The CHAIRMAN. You have in that such things as fellowships and scholarships and grant-in-aid to colleges and grants-in-aid to nonprofit institutions?

Dr. HUNSAKER. No.

The CHAIRMAN. In other words, you don't have all the fiscal problems there. Your organization is really a pure research organization, is it not? Research and report.

Dr. HUNSAKER. Yes, and we have the administrative problem of spending some, depending on how much of a war is on, 25 to 50 millions in appropriation.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; in time of war. We are speaking of time of peace, though. What were your appropriations in time of peace? Dr. HUNSAKER. Several million.

The CHAIRMAN. You spoke of patent-conscious research. Just what did you mean by that?

Dr. HUNSAKER. I had better go back to my own job at MIT. If we have a research problem in the Department having to do with perhaps the strength of materials, to get a steel that will stand the high temperatures of the modern gas turbines without getting soft and plastic, we put some first-rate lads on the job and make up a team. If I discover that those fellows, instead of doing their research, are making a search of the patent literature to see what is covered and where they might find a way around it, I am pretty well convinced that we are not going to get anywhere.

The CHAIRMAN. You are absolutely correct. That is the purpose of that phrase in S. 1297. The results of research are, under S. 1297, to become public property, and there can be no patent-consciousness on the part of the research workers because there is no chance for any person to take a patent. The research worker would not be studying to see whether he could get a patent or somebody else could get a patent. He would be studying to get the job done.

Dr. HUNSAKER. The publication of the results of research in my opinion is the best way to make it public property.

The CHAIRMAN. At the same time it prevents someone from keeping it from becoming public property by getting a patent on it. Once it is patented it ceases to be public property except for purposes of sales promotion. Had the clause said that the Government would take a patent and give licenses, it would be different, but it says that the results of this research shall become property of the public. I think that will remove the patent-consciousness of the research worker.

Dr. HUNSAKER. The patent-consciousness is usually, in my experience, initiated by the Government's contracting officer, who says, "Here you are going to do this research. You have estimated you need so much money to do it. All right, here is the money, and here is the contract." He turns to page 2 and there is a patent clause that says, "If you have ever worked in this field before, if you have any ideas of your own before you start, you have lost them now. you ever do anything in the future, we are going to keep tabs on you. We shall keep track of your laboratory notebooks for all time. In case the Government ever has a patent case, we will come in and demand your support."

If

That frightens him away and makes him patent-conscious right away. I would rather that our foundation could approach these things without having a mandate to make the patent one of the

principal features of its support, and I was afraid that is what is possible to happen. It does happen now with the Army and the Navy. They are pretty tough to deal with.

The CHAIRMAN. Only recently during the war. They were awfully nice to deal with before.

Dr. HUNSAKER. Yes. And it does bar the Government to some extent or perhaps I would say I fear that it may getting research work done from people who are already well established in the field. It means nothing to some new fellow who has no interest and nothing to lose.

Senator MAGNUSON. But what Senator Kilgore wants to do in a different section of the bill is to prevent that, so there would be free research for what the foundation engaged in.

Dr. HUNSAKER. That would be fine.

Senator MAGNUSON. That is what we are trying to do. It is difficult sometimes to get the exact wording of that. That is the purpose of this second section. My original bill didn't cover the patent features, and I want to say again, so that the record is clear, not because I disagree with what Senator Kilgore is trying to do, but that I thought maybe we might take up with the whole patent situation in the Patents Committee. I firmly believe that we need to do a lot of revising of our patent laws.

Dr. HUNSAKER. Yes. The patent policy is a difficult thing.

The CHAIRMAN. I agree with you, but I have not seen much accomplished in that field for a long, long time in the way of patent reform.

Are there any further questions?

We have next Mr. Lewis G. Hines.

TESTIMONY OF LEWIS G. HINES, LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Hines, I believe you are speaking here today on behalf of Mr. Green, president of the American Federation of Labor, and as his representative?

Mr. HINES. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. We will follow the same procedure, Mr. Hines, that we have followed with the preceding witnesses.

Mr. HINES. First of all, I want to say on behalf of the American Federation of Labor and Mr. Green that we appreciate the opportunity to appear before your committee today on this very important subject.

As in the case of all who are closely concerned with technical progress and changes in production, the American Federation of Labor realizes that leadership and progress depend upon being the first to develop improvements and utilizing them to the best advantage of all concerned. In this last war, as in World War I and other wars, the Federal Government has assumed responsibility for research for purposes of national defense, and the inventions and discoveries for war purposes give notable impetus to technical progress in production in the years following.

Separate bureaus of the Government have developed and encouraged research in their special fields: The Bureau of Mines in the field of power resources; the Bureau of Standards in establishing terms and

definitions necessary for business planning and contracts; the Department of Agriculture in the conservation and use of the soil and plant life for food and new industrial products, and so forth.

In this war the Office of Scientific Research and Development, with a budget of $4,000,000,000, has brought under some degree of common purpose the search of universities and other private agencies as well as some of the Government laboratories. About half this budget was required to develop the atom bomb-an indication of why the Federal Government must assume responsibility for fundamental research projects and related technical problems. Application of what we have learned about radar, atomic energy, and so forth, will result in tremendous technical changes. But unless a permanent agency is substituted for the war research board, we shall fail to provide extension of our basic scientific data from which all else is derived.

We realize that, since the Government has permanent responsibility for research, we need safeguards to assure that freedom, without which research is crippled, and at the same time assure research in the public interest with full availability of information for all.

The United States has never been a leader in fundamental research but has depended upon the progress made in this field by European countries in which the Government financed such research.

The federation believes that one of the most important matters which this Congress must decide is our long-time national policy on research.

Your decision on each detail of that policy will be fateful for our history. To carry out that policy we must find ways to continue the cooperation between private research agencies, between private authorities and undertakings and government. We must maintain orderly progress in the public interest and freedom of thought and initiative which are the heart of scientific research. Basic research undertakings and their application have outgrown private resources. In research, as in all other human relationships of this new age born of World War II, we must apply the spirit and the techniques of cooperation.

We note that the amendments which Senators Kilgore and Magnuson propose to S. 1297 result in a materially strengthened legislative proposal. There are, however, other changes which the federation thinks vital. The operations of this proposed National Research will be a basically determining factor in our national life. The administration of this foundation should not be entrusted to one individual but the director and the board should share the responsibility for determining policies and progress. The foundation will be responsible for maintaining a trusteeship of public funds while assuring that freedom to seek truth and solve problems that we associate with privately owned laboratories. The wisdom of the leaders in the sciences is needed to develop the procedures to enable the Government to carry out this proposed national policy.

Under the provisions of the bill scientists representing the Government will have been chosen by the selective processes of the Government. The men heading the Government research agencies are accepted leaders in their fields. We believe that a provision assuring equally high qualifications of the public members of the board should be inserted. We propose that the President appoint them from a panel submitted by the American Association for the Advancement of

Science. We further propose that the director be appointed by the President after consultation with the board.

The American Federation of Labor believes that best progress will be assured by creating an independent agency, as free as possible from political and partisan influences, and consisting of leading scientists designated by their professional organization and scientists engaged in research with public research agencies under a chairman acceptable to them and the President and all non-Government persons approved by the Senate. This Research Board should be responsible for developing a national program of coordinated research and the agencies to participate. The Director should carry out the program and make the necessary contracts. We believe the major concern of the Board should be fundamental research and provisions to assure the availability of an adequate number of scientists, by promoting opportunities to begin scientific education in high schools, colleges, and universities and by developing plans for scholarships and advanced work and training.

We suggest on page 5, line 22, that you substitute "shall" for "may." We believe the experience of the scientific and technical organizations should be utilized by the board and the director to the fullest extent.

Use of public funds for research must be accompanied by safeguards to assure use in the public interest. It is general practice both in the Government and in private industry that patents covering inventions and discoveries shall belong to the agency financing the research. In the case of Government ownership of such patents full information should be made available to all with opportunity for nonexclusive license. The incentive to which the scientist responds is opportunity for research, not control over the use of their discoveries. Full information on discoveries with full credit for work provides genuine incentive for competition.

Section 7 (d), pages 10 and 11, deals with exceptions to the general policy that the results of federally financed research or development shall be United States property and dedicated to the public. Although deviation from this policy may be justified by some circumstances, decision to allow an individual or corporation to exploit the invention or discovery resulting in some degree from public funds may be just as fundamental and far-reaching as any decision of the Supreme Court for these matters go to the roots of our economy and civilization. Such a decision should not be made by the director alone but by the board and the director and shall be in writing. When decisions are not unanimous, the minority shall also file written opinions.

The board should also require the party benefiting by the exception to file regular reports relating in detail the uses to which the patent was put and the financial return therefrom. The board should study the scientific, economic, and social consequencies of such patent grants in order to determine its justification as long-time policy.

We note with approval that the scope of the research field to be promoted by the foundation has been widened to include the social sciences. That this is a controversial field is evidence of the need for additional basic research. Our understanding of man and mentality and his reactions must keep pace with progress in the natural sciences if we are to facilitate the changes that attend progress and proceed by evolution-not revolution.

To achieve free research in all these fields we do not have to discard social legislation or what we have learned in administrative procedure nor seek the freedom of the anarchist or the philosophy of the Communist as has been suggested to this committee by previous witnesses, but to move forward in accord with experience gained under our own institutions determined to achieve a basic plan for cooperation for national welfare and progress. All of the elements proposed have been tried in some degree and found sound. Organized to maintain a sustained program of research for national welfare and progress, our Nation would be ready to conquer the endless frontier of science, not in competition but with the cooperation of all groups and finally all nations.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you have any questions, Senator Magnuson? Senator MAGNUSON. Just one. I note, Mr. Hines, that in your statement you suggested that the so-called committee draft, which gives the board full authority, should be changed in order that the board itself should determine these policies.

The CHAIRMAN. The board and the director.

Senator MAGNUSON. I was going to say, you also suggest further on, the board and the director. In other words, is it the feeling of the federation, as you interpret it, that we should not have for this broad program one man handling it and making all decisions?

Mr. HINES. Absolutely. I listened very attentively to your questioning of a previous witness here, and it seems strange to me that we are going to try to get the scientific brains of the country to come together and formulate policy and then have one individual override the program of that group. I question that there is one individual who is competent to do that. He may be on par with the other men, but the combined brains of all of them together should prevail, and it is the general policy in democratic institutions to permit the board to determine policy. I just wouldn't want to be a member of such a board if I didn't have any voice in the final determination of the policy being promulgated.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Hines.
Next we have Mr. Russell Smith.

TESTIMONY OF RUSSELL SMITH, LEGISLATIVE SECRETARY, NATIONAL FARMERS UNION

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Smith, I believe you are speaking for Mr. James Patton, head of the Farmers Union?

Mr. SMITH. I am speaking in his place, Mr. Chairman. I wouldn't presume to put these words in his mouth. I think they represent his ideas, however.

Last November, the National Farmers Union in convention at Denver, Colo., adopted a program for 1945, containing the following paragraph:

The age of abundance is dependent on technical progress and on the wise use of natural resources; it is the duty of Government therefore to conduct extensive research into all phases of technology to the end that all technical progress may be made available to all the people. In peace, no less than in war, no cartel or patent agreement should be permitted to stand in the way of use of technical, scientific, and natural resources.