and studies it carefully, and whatever he finds he reports, whether it may be something of practical interest or not. He really is interested in finding something new, that is all.

Another man comes along and he would like to find the best approach to where one can get coal or fuel, so he looks over the territory with an idea of where he might find coal, and then he takes that route. In his case he is much more apt to find coal, perhaps, but, on the other hand, he is blind to the other possibilities.

So there are merits to both sides.

My point is that public support would generally go to the man trying to find coal and not the other. Yet the whole of science shows that the most important, highly revolutionary discoveries such as X-rays, come from people who are just looking to find what is there. They cannot look for X-rays until we have discovered it, you see, so it has to appear to a person looking in on the frontier with that motivation to find them. Perhaps that, by analogy, illustrates it. Senator LONG. Would you say that the sulfa drug resulted from basic research or would it be as the result of applied research?

Dr. WATERMAN. I do not recall the history of that clearly and, of course, I am not a biologist by profession, but as a rule such things are discovered by basic research.

The man who discovers it may not even see the application. Then someone else sees it and picks it up and thereafter it becomes applied research. A good illustration is penicillin.

This was discovered as a matter of basic research, just by the keenness of perception of Fleming, when he saw that ordinary mold seemed to keep bacteria out of that region. That was just the observation. Now, he was not trying to cure the things that penicillin cures. He just made the observation that bacteria avoided the mold he found on materials he was using. That was fundamental research.

Now after this was discovered, of course, one could see the application. This was picked up and applied research undertaken to find what kind of a mold is required, what can it do, what kind of bacteria it will handle, and then ultimately its use with animals and with human beings.

So the start of the chain is usually basic research.

Senator LONG. Thank you, that is all.

Mr. GORDON. You stated that the results of your weather modification basic research could be patentable; is that correct?

Dr. WATERMAN. The results? Not if they are in the form of papers, which they usually are, when it is basic.

Mr. GORDON. With respect to weather modification, if anything practical is demonstrated in the ability to modify rainfall, it could be patentable, couldn't it?

Dr. WATERMAN. As I understand the meaning of this, it would have to be an instrument useful to a process or some process that was tangible. You could not patent an idea.

Mr. GORDON. As I understand it, many important discoveries have come out of basic research. I understand that antibotics, and the mycins which were patentable, came out of basic research. Is that correct?

Dr. WATERMAN. I just spoke about the discovery of penicillin, which was the first of the antibotics, that was first basic and then picked up by applied.

Mr. GORDON. Would you say that one of the main objectives of the Foundation is that full information of Foundation-sponsored research be published as soon as possible?

Dr. WATERMAN. Well, rather than as soon as possible, as soon as feasible.

One does not rush to print in a hurry to do it tomorrow, but as soon as it is feasible. The scientists want this, of course. They do not use the word "patents" but they have a feeling of their own about what they are doing. They want this to be published as soon as possible, so that they will get credit for having made the contribution to research; thus there should be every attempt to get this out fast.

Mr. GORDON. Do you require it in your grants or contracts?
Dr. WATERMAN. Do we require grants or publication?

Mr. GORDON. Do you require prompt publication or prompt delivery to you of information

Dr. WATERMAN. This is expected. We require a report to us. We do not require, as a hard and fast rule, publication in scientific periodicals. This is a hard thing to do because these scientific periodicals are selective.

If the work is not up to standard they will not publish it. So, you see, you cannot very well make the requirement. But, in general, our standard of research is very high and it is all published.

Mr. GORDON. There appears to be nothing in the grant or contract, and I have a copy of it right here, to force this to be done, that is, that Foundation-sponsored research be published or given to you as soon as possible.

How is this objective, then, to be attained?

Dr. WATERMAN. The whole scientific fraternity is anxious to publish the results of what it does at the earliest possible moment. There needs to be no requirement there.

If we were to put in a requirement, as I say, there would be trouble, because some work just does not pan out. If the publications where the scientists want to publish, which are the ones where their colleagues will see it, where it will do benefit to the scientific community, will not publish it, then there is not much point in doing so because the quality is not high.

We do not see any reason why this should be required because they all want to do it anyway, and we always have a report ourselves.

If on getting the report in, we felt that this was important to bring out in some way, this we do. But some contributions are just not valuable enough to publish. And basic research being what it is, you cannot know that in advance.

Mr. GORDON. But some contributions could be valuable and could be patentable?

Dr. WATERMAN. Not papers, no.

Mr. GORDON. Pardon me?

Dr. WATERMAN. Not papers, no.

You were speaking about the publication of results. As I say basic research is practically entirely published papers, descriptions of the work, not devices.

Mr. GORDON. I know. But how about the new scientific knowledge that has been acquired as the result of research?

Dr. WATERMAN. We all want that published as fast as possible, including the man himself who does it.

Mr. GORDON. But there is nothing in the contract which makes him do it. How are you going to get him to do it? Suppose he sees there is something either patentable or will lead to patentable inventions. Suppose he decides he wants to hold back on it? What is going to prevent him from doing that?

Dr. WATERMAN. I just do not see that the question applies since the main thing basic research people want to do is publish what they do. Sometimes what they do does not pan out. It is just they made a mistake. It did not turn out anything valuable.

In that case why should you require that they publish it? It is like passing a law to make a person eat food each day.

The universities want research published for their own reputation, the man wants to publish, and, besides, there is not here a contract we make. Besides there are grants, so I do not see how we could put in a requirement here.

Mr. GORDON. Well, is it not possible to put in a requirement that if you grant money you get something in return in the form of new knowledge?

Dr. WATERMAN. I will tell you if we did this as a scientific foundation and speaking as a scientist personally, the research fraternity and the universities would laugh at us.

Mr. GORDON. I do not mean to require something in return that way. What I mean is if something is developed or if certain scientific knowledge is secured.

Dr. WATERMAN. You mean a patentable device?

Mr. GORDON. Whether it is patentable or not. Perhaps the new knowledge could lead to a patent. You do have contracts with private concerns, do you not?

Dr. WATERMAN. They are almost entirely private concerns in the sense of educational institutions.

Mr. GORDON. And four business concerns, as I understand it? Dr. WATERMAN. Only four out of the thousands we have made, thousands.

Let me illustrate and perhaps this will straighten this point out for you.

We do have a grant which I will illustrate here, for the design and construction of new laboratory equipment which does involve the possibility of developing devices, such as laboratory experimental equipment which could be patented-I will read you the conditions that we require in this grant to show you how we handle this particular situation:

The objective of this is to develop new laboratory demonstrations for college physics classes, the subject physics, and to publish them in a manual containing about 100 experiments appropriate both to small colleges and large universities.

Full information on the construction and use of the equipment will be made readily available to teachers, educational institutions, equipment manufacturers, and other interested individuals and organizations through articles in professional journals, reports, drawings, talks, or exhibits at scientific meetings or other appropriate channels.

It shall be the responsibility of the grantee to make application for such foreign and domestic patents for equipment conceived and developed under this grant as may be deemed appropriate.

The grantee shall notify the Foundation of any application for such a patent, and shall give the U.S. Government a royalty-free nonexclusive license to use the invention for governmental purposes.

In the case of equipment for which patent application is made, arrangements for the commercial production should be such as to permit the widest possible number of appropriate and interested concerns to submit proposals for production and distribution of the equipment.

Selection of manufacturers and distributors shall be made so as to assure the widest distribution at the most reasonable price.

Any profits or royalties received by the grantee from the sale of equipment shall be used for purposes agreed upon by the Foundation and the grantee.

That is the condition we set up in those grants.

Mr. GORDON. Grants to a private contractor?

Dr. WATERMAN. One is to a university. One, I think, is to a scientific society; but they are all to organizations that have high competence in devising experiments of this sort, whether they are teachers or research people in physics.

Mr. GORDON. On page 2 of your contract provision D(b), it states that the Government can get scientific information only when it is already copyrighted or it is planned to do so.

Suppose that a contractor wants to keep it a secret and not copyright it. There is no provision making it mandatory to deliver to the Government technical knowledge and data acquired with Government funds, is there?

Dr. WATERMAN. I'm not sure just what you're referring to. As a general policy

Mr. GORDON. Well, this is what it says:

*** With respect to the subject data now or hereafter covered by copyright and not originated in the performance of this contract, such license shall be only to the extent that the contractor

That is section D(b) of the contract. I have it right here in front of me.

Dr. WATERMAN.

This is one of our contracts?

Mr. RUTTENBERG. Which contract is this, sir?

Mr. GORDON. This is NSF-C.

Mr. RUTTENBERG. There is a number after the "C", I believe.

Mr. GORDON. There is no number.

Mr. RUTTENBERG. Just a sample form?

Mr. GORDON. Just a sample form.

Mr. RUTTENBERG. D(2)?

Mr. GORDON. There are no numbers. "Rights to data," article D, section (b).

Dr. WATERMAN. I think counsel, Mr. Ruttenberg, could answer this question.

Mr. RUTTENBERG. Are you talking about the right to reproduce now, is that the heading?

Mr. GORDON. This says rights to data, article D. This is what you supplied me, and it says:

The contractor agrees to and does hereby grant to the Government, and to its officers, agents, and employees acting within the scope of their official duties, a royalty-free, nonexclusive and irrevocable license throughout the world for Government purposes to publish, translate, reproduce, deliver, perform, dispose of, and to authorize others so to do, all subject data now or hereafter covered by copyright.

What does that mean?

Mr. RUTTENBERG. What you may have there is a contract that we have used in connection with the translation of scientific literature. I am not sure that that is one of our research contracts that you have.

Let me check one more here to see

Mr. GORDON. This, incidentally, concerns weather modification, a very important problem.

Mr. RUTTENBERG. I do not see that clause in the contract before me. Could I take a look at it?

Dr. WATERMAN. If we could indentify the passage perhaps we could answer you better.

Mr. GORDON. Dr. Waterman, in the interest of time, could you supply the answer to this question for the record?

Mr. RUTTENBERG. Yes, indeed.

Mr. GORDON. The provision states that the Government gets data only when it is copyrighted or it is planned to copyright it.

know.

Mr. RUTTENBERG. I think the answer to that may be that it was in the draft and was not in the final executed contract. I do not (Following is information subsequently supplied by Mr. Ruttenberg:)

EXHIBIT VII

"RIGHTS TO DATA" ARTICLE IN NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION CONTRACTS

The language in question appears in section (b) of the "Rights of Data" article of the two most recent contracts for support of basic research entered into with profitmaking organizations by the National Science Foundation. Section (b) states that, in the event any of the "subject data" produced under the contract is covered by a copyright, the Government will receive a royalty-free, nonexclusive and irrevocable license throughout the world for Government purposes, to publish translate, reproduce, deliver, perform, dispose of, and to authorize others to so do, all such material. Section (a) of the "Rights to Data" article defines "subject data" as all data specified to be delivered under the contract, whether or not copyrighted.

Article 1 of each of the two contracts in question, entitled "Scope of Work," specifically provides for the collection of data by the contractor and requires that all such data be submitted to the Naitonal Science Foundation. Whether or not it is copyrighted, therefore, the Government receives data developed under the contracts. Section (b) of the "Rights to Data" article is designed to provide further protection to the Government with respect to information produced under the contracts and is not intended in any way to lessen the amount of information received.

The two contracts in question are for support of research in the field of weather modification. Legislation enacted by the Congress in 1958 authorizing the Foundation to initiate and support a program of study, research and evaluation in the field of weather modification specifically provides:

"The Director of the Foundation may obtain by regulation, subpena, or otherwise such information in the form of testimony, books, records, or other writings, may require the keeping of and furnishing such reports and records, and may make such inspections of the books, records, and other writings and premises or property of any person or persons as may be deemed necessary or appropriate by him to carry out the provisions of such paragraph (9), but this authority shall not be exercised if adequate and authoritative data are available from any Federal agency" [42 U.S.C. 1861, 1872a (f) (1)].

In addition, subsection 4 of 42 U.S.C. 1872a (f) states:

"Information contained in any statement, report, record, or other document furnished pursuant to this subsection shall be available for public inspection, except (A) information authorized or required by statute to be withheld and (B) information classified in accordance with laws to protect the national security. The foregoing sentence shall not be interpreted to authorize or require the publication, divulging, or disclosure of any information described in section 1905 of title 18 of the United States Code, except that the Director may disclose information described in such section 1905, furnished pursuant to this subsection, whenever he determines that the withholding thereof would be contrary to the purposes of this section and section 3(a) (9) of this Act."

49646-60 -13