ernment in any attempts it might make to increase the number of scientific complexes in the Nation.

Any region, whether composed of a few counties or a number of States, is vastly more complicated and difficult to understand than the most sophisticated space or weapons system. We humans know how to develop to specifications, to produce, and to operate the latter, but not the former. A region may be viewed as a varied and intricate combination of interacting systems-social, economic, political, psychological, and technological. We simply do not know very well how to predict what will happen within the region in response to actions of the Federal Government.

Therefore, I can only offer some cautious observations on how the Federal Government might distribute its R. & D. dollars:

1. It appears that the bulk of Federal R. & D. dollars should be spent with the most efficient and competent performers, wherever they may be located geographically, in order to make good use of scarce resources, to encourage and to reward competence, and to preserve and strengthen the benefits the Nation now receives from the operation of competitive forces.

2. When Federal R. & D. dollars are distributed on any basis other than merit, it seems that extreme care should be exercised to insure (a) that meritorious performers denied the funds are not hurt thereby, and (b) that the recipients are motivated and are truly capable of building competence.

3. Institutional grant programs appear to be a promising device to build strength in individual educational institutions, provided the recipient institutions are carefully selected and the programs are conscientiously administered. (I should probably point out that the emphasis in my remarks is directed toward the development of scientific complexes and not toward the development of strength in individual institutions, except as the latter may affect the former.)

4. It seems doubtful that direct Federal actions or dollars by themselves can supply most of the preconditions needed to stimulate the spin-off, attraction, and expansion processes which produce scientific complexes. These preconditions, to a large extent, seem to be created by public and private actions at the State and local levels, together with a host of accidents of nature and circumstances. Therefore, in my opinion, it is important to recognize that institutional grant programs, for example, can be expected to have only a relatively limited impact on a region unless enough of the preconditions are present in sufficient degree to stimulate the development of a scientific complex.

Federal R. & D. dollars tend to be attracted to areas which contain a sufficient number of the preconditions. This explains why certain areas get more than "their share" of Federal R. & D. dollars. Of course, the infusion of Federal dollars may be crucial to the development of scientific complexes in certain areas, as we have seen was the case in Colorado. A "chicken and egg" situation may exist: certain preconditions are needed to attract Federal dollars; Federal funds may improve the preconditions; and the result may be attraction of more Federal dollars.

But the important thing to recognize, it seems to me, is that the areas in which scientific complexes have developed have made a substantial investment at the local level to provide the preconditions, and therefore

they have earned, in a very real sense, the Federal R. & D. dollars they receive.

5. Apart from institutional grant programs, it appears advisable in general to confine the Federal role to indirect mechanisms such as:

a. Educating regional institutions and regional leadership on what is required to develop and to attract scientific and technical activities, as well as on the potential benefits and problems.

b. Providing incentives to motivate participation.

c. Providing motivated and promising institutions and regions with competent "how-to-do-it" advice and information.

The most thoughtful piece I have seen, in line with this last observation is, the recently released report, "Technological Innovation: Its Environment and Management," prepared by an advisory committee of the U.S. Department of Commerce. It contains 17 recommendations regarding the Federal role in improving the environment for invention and innovation which I believe merit serious consideration.

The necessity of key men to the development of scientific complexes is sure to doom to failure any effort to "spread the wealth" by indiscriminate geographic distribution of Federal support for science and technology. There are not enough key men to go around, and many areas do not have, and undoubtedly would not develop, the necessary preconditions to attract them. And even if the available supply of key men were widely distributed, the interaction necessary to the critical mass theory of self-sustained growth of a scientific complex would be unlikely to occur. In addition, the Nation would be denied the benefit of what synergy it has already developed in its existing scientific complexes which would have to be stripped to supply resources to the have-not areas.

In other words, if developing scientific complexes is the goal, the number of areas in the Nation which can build scientific and technological strength is limited in the short run, as well as in the long run-but to a lesser extent in the latter case. The number of areas is also limited by the demand for the output of scientific and technological endeavors which is not without a ceiling at a given point in time. This means, in my opinion, that there is a considerable amount of unrealistic thinking circulating in the country today which is creating unrealistic aspirations. It seems advisable that the Federal Government should not encourage the belief that it is possible or even desirable— for every region to build a scientific complex, nor that it is possible for the Federal Government alone to build a regional scientific complex. Rather, it appears desirable for the Federal Government to continue to reward competence where it exists, and to encourage a few regions of lesser strength to build scientific complexes where it is apparent they have the motivation, awareness, and basic resources and abilities to do so.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator HARRIS. A very good statement, Mr. Welles. I don't really have anything to add or to question you about because you have touched on most of the things that I would have asked about anyway. We will receive, without objection, into the files of the committee the two papers which you alluded to in your statement.

I think the one study in particular, that was made in the area of what science and technology has contributed to economic develop

ment, is a very valuable one and will be very valuable to us. As you know, there is a good deal of conjecture in this area and very little really good scientific study of it. So we appreciate receiving that very much.

Senator Hansen?

Senator HANSEN. Let me say that it is awfully good to have Mr. Welles here. I am not unmindful of the contribution he has made in an entirely different area. For those few who may not know, he is coauthor of the best and most recent economic study on oil shale, "The Regional Economic Impact of an Oil Shale Industry," and because Wyoming shares a very real interest along with the States of Colorado and Utah in the development of this great potential of common oil shale out there, I want to say it is especially good to have you present your statement here today.

I do know that the Chairman hopes to recess these hearings very shortly, so I am going to forgo the questions that I would like to discuss with you, appreciating that a member of the staff will have the opportunity I understand to go into considerable depth with you later on, and I conclude my statement now by simply saying we appreciate your being here very much.

Mr. WELLES. Thank you, sir.

Senator HARRIS. Mr. Welles, thank you very much. Our staff will be talking with you in more detail, and particularly about the article you wrote for Harvard Business Review that we are very interested in, and that we would like to check with you about whether it is up to date or whether there are other things that you might add to that article which will be helpful to us.

Thank you very much.

The committee will now recess until 2:30, at which time we will hear from Mr. John C. Bellamy, director, National Resources Research Institute of the University of Wyoming, and Gov. Winthrop Rockefeller, or Arkansas.

(Whereupon, at 1:10 p.m., the subcommittee recessed until 2:30 p.m. of the same day.)

AFTERNOON SESSION

Senator HARRIS. The hearing will be in order.

Mr. Bellamy, would you come forward?

We are pleased to have as our first witness Mr. John C. Bellamy, director, Natural Resources Research Institute, University of Wyoming.

Without objection, we will place in the record at this point a biographical sketch which has been prepared concerning Mr. Bellamy.

Biographical Sketch: Dr. John C. Bellamy

Director, Natural Resources Research Institute, The University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyo.

Background data: Partner, Bellamy & Sons, Engineers; Assistant Professor of Meteorology at the University of Chicago; Director of the Institute of Tropical Meteorology in Puerto Rico; Associate Director, Cook Research Laboratories: Professional research engineer; Professor of Civil Engineering, Director of Engineering Research University of Wyoming.

Senator HARRIS. Mr. Bellamy, I believe you have a prepared statement. You may proceed however you desire.

84-526-67-pt. 2-11

STATEMENT OF JOHN C. BELLAMY, DIRECTOR, NATURAL RESOURCES RESEARCH INSTITUTE, THE UNIVERSITY OF WYOMING, LARAMIE, WYO.

Mr. BELLAMY. Gentlemen, I greatly appreciate this opportunity to discuss with you the problem of distributing Federal R. & D. funds and related problems of regional economic development. I first became directly concerned with these problems when, as the associated director of the Cook Research Laboratories Division of the Cook Electric Co. in Chicago from 1947 to 1960, I became deeply involved in broad studies with the Army, Navy, Air Force, Weather Bureau, and National Academy of Science. Considerations of the financial and functional relationships among many kinds of Federal, State, and private research, development, production and operational agencies were of basic importance in these studies. In my present position as director of the Natural Resources Research Institute, my major responsibilities are just these: (1) To obtain furding for the research needed to build a strong program of graduate education at the University of Wyoming; and, largely thereby (2) to assist in the economic development of Wyoming.

Specifically, since returning to Wyoming I have strongly participated in the following, directly related, activities:

Summer 1961. Head of the Associated Rocky Mountain Universities study of the optimum kinds of relationships, individually and collectively, among these twenty universities and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

Summer 1962. Participant in the National Research Councils "Space Science Summer Study" in Iowa City concerning, especially, NASAuniversity relationships.

1963-65. Executive secretary of the Associated Rocky Mountain Universities Nuclear Education Committee concerned with contractual and functional relationships with the Atomic Energy Commission.

1963-65. Governor Hansen's representative to the State science conferences preparatory to enactment of the State technical services act. 1964-65. Director of Wyoming's Water Resources Research Institute in association with the Water Resources Research Act of 1964. 1966. Wyoming's representative on the committee for Western Interstate Nuclear Cooperation of the Western Governor's Conference. 1962. Strongly instrumental in the establishment of the Bureau of Reclamation's program of atmospheric water resources research.

May 1967. Proposed manager of a program of "operational information research" at the University of Wyoming under Project Themis of the Department of Defense.

NEEDS

With regard to the seven questions posed in Senator Harris' letter of April 14, I wish to speak primarily to that part of questions 4, 6, and which related to methods of supporting technical research and development in universities. With regard to questions 1, 2, 3, and 5, it is virtually axiomatic to me that—

(5) Technical research and development is essential if we are even to maintain our present standard of living in the face of exploding populations and the rapidly developing technical capabilities of other nations;

(2) The detailed characteristics of individual localities and regions differ sufficiently to require that many kinds of research and development be conducted locally which, to be viable, must also include more generally applicable kinds of research;

(3) The technical potentialities of any locality or region are determined almost entirely by the degree to which technical research and development can be supported after the basic survival needs of the region are satisfied; it is very unlikely that any one region of the country is blessed with any more intelligent and technically oriented children (or other potential technical residents) than any other region; and

(1) The necessarily increasing reliance of our expanding population on ever increasing technological capabilities dictate that no region can develop economically unless it also has a strongly developing element of science and technology.

Consequently, I strongly feel that the task at hand is more to find viable ways of fostering the development of excellence in research and graduate education throughout the Nation than to strengthen the existing, so-called centers of excellence. Not that I think such existing centers of research activity should not continue to prosper; the strong monopolistic tendencies for the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer will insure their growth. Rather, the Federal Government must be sure that it does not unduly foster such monopolistic tendencies, thereby helping to create associated centers of wealth surrounded by regions of poverty elsewhere.

PROBLEM

With regard to the evaluation asked for in question 6, I thus clearly agree with the goals of the programs of the Office of Water Resources Research, the State Technical Services Act, and DOD's Project Themis. I do not completely agree, however, with the means whereby these goals are being pursued by these or other Federal agencies with which I have had close contact. Basically, they are all understandably and commendably dedicated to the task of insuring maximum returns per tax dollar spent on research and development, and have, therefore, established competitive proposal, review, and selection procedures in an effort to insure that only the most able researchers and/or worthwhile research projects will be supported. The trouble is that they have thereby implicitly assumed that they are capable of performing an impossible task, namely to preselect future discoverers and inventors. Or, as it was so ably expressed by Dr. Norman Hilberry shortly before he retired as Director of the Argonne National Laboratory:

The man (or, for that matter, the group of men) does not live today who possesses such fantastic omniscience as to foretell what research is most important to be undertaken and what should be dropped. The best such an individual (or group) can do is to estimate probabilities as judged in terms of his (or their) own finite experience. Usually, this works not too badly if the person (or group) is appropriately humble as well as experienced. However, there have been enough instances in which the significant discovery has developed out of the apparently unimportant or even harebrained investigation, to make implicit reliance on such authoritarion ukase impossible. This is certainly true on the national level and is probably true even on the level of a fairly specific mission. Some mechanism must be devised to protect ourselves from our own assumed wisdom. (Emphasis mine.)