lation I have previously recommended a minimum of 20 percent allocation for this purpose, and consider such a provision most desirable. In conclusion I wish to reiterate my hearty support for the ends sought to be accomplished by this bill.

Mr. PRIEST. Mr. Secretary, we certainly thank you for your statement. As you are aware, one of the questions of controversy that has developed over this proposed legislation relates to the question of administration. I am aware of the fact that perhaps, as a representative of the War Department, and because of lack of time to get a statement from the Bureau of the Budget, you might not wish to state an official position, but I wonder in view of your broad experience if you would care to comment on that from a personal viewpoint.

I am not attempting in any way to draw you out on a subject that you might not wish to comment on because of the situation previously referred to, but you have had broad experience, and the committee would like to have your viewpoint on that question of a board versus an administrator.

Secretary PATTERSON. It is a very closely debated question. In general, I believe in agencies with a single administrator to take the full responsibility for the performance of the Government agency, and prefer individuals to be responsible and held responsible, responsible to the President and responsible to you gentlemen, rather than a division of responsibility among the members of a board.

There is, however, in this activity some considerations the other way that I recognize, and I am cognizant of, and they are these, as I see it: Prior to the war, we did not have anything in the way of this activity. Even the Army and Navy did not have very much due to a paucity of funds, and to some extent lack of appreciation, I believe, of the possibilities. During the war, we had a very great and wellorganized activity under Dr. Vannevar Bush.

That organization, the Office of Scientific Research and Development, as much as any single agency in the Nation, was responsible for the victory that we attained. The list of devices, weapons, equipment furnished the Army and Navy by the Office of Scientific Research and Development is a long one and an extremely important one.

I was glad that Mr. Mills mentioned some of the more important ones. The contributions to the atomic bomb project, rockets, radar, and as he said, the homely DUKW, and there were very many of them, and the Nation was the beneficiary. That was a real mobilization of scientific talent, the like of which the country had never seen before.

Now, you come to the problem in the postwar period. Like everyone else, the scientists mobilized by the Office of Scientific Research and Development lost no time in getting back to their laboratories and universities and industrial concerns, where they had been engaged in research and development. That was natural for them to fly in all directions and try to resume the work that they had been doing before. The importance of the thing being such and the requirement that we continue on with effective scientific research and development for national defense, and that is all that I am speakng of really, the problem will be to continue to get their effort.

You need not worry about the Army and Navy, they are alert to the needs, and officers of the Army and Navy will be here, but we need to have the continued assistance of the technological people, the sci

entific people, and the engineering people in the way of experiment and new research and how to get them is the problem. The war urge is gone, the thing that brought them here, the critical times are gone, and we see them all scattered out.

Now, I asked Dr. Bush, I said, "How are you going to do it?" He said, "That is the problem."

I said, "Which type of organization appeals to them?" because that is the job, to enlist them and get them interested, and get some of them back, not, of course, under the great pressures or in the great numbers, but some of them, and it is, I think, certainly an argument of considerable weight that according to my information the scientists would prefer a board. They are the people to be interested, and they are the people to be enlisted, and their support provided.

Now, those are the two arguments as I see it, as I said in general I agree with the thought that usually a Government agency functions best under a single administrator, rather than a board, although we have successful agencies headed by boards, like the NACA or the Maritime Commission. You can do it either way, but those are the two considerations.

Mr. PRIEST. Are there any other questions?

Secretary PATTERSON. It depends on which one appeals most to you gentlemen.

Mr. BROWN. Would it not be your opinion, as a nonscientist, taking into consideration just what you have said to us, that perhaps it might be wise for the committee and the Congress to follow the suggestions of Dr., Bush, and others, who have done this remarkable work during the war, and who are perhaps in the best position to know how to get the cooperation of these scientists?

Secretary PATTERSON. I have said that that carries some weight with me, personally. It is a question of judgment, gentlemen. I do believe that in the ordinary case, the creation of a new executive agency like this, and certainly if we do need legislation along these lines, general lines, there is no question of it.

Mr. BROWN. Who would know more about how to get the best results from the scientists than Dr. Bush and the scientists themselves, is the thing that I am driving at?

Secretary PATTERSON. I could put it that way, myself. They are . not an unusual breed of cats, these people, they are human, and sometimes they say that they are soloists and things like that, but that is not so. At least, the ones I know are not. They probably think that I am a bigger crank than they are.

Mr. BROWN. May I take advantage of this opportunity to ask another question, which is related to this problem. I noticed in your statement you said the War and Navy Departments were alert to the needs for scientific development. May I inquire, inasmuch as I am not a member of the Military Affairs Committee, if in that connection the armed forces are shifting and changing their plans and methods of warfare? I do not mean the use of weapons alone, but also the type of organization to fit the new scientific developments.

Secretary PATTERSON. There is an alertness on the part of both Departments. They are aware of what they need in the way of changed organization. I believe it is on a high level in the Navy, and I do not know so much about their organization, but in the War

Department we have put right upon the General Staff a division of research and development as a continuing, permanent activity, and it is on the same level with the other important divisions of the General Staff, and it has been elevated up from a subordinate position, and also between the Army and Navy we have had under the Joint Chiefs of Staff a joint New Weapons Committee. It has been thought by me and Secretary Forrestal that that has not been fully effective in preventing duplication between the services, crowding one another, and we are now creating a new committee under the two Secretaries, to be headed by a civilian chairman, and we believe that giving greater powers to that civilian chairman, that committee will work more effectively, but in answer to your general question, it is right that we are, both of us, in our types of organization, giving recognition to the increased need and the imperative need of the very utmost in the way of scientific research and development for the production of new weapons.

Mr. BROWN. I am thinking, also, of the need for training and use of technical experts in the Army, as well as the latest equipment, of

course.

I am reminded that after the last World War, our Army was one of the last to get away from the old horse-drawn vehicle and the horse-drawn gun and to motorize, although that was not entirely the responsibility of the War Department. I think Congress was partially responsible, but I am just hoping that both the War Department and the Congress from now on will just keep abreast of modern developments a little better than we did for a while.

Secretary PATTERSON. I went to work in the War Department in the summer of 1940, and I remember in the fall of 1940 going down to Fort Jackson, where I think that we had the beginnings of our Regular Army division and a National Guard division, the three divisions from Tennessee and North Carolina and South Carolina, and part of Georgia, and seeing a battery of horse-drawn artillery there, going along the highway, and they were saying, “Giddap there, giddap there." That was terrible.

Mr. BROWN. That is one of the mistakes I hope we will not make in this modern age.

Secretary PATTERSON. That was pretty bad. I will say that within the next year they were gone, but the vestiges were there.

Mr. BROWN. They stayed about 20 years too long.

Secertary PATTERSON. Of course they limited the power of your artillery.

Mr. BROWN. And the mobility and everything else.

Secretary PATTERSON. And the weight of metal that they could throw, and with motor you could have a 105 howitzer instead of the old 75-millimeter gun.

Mr. BROWN. Now, I had just one other question, and I am not asking this question except for information. I think Congressman Mills made a very fine statement, but he mentioned the results, if I can find the sentence, of taking young scientists into the Army.

Secretary PATTERSON. We have a program now of sending men for postgraduate work in engineering schools and scientific institutions after they have finished West Point. We also have a program of

88581-46-3

getting graduates of those schools into the Army, to commission them, and trying in both ways to get a strong group of Regular Army officers with at least the fundamentals.

Mr. BROWN. Your answer is not quite in reply to the question that I had in mind. It is a very good answer, and I appreciate having that information, but Mr. Mills had this significant sentence in his state

ment:

One of the most tragic results of the war was the fact that many youths with scientific ambitions were forced to leave school to enter military service.

If I can amend that, I would strike out the word "results" and say, "One of the most tragic mistakes of the war was that these youths were taken out of the scientific studies," and I am wondering if there is any thought or plan, if another war comes to learn by the mistakes of the past and to see to it that our scientific studies and developments, and the development of our young scientists, are not interfered with as a result of the war.

Secretary PATTERSON. I do not know the facts and figures on that, and I would hesitate to say.

Mr. BROWN. I think it was a mistake of both Congress and the Selective Service in drafting these young men. I understand we were the only Nation on the face of the earth that did draft and take out of scientific studies the men we must depend upon in the future to give us what we need.

Secretary PATTERSON. All I can say on that is this: That scientists like Dr. Bush and Dr. Dewey and others that I have thorough confidence in say that is so, and how can I dispute it. I go along with them.

Mr. BROWN. You are in the same position on that as I seem to be as to the kind of an organization we ought to have to handle this program. I will follow their judgment rather than my own.

Secretary PATTERSON. They were always fair-minded during the war, and they saw the need of the armed forces for young men, and they knew the need of young men, also, to pursue their scientific studies, and I never found them biased about it, and if they say that we took too many out, I will go along with that statement. Mr. PRIEST. Are there any other questions?

Secretary PATTERSON. I was trying to get all I could for the Army. Mr. PRIEST. That was your particular job for the moment.

Mr. Secretary, we certainly appreciate your appearance before the committee. It has been very helpful to us.

It was the intention to hear Dean MacQuigg, of Ohio State University, but the House will be in session in a very few minutes, and it is a special day for Members of the House, memorial services for the House of Representatives.

We will adjourn until 2 o'clock, and Dean MacQuigg will be the first witness at that time.

The committee stands adjourned.

(Whereupon, at 12 o'clock noon, the committee adjourned until 2 p. m.)

AFTERNOON SESSION

(The hearing reconvened at 2 p. m.)

Mr. PRIEST. The committee will come to order for further hearings on the bill, H. R. 6448. We are glad to have Dean C. E. MacQuigg, of Ohio State University, present at this time, and we will be very happy to hear you, Dr. MacQuigg.

STATEMENT OF DR. C. E. MacQUIGG, REPRESENTING THE ENGINEERING COLLEGE RESEARCH ASSOCIATION

Dr. MACQUIGG. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, my name is Charles E. MacQuigg. My home is in Columbus, Ohio, and I am dean of engineering of the Ohio State University, director of the Ohio State University Engineering Experiment Station, and chairman of the Water Resources Board of Ohio, a registered metallurgical engineer in the State of Ohio, a member of the Natural Resources Committee of the Ohio Postwar Program Commission, and so on.

For more than 25 years prior to my present connections I was engaged in educational work, in military service, the practice of engineering and in industrial research and development. I am chairman of the committee on legislation of the Engineering College Research Association. The association consists of some 70 officially recognized engineering colleges and scientific organizations, and was formed at Chicago in 1942 for the purposes broadly envisaged by H. R. 6448.

The need for the type of legislation proposed in H. R. 6448 has long been recognized by those responsible for scientific and engineering education in this country. Approaches to this objective have been attempted for a number of years, witness the hearings before the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, June 3 and 4, 1941. As has unfortunately happened so many times in our history, it has taken a war to point the necessity for certain indispensable facilities for our national well-being.

The Engineering College Research Association represents institutions equipped with a very great investment in research facilities and staffed with a large number of engineers and scientists. It thus represents the only group in higher education devoted to the promotion of engineering and scientific research and the training of research workers. The association was formed with purposes specifically named in its constitution, that is to cooperate with the

* * agencies of the Government in the prosecution and promotion of research needed for the war effort * * * to promote postwar reconstruction and economy adjustment through new and improved processes affecting industry, public works, the conservation and development of natural resources, the public health, and similar activities. To serve as a continuing agency for developing and coordinating industrial and scientific research

and

to collaborate with other associations and with Government agencies concerned with research * * to achieve coordination and prevent duplication

of effort.

Since this bill would seem to provide a means whereby these purposes may be fulfilled, the association is in favor of its passage.