWORTH. Yes, it has improved markedly in two respects. One is that there are now many more formal programs of training graduate students in meteorology and atmospheric sciences in general than there were in 1957. For example, in 1956 there were essentially no Ph. D.'s granted in this field. Even in 1959 there were I believe something like 15 or 16 Ph. D.'s that were labelled Ph. D.'s in meteorology. In 1965 there were 50.

So this is growing rapidly.

A second and perhaps equally important factor, is that, especially in understanding the basic phenomena that have been talked about so much here, there is a great deal of room for scientists who had their original training in what I call the fundamental sciences, physics, chemistry, and so forth. Scientists who, as physicists or as chemists, attacked the problems of the atmospheric sciences, and who move on to become atmospheric scientists, if you will. That is increasing very rapidly and is probably equally important in increasing the manpower pool.

Senator CANNON. Are there other stimuli that could be brought into effect that would further improve the situation, or is that going to depend on the level of funding?

Dr. HAWORTH. Of course, it will depend in part on the funding. But in my opinion the most important thing is the psychological effect, that these problems, these areas, are becoming prominent and more youngsters realize that they are interesting and very important in science in general and to society.

In other words, it is going to be easier, if you can use the word, to "recruit", to have people be stimulated to go into these fields. I think that is one of the important things.

This is a much more modest sort of thing at the present, just as you are completely aware, the great interest in space, for example, stimulated many people to go into sciences related to the

space effort. Senator CANNON. The National Academy of Sciences report states "The question of acceptable statistical design and evaluation of atmospheric experiments must be resolved."

What prevents the formulation of adequate statistical designs for experiments and tests now?

Dr. ROBERTS. There have been quite a few questions as to what optimum statistical designs should be, and as you will remember, following the 1957 Orville report, there were considerable criticisms of the statistical methods used there.

Scientists have not been of a single mind as to what the optimum procedures are. I think even today there are doubts in many areas as to the degree of randomization versus the degree of pilot or test operation aimed primarily at increasing water resources.

I think that it will only be through the establishment of a broad national program with adequate management and coordinated guidance on the development of statistical designs that this will come about.

I think the framework to do this is here today. It was not in 1957. Senator CANNON. Many of the experiments are said to be below a critical size or quality needed for effective work, according to the report. I would like to ask if you agree with that, and if so, why, after 15 or 20 years of experiments, hasn't some action been taken to correct that situation.

Dr. HAWORTH. There is no question but what in the past many experiments have been below critical size. Not only experiments but groups of people have been below critical size. This is one of the problems of organization. It is a field that in many of its aspects is not as susceptible to attack by one scientist and some graduate students and assistants as many other fields.

In the laboratory sense it is but in the field sense it is not. There must be, on the part of both the Federal organizations that support the work and the organizations that carry out the work, greater attention paid to the joining together of forces and of groups and so forth, and of the enlargement of groups, so that there won't be too much fractionated effort in the future.

The situation is certainly much better than it was.

Senator CANNON. The NAS report indicates that the conclusions about silver iodide are still tentative. Why is that after such a long period of testing?

Dr. KASSANDER. I think there is no question but that silver iodide is an effective nucleus in the seeding of freezing clouds. There is ques

59-528-66-pt. 1- -9