Dr. SCHIMMEL. As I understand it, within a very short period of time, perhaps as little as 2 months. Dr. LANGMUIR. I do not believe so. With adequate controls, it seems to me the thing is reasonably safe. Dr. SCHIMMEL. Do you think you can talk in terms of an agreement for atomic energy separate from its use for military purposes? Dr. LANGMUIR. Only part of it. Dr. SCHIMMEL. You have to agree on the whole development? Dr. LANGMUIR. If you agree on atomic energy, by that time you agree on all the other things, too. Senator FULBRIGHT. I had no idea of the difference in agreement, but in the practical act of inspection that you could determine that a country was creating bombs instead of using it for commercial purposes. Dr. LANGMUIR. Nobody could now lay down a program of inspection which would be acceptable to anyone. Conditions may be different 5 or 10 years from now. Senator FULBRIGHT. What do you mean by that; why is that? Dr. LANGMUIR. You can't imagine letting a group of Russian scientists come here in the United States and inspect every plant that might possibly be working on atomic energy. Nobody would agree; Congress would not agree to it. Senator FULBRIGHT. Even though you had the privilege of going into Russia? Dr. LANGMUIR. No. I think we feel too secure at present. Senator FULBRIGHT. When you say now, obviously not without agreement. Would you consider that too high a price to pay, assuming the Russians said, "Yes, we are willing now to delegate to this organization" Dr. LANGMUIR (interposing). I do not think public opinion is so constituted in the United States that you could hope for any such agreement for a good many years. It will take a long time. Senator FULBRIGHT. That will be determined, it will be influenced by what such people as yourself say about it. If they feel it is of sufficient importance, they would, because this is a matter which most people are wholly confused about at the moment as to its significance, isn't it? Dr. LANGMUIR. But I feel we ought to start in just as hard as we can, but we shouldn't make it a prerequisite that we have to have inspection. Some of the plans that were proposed in Chicago demanded that a prerequisite, before anything else could come, would be inspection. Senator FULBRIGHT. Oh, no; reverse it and say it is the result of an agreement which is satisfactory, which really means a delegation of authority. When I said unrestricted power, that means it is a violation of what we usually consider the absolute sovereignty of a nation, which is inconsistent with any binding agreement. But suppose they were willing to do it to that extent; would you then say that the right of mutual inspection is not too high a price to pay for the chance that you might make that work, that being the only possibility? Dr. LANGMUIR. I would agree just as soon as it looks possible to do it, it would be desirable to do it. Senator FULBRIGHT. And you agree that is the only way it might work? Dr. LANGMUIR. It is the only way I can conceive that the world will be secure for more than 10 or 15 years. The CHAIRMAN. Do you think that private industry here and abroad would agree to such inspection even if their governments agree? Dr. LANGMUIR. Oh, absolutely; certainly. Dr. SCHIMMEL. Under this new bill, Senator, they have to. The CHAIRMAN. I know. Senator MAGNUSON. Doctor, doesn't that all bring out the original contention that what defenses we may need in this country other than pure military, material things, the most vital thing is for us to keep ahead of the world in a scientific way? Dr. LANGMUIR. Yes; we must. If we start to level off and other nations do not level off, there is no solution for us anyhow. Even if we have such agreements for inspection, at any time they may be canceled. Senator MAGNUSON. We have no defenses, then, have we; if we level off scientifically, we have no defenses in the new world as you see it? Dr. LANGMUIR. I think that is right. Senator FULBRIGHT. Doctor, you said we must keep ahead in science. We have done fairly well, haven't we, and yet we have had this war. Dr. LANGMUIR. But we won the war because of it. Senator FULBRIGHT. But don't you think one reason why we have them is that we have neglected the art of government, and that is the real place where this country has fallen down, not so much in science as it has in government. Dr. LANGMUIR. I think that three-quarters of my report is devoted to just that, that we have to have some fundamental changes in our Government in the future. Senator FULBRIGHT. I agree. There has really been, with all this advance in science taking place Senator MAGNUSON (interposing). Your interpretation of science and government may be different from mine. Senator FULBRIGHT. Can you think of a single step forward in the art of government in the last 100 years, any single change comparable to what has happened in science? Dr. LANGMUIR. I didn't get the first part of your question. Senator FULBRIGHT. Fifty, one hundred, even one hundred and seventy years. What improvement has taken place in government comparable to what has taken place in science in those years? Do you feel there has been any such comparable advance or change? Dr. LANGMUIR. No. Senator FULBRIGHT. I don't, either, here or in the world. Senator MAGNUSON. The Russians say they have made some advances in government. Dr. LANGMUIR. They have made advances over the government they had 10 years ago. We do not want that form of government. I hope we do not have to have it. Senator FULBRIGHT. But it does seem-while, of course, we are not discussing the other part of it, but it is related that to go on always improving science and not at the same time taking cognizance of the governmental problems involved, is a rather fruitless thing. Our purpose is not always to win the war-while we want to do that; the ultimate purpose is to try to prevent the war, isn't it? Dr. LANGMUIR. I, as a scientist, do not know how to run the Government of the United States, nor suggest any radical improve ments. Senator FULBRIGHT. But now that you have done what you have in atomic energy, you have got to become cognizant and interested in that Government because you have now made yourself a part of it. Dr. LANGMUIR. I am interested in it and I point out certain tendencies that I deplore. For instance, I believe that the capitalist system was not all right, but it had certain features in it that were wonderfully effective and useful to us. We should retain those things -which we haven't always done. We are trying too much to undermine the capitalist system as a whole instead of taking the good parts. What I like about what Russia is doing is that it seems to have lost its inhibitions. They are perfectly willing to give up any part of communism and replace it by something in capitalism if they think it is a good thing to do. That is what they say, and it looks to me like a good tendency. Senator FULBRIGHT. Don't you think that part of the difficulties you refer to are coming about not because of the essential nature of capitalism but the defects in our political system? That is where they originate. Dr. LANGMUIR. No; one of the things that I point out that is very fundamental in capitalism, one of the reasons why capitalism needs control, is the fact that as you get greater and greater productive power, you get to a position where you now can support the whole population with a smaller fraction of the people than ever before. That is a dangerous situation and it is the impact of that on capitalism which has been one of the big factors. We have to find some way to stabilize capitalism. The CHAIRMAN. And it is the impact of that upon capitalism which brings about the tendencies you deplore in your statement. Dr. LANGMUIR. In government? The CHAIRMAN. No; the effect of the productivity of the capitalistic system in the country has brought about practically everything of which you complain; in other words, in the increased productivity, we will say, per worker-hour. For instance, in agriculture, look how much more one worker in the United States can produce than a similar worker in Europe. That has brought about these demands for shorter hours and other things of that nature. Dr. LANGMUIR. And instead of that, we need mechanisms to make use of that productivity to do bigger and better things, rather than use it to stay on a level and to cut down on man-hours. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. We will recess until 10 o'clock in the morning. (Whereupon, at 12:40 p. m., the hearing adjourned until 10 a. m. the following day, Tuesday, October 9, 1945.) 78860-45-pt. 1 HEARINGS ON SCIENCE LEGISLATION S. 1297 and Related Bills TUESDAY, OCTOBER 9, 1945 UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON MILITARY AFFAIRS, SUBCOMMITTEE ON WAR MOBILIZATION, Washington, D. C. The subcommittee met at 10:15 a. m., pursuant to adjournment on October 8, 1945, in room 357, Senate Office Building, Senator Harley M. Kilgore, West Virginia, presiding. Present: Senator Harley M. Kilgore, West Virginia; Senator Warren G. Magnuson, Washington; Senator J. William Fulbright, Arkansas; Senator Chapman Revercomb, West Virginia; Senator Guy Cordon, Oregon; and Senator James M. Mead, New York. Also present: Dr. Herbert Schimmel, and Mr. John H. Teeter. Is Dr. Shapley here? Dr. SHAPLEY. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Shapley, will you state your name and position for the record. TESTIMONY OF HARLOW SHAPLEY, DIRECTOR, HARVARD UNIVERSITY OBSERVATORY Dr. SHAPLEY. Senator, my name is Harlow Shapley. I am director of the Harvard Observatories in Massachusetts, in Colorado, and in South Africa, and I am an officer of several national scientific societies. My testimony is presented, however, not as a representative of these various organizations but as an individual scientist. You asked if I could not come here and state my general views with respect to legislation implementing the Government in the support of scientific research. I am honored to be asked to take part in the consideration of legislation that seems of such importance to the Nation. I shall, if you like, Senator-—— Senator MAGNUSON. May I interrupt? Your field has been astronomy, is that correct? Dr. SHAPLEY. Astronomy. The CHAIRMAN. You are strictly in the field of what we call nonprofit research, isn't that right? Dr. SHAPLEY. That is right. Senator MAGNUSON. What has been your capacity here? Haven't you been consultant to the Kilgore committee in the past? Dr. SHAPLEY. No. |