in the light of recent experiments, I would think it an exceedingly stupid society that did not show an interest in prisoner's welfare after a sentence has been served and a man takes his place again in society. I do not think that we would change our opinion from day to day about the need for interest and sympathy for the paroled man if we knew the facts.

Mr. BROWN. You tie social science with social reform?

Dr. BOWMAN. I take an example from one of many fields of social science.

Mr. PRIEST. I have one specific question with reference to the specific provisions of this bill. As I understand it, the bill does not require or make it mandatory that the bill shall establish a division of social science. I believe it provides that until such time as the Board may establish such a division, certain other things may take place. Is it your opinion that it is pretty largely discretionery with the Board as to whether such a division would be established under the terms of this bill?

That is on page 5 of the bill, at the bottom of the page, paragraph (c).

Dr. BOWMAN. I would think that in general the paragraph to which you refer represents a good piece of drafting.

Mr. BROWN. May I finish that thought by asking this question, Doctor: What is your primary interest in this legislation, the physical and the biological scientific sections of this measure, or are you interested primarily in the social sciences? If you had your way, what portion of the bill would you want?

Dr. BOWMAN. Of 6448?

Mr. BROWN. Yes.

Dr. BOWMAN. I think that that question, Congressman, with great respect for you personally, is not a suitable one for me to answer, because you are asking me in that form to say whether I approve of the bill in detail, or what changes would I think necessary.

Mr. BROWN. Perhaps I can make it more clear by saying to you that some of us, who have served in Congress for a good while, have studied social science, although I have not called myself a social scientist, and it is just my honest opinion that these 434 social scientists who are in the House, that is, all of them besides myself, would be more interested in legislation to do certain definite things in the way of physical and biological science, mathematics, and so on and so forth, whatever you call it, which are positive sciences, than they will be getting over into the field of social science.

There is a sort of an antipathy against social science, if I can sense the thoughts of my colleagues properly, that might make a difference in whether this legislation gets not only approval, but prompt approval. I think we had better stick to fundamentals and stay out of the realm of conjecture, because it has been my experience in life, and I am not nearly as learned as the gentleman who appears as a witness, that there are all kinds of social scientists, and there is some question as to just how valuable some of their contributions to public welfare might be.

Dr. BOWMAN. Your remarks, Congressman, are in effect, a summary of the views of most of the scientists who testified before the Senate subcommittee.

Mr. BROWN. That is a very great compliment; I appreciate it. Dr. BOWMAN. We do not think that we are so learned as Congressmen sometimes think we are. We are just fellows of average height and size, doing a job.

Mr. BROWN. You are the experts upon whom we must rely for the information we need relative to this legislation, and that is the reason I am asking you these questions.

I do feel that there is an antipathy to this social science program, and perhaps we sort of run it into the ground, if we can use the homely expression, and the Congress right now, in my opinion, is more interested in practicality than anything else. There is a great feeling that from a practical angle we must have the scientific research as mentioned in other sections of the bill, for it is just a matter of national survival, when you get down to the bitter bottom of the keg, and we want to do the first things first in this country.

Dr. BOWMAN. Let me make just a single statement about what I would consider the undesirable aspects of social science, to include in any legislation of this sort, or to include in studies of the sort proposed in a National Science Foundation.

It seems to me essentially unsound to put into a National Science Foundation a wide range of social questions upon which the people of America have not yet made up their minds, as to how they want to live. Some of these questions are capable of scientific analysis and determination and as to them, the more analysis the better, before we decide with votes whether or not we will adapt the analytical findings. Now, I think it would be a waste of time to go into examples of the opposite sort of question because we are all familiar with the thousands of examples around us, of highly debatable social ends, ends upon which hardly two men who meet accidentally would agree.

Mr. BROWN. That is exactly the point of view which I have, that the average American just does not want some expert running around prying into his life and his personal affairs and deciding for him how he should live, and if the impression becomes prevalent in the Congress that this legislation is to establish some sort of an organization in which there would be a lot of short-haired women and long-haired men messing into everybody's personal affairs and lives, inquiring whether they love their wives or do not love them and so forth, you are not going to get your legislation. It is my thought that we should be very, very practical in this hour of need.

I really feel we need legislation of this kind, and that we should do, as I said a moment ago, the first things first, to get the thing that we have to have and then put the lace on the petticoat later on, if that is necessary or advisable.

Dr. BOWMAN. I would make no objection to your last statement, Mr. Congressman. May I continue?

Mr. BROWN. Perhaps I have been too brutally frank and too direct. Dr. BOWMAN. I just want to add that there are various fields in which we have a sound methodology developed in the social sciences, and that those portions of the social science field could properly be considered in a division of social sciences in the national science foundation.

Mr. BROWN. Are they related to these other problems?
Dr. BOWMAN. Yes.

88581-46- -2

In a national science foundation, it seems to me that it would be appropriate to have the Board call in a group of men of recognized abilities in the social field, to consider specific problems and that could be as thoroughly done on as high a level as if a division already existed, but I would not leave to physical and biological scientists the formulation of a social answer to the impact of their science upon society, because, as a group, they are not competent to do it.

So, my testimony in the first nistance, before the Senate subcommittee, was against including the social sciences as an integral part of the national science foundation, but not against the inclusion of social studies at some later time, factual and definite studies rather than were assemblages of opinion.

There are many conclusions in the social field that have been demonstrated. The trouble with a social science division or the over-all inclusion of social science in a national science foundation is that you would have brought to bear against Congress such pressures for the support of all sorts of hare-brained studies about things not capable of objective study, things that in the end have to be determined by individual opinion.

There are many areas of sound scientific study of social problems but there are also many other areas where a decision depends upon a social composition rather than a scientific study. In such areas social experimentation is carried out by mass opinion with little if any regard for inconclusive research.

In other words, such a large mass of social action and social opinion is not subject to scientific study, that I would feel that both our national security, and our national welfare would be endangered if a great array of social problems were proposed to be handed to nine scientists to determine what support they should have in the allocation funds designed primarily to support research in the physical sciences. You would then be likely to cause members of Congress to say, "Well, if this is what a national science foundation means, I am against it. I thought that we were helping the physical and biological sciences, in order to advance our security and welfare. I did not know we were going to drown all of that endeavor in a vast ocean of divided counsels and opinions and pressures of all sorts about things that cannot be settled scientifically anyhow."

Mr. BROWN. I think that gives the answer.

Mr. PRIEST. I think that that is a very good answer, as most of us see the situation with reference to this legislation.

Dr. BOWMAN. I have not yet said anything about patents, but you will have as a witness a man who knows more about patents than allof the rest of us put together, Dr. Bush, who can advise you much more securely on what our national policy should be, and unless you have further questions, Mr. Chairman, I will consider my statement completed.

Mr. PRIEST. Doctor, there are so many questions that might be asked, and I am sure that you could furnish the answers, but since we have other phases of the legislation to be considered by other witnesses this morning, we thank you for a very enlightening statement and appreciate your appearance before the committee.

Dr. BOWMAN. Since I have spoken extemporaneously, may I have a chance to correct the report of the statement that I have made?

Mr. PRIEST. Yes, indeed.

We are next very happy to have our colleague, Mr. Mills, the author of this bill, and one who has been very much interested in the science foundation for quite a long while.

Mr. Mills, you may proceed as you desire.

STATEMENT OF HON. WILBUR D. MILLS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS

Mr. MILLS. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, today the United States is the most powerful nation in the world-militarily, economically, and politically. The maintenance of that strength is the world's best guaranty of peace. We are a peaceful people, but we have learned again at tragic cost that the peace will be lost if we do not remain strong in every way while we work unceasingly for the creation of a better world.

Our strength is a composite of many factors. None must be neglected lest we again one black day find ourselves with ardently peaceful intentions, highly indignant at the behavior of a strong and bullying nation, but woefully weak in one of the essential elements of our strength-for example, that of preparedness for the detested but possible contingency of war. At this stage in the development of the world we cannot ignore the fact that there may be threats to our cherished liberties which we always have been willing to fight for.

Today we don't know all the things we need to remain strong militarily. There has been a revolution in the techniques of warfareand we've not seen the end yet. Today we have the atomic bomb, but we may expect that in from 5 to 15 years others will have it, too. Until we know the requirements for maintenance of our military strength in the future we should preserve our present means but with the certain knowledge that much of it is already obsolete. Of one thing we can be sure, however, that the new weapons and countermeasures of the atomic age will be the product of scientific research and development. Clearly one essential factor in our future security is a condition of vigorous and healthy scientific progress in this country.

Across the broad frontier of science countless discoveries await the touch of the inquiring mind, trained in the laws of nature and the appropriate techniques of exploration. Who could have guessed that Faraday's discovery of the laws of electromagnetism would provide the foundations of great industries such as the electrical power and communications industries which have transformed the modern world and provided millions of job? Einstein's discovery of the theory of relativity seemed of the most pure and abstruse sort for many years. Yet it furnished one of the keys needed to unlock the atom and thereby usher in a new age. We are strong in our applications of science. We are not nearly so strong in our discoveries of new knowledge. The environment of the colleges and universities is the most fertile place for such discovery.

H. R. 6448, the bill I introduced on May 15, 1946, has as its primary objective the establishment of a National Science Foundation to support scientific research and development activities. The need for such legislation has been considered at length since November 1944 when

the late President Roosevelt requested Dr. Vannevar Bush, Director of the Office of Scientific Research and Development, to make recommendations as to how the information, techniques, and research experience developed by OSRD and by the thousands of scientists in universities and in private industry during the war should be used in days of peace for the improvement of the national health, and creation of new enterprises bringing new jobs and the betterment of the national standards of living. Dr. Bush appointed special committees composed of distinguished scientists and other citizens of experience and assigned to them for consideration and recommendation specific questions asked by President Roosevelt. These committees submitted their findings to Dr. Bush who in turn submitted his report entitled "Science, the Endless Frontier" to President Truman on July 5, 1945. The recommendations contained in the Bush report became the basis for a bill (H. R. 3852) which I introduced in the House on July 19, 1945. A companion bill (S. 1285) was introduced by Senator Magnuson, and a somewhat similar bill (S. 1297) was introduced by Senator Kilgore.

Extensive hearings lasting several months on the Magnuson and Kilgore bills were held by subcommittees of the Senate Committees on Military Affairs and Commerce. As a result of those hearings and subsequent discussions some of the differences between the two bill were compromised in S. 1850, which was introduced on February 21, 1946, by Senator Kilgore, for himself and Senator Magnuson, Johnson, Pepper, Fulbright, Saltonstall, Thomas, and Ferguson. That bill, S. 1850, was reported out for debate by the Committee on Military Affairs on April 9, 1946, and is still awaiting action by the Senate.

After carefully studying the provisions of S. 1850 I came to the conclusion that H. R. 3852, the bill I introduced last year, was a better answer for most of the problems involved than S. 1850, although there were a few points mentioned in the Senate hearings that had not been covered in H. R. 3852. Therefore, I revised my original bill to include some of those points and then introduced the amended version which now is before this subcommittee for consideration.

H. R. 6448 has been drafted in order to carry out the recommendations contained in the Bush report. Both the Bush report and the hearings before the Senate subcommittees showed clearly the great need for support by the Federal Government of the basic scientific research work ordinarily performed in universities. The Bush report concluded with respect to this point that new impetus must be given to the discovery of fundamental knowledge and that such new impetus can come promptly only from the Government. Commercial organizations may be depended upon to carry the burden of research in the applied fields because of the reasonable close connection of such work to their financial interests, but the basic sciences will suffer unless financial support from the Federal Government is made available. In the past such support has come by means of endowment from wealthy Americans interested in supporting such vital activities, but all of us are now well aware that support from that source can no longer be expected in view of the applicable taxes. Thus, at a time when research in the natural sciences is becoming increasingly costly, the traditional support from private gifts, endowment income, and grants by the large foundations are not able to meet the need, The search for other sources of income to support basic research unearthed none except the Federal Government.