high technology enterprises. To bring about such an environment is not an easy task.

Because Appalachia is the largest regional development program underway in the United States, it is appropriate to ask what the relevance of science and technology might be to the development of Appalachia's potential. This is not a simple question to answer.

The Region contains 19 million people and is about the size of California. Many common problems afflict the Region as a whole. Most notably, these include the Region's isolation from the great urban and industrial concentrations adjoining it-the Atlantic seaboard, the industrial Mid-West and the Atlanta area. Because of topography and its effect on the development of the nation's transportation system, Appalachia has been bypassed by a substantial amount of the commerce between these regions and the mobility of Appalachian labor within the mountains has been impeded.

For similar reasons, the economic and social forces which have led to the astounding national growth of the last half century have bypassed many of the people in Appalachia.

Parts of the Region are also characterized by environmental problems engendered by past exploitation of the area's natural resources. Acid mine drainage pollution, mine fires, mine subsidence, air pollution, industrial obsolescence, and highly dispersed rural populations are some of the difficulties which impede growth in Appalachia and represent problems which must be resolved before Appalachia can attain its full potential.

Despite common problems, there are really four Appalachias.

The first is that highly scenic strip of mountain ranges beginning in the Great Smokies and running north through the Blue Ridge and Alleghenies all the way to the Mohawk Valley and Catskills in New York. In many respects this is a natural preserve in which a comparatively few people live. Its proper conservation and development will assure that it fulfills this role in the American economy of the future.

The second great area of Appalachia covers the Cumberland Plateau. Here the population density is greater than that of the United States as a whole. But the people of the area are dispersed widely up the hollows and across the ridges with very few urban communities at all. This makes it very difficult to provide sanitary water supplies and waste treatment systems, or efficient health and education. In addition, the dispersion of the potential labor force militates against the economic development of the area. The objective of development in this area is to produce some degree of urbanization capable of contributing to an improvement in its social and economic well-being.

The third section of Appalachia is in the southern end of the Region where urbanization and industrialization are already underway. Here public investments should assure that growth is balanced and diversified and that manpower skills are available to help the area reach its full potential.

Finally, the fourth section of Appalachia in the northern end of the Region has had a long history of urbanization and industrialization but suffers from severe environmental problems, industrial blight, and community obsolescence. Programs for this area must be addressed to the rejuvenation of these communities.

Advanced science and technology can contribute to the resolution of many of the problems in each of the four areas. There is, however, a question about the role of research and development activities themselves in the economy of such regions.

A relatively small proportion of the nation's labor force is engaged directly in research and development activities. Testimony before a Senate Subcommittee in 1962, for example, estimated that only about 750,000 persons are employed directly in research and development activities at the professional and non-professional levels. This number has undoubtedly increased since those hearings. But it has also been estimated that of this total number only a few hundred persons bear primary responsibility for developing the creative concepts which lead to scientific and technological growth. It can be said that research and development itself is not a major employer.

However, this is not the main question. The existence of a research and development capacity in a community or region, it is frequently argued, will attract into it satellite industries that must capitalize on the existence of R&D activities. Unquestionably this is true in a number of specific instances. But as a generalization it is rather difficult to substantiate.

84-526-67-pt. 2- -14

Industrial studies completed by the Appalachian Regional Commission, for example, have found only a few industrial sectors where there is a direct tie between the location of production facilities and the location of research and development capacity. The studies concluded that substantial growth will occur in those industries which devote a large part of their budgets to research and development but the extent to which local areas will share in this activity remains conjectural.

One reason for this appears to be that, contrary to the location of the manufacturing facilities, the decentralization of research continues to be governed more by individual corporate policies than by production requirements in the industry. The establishment of a new laboratory for basic research is a rare event. The construction of a new manufacturing plant is much more common.

These manufacturing plants are located with respect to the primary locational factors affecting their profitable operation. These factors usually include access to markets, availability of the necessary labor force, or proximity to raw materials. Naturally the importance of each of these depends upon the nature of the specific industry. Normally, however, R&D facilities are close to corporate headquarters.

We have a good example of this phenomenon in Pittsburgh, which is the largest metropolitan area in Appalachia. The Pittsburgh area is one of the largest concentrations of industrial research in the country. Within the Pittsburgh metropolitan area are approximately 2.5 percent of all the nation's laboratory-scientists and engineers. Yet, private research and development accounts for only 13,000 jobs out of the total labor force in the Pittsburgh metropolitan area of 832,138 persons. Most of this R&D employment is concentrated in metallurgy and chemicals. But Pittsburgh, as a location for new production facilities in both of these industrial sectors, has lost some of its locational advantages over the last four or five decades relative to the rest of the country. The concentration of R&D capacity has not affected the locational considerations which a steel company must take into account when it selects a location for a new mill.

It does appear, however, that a large community of scientists and engineers acts as a drawing card in attracting more people with the same training to an area. Scientists, like everyone else, like to live among people with similar interests and cultural inclinations. Pittsburgh, in its planning for future development, has recognized that it has a realizable potential for attracting additional scientific and technical activities because of the large scientific community already there.

There are a number of unhappy instances in Appalachia, and in other parts of the country as well, in which a high technology science facility has been located by the Government in an area that lacked an adequate cultural and social base to support a scientific community. As a result, it has been necessary to permit the scientific work force to reside many miles away in university communities where the families can find the cultural and environmental amenities which they desire. The installation itself has had but slight impact on the local community since most of the goods and services and manpower come from outside and are not purchased or obtained nearby. By and large, investments of this kind, therefore, do not help a great many Appalachian people whom we are trying to reach with a regional development program.

The task of the Appalachian program is to bring about an improvement in the incomes, employment opportunities, and standards of living for the millions of Appalachian poor who currently reside in the Region. The placement of sophisticated research and development installations does not affect these families to any large degree apparently, at least not during the early life of the installation. There is, of course, eventually some local impact. Service industries spring up which provide the retail services needed to take care of the families associated with the new installation. Schools improve, thus benefiting all the children in the area. We can detect this kind of growth around Huntsville, Alabama, for example. It may be true at Oak Ridge, Tennessee. But relatively speaking, very few residents Appalachians can aspire to the kinds of jobs these new facilities make possible.

In the Appalachian Commission, therefore, we have directed our main attention to the production side of the high technology industries. It is on this side of the research and development field that we believe we can most successfully capitalize for the benefit of the greatest number of people.

The paper industry provides a major growth opportunity for our Region, for example, provided hardwood pulping can be made competitive with softwood pulping technologies. Obviously, the Region has a major stake in increased hard

wood pulping research including applied research on the utilization of the wood pulp fiber itself. The location of the research is largely irrelevant to the production jobs which can result from such research.

Many places in Appalachia may not be the ideal at the moment for advanced electronic research but there is a growing trend in this industry to divorce the location of R&D from the manufacturing operations. As a result, you will find many small electronic plants springing up in the rural areas of the Region.

A comparatively recent phenomenon in Appalachia has been the development of small aircraft assembly plants all the way from Georgia and Tennessee to Pennsylvania. These small assembly operations can use Appalachian workers and reduce their costs over those which they experienced in the most congested centers on the West Coast. There are very few aerospace research activities in Appalachia. Computer manufacturers generally try to locate in communities close to advanced university research centers since the industry employs two non-manufacturing workers in research and development and sales and service for every factory employee. But production facilities in this field, too, are becoming increasingly disassociated from headquarters.

Those concerned about national science policy and the distribution of R&D funds are disturbed over the effects which Federal allocations of funds might have on the universities of the country, and that the universities thus supported are strong locational attractions for high technology industry. If our experience is any guide, it appears to be true that strong university centers are essential to support high technology facilities. But sometimes it appears that the new university facility is constructed after not before the location of the facility itself. RCA imposed a condition upon the location of one of its research facilities in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, for example. It insisted that a curriculum leading to a masters degree in physics and chemistry at Wilkes College would be necessary if RCA were to select Wilkes-Barre for the plant. The condition was met and RCA chose Wilkes-Barre.

Similarly, institutions were established adjacent to the Huntsville, Alabama, space complex and the Arnold Engineering Development Center in Tullahoma, Tennessee, that made it possible for technical and professional persons working at these two facilities to pursue a doctoral program in their field.

The capabilitiy of higher education institutions in Appalachia is of vital concern to the Appalachian Regional Development program, primarily because of the need to develop in the Region the large numbers of professional personnel needed for new development opportunities in the Region. To this extent we wish to see all the resources possible devoted to the strengthening of such institutions. The question of whether space and defense R&D funds should have as their purpose the strengthening of academic institutions is not a question with which the Appalachian Regional Commission is competent to deal. Frankly, space and defense related ventures are volatile, subject to the ups and downs of national policy and international politics. Appalachia has been overly-vulnerable to fluctuations in the national economy in the past.

We are concerned, however, with several aspects of national science policy which bear directly on the challenges faced by any regional development program. There are numerous problems impeding economic and social development of a region like Appalachia which require the application of science and technology for their solution.

At the moment, however, there are very few ways in which science and technology can be applied systematically to the solution of social and economic problems in the same way that the physical sciences and engineering can be employed, for example, in meeting the objectives of the space or defense programs.

The Appalachian Regional Development Act has provided a political mechanism by means of which the systems approach can be used in finding answers to economic and social problems in one region. This is possible because Congress has given the Appalachian Regional Commission, a body of 12 Governors and a representative of the Federal Government, a comprehensive responsibility regarding all Federal, state and local programs affecting the development of the Region.

Thus, it has been possible for us initially to consider a comprehensive transportation network for an entire region. While we are a long way from providing a definitive network, we are engaging in a number of activities which have important implications for the future.

For example, some studies under way at the moment attempt to assess how development can be nurtured by a highway system before the system itself is constructed and the highways designed accordingly.

Similarly, we have completed airport plans which take into account the likely evolution of future technology in the aircraft industry. Needless to say, the Federal Aviation Agency finds this plan of considerable interest. It has implications for the future of airport planning throughout the nation.

In the field of health, we are attempting to develop comprehensive health services within logical medical trade service areas that will provide for the effective coordination of both public and private medical activities. Private physicians are active participants in this planning along with local public agencies and civic leaders. Already the work being done in this field is influencing comprehensive health planning in many of our states.

In Central Appalachia, we are attempting to determine a proper development strategy in an area inhabited by 1.5 million people of whom only 1,250,000 live in communities of less than 2,500.

Early in its existence, the Commission decided that the haphazard acceptance of research proposals from consultants and universities was unwise.

Instead the Commission itself drew up a detailed research plan on the basis of which proposals were solicited. It has insisted that its research be policyoriented and that it be addressed to the specific issues upon which decisions must be made.

It is becoming increasingly clear that mechanisms such as those now being developed under the Appalachian program for channeling economic and social research toward policy objectives would be extremely helpful at the regional level.

I do not wish to pretend that we have come close to finding an effective way to accomplish this.

Inevitably, most of the Commission's planning and research is addressed to immediate problems with a time horizon of about five years. The Commission knows full well that such research will miss many opportunities and many problems that await us further down the road.

For this reason the Commission is actively investigating the possibility of establishing an Appalachian Institute which would be a partner with the Commission but which would be autonomous in its research work. The Institute's major mission would be to carry out long-term policy-oriented research utilizing the academic and scientific abilities which now exist in the Region.

The kinds of problems with which such an institute might concern itself will involve such questions as how to better facilitate the movement of isolated populations to new opportunities within the region; new and less expensive techniques for constructing transportation systems in the difficult geography of Appalachia; how to develop special means for capitalizing on opportunities springing from the periphery of the Region along the Atlantic seaboard, industrial Mid-West, and the middle South; and solutions to the peculiar physical and environmental problems which afflict many areas of Appalachia.

It is with such long-term systematic application of modern technical knowhow to social and economic problems that many groups in the Executive Branch and the Congress are now concerned.

The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development has recently released a report proposing a similar integrated application of scientific know-how to the problems of our cities.

The National Science Foundation, the Atomic Energy Commission, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Office of Science and Technology, and the State Technical Services Program in the Department of Commerce have all made contributions to the growing dialogue on the subject.

We can no longer afford to give less attention to our immediate social and economic problems than we do to the more esoteric frontiers of science. John Dewey once said that a "culture which permits science to destroy its value without permitting science to create new ones is a culture destroying itself."

Our objective is to bring scientific knowledge to bear on the betterment of human life, increased employment opportunities, and the perfection of the environment.

No one has said it better than President Johnson who some years ago observed:

"We built this Nation to serve its people. We want to grow and build and create, but we want progress to be the servant and not the master of men. We do not intend to live-in the midst of abundance-isolated

from neighbors and nature, confined by blighted cities and bleak suburbs, stunted by a poverty of learning and an emptiness of leisure. "We ask not only how much, but how good; not only how to create wealth, but how to use it; not only how fast we are going, but where we are headed."

The intelligent application of science and technology to shaping the future of our regions will assure that technological progress is no longer the master of a region's fortunes, but instead assumes its legitimate place as the servant to man's own ends.

Senator HARRIS. We will now be pleased to hear from Dr. Richard W. Poole, who is dean of the College of Business of the Oklahoma State University and a professor of economics at Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Okla. Without objection we will place in the record a biographical sketch prepared by the staff.

Biographical Sketch: Dr. Richard W. Poole

Dean of the College of Business and Professor of Economics, Oklahoma State University.

Background data: President, Southwestern Economics Association, Vice Chairman and Director, Mid-Continent Research and Development Council, Director, Oklahoma State Chamber of Commerce, Vice President, Oklahoma Council on Economic Education.

Member-American Economic Association, Southern Economic Association, Undergraduate Accreditation Committee, American Association of Collegiate Schools of Business.

Author of articles in fields of regional and development economics.

Advisor or consultant to business, civic, educational and governmental organizations and research projects.

Senator HARRIS. Dr. Poole certainly is no stranger to this subcommittee. He has been very helpful to us in this and other hearings and seminars that we have had.

Dr. Poole, we are glad to have you here.

TESTIMONY OF DR. RICHARD W. POOLE, DEAN, COLLEGE OF BUSINESS, OKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSITY, STILLWATER, OKLA.

Dr. POOLE. Thank you Senator Harris and Senator Mundt.

With your permission, I would like to follow rather closely my prepared statement with some elaborations. However, I will not read the statement verbatim, if this is all right. The reason I would like to follow this procedure is because I have built a presentation where each comment provides a base for the next comment.

I would like to begin by pointing out the context in which I will use the terms of "science and technology" in the following remarks. It seems to me, in the dynamic context of this subcommittee's deliberations, that these terms are essentially equivalent to the concept of "advances in knowledge." Thus, I include under the umbrella of science and technology, the natural sciences (which include the physical sciences and the biological sciences), the social sciences, and those disciplines which utilize and apply knowledge from a variety of scientific areas and contribute to the generation of new knowledge-such as engineering, medicine, management, and so on.

Senator MUNDT. What, if anything, in this educational process do you exclude?

Dr. POOLE. Sir?