STATEMENT OF DR. VANNEVAR BUSH, PRESIDENT, CARNEGIE INSTITUTION OF WASHINGTON, AND DIRECTOR OF OFFICE OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Mr. PRIEST. Before you proceed Dr. Bush, I should like to express what I believe is the Nation-wide gratitude to you, sir, for the very great job you did during the war.

Mr. KENNEY. I join with you on behalf of the Navy Department, and I know Judge Patterson would join you on the part of the War Department, if he were here.

Dr. BUSH. Mr. Chairman, that gives me an opportunity, if you will allow me, to comment on the statement which Mr. Patterson made this morning, in which Mr. Kenney has so kindly seconded. As Mr. Patterson said something about the fact that the Office of Scientific Research and Devolopment contributed much to the efforts of the War Department, as we endeavored to do for both the War and Navy Departments, I want to add that if such a contribution was in fact substantial, it was due to two things: first, that we had the finest body of officers serving this country that the world has ever seen assembled to take on their shoulders the great responsibility of conducting a modern war; and second, we had in service, and in fact, have with us today Secretary Patterson and Secretary Forrestal, for both of whom I have great respect, and I wish to pay my special tribute to the great Secretary of War who led us through a difficult time, Secretary Stimson, whose vision and courage were behind many of the things that were done, not only in the scientific field but in all other fields.

Mr. Chairman, I have no prepared statement. I listened this morning as Mr. Mills presented to you his statement of the general philosophy which guided him in presenting this bill, H. R. 6448. His opening statement so completely expressed what seem to me to be the facts of the situation that I do not believe I need supplement them.

I did prepare one document, as a basis for clarifying my own think ing in preparation for this testimony. I have prepared a document which gives in some detail the differences between S. 1850 and H. R. 6448. I have found it very useful and I will be very glad to pass it on to your recorders if you see fit to put it in the record.

Mr. PRIEST. We will accept that, and include it in the record. (The statement is as follows:)

DIFFERECES BETWEEN THE KILGORE-MAGNUSON BILL (S. 1850) AND THE MILLS BILL (H. R. 6448)

The following analysis may be helpful to enable an understanding of the differences between the Kilgore-Magnuson bill and the Mills bill, which was introduced in the House on May 15, 1946.

1. Purposes

The purposes of the Kilgore-Magnuson bill and the Mills bill are generally similar, except that the Kilgore-Magnuson bill includes as a purpose "to promote the conservation and use of the natural resources of the Nation." Each would establish an independent agency of the Federal Government to be known as the National Science Foundation.

2. Administrative organization

(a) The Kilgore-Magnuson bill follows the general pattern of an "in-line" organization, with considerable power being vested in a single administrator to be appointed by the President, after receiving the recommendation of the mem

bers of the National Science Board, with the advice and consent of the Senate. In exercising his authority, the Administrator "shall consult and advise with" a National Science Board and divisional scientific committees "on all matters of major policy, program or budget." That advisory Board would consist of nine members appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, plus the chairman of the divisional scientific committees. The members of the Board and the divisional scientific committees would receive $50 for each day of work for the Foundation, and they could also engage in nongovernmental activities without fear of prosecution under certain criminal statutes that might otherwise be applicable to such dual activities.

(b) Under the Mills bill the "powers and duties of the Foundation shall be exercised by a Board of nine members (hereinafter referred to as the "Board") who shall be appointed by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate plus the chairman of the several divisional committees." Provision is made for the appointment by the President, upon the recommendation of the Board and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, of a Director who "subject to the supervision of the Board, shall be the principal executive officer of the Foundation." The members of the Board, as well as members of the divisional committees, would receive $50 a day while engaged in the business of the Foundation, and they would receive the same protection as under the Kilgore-Magnuson bill when they engage in nongovernmental activities.

3. Divisional organization

(a) The Kilgore-Magnuson bill provides for the initial establishment of eight divisions, namely, the Divisions of (1) Mathematical and Physical Sciences, (2) Biological Sciences, (3) Social Sciences, (4) Health and Medical Sciences, (5) National Defense, (6) Engineering and Technology, (7) Scientific Personnel and Education, and (8) Publications and Information. After receiving the advice of the Board, the Administrator is given power to establish additional divisions, not to exceed three in number, and to prescribe the functions of each division.

(b) The Mills bill provides for the initial establishment of only five divisions, namely, the Divisions of (1) Medical Research, (2) Mathematics, Physical and Engineering Sciences, (3) Biological Sciences, (4) National Defense, and (5) Scientific Personnel and Education. The Board is given power to create not exceeding three additional divisions and may prescribe the powers and duties of such divisions.

4. Social sciences

(a) The Kilgore-Magnuson bill provides for the initial establishment of a Division of Social Sciences, but provides that, "until the Administrator and the Board have received general recommendations from the Division of Social Sciences regarding the support of research through that Division, support of social science research shall be limited to studies of the impact of scientific discoveries on the general welfare and studies required in connection with other projects supported by the Foundation.”

(b) The Mills bill does not provide for the initial establishment of a Division of Social Sciences, and specifies that, until the Board creates such a Division, "the initiation and support by the Foundation of the social sciences shall be limited to studies related to the programs of the divisions theretofore established and studies of the impact of scientific discovery on the general welfare."

5. Scholarships, fellowships, and register of scientific and technical personnel The two bills have in general the same provisions for the awarding of scholarships and fellowships, and for the maintenance of a register of scientific and technical personnel.

6. Distribution of funds

(a) The Kilgore-Magnuson bill prescribes rather strictly for the distribution by means of contracts of funds appropriated to the Foundation. At least 15 percent of such funds are available only for expenditure in the field of health and the medical sciences, at least 15 percent more only in the field of national defense, not less than 25 percent must be apportioned among the States and spent only under contracts with tax-supported colleges and universities, including the land-grant colleges, and an additional 25 percent must be spent under con

tracts with nonprofit organizations without regard to State quotas or the taxsupported character of the organization.

(b) The Mills bill contains the specific limitation that not less than 15 percent of all funds appropriated for research and development activities shall be spent under contracts in the field of national defense. The bill also provides that "an amount sufficiently large to recognize the needs" shall be spent under medical research contracts. In addition, the general objectives are stated that all funds "shall be allocated within the discretion of the Foundation for contracts with organizations and individuals in such a way as to realize the objectives of (1) having the work performed by the organizations or individuals best qualified by training and experience to achieve the results desired, and (2) strengthening the research staffs of organizations, particularly nonprofit organizations, throughout all the States and Territories and the District of Columbia."

7. Patent rights

(a) The Kilgore-Magnuson bill contains five pages of complicated and detailed provisions covering the publication and use of inventions and discoveries. Those provisions are mainly concerned with the handling of inventions and patents under contracts, and establishes policies and procedures which are applicable to all Government agencies rather than just the Foundation. The bill covers the dedication to the public of all patent rights now owned by the Government, and specifies detailed provisions for the negotiation of patent rights in all existing and future Government contracts. In general, the policy set forth is for the Government agencies to obtain title to all inventions made during the course of federally supported research and development unless detailed findings are made to the contrary.

(b) The patent provisions in the Mills bill cover only one page and are limited to activities of the Foundation. The bill sets forth the requirement that "each contract executed by the Foundation which relates to scientific research or development shall contain provisions governing the disposition of inventions produced thereunder in a manner calculated to protect the public interest and the equities of the individual or organization with which the contract is executed." The determination of how to reach those objectives in particular cases is left to the discretion of the Foundation although broad limits are given as illustrations. There is a separate provision governing the dedication to the public of inventions made by employees of the Foundation, which would be a nonoperating agency.

8. International cooperation

The provisions in the two bills are identical with respect to the powers to be given Government agencies to encourage the interchange of scientific and technical information on an international level.

9. Interdepartmental coordination

Unlike the Mills bill, the Kilgore-Magnuson bill provides for the establishment of an interdepartmental committee with the Administrator of the Foundation as its chairman. Such a comimttee would include representatives of Government agencies engaged in or concerned with the support of scientific activities.

10. Method of operation

Under both bills the Foundation would be prohibited from operating laboratories or other scientific facilities, but would be given broad power to enter into contracts with other organizations for the support of research and development work and its other activities.

11. General powers

The Kilgore-Magnuson bill and the Mills bill contain similar provisions under which the Foundation would be given the powers needed for it to operate in a flexible and independent manner.

Mr. PRIEST. You have kept up, I am sure, all along the proposals of legislation to create a National Science Foundation, starting with S. 1285, and coming down with the bill in the Senate, S. 1850, the more recent Kilgore-Magnuson bill. During all that time, there have been certain compromises from time to time, and I am sure you are familiar with those. I wonder if you could explain to the committee, for the information of the committee any points in connection with those com

promises upon which you personally were willing to enter on a giveand-take basis in order to get out a working bill.

Mr. BUSH. Mr. Chairman, when one is engaged in compromise he ought to be willing to give and take on any issue, unless he feels that the public interest would be injured if he went too far. I certainly have been guided by that principle. I think that the primary point is that we need good sound science legislation in this country, and all else is secondary. Some of the points seem important to me because I feel one way of doing things might work better than another. However, in general I am not one who thinks the entire program would be wrecked by the way in which a number of these issues are determined. I do have quite strong opinions on a number of them which I will be glad to express.

Mr. BROWN. Is this legislation good sound scientific legislation? Dr. BUSH. I think this piece of legislation you have before you, H. R. 6448, is an excellently drawn piece of legislation, that it has been very carefully prepared and will fulfill the needs of the country better than any other piece of legislation I have seen for the purpose.

Mr. BROWN. You approve of the arrangements set up in this particular piece of legislation whereby the members of the Foundation are selected, and they in turn select a Director, rather than the in-line arrangement where the Director is the main appointee with power over the Board?

Dr. BUSH. Yes sir, I do, Mr. Brown, very much, and I think that is an important point. I favor very decidedly the form in which the policy-making powers will be in the hands of the Board, and the executive acts will be carried out by the Administrator under their general direction.

Mr. BROWN. In other words, he would be an agent of the Board, rather than the Board creating a Director?

Dr. BUSH. Yes sir, I think there has been a good deal of confusion in the discussion of that issue at times. We need an Administrator, of course, who would be the chief executive officer, and who would be responsible for carrying out the business of the organization, but that appears under both plans. It seems to me that it will make much more for harmony, however, and for effective operation, if that man is chosen by, and takes his orders from the Board which has the final policy-making power.

I also believe that it will be possible to attract stronger men and to attract their interest more strongly if they are given responsibility as well as the opportunity for giving advice. I draw my conclusion on that to a considerable extent from the experience of the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, which has been organized in this manner for a generation and which has operated effectively. It is fortunate that this country had an effective organization of that sort in the period between wars. Due to its work, we were well grounded in the science of aeronautics and the science of flight, and hence in good position to undertake the enormous responsibility of developing an air force for war purposes.

This organization has operated well, and has operated well under a board which has the entire responsibility and which carries on the entire affairs of the organization through an administrative officer of its own choice. The men sitting on that board regard their respon

sibilities very highly indeed, and they attend to business very closely because of that feeling of responsibility. I think that is not likely to occur to the same extent with an advisory board. I am sure that the scientists of this country will respond in either way and do the best they know how to do for their country if they are called upon for service, but I feel in general we will get a better response, a better board, and a better carrying on of affairs if the Board itself is given the responsibility.

Mr. BROWN. Öther than the directions or limitations set forth in the proposed bill as to the method and way in which the President shall select this Board, do you think there should be any other addition or any other restriction?

Dr. BUSH. I do not believe it is necessary, sir, and personally I would restrict the freedom and flexibility of the President in appointing this Board as little as possible, or not at all. I feel sure that the President, before appointing a board of this sort, would secure advice. I feel sure that he would get that advice from the best sources possible in his estimation. I think he should be left completely free to make his studies, to get his advice, and make the best appointments he knows how, with, of course, the provision for necessary confirmation by the Senate.

Mr. CHAPMAN. I would like for the doctor to comment on the suggestion that has been made that we write into the law a limitation that would require the President to select from nominations made by certain scientific societies.

Dr. BUSH. I think, Mr. Chapman, that would be unnecessary. It would certainly do no harm, but personally I would be inclined to leave it out, because I feel quite sure that the President would most certainly secure the advice of scientific groups. In doing so he would naturally turn to the National Academy of Sciences.

Mr. CHAPMAN. However, there should be no definite statutory limitations?

Dr. BUSH. That is right. I think the President should feel free to get his advice on such matters in any way he sees fit. I believe he undoubtedly will appoint a board of the highest possible caliber.

Mr. PRIEST. Is it not true also, Doctor, that when you start including and designating people by name, you necessarily exclude others? You cannot include all the associations that might claim they have just as much right to be included as some other one that might be in the bill.

Dr. BUSH. That is quite right, Mr. Chairman. The National Academy of Sciences, through the National Research Council and through the membership of that Council, reaches all of the principal scientific and engineering organizations in the country. The medical organizations, for example, are included. I am sure if they were called upon by the President, they would do a very thorough job indeed in securing from their constituent organizations advice upon the basis of which they would give him lists and the like. Still, I would not limit the President in any way, so that, for example, he would feel constrained not to turn directly to some of the medical organizations if he felt inclined to do so, or to turn in any other direction. I believe this should be remembered, too, Mr. Chairman: Certainly this board should be made up of men who understand science. They should