totally different view. But my view regarding the social sciences is as follows insofar as this bill is concerned:

It is well-known that so much of human prejudice and tendency and social philosophy enter into the study of social phenomena, that there is the widest difference of opinion as to what constitutes research in many instances in the social sciences. But I would, if I were drafting a bill that paid my respects to that principle, and it is a sound principle that men's field cannot be detached from their researches in the social views, I would still keep two places open in the bill for the play of minds in the social sciences, and those two large places are the following:

Every now and then there comes along a problem of major importance it is fashionable now to refer to the atomic bomb for everything, so I will follow the fashion-when it is necessary to get the best brains of the country-wherever they are- to express their views as to what the functions of this commission may be that we are talking about now, to advise the Congress and the President on the matter of future handling of the new group of problems.

At such times of national emergency, when the most critical judgment is required of all our people, the social scientists should be called in as freely as circumstances will permit. The second of my two points respecting the work of social scientists relates to statistical matters.

Government today is so complex that a government that doesn't have a good statistical service cannot govern well. I recall one country that had a census in 1876 and didn't have another until 1940. They didn't know how many people they had. They didn't know what their resources were. They didn't spread their tax load evenly.

A modern government, especially the government of a major power, is such an intricate business that without adequate statistics it can't be operated efficiently. For that reason, in 1933, effort was made to set up a central statistical bureau. The purpose of that central bureau was to provide expert knowledge concerning the setting up of statistical services to be used especially by the new administrative units that were crowding into the scene. Otherwise, in the course of 5 or 10 years, you wouldn't know what your experiment had yielded. Senator MAGNUSON. Was that a private organization?

Dr. BOWMAN. The Social Science Research Council was private, but the Statistical Board became an official organization. Whether at the very beginning it was set up as a private agency serving Government or not, I don't recall.

Dr. SHIMMEL. I think it was originally set up as a Government agency and eventually disappeared into the Bureau of the Budget. Dr. BowMAN. It was later taken into the Bureau of the Budget. In determining what categories of statistics are to be assembled in determining the validity of statistics, because statistics can spell anything bad or good, wrong or right, you need, of course, the most expert persons that can be found and you can't find them outside the social sciences.

The American Statistical Association, for example, is a separate organization-high standards, developing techniques, expertness, good judgment, and so forth. In other words, I don't think, gentlemen,

that you can on the instant say what you shall have or shall not have in the way of social science in the bill.

"The social scientists have expert knowledge and judgment regarding a great many national problems with respect to which their advice ought to be solicited and they certainly are the main source of expertness with reference to the validity of statistics that the Government may be gathering."

Senator MAGNUSON. It is your best opinion that we should see that at least that phase be retained in our considerations here? Dr. BOWMAN. That is right.

Senator MAGNUSON. And other phases that may come along?
Dr. BOWNAN. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Dr. Bowman.

Our next witness is Dr. Langmuir.

TESTIMONY OF IRVING LANGMUIR, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR OF THE LABORATORY, GENERAL ELECTRIC CO.

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Langmuir, will you state for the record your name, your position, and something of your experience?

Dr. LANGMUIR. My name is Irving Langmuir. I am associate director of the laboratory of the General Electric Co., and have been connected with that laboratory since 1909.

The CHAIRMAN. In various capacities, or as an associate director? Dr. LANGMUIR. I was not an associate director from the beginning. I don't remember just what year, perhaps about 1920, I became associate director.

The CHAIRMAN. I believe you have a prepared statement to present?

Dr. LANGMUIR. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you seen the most recent draft of the bill? Dr. LANGMUIR. Yes; but I haven't had a chance really to look it over in detail. I had one, I think last Friday, which I have looked The latest one I got only this morning.

over.

The CHAIRMAN. Please go ahead.

Dr. LANGMUIR. In discussing this science legislation, I want to dwell on some basic facts and principles which should guide us in formulating this legislation.

The prominent role that the United States has played in the Second World War has been possible because of certain important characteristics of the American people. I am concerned particularly with those that relate to the progress in science and industry which have been so vital in our war contribution.

Dr. Vannevar Bush in his report, Science, the Endless Frontier, has stressed the necessity of progress in science, and has shown that basic or fundamental scientific work in the universities of the world has been the foundation on which this progress has been built. I do not want to repeat what he has said so ably.

Since he presented this report we have had the announcement of the atomic bomb and the Smyth report which tells of the scientific and industrial work which led to it. The atomic bomb puts upon the proposed scientific legislation an emphasis and an urgency of a

new degree. I have recently attended a 4-day conference at the University of Chicago on the subject of the atomic bomb. It was the overwhelming opinion that it will be only a matter of 3 to 5 years before other nations, having the requisite industrial power, will be able to construct such a bomb. There is no possibility of permanently keeping "the secret" of the atomic bomb. We thus have clearly a lead of only a few years. The important question is whether we can retain such a lead. For the future security of the world it is, therefore, vitally necesary to strengthen the United Nations organization and ultimately, through a world government, to control atomic energy for the benefit of all mankind rather than have it as a perpetual threat.

In any case long range security will depend upon progress, particularly, scientific and industrial progress, and, of cours, upon the strengthening of ties between nations making for good will and understanding.

I shall endeavor to analyze a little more closely than was done in the Bush report, the factors upon which progress in the United States has reached the present level. However, before doing this I would like to consider for a moment the atomic bomb work covered by the Smyth report, insofar as it bears on the question of the planning of scientific work.

The atomic bomb rests on a foundation of pure science carried on almost entirely in universities in many different nations over a period of years. Without this foundation all the resources of American industry, the organizing power of the Army, and the finances of the Government would never have led to the atomic bomb. The unhampered, free search for truth which was permitted in universities provided the favorable conditions under which such fundamental research progressed. Without such a foundation no planning board could have brought the atomic bomb into existence. It is, of course, equally true that the pure scientists themselves never could have produced the atomic bomb since this required the vast financial resources of the Government, the efficient organization of the Army, the OSRD, and the tremendous industrial power which exists in this country. It is important to note that in the Manhattan project nearly all of the $2,000,000,000 was spent not for fundamental science but for its applications. The final result was obtained only by a remarkably fine example of teamwork or cooperation between scientists, engineers, technicians, Army, and the few high Government officials of extraordinarily clear vision and leadership who knew of this project. It has been pointed out in the Bush report and elsewhere that up to about 1910 the United States had already shown remarkably proficiency in developing industries upon the basis of the pure science that had been developed in other countries, particularly, Germany, England, and France. However, since about that time the Americans have been contributing much more than before in the field of pure science. Within the last 10 years before the war America was making at least its fair share of the contributions to fundamental science.

The remarkable expansion of American industry, which was based upon the applications in science, is well illustrated by considering the following list of industries in which the United States took a leading

part: railroads, oil, steel, aluminum, electrical, automobile, and aviation, telephone, radio, rubber, and many others.

It is really an extraordinary list.

There are, of course, many factors which have made America such a great industrial country. I think that the progress resulted primarily from the many types of incentives which were active in this country. First of all, by our Constitution an unusually fine patent system was established. A patent is essentially a contract between the Government and an inventor by which the inventor renounces all advantages of secrecy and publishes a full description of the invention in exchange for a limited 17-year monopoly. I believe that this patent system more than any other single factor has been responsible for the great industrial progress in our time. The benefits that have accrued to inventors through the use of their patents have been almost negligible compared to the benefits the public has received through the rapid development and use of the inventions stimulated by the wholesome profit motive, which was given by the patents. Some defects in the patent system have developed and should be cured but it would be disastrous in my opinion to weaken the patent system. Even compulsory licensing removes much of the incentive to the inventor and to those who are able to develop inventions. Without adequate patent protection industry would be forced to attempt to keep inventions secret. This would greatly retard our industrial progress.

Another important factor that has stimulated progress is that America had the pioneering spirit. We believed in men. We pushed forward into the unknown. There was keen competition among such leaders and the rewards were great.

There thus grew up a system of free enterprise. I think that any careful analysis would prove that even the great fortunes amassed by Carnegie, the Vanderbilts, the Rockefellers, were a cheap price to pay for the tremendous advances made by our steel, railroad, and oil industries. I do not mean for a moment to argue that we should again encourage all the abuses that occurred during the early stages of the development of these industries, but I believe the abuses should have been corrected without destroying the major part of the system of incentives that had proved so valuable.

Perhaps, through the sense of fair play that was the characteristic of our love of sports, there developed in America a remarkable spirit of teamwork and cooperation which has been a vital factor in our progress.

The system of free enterprise is part of the capitalist system. The greatest merit of the capitalist system, I believe, is the very great incentive given to individuals to forge ahead in new fields. We have learned in recent years that the capitalist system has serious defects. The greatest, I think, is its tendency toward instability. Thus, when a depression starts and people lose confidence they stop buying anything more than the necessities of life and thus more people are thrown out of employment. This aggravates still further the causes that led to the depression. In the early days of the United States it took the labor of nearly all the people to maintain the people at a relatively low standard of living. Our agricultural and industrial resources have now grown to such a degree that only a very small

proportion of the people, smaller than ever before, can produce the necessities of life for the whole population. In a depression it is thus possible to have a greater fraction of unemployment than in the early days. It is, therefore, necessary to modify or control the capitalist system in such a way as to give it more stability and above all, to prevent the threat of widespread unemployment. If we are to have continued progress and keep our lead over other nations, especially in such things as the atomic bomb, it is essential that our modifications of the system should not stifle incentives or initiative.

In general, the profit motive on the part of individuals and industries has been in the public interest and has led to progress. A guiding principle which the Government could well adopt in establishing control over our capitalist system would be that control is needed particularly where the profit motive is distinctly contrary to public

interest.

We have inherited from our past (personal liberty, freedom of thought, free enterprise, patents, and so forth) a system of incentives more effective than that existing in any other nation, but the obvious. necessity of Government control of some features of our capitalist system has frequently led to attacks on the capitalist system as a whole, attacks on its good as well as its bad features. Let me give a list of some of the things which are now tending to restrict or even suppress incentives. In giving this list I do not at present wish to favor or oppose any of them. I want merely to call attention to the effects they are having upon incentives.

Antitrust laws: The tendency has been to regard all monopolies as evil, forgetting that in certain cases (telephone, railroads, and so forth) monopolies are necessary and beneficial when properly controlled. Taxation: Individual income taxes, and especially the high surtax rates, have been based on the so-called democratic principle that taxes should be paid in accord with the ability to pay. If this principle were carried to its logical conclusion, all incomes above an average of perhaps $5,000 per year would automatically go to the Government, nearly destroying incentives. A much more reasonable principle for taxation would be that taxes would be distributed according to the best public interest. With such a principle the importance of retaining incentives would be recognized. The 95 percent excess-profits tax for corporations almost wholly destroys the incentive to start new enterprises or to increase the efficiency of old ones. Although such a measure may have had some justification during the war, it is now pretty generally recognized that it would be very harmful to the public interest to continue it in peacetime.

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Langmuir, I want to interrupt and ask you a question.

You have been discussing the capitalist system. Isn't it a fact that there is nothing wrong with the system and never has been anything wrong with it, but that there have been abuses of it, and on these abuses restrictions should be placed?

Dr. LANGMUIR. I think there are many factors in the capitalist system that stimulate people to do things that are not in the public interest, and those features are bad.

The CHAIRMAN. That permit abuses?