general relationships that develop in a community having a researchoriented university. For this reason I think it is of the greatest importance that virtually every State in our Union which will have an industrial orientation should have at least one major research-oriented university, and one in many cases won't be enough. Senator HARRIS. Senator Hansen. Senator HANSEN. I don't think I have any questions. I have been most impressed, Dr. Jones, with your excellent presentation. Dr. JONES. Thank you, Senator. Senator HANSEN. I find much of value in it. Dr. JONES. Thank you. Senator HARRIS. Let me ask you one more question Dr. Jones. Aside from economic impact, do you feel that students in a university where high quality research is being done would be likely to receive a better education than those in an institution where that was not true? Dr. JONES. Senator, this point is so firmly a part of my views that it is almost a faith, but I would like to speak to it. I heard a statement a while back that got right to my innermost core. The statement was that "the Greeks were so great because they didn't have classical education." Now I don't want to decry classical education. We need a certain number of people who are classically educated. But I think one of Great Britain's problems today is an overemphasis on classical education as against education with a very significant amount of know-how, and if you look across our Nation today, and find those people who are giving leadership in industry, in education, in the whole area of social effort and social reform, you will find that almost all of these people were educated in research-oriented environments, and if you take a look at any rating of the effectiveness and efficiency of schools, you will find among the leaders almost none which do not have a research-oriented environment. The plain fact of it is, Mr. Senator, that the schools which are not research oriented tend to be out of touch with the mainstream, out of touch with the real world, and turn out, by and large, young people who are in the same condition. I don't mean that the young people can't get into it on their own (many of them do, of course), but the emphasis on research or the research orientation of an institution assures that the teachers in the classroom are in touch with the current problems, are inspired by them, able to discuss them, and able to inspire the young people to face the real world in a real way. I wanted to mention one point that might be a little obscure. As regards the sociological problems of socioeconomic problems of our Nation, it is very easy in the rush of the business world to forget that these problems exist. But if the young people of today are in touch with research workers who are dealing with these and, in fact, become a part of the research process themselves, when they become leaders, either in their community or at the State level or perhaps even a Senator, Mr. Senator, they are going to be keenly aware of the nature of the problem and be able to deal with it far more effectively than if they had been isolated from the problem or otherwise out of touch with it. For that reason I think it is of the greatest importance to get this generation in touch with the search for understanding. We don't understand. We can't teach out of the history books. We can't teach out of the sociology books that which we do not know, and we have so many problems right now the answers to which we do not know. Senator HARRIS. Thank you very much, Dr. Jones. Dr. JONES. Thank you, sir. May I just make a quick introduction? I have with me Dr. William McCord, president of the Medical College of South Carolina. He is a colleague in the State-supported institution there and doing a great job at his institution and has in common much of the problems I have discussed, and contributed to my presentation. I would like to introduce him. He has about 10 words that he would like to say. Senator HARRIS. Dr. McCord, we are glad you are here. We will be pleased to hear anything you have to say. TESTIMONY OF DR. WILLIAM MCCORD, PRESIDENT, MEDICAL COLLEGE OF SOUTH CAROLINA Dr. MCCORD. I am Dr. McCord, president of the Medical College of South Carolina. I have a Ph. D. from Yale and M.D. from Louisiana State University. I am president of the medical college. We have been reorganizing for the last 2 years. I simply want to make a plea for money for the smaller institutions so they may develop their potential for research. We have a tremendous potential in South Carolina. South Carolina is moving ahead, and I ask for support in this area. Thank you. Senator HARRIS. Thank you very much. Any questions, Senator Hansen? Senator HANSEN. I have no questions. Senator HARRIS. Thank you very much, Dr. McCord. The committee will now be pleased to hear from Dr. Philip Handler. Dr. Handler is chairman of the department of biochemistry at Duke University and is president of the National Science Board. He is no stranger to this subcommittee and has been very helpful to us in our other interests. We are pleased to hear from him on this subject today. But first, without objection we will place at this point in the record a brief biographical sketch concerning Dr. Handler. (The biographical sketch referred to follows:) Biographical Sketch: Dr. Philip Handler James B. Duke Professor of Biochemistry, Chairman, Department of Biochemistry, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina. Background data: Jr. Chemist, Regional Soybean Laboratory, Department of Agriculture. Instructor, Physiology and Nutrition, Assistant Professor, Biochemistry, Associate Professor, Biochemistry and Nutrition, Duke University. President, National Science Board. Member of many professional committees. TESTIMONY OF DR. PHILIP HANDLER, JAMES B. DUKE PROFESSOR OF BIOCHEMISTRY, DUKE UNIVERSITY, DURHAM, N.C. Dr. HANDLER. Thank you very much, Senator. It is a great privilege to be with you here this morning. I have a statement which I would like to submit for the record. Senator HARRIS. Without objection then we will place in the record the entire statement and you may proceed. Dr. HANDLER. First, may I qualify myself. I am Chairman of the National Science Board of the National Science Foundation. I am a member of the President's Science Advisory Committee; a member of one of the Councils at the National Institutes of Health. I am also a member of the National Academy of Science and have served as president of the American Society of Biological Chemists and of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology. I relieve myself of this burden to point out that today I speak for none of those bodies. I speak only for myself. All of them are profoundly interested in the subject matter of these hearings. All consider that they have a great stake in the outcome, but none have a formed consensus to bring before you in an official way. Since they simply have no formally adopted position to put before you, I speak only for myself, but confident that I reflect the views of most of my colleagues. My thesis is that I very much and very deeply believe that the manner in which Federal funds are expended for research and development will have a profound effect on the development of the United States in the future. These funds should be considered in two categories, research and development, and it is the manner in which the development funds are presently distributed which is most disparate, that the disparities are greatest. A map of the United States showing the manner in which such funds are distributed would show hot spots and cold areas. The great hot spots are all well known to all of us. They are located on the Pacific coast, where the aerospace industry is, and the electronics industries largely around New England and around the San Francisco Bay area. This phenomenon finds its origins not in the contractual behavior of the U.S. Government, but rather in where the competence existed at the time these programs of the Government came into being. The aerospace industry is where it is because of the climate, which was favorable for the testing of airplanes back in the early days of that industry, and the electronics industries grew up around the universities, which had competence in related forms of electronic engineering. As Dr. Haworth, the Director of the National Science Foundation, pointed out at these hearings last year, a similar map of the manner in which research funds, particularly those given to the universities are distributed by the Federal Government does not show quite such great disparities. They are more evenly distributed. If one simply breaks them down by census region, the distribution of funds doesn't greatly differ from the distribution of the population, but within those census regions once again one finds very serious disparities, centers in which the funds are concentrated and relatively large regions in which the amount of such funds is relatively small. It is my belief that in the future it is the manner in which the funds will be delivered to the universities which will have the most important long-term effects on the nature of the American scene. Earlier in our history, surely, it was the way our land-grant colleges grew up which created the agricultural revolution which now makes. the United States possible. These universities were put just where they belong to be, in rural settings in the midst of the region they were intended to serve, and they serve them magnificently. They make all of our current economics possible. We have not had an equivalent development in our time of urban universities to do much the same thing for our extensively urbanizing society. Federal research funds were appropriated to buy research results. Eighty-five percent of all the funds which now go into university research programs are provided by mission agencies, and the missions of those agencies are quite specific, hardnosed, practical. We want information which will make possible a better world for ourselves and our children in the future and the money is provided to obtain that information. At the same time, albeit much more modestly over these years, we have appropriated funds in support of individuals. We grew fellowship programs in quite a few agencies, most particularly the National Science Foundation, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, and on a lesser scale in NASA and the Atomic Energy Commission, for example. So we used Federal funds to buy research results on the one hand, and to support individuals on the other. Neither of these programs was designed to support and develop institutions. Nevertheless, this did come about by virtue of the intelligence and the entrepreneurial activities of those who were in universities. These funds were used to build a certain number of universities, which readily fall into two categories. The first is the one you are already well aware of. These are the universities which were already strong in relation to the other universities, at the end of World War II. These are the prestige universities of which my colleague, Dr. Jones, has just spoken. With the availability of Federal funds these already strong institutions could not help but become stronger, and that is just as it should have been. I heartily approve that this is the manner in which events transpired. At the same time, they began to gather unto themselves the brightest young people in the United States who aspired to graduate school, and you can't blame the young people for going there. Bright young people who want to go to graduate school want to go "where the action is," if you will, and in science that meant going to the great universities of our time. And this is where we are today. Now there was a second group of universities which have grown very considerably by using such opportunities as were available within the context of that system. Many of them have made remarkable strides, and I call to your attention, for example, such places as the University of Washington in Seattle, Michigan State University, Brandeis University, Florida State University, and my own, Duke University. These were institutions which, before World War II, were hardly known to the rest of the world. They have come a great long way in the time since. This required a modicum of local initiative, of local funding, an eagerness to get on with this task, and then a fairly intelligent use of Federal funds appropriated in support of research, and Federal funds in support of individuals. However, that is not enough. I also believe that, for the future, the way in which we grow universities will have a profound impact on regional economy. In North Carolina, we are very much aware of that, and have attempted to do something about it. We may have been perhaps the most successful single State in the Union in so doing at the present time. As a combination of State and private initiative, there was born in North Carolina an organization called the Research Triangle, of which you will hear later in these hearings in greater detail, but I would like to mention them briefly. The three pillars of this Research Triangle are North Carolina State University, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and Duke University. These are "middle universities." They are the kind of universities which were certainly not great at the end of World War II, but which have used the opportunities available from Federal funding, plus local initiative, to climb significantly on the ladder of research success and of academic status. If you aggregate these three universities their total research funding exceeds that of Harvard, for example. Hence, in the aggregate they are quite a respectable organization. With these three pillars it was decided to create the Research Triangle, to buy up a large parcel of land, to make this area an attractive place for the research enterprises of industry to come, and to provide a heart for the organization, to create the Research Triangle Institute, which is a successful, ongoing venture. Using as bait to lure industrial organizations into the area, the physical location of the Research Triangle, and the facilities and the faculties of the three universities at the apices of this triangle, there has been brought into the triangle a remarkable collection of endeavors. In fact, this area is probably now the heart of synthetic fiber research in the United States. IBM has recently completed a half-millionsquare-foot plant for development and production within that area. The result of this increasing activity is obviously in the self-interest of our State. As a result, we have brought into the State a large group of people of greater than average income. In turn, this activity has improved our State by the second and third harmonics of that activity. We have better theaters, better bookstores, better shops for ladies clothes, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, all spiraling up on this base, and at the bottom of the base very surely are these three universities. Now if you look only a short distance away in Charlotte, N.C., which is the chief city of our State, you find no such activity. As compared to this triangle region in the central portion of our State, our southwest area is a kind of intellectual desert, and it badly needs some endeavor of this kind if it is to prosper in the future. If by local initiative we are to grow the university base for such economic progress, and the Federal Government is to assist in the enterprise, what form shall this take? Frequently, such discussions have included a term which I find onerous; namely, the "redistribution of Federal funds in support of research," I find the very thought of such an action rather repugnant. No good can possibly be served in our society by redistributing the funds which make possible that which we already do. What we do need to do is to grow the areas that are not yet grown and developed. And we must invent mechanisms for so doing. I could not make that statement if I weren't completely convinced that the opportunity for this kind of growth is here and now. |