Page images
PDF
EPUB

CONTINUED PLEAS FOR BASIC RESEARCH

Senator ALLOTT. Of course, we are under the whiplash, Mr. Haworth, on this committee when NASA comes up here, as well as the military. They contend that the fallout of general basic research is so great that you do not need as much in other areas, but really the greatest portion of theirs ends up in a fallout for the benefit of everybody.

Dr. HAWORTH. There is a fallout. Opinions differ, of course, as to how much.

Dr. BRONK. The fallout on the additional side which creates the citizens of the future is far less there than it is here.

Senator ALLOTT. You can see the problem this poses for this committee, though.

Dr. HAWORTH. Yes; oh, yes.

Senator ALLOTT. Because their contention is we go ahead and get this committee up, and they say:

We are doing all of this and the great majority of it, the bulk of it, is a fallout for all basic research

and then we get you up here and we get the other showing. Which way do we go?

Dr. HAWORTH. There is no question that there is fallout. My own opinion is that the fallout is greater technologically than it is in basic research; greater in the area of development than in basic research. This problem, of course, is of very great concern to the executive branch also. It is one of the toughest problems.

PERCENTAGE OF BASIC RESEARCH

Senator MAGNUSON. In your statement you say:

Only a comparatively small portion-about 20 percent in fiscal year 1965-is for purposes other than the maintenance of a strong national defense and a vigorous space program.

In other words, basic research, when you take those two out, amounts to-I mean R. & D., amounts to about 20 percent of the total.

Dr. HAWORTH. Yes, and that is the red part. In fact, it is the part-the dotted line, you see, that little strip above the dotted line is the AEC defense work. The part labeled "Department of Defense" is the total R. & D. expenditure of the Defense.

Now, of course, the fallout is there, and they support basic research, and that has impact on basic research just as much as the National Science Foundation basic research program does. So again this is an agency-related thing rather than a substantive relationship. But the red, you see, is only about 20 percent of the total.

ALLOCATING DEFENSE RESEARCH FUNDS

The thing Senator Allott was talking about, the NASA research, that has the impact that you have spoken of, is, of course, up there in that tan part, and it is just impossible to really sort it out and say, "All this is purely defense.' purely defense." The development of a nuclear bomb is almost entirely defense. But even a nuclear submarine reactor has some impact on civilian reactors. But at least that is where the money is spent, primarily by DOD and NASA, and that little strip of

red above the dashed line is spent by AEC for their military programs which include the weapons development and the military reactor development.

Senator MAGNUSON. All right. Let us go on.

Dr. HAWORTH. Decrease in the Department of Defense expenditures projected for fiscal year 1965 explain the markedly slower rate of increase in Federal expenditures for research and development from fiscal years 1964 to 1965.

(The charts referred to follow:)

CHART 2

R&D AS A PERCENT OF THE GROSS NATIONAL PRODUCT, 1953-54-1962-63

[merged small][merged small][graphic][merged small][merged small][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]
[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

NEED TO CONSIDER INDIVIDUAL PROJECT

Dr. HAWORTH. Now I would like to make a special point: The question is being asked, "How much can we afford for research and development? What fraction of the Federal budget, of the gross national product?" I do not believe this to be the right approach. Research and development should not be looked at as a package, especially when considering budgets. Rather, I believe that one should look at the individual parts. Essentially all of the development and much of the applied research are directed at specific national goals: defense, space, public health, agriculture, and so forth. Our first concern, therefore, should be the relationship of such research and development to those national goals-how much research and development is necessary for these individual accomplishments? Development for defense should be thought of in the context of defense. Its financial costs should be in competition with other defense expenditures not with, for example, research for public health or basic research in general. Similarly with space, atomic energy applications, and other national goals. Of course, this statement has to be modified by the things we have been talking about with respect to the fallout from one field to another.

The vast majority of research and development is conducted or administered by the so-called mission-oriented agencies: the Department of Defense, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Atomic Energy Commission, the National Institutes of Health, the Weather Bureau, and the Department of Agriculture, to list those those with the largest programs. Although they support largely development or applied research, these agencies also support research that is fundamental in character but which, at the same time, is related directly or indirectly to their missions. It is necessary and desirable that agencies with sizable programs in science and technology support basic research, not only to develop new knowledge in their general field but also so that they can maintain close ties with the working community of scientists.

INVESTMENT IN SCIENCE

Only basic research and more broadly ranging applied research should be thought of as investment in science in the more general sense, and here the cost is relatively small. We may expect differences of opinion as to the relative importance and urgency of the various large projects and as to the total amount which the country can afford to spend on this sort of thing. It seems to me, however, that when we talk about the support of basic research and of education in the sciences, the gross amounts being spent for development have little or no relevance. The relatively small amounts spent for basic research and education are highly important to the future of science and, hence, to the future of our country. For this reason I urge that the research programs of the National Science Foundation and of other Federal agencies be considered on their own merits, wholly apart from the broader question of how much the Federal Government should spend under the total heading of "Research and development."

31-706-64-pt. 1- -35

INCREASING PRESSURE FOR FUNDS

Senator ALLOTT. May I interrupt again? I think this is a fine statement from your viewpoint, but we are operating or supposed to be operating on a budget of under $100 billion this year and, perhaps, from your viewpoint what you say is completely true. But from this $100 billion has to come an x amount for the support of our Veterans' Administration, which is now what, over $5 billion? Senator MAGNUSON. $7 billion.

Senator ALLOTT. $7 billion, including pensions, hospitalization, which is going up year by year, and which there seems to be no way of avoiding, just as an example.

We have the constantly increasing demand for the National Institutes of Health and those programs. We have the constantly increasing demands of housing for our people including the housing for our elderly.

Senator MAGNUSON. Excuse me, that is $5.4 billion.

Senator ALLOTT. I had the impression it was $5 billion. Would you correct that, Mr. Reporter?

But on our side of the table, Doctor, you have got to say how much of this can be spent for this.

Dr. HAWORTH. I agree.

Senator ALLOTT. It is no different than the man who is on a salary and who has to decide how much he can afford to indulge the whims of his family or his wife or how much he is going to spend on clothes and how much on education, and so forth.

BASIC RESEARCH APART FROM DEVELOPMENT

Dr. HAWORTH. I agree with your, Senator. Perhaps I have said it badly. But the point I am trying to make is I do not think the basic research should be affected by how much we spend for development any more than it is by how much we should spend for anything else. It is putting these two side by side that I am talking about.

I think, for example, the development of military weapons should be put in competition with military procurement rather than with other R. & D. We have to look at the total, I thoroughly agree. But I do not think one should think of a trade off between development and basic research any more than we think of a trade off between development and something else or basic research and anything else. We certainly have to look at the total, but R. & D. should not be thought of as a single package within the total.

I agree with you thoroughly we have to look at the total expenditure, but just because development happens to be done by engineers and scientists, it does not mean that we trade off dollar for dollar basic research and development any more than we trade off development and housing.

Senator ALLOTT. I would agree with this. But this approach taken in context with your preceding page, which is perfectly all right, and I do not quarrel with it from your viewpoint, is one that this committee cannot take because somewhere in the whole area of appropriations this committee has got to decide out of $100 billion, a $100 billion budget, we will say, who is going to get what, so somewhere there has to be an evaluation of how much can you put into the National Science Foundation.

« PreviousContinue »