Leaving aside the sociological jargon, we can state that among other things, the usual small laboratory minimizes bureaucracy, generally helps to encourage creativity because of a relatively permissive attitude, and enhances personal motivation because of local recognition and involvement.

5. I believe that it will be necessary to assign specific responsibility to an individual, with sufficient status in government, for establishing programs when concerned with new areas; however, much of what needs to be done in reforestation, the building of recreational areas, etc., can be done by existing agencies.

Obviously many things have to be tried, in many places, if a program is to have impact sufficient to change the economic health of a region. Many projects tried will undoubtedly be disappointing in their results. I would point out, however, that the pulping of southern pine, the use of taconite, and other projects like these have been sufficient in themselves to create prosperity in a substantial geographical region.

GENERAL BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Edited by H. Jarrett, Comparisons in Resource Management: Resources for the Future, John Hopkins Publishers, 1961.

2. Perloff, Dunn, Lampard, and Muth, Regions, Resources, and Economic Growth, John Hopkins Publishers, 1960.

3. Friedman and Alonso, Regional Development and Planning, MIT Press, 1964. 4. W. A. Lewis, Development Planning, Harper and Row, 1966.

5. A. Waterston, Development Planning: Lessons of Experience, John Hopkins Publishers, 1965.

6. Community Economic Development Efforts, F. A. Praeger Publishers, 1966. 7. E. S. Helfman, Rivers and Watersheds in America's Future, David McKay Company Publishers, 1965.

Senator HARRIS. The subcommittee will recess until May 17 at 10

a.m.

Thank you very much.

Mr. TIKKER. Thank you, Senator.

(Whereupon, the subcommittee was recessed at 4 p.m. to reconvene on Wednesday, May 17, 1967, at 10 a.m.)

EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION OF R. & D. FUNDS BY

GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

WEDNESDAY, MAY 17, 1967

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT RESEARCH,

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 11:25 a.m., in room 1318, New Senate Office Building, Senator Fred R. Harris (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Senators Harris and Hansen.

Also present: Dr. Steven Ebbin, staff director and Fred Mansbridge, minority staff member.

Senator HARRIS. The Subcommittee on Government Research will be in order.

I want to apologize for having to delay our beginning time this morning, which was necessitated by my having to be at the White House for a meeting concerning legislation before the Congress, a meeting that I received notification of only yesterday afternoon when it was too late to give you any greater notice.

We are continuing today our hearings on the equitable distribution of Federal research and development grants and contracts, and the impact of funds for science and technology on regional economic development.

Our first witness this morning will be Dr. Thomas F. Jones, who is president of the University of South Carolina. To present him we are pleased to have the distinguished Senator from South Carolina, Senator Strom Thurmond.

STATEMENT OF HON. STROM THURMOND, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Senator THURMOND. Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank you very much for your courtesy. I am in a meeting of the Judiciary Committee, and I left that to come down to introduce my good friend, the distinguished president of the University of South Carolina, Dr. Thomas Jones. I am not going into any great detail in introducing Dr. Jones. I think he is well known over this country as well as in my State. I simply want to say that he has served in various capacities. He has served as an instructor, an assistant professor, an associate professor, and as a research associate at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; as head of the School of Engineering at Purdue; a member of the Sixth Annual Conference on Science and Technology in Israel and the Middle East;

and as an adviser to the National Science Foundation. He received his doctor's degree from Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Since Dr. Jones has been at the University of South Carolina, this institution has undergone tremendous development and progress, and we are very proud of the expansion and the development that has come to the university during Dr. Jones' administration.

It is a great pleasure for me to present him to the committee at this time, and to say that South Carolina is proud to have him as a member of the Science Foundation.

Senator HARRIS. Thank you very much, Senator Thurmond. We are grateful for your interest in the subject before this subcommittee and for your taking the time away from another committee meeting to come down here and present this distinguished witness. Without objection a biographical sketch concerning Dr. Jones will be inserted in the record.

Dr. Jones, I believe you have a prepared statement. We welcome you here. You may proceed as you desire.

Biographical Sketch: Dr. Thomas F. Jones

President, The University of South Carolina B.A. Mississippi State, 1935; M.A., 1940; Ph. D. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1952.

Awarded the Meritorious Civilian Service Award for distinguished service, U.S. Navy, World War II; MIT, 1947, research on computers, nuclear instrumentation and missile systems; Headed the School of Electrical Engineering Purdue University 1958-62; President of the University of South Carolina, 1962—. Named South Carolinian-of-the-Year, 1966 by WIS Radio and Television, Members of the National Science Board; Executive Committee of the National Highway Research Board. Member of: International Association of University Presidents; the Advisory Board of the Southern Region of the Institute of Education; the Education and World Affairs Task Force on Agriculture and Engineering; and the Secretary of the Navy's Advisory Board on Education Requirements.

TESTIMONY OF DR. THOMAS F. JONES, PRESIDENT, THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA, COLUMBIA, S.C.

Dr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to appear here before the Subcommittee on Government Research and your taking the time to hear a little bit about the problems of distribution of research funds as they are seen from South Carolina. I shall direct my remarks at the relationship between research and the development of our State, although in looking over some of the statistics from the State of Oklahoma, I would suggest that we have some very common problems.

At the outset I want to make it clear that I feel that we must continue the support of our "prestige institutions," but if we are to develop the kind of Nation that we are striving to develop, we have got to invest a lot more heavily down toward the grassroots in the State and regional institutions, scattered all over our land, to achieve the things that we would seek.

We all have a great desire in these institutions to develop our people and to contribute to the development of our country.

In our State, some 20 institutions have an ability to contribute in this way.

The first point that I would like to make is that funding graduate study and research in what I would describe as the emerging institutions basically will assist the prestige institutions of the country, and I think this fact is often overlooked.

My colleagues from the prestige institutions often complain that there aren't enough graduate students of high quality to go around. And no wonder this is true, because the research funds have been largely sent toward these institutions to develop their programs. As a matter of fact, 60 percent of the development funds go to some 20 out of 223 Ph. D. granting institutions in our country.

Let's take a look for a moment at how funding institutions such as the University of South Carolina, which I will use as an example, because I am most familiar with it, would help develop the prestige instiutions. The Nation as a whole has been producing about 50 doctor's degrees per million population per year in the past decade. In States and regions such as my own, where there has not been a strong witness to graduate education, the production has been only about a half dozen Ph. D.'s per million per year, but yet there is no reason to believe that we don't have a potential far greater than this and there is every reason, in fact, to know that we do.

I am happy to say that at the present time, our State has managed to come up from an average of about six Ph. D.'s per million per year for the last decade to a present level of about 20 Ph. D.'s per million per year, because of emphasis put on the doctorate in our State, and some recent Government programs which have helped us to develop thus far.

We can, however, develop a lot more rapidly. But let me say that there are 19 States which are achieving less than 20 Ph. D.'s per million out of their population, indicating a great potential in these States which is not being developed. Our State, of course, has just reached the level of about 20 within the last year or so, but as we develop strong graduate programs, we will have a strong positive witness for our young people of the kind of objectives they should have in life-the importance of achieving your ultimate potential through education. And many young people who are now going directly from the baccalaureate into business and industry, because this is the pattern that they have come to accept, would instead move on into graduate study. Those that are superior or particularly outstanding would seek the prestige institutions, and much material that they now never see would then become available to them. Their shortage of excellent graduate students would disappear, or at least diminish.

I don't propose that emerging institutions such as my own are in a position to compete with these institutions for students. I think that it is very proper and normal that they would distribute themselves around. But the important point is we are not reaching our Nation's potential in developing our young people, and the commitment of more research funds into our many emerging institutions would develop the entire educational level of our country.

I would like to mention one point here that I do think is important. I think it is important to you, Mr. Chairman, and to your committee. Our State government this year, for the first time, pledged to the principal universities fund allocated specifically for support of graduate study. It is a relatively modest amount at first. This year we were