80 THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION communities of physicists, engineers and other disciplines materializes as expected by the NSF, its present funding level will be far from sufficient to satisfy the implied requirements. As non-Federal organizations become greater users of Federal scientific and technical information, the Congress ultimately may have to decide to what degree which parts of the evolving information network are appropriate Federal responsibilities and which are appropriate private enterprise responsibilities. Congress will be looking to the Foundation for workable arrangements with the non-Federal systems to encourage operations and financing so that they will become strong enough to. avoid complete dependence on the Federal programs. Congress also will be interested in measures to indicate the quality of information contained in the national information network and to reduce low quality or superfluous information that seems to clutter present systems. 8. The balance-wheel function At a time when NSF testifies that it cannot support all the worthwhile research proposed to it, and that the projects it does select often are approved at budgets and terms less than requested, the Foundation nonetheless must assume a responsibility that will impose great future financial strains upon it. This responsibility is that of becoming the Federal balance wheel, for scientific research. That is to say, the Foundation, having identified national needs for science and the intentions of other agencies, has a responsibility to compensate for any disparity in level of support or allocations among different fields of science. This function does not appear in the Foundation's organic legislation, nor has it been specifically approved by the Congress. However, it is recognized by the subcommittee. Chairman Miller of the full committee also has spoken of the Foundation as most important balance wheel in our national scientific and technological effect." 139 *** a Because the balance-wheel concept implies a long-term, continuing increase in appropriations for the Foundation, the workings and implications of this idea merit careful attention. (a) Origins of an idea An early delineation of the balance-wheel function appears in the President's budget message of January 25, 1965. The President said in part: I also propose to expand present programs of support for academic research and science education. In 1966, expenditures by the National Science Foundation will increase by 25 percent, primarily to help provide an adequate rate of growth in Federal support for basic research in universities. 140 The subcommittee itself in posing the questions to the National Academy of Science that led to its report "Basic Research and National Goals," sought to elicit, among other things, yardsticks that could be employed to assess the balance of the NSF programs in size and distribution. The Academy's response supported a growth in NSF funds. Although there was little agreement on details among the NAS papers in the report, a minimum annual growth rate in total support of basic research of about 15 percent emerged a strong recommendation. 189 Hearings, p. 2. 140 Budget of the United States, Fiscal Year 1966-Message from the President of the United States (Ha Doc. 15). Congressional Record (daily ed.), v. 111, Jan. 25, 1965, p. 1074. THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 81 While no quantitative data was advanced to support this figure, a 15-percent annual increase was judged, in two reports, to be the minimum to provide support for all highly qualified scientists and to meet expanding educational needs. It was not clear in the NAS report, and subsequent testimony did not clarify this point, to what base should the 15 percent apply. Should the total Federal budget for basic research increase 15 percent yearly, or only that part spent on campus, or only the smaller part relating to little science? What base should be used for the proposed annual increase? Should it include "big science" as well as little science? How would the increment be used each year? Would it be distributed by geographical location, by field of science, by type of institutions? Questions such as these remain to be answered. As for the NSF, the NAS report suggested the possibility of expanding its budget to the point that it could serve effectively as the "balance wheel,' or even the main "umbrella" of support of basic research in the physical sciences. This possibility, the report points out, involves a major political decision.14 The discussion in the NAS report of allocation of support among fields, according to the summary, did not provide sufficient basis for the formulation of a balanced answer to the second question of the House committee about distribution of funds among fields of science. There was allusion, however, to a "deep financial crises" in the physical sciences (the biological sciences being proportionately better supported through NIH). Emergence of the balance-wheel concept should be no surprise. The Foundation has endeavored since its origin to improve its analytical capabilities to diagnose gaps and uneven distribution of scientific effort. Neither sound methodology, nor criteria for support have yet been perfected, and the Foundation seems to have tacitly adopted the philosophy that its response should reflect the free play of the scientific marketplace of ideas; i.e., letting the individual scientists, collectively, decide what is important, and then endeavor to support approximately the same fraction of proposals in all fields. Another way of putting this is that the Foundation responds to "proposal pressure," seeking and allocating its financial resources in response to the number and quality of proposals submitted from different fields of science. Dr. Brooks, commenting both as a National Science Board member and as a participant in the NAS Committee on Science and Public Policy study, said proposal pressure is still the best measure of relative needs and should continue as primary, although not the sole basis of judgment in allocation of funds for basic research grants. The balance-wheel concept received considerable attention this year. In testifying before the Independent Offices Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, in connection with the 141 The Academy's report suggested two courses to furnish the increased support believed necessary for basic research. The first was that mission-oriented agencies devote a larger part of their budgets to basic research. The second proposed the balance-wheel function for the Foundation. The report said: "The second course, which by no means excludes the first, is to make the National Science Foundation a much larger agency than it now is-so large that it can eventually become the 'balance wheel,' or even the main 'umbrella,' for the support of basic research-especially in the physical sciences-that is too remote to merit support from the mission-oriented agencies. Such a specific policy with respect to the future growth of the National Science Foundation involves a major political decision by Congress and by the executive branch, as formidable and far-reaching as its decision has been with respect to expansion of the National Institutes of Health" ("Basic Research and National Goals." A report to the Committee on Science and Astronautics, U.S. House of Representatives, by the National Academy of Sciences. March 1965, pp. 23-24). 82 THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION fiscal year 1966 budget, Dr. Haworth described the balance-wheel function in the following terms: 142 Through the Foundation there are opportunities for experimentation and for novel approaches. In relation to the total Federal effort in support of science, the Foundation could be likened to a balance wheel in a conventional timekeeping device. [Emphasis supplied.] We have the statutory authority necessary to assure the balance and the continuity of scientific progress. As a minimum requirement the Foundation should, in my opinion, (a) provide extensive support for broad areas of scientific interest, including research support, training, and specialized facilities as appropriate; (b) provide a substantial component of the total Federal support of basic research projects in colleges and universities (i.e., 25 percent or more); (c) provide a comparable fraction of the student support for graduate and postgraduate training of scientists and engineers; and (d) provide resources for training and education programs at all levels, with emphasis on innovation and on improving quality on a broad scale through concentrated efforts, as in the curriculum improvement and teacher training programs. The balance between the Foundation and other agencies was the point of Dr. Wiesner's testimony that the NSF's share of basic research support is probably too small. 143 He expanded this balancing idea later, noting that as several mission-oriented agencies found it necessary or desirable to restrict the growth of their basic research support, the fields which they had traditionally supported had been pinched. As examples he cited the Navy Department's inability to meet growing needs of oceanographic research and the leveling off of AEC support of research in chemistry. Whenever this happens, he continued *** the NSF should be directed to assume the responsibility for providing that margin of funding needed to insure that support for the particular branch of science is adequate.144 This might be done as part of the budget process. The OST and the Bureau of the Budget might prepare a summary of Government support planned for the various scientific disciplines. These figures could be compared with the NSF's estimate of the overall need in each area. Then the NSF could be charged with the responsibility of insuring that adequate funds were available for each.145 Dr. Thomas F. Bates, assistant and science adviser to the Secretary of Interior, treated the concept in detail in his testimony, making the points that more funding, better communications, and realistic, management-type decisions would be required.146 Other witnesses testified in favor of this concept, especially Dr. Hornig. He identified major problems lying ahead for the Foundation that definitely relate to the balance wheel function. Essential 142 "Independent Offices Appropriations for 1966." Hearings before a subcommittee of the House Committee on Appropriations, p. 573. 143 Hearings, p. 665. 144 Hearings, vol. II, answer to question 6 to Dr. Wiesner, p. 1374. 145 Ibid. 146 Hearings, vol. II, questions 12 and 15 to Dr. Bates, pp. 1358-1360. THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 83 parts of these problems were to determine, on a geographical basis, the distribution of facilities for scientific research and education which are needed to meet social and economic needs of regions as well as the Nation as a whole; to determine how support should be allocated among universities to meet regional needs while at the same time assuring that high quality in academic research is not only maintained but enhanced and expanded; to develop methods to choose meaningfully among the growing number of opportunities for further research; and to use research to meet the growing needs of our society for answers to questions which we now believe should be solved by national action.147 He also identified the study by the President's Science Advisory Committee of rational guidelines for academic research, for its growth and choice among fields for support, and the relation of the many Federal agencies involved. Dr. Philip Handler, Vice Chairman of the Board, in appearing with Dr. Haworth before a Senate Appropriations subcommittee to seek restoration of a cut in the fiscal year 1966 NSF budget, stated that Dr. Hornig had been "very instrumental" in introducing into the NSF budget a substantial increase in funds for general research grants. He then made three basic arguments for restoration of the funds: The first of these was the fact that this is a portion of the budget which ties itself to graduate education, and as necessary for the research aspects of that education also be increased. Secondly, there is a very simple fact that the cost of doing business in any given aspect of science continues to increase every year ** Finally, there is the fact that there was the real intent on the part of Dr. Hornig and the President's Science Advisory Committee which is shared by the membership of this Board that the Foundation should really contribute substantially to the overall support of science by the Federal Government. It should be the balance wheel in this entire enterprise and in order to do so, so that it may properly look after the vitality of each area of science, it is necessary that it assume a rather substantial fraction of the total Federal support of science and this year in which support of science by the Department of Defense is beginning to diminish, this would appear to be the proper time to do it. 148 149. In his concluding appearance before the subcommittee, Dr. Haworth clarified the role of the Foundation as gap filler, calling for an active, anticipatory role. He said: Now I would rather describe NSF's relationship with the basic research and support of education of other agencies by saying that we should take every advantage of what they can do, rather than by saying, "We are going to be here as a sort of service of supply and they are going to be the fighting troops; we are going to be the reserves and just fill in the gaps where they appear in the line." I think we should be in the 147 Hearings, vol. II, question 1 to Dr. Hornig, p 1101. 148 Independent Offices Appropriations, 1966, hearing before a subcommittee of the Senate Appropria tions Committee, pp. 565-566. 149 Emphasis supplied. 84 THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION forefront, but we should take account of all the capabilities It appears to the subcommittee that, through executive action, the Foundation already is beginning to act as a balance wheel. While, as noted before, this idea seems attractive, it is by no means certain that the details and the full ramifications of this idea are fully understood within either the executive branch or the Congress. For this reason, the subcommittee reaffirms its intention of oversight in regard to the working of the NSF as a balance wheel. (b) Funding the balance wheel If the Foundation indeed is to be a balance wheel, NSF must have criteria with which to judge the balance and funds to bring it to the desired balance point. The funds can be taken from other NSF programs-which was not thought desirable by the witnesses-or by increasing NSF funds. The reports submitted to and testimony heard by the subcommittee all talked of an annual increase of 15 percent, but were not consistent about the base to which the 15 percent applied, and for how long the growth should continue. Should the 15 percent apply to the entire NSF budget, to the basic research grants alone, or to the national research program and national laboratory programs? Should it apply to all Federal scientific research, to Federal basic research only, or to Federal basic research at academic institutions? Dr. Haworth in presenting the idea to a House Appropriations subcommittee specified 15 percent of total Federal academic research, with the NSF balancing any shortfall of other agency programs. He said: Hence, it is estimated that in fiscal year 1966 an overall increase of about 15 percent in total Federal support for research at academic institutions will be needed merely to maintain a constant relative level of research activity in those institutions to hold our own so to speak. A substantial part of this increase will be provided by Federal agencies that have specific missions to perform. However, the decisions of these agencies with respect to the support of academic research are made with primary reference to their mission requirements rather than to the needs of colleges and universities as such. Inspection of the budgets being proposed for fiscal year 1966 by these agencies provide for somewhat less than the desired 15-percent increase in the support of academic research. Because of the Foundation's responsibility for the strength of basic science and for science education, the Office of Science and Technology and the Bureau of the Budget proposed, and the President adopted the concept that the Foundation's budget for academic research should be sufficiently large to assure the necessary 15percent increase in overall Federal support. Hence the rather large increase in our request for basic research project funds.151 arings, p. 578. eings, Independent Offices Appropriations, House of Representatives, 89th Cong., 1st sess., 1965, |