The association has studied proposed legislation in this area of national development and has reached some conclusions on certain points which we think are at the heart of successful operation of the Foundation. In the appointment of the Board prestige certainly would be gained if the President named the members from nominations presented by recognized scientific bodies such as the National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Engineers Joint Council, the American Medical Association, and possibly others. Members of the Board, and the Director, should be removable by the President for cause. We favor the placing of the organizational and administrative responsibility upon a nonpartisan board, appointed as above and of recognized competence, which would employ a director to assume executive duties, rather than upon a director with full power and a board with only advisory powers. So far as we know, a logical, unbiased argument against the former type of organization has not been successfully maintained.

The major objectives of a broad science and engineering Foundation seem to be amply allowed for in the various divisions named or implied in this bill. Our association is on record as favoring ample recognition of the need for sponsored social-science studies but it has not believed that the Foundation to be established by H. R. 6448 is the proper place for such inclusion.

The patent provisions of H. R. 6448 seem to be fair and also so stated as to assure justice to the public interests and to the cooperating agency.

The bill recognizes the desirability of fostering scientific investigation and training on the broadest geographical basis consistent with adequate facilities no matter what type of tax-free institution is made use of. The Foundation must be able to discover and develop the talent of our youth regardless of its locality and setting.

Believing, as it does, that the advancement of the physical and medical sciences is an immediate and grave responsibility of the national effort, the Engineering College Research Association endorses H. R. 6448 and respectfully urges its enactment by the Congress.

Mr. PRIEST. Are there any questions of Dr. MacQuigg?

Mr. BROWN. I might say that we are rather proud of Dr. MacQuigg in Ohio. We feel that he is one of the outstanding men of the world in engineering science.

Mr. PRIEST. May I say that the gentleman from Tennessee concurs with you, and I think that is the general feeling among other members of the committee. We all think that Dr. MacQuigg is an outstanding man in this field.

Are there any questions?

Mr. BROWN. I would like to ask the Doctor if he has any suggested amendments or changes in this bill he thinks would be helpful?

Dr. MACQUIGG. No, sir; beyond the ones that I mentioned, or mentioned by inference. The matter of the appointment of the board members has seemed to us as important right along, and when I say "us" you understand that this association has been pushing these ideas, even before the United States went into the war, because even then we saw the need along these lines. We have believed that there could be absolutely nothing wrong if competent scientific bodies gave the President maybe two or three names from each body, and then he could use his own discretion in appointing that board.

1

Mr. BROWN. That is something like the States where the bar association makes nominations for judges to the appointing officer and so on. Dr. MACQUIGG. Yes, sir; and that does not in a sense tie the hands of the Executive, as we see it, because he always has and could go back for more nominations if he wanted them. I believe that nothing could be lost, and we think that that would place the board so appointed above any public criticism, because it puts the responsibility right back on the scientists themselves.

Mr. BROWN. There would not be much likelihood of any President going outside of these organizations for nominations, or selecting anyone not qualified?

Dr. MACQUIGG. We should certainly hope not.

Mr. BROWN. May I ask one other question, Mr. Chairman. Would you care to comment at all on the question that is in the minds of some of us, at least on the committee, as to whether or not we should by specification include social sciences in this bill?

Dr. MACQUIGG. Our group has taken the position, Mr. Brown, that we would appear, to testify if ever invited, very much in favor of social-science legislation. I do not mean social-science legislation but legislation which would make possible social studies in the socialscience areas, but we do not favor its inclusion here.

Mr. BROWN. It would be your idea, then, that social science should be excluded from the bill, in requiring the things which must be done; but through the other sections, in the general coverage, in applied and basic research, that the Foundation could go into the field of social sciences wherever that connected or wherever that tied in, is that true?

Dr. MACQUIGG. That is true.

Mr. BROWN. Or wherever the Board felt it necessary to reach the other objective?

Dr. MACQUIGG. I could not do better than again underscore Dr. Bowman's suggestion on that this morning, where I believe he said that certain special provinces of social sciences could and should be made use of in the statistical field, for example, but to seek to tie in just willy-nilly a lot of more or less extraneous social science studies, no matter how important in themselves, does not seem to us to have a proper place here.

Mr. BROWN. That is a field of its own?

Dr. MACQUIGG. That is right.

Mr. PRIEST. Are there any further questions? We certainly appreciate your statement, Doctor.

Mr. Kenney has not yet arrived, but I think that Dr. Dyer of the United States Public Health Service is here and, if convenient, we would like to hear you at this time.

STATEMENT OF ASST. SURG. GEN. ROLLA E. DYER, DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF HEALTH, FEDERAL SECURITY AGENCY

Dr. DYER. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, the Public Health Service has been deeply interested in this and other proposed legislation for the establishment of a National Science Foundation. The Public Health Service has been continuously engaged in scientific

research both basic and applied for over 50 years. During that time the Congress has given increasingly broad authority to the Public Health Service for conducting and fostering research in the health and medical sciences. Appropriations to the Service for its research failities and activities have increased likewise, although not as yet to the point where funds permit us to carry out fully the responsibilities authorized by Congress. In the past 10 years, annual appropriations for research activities have averaged about $3,000,000, exclusive of capital investments. The laboratory facilities of the Public Health Service have been constructed at a cost of some $8,000,000. Thus, the Public Health Service is the principal Federal agency engaged in health and medical research, not only as to facilities and legal functions, but also as to personnel and experience.

With such a background of public responsibility and continuous scientific activity, the Public Health Service could not fail to endorse wholeheartedly the broad objectives of the Bush report and of the pending legislation. We recognize that only through the advancement of science can we fulfill our other major responsibilities; namely, protection and improvement of national health and provision of medical care for our legal beneficiaries. In his annual report to Congress for the fiscal year 1944, the Surgeon General formulated the elements of a national health program: One of these six elements is the expansion of Federal support for scientific research. I should like to read that portion of the report:

The Nation should continue to support and encourage both public and private research to a degree commensurate with the present coordinated programs of research in war medicine. Medical science is one of the most dynamic, most rapidly developing sectors in the search for new knowledge. Even modest expenditure for pure and applied research in medicine and the basic sciences have already yielded results out of all proportion to the financial outlay. The economy and effectiveness of a comprehensive health program will depend heavily upon the discovery of better methods to prevent and cure diseases.

Governmental funds for research should be available through grants-in-aid to scientific institutions, to insure continuity of research and to enlist cooperation in investigations requiring a variety of professional skills. Problems selected for public support should include basic and laboratory and clinical research, as well as administrative studies and demonstrations.

We have studied carefully the proposed legislation, as well as the excerpts from reports issued by the Subcommittee on War Mobilization, September 28 (S. Doc. 92), and the published hearings on scientific legislation. These documents have impressed us with the sincere concern of the authority of the various bills and of the committee members that the final legislation shall express clearly the intent of the Congress and the will of the American people.

It is understood that the intent of the proposed legislation is, broadly, to provide adequate Federal support and encouragement for scientific research and training, and to secure cooperation among research and development organizations in the public interest, without encroaching upon the intellectual freedom and independence of individuals and institutions engaged in such activities. The problem is so to draft the legislation that, in the future, the intent of Congress may not be misinterpreted by any participant in the program, whether the new Foundation itself, another Federal agency, or a private institution.

The Public Health Service and its legally established advisory councils believe that two major points require further clarification. These

are:

1. Scientific freedom of Government agencies now engaged in research under statutory authority from Congress.

2. Relation of Federal research agencies to the proposed Foundation. We are just as much concerned with preserving the scientific integrity and independence of our organization as any university administrator or director of a private foundation. As the President states in his message to Congress on September 6, 1945: "Although science can be coordinated and encouraged, it cannot be dictated to or regimented." The very organization of the Public Health Service during its more than 50 years of research has protected our scientists and our investigational activities from the pressures of private gain to a degree equal to if not greater than that afforded in other institutions. This has been true since the 1880's when research in the health sciences required hazardous field investigations of epidemics of cholera and yellow fever. As a result, we have been able to develop a diversified program of basic and applied research, to recruit personnel of the highst caliber, and to conduct long-term investigations based upon the scientific method and freedom of individual thought.

In a series of laws enacted since 1901, the Congress has expanded the facilities and authority of organized research in the Public Health Service. In 1901, the Hygienic Laboratory was established. In 1902, the biologics control law was enacted, giving the Service the responsibility for licensing the manufacture of biologic products sold in interstate commerce. A vast amount of basic and applied research in bacteriology and immunology has gone into the establishment of the United States standards for the purity and potency of biologic products. In 1912, the research function of the Service was broadened to include besides the investigation of infectious and contagious diseases, authority to "study and investigate the disease of man and conditions influencing the propagation and spread thereof," including the pollution of inland waters.

The act of 1930 creating the National Institute of Health confirmed that authority and also established a system of fellowships in the Institute. In the same year, the Service was given the authority and responsibility to conduct research in narcotic drug addiction and related subjects, as well as upon the causes, prevelence, and means for the prevention and treatment of mental and nervous diseases.

Title VI of the Social Security Act of 1935 greatly expanded the research program of the Service through its authorization of annual appropriations of $2,000,000 for this purpose. The National Cancer Institute Act of 1937 established the principle of grants-in-aid to responsible public and private institutions for medical research projects. The testimony on that legislation stressed the importance of basic research, of long-term projects without promise of immediate results, and of complete freedom to the cooperating institutions in the use of funds alloted to them and in the conduct of their cancer research programs.

The act stated that the establishment of the Institute was for the purposes of:

* *

as

Conducting researches, investigations, experiments, and studies sisting and fostering similar research activities by other agencies, public and private; and promoting the coordination of all such researches and activities and the useful application of their results

* * *

The National Venereal Disease Control Act of 1938 included specific language authorizing the Public Health Service to conduct research in this field.

The Public Health Service Act of 1944-Public Law 410-Seventyeighth Congress, incorporates the above-mentioned research functions of our organization and gives us even broader authority. In fact, the basic law of the Service gives the agency all of the authority in reference to health and medical research that is contemplated for the proposed Foundation, in those fields.

The Service is authorized to

conduct, and encourage, cooperate with, and render assistance to other appropriate public authorities, scientific institutions, and scientists in the conduct of, and promote the coordination of, research, investigations, experiments, demonstrations, and studies relating to the causes, diagnosis, treatment, control, and prevention of physical and mental diseases and impairments of man, including water purification, sewage treatment, and pollution of lakes and streams.

The language could scarcely be broader.

Specifically, we are authorized to provide research fellowships and to make grants-in-aid to universities, hospitals, laboratories, and other public or private institutions and to individuals for such research projects as are recommended by our advisory councils.

Mr. Chairman, the Public Health Service wishes to be clearly understood as not holding the point of view that, because we have this broad authority, we should, therefore, seek to monopolize this field. On the contrary, we believe that such a monopoly would be undesirable; no one agency-however broad its powers-will be able, nor should be able, to monopolize the field of health and medical research, at least not under our democratic system of government. The sole interest of the Public Health Service is in insuring its freedom to develop its program of research and training in accordance with the authority granted it.

Senate bill S. 1850 in section 5 (d) clearly expresses the intent of the Congress to safeguard the independence of Government agencies engaged in research and development activities as follows:

The activities of the Foundation shall be construed as supplementing and not superseding, curtailing, or limiting any of the functions or activities of other Government agencies authorized to engage in scientific research and development. Funds allocated by the Administrator to other Government agencies shall be utilized for projects approved by the Administrator and undertaken on behalf of the Foundation, and shall be in addition to, and not in lieu of, funds regularly appropriated to such other Government agencies.

This principle has been supported in various reports of the committees of the Senate and in the hearings on Senate legislation. No one intends that the proposed legislation should be interpreted in any other way.

To insure effective correlation of the work of the proposed Foundation and existing governmental research agencies, the Public Health Service strongly urges that Government research agencies be repre