committee headed by the Secretary of Commerce. We think that it should be left in those hands-that partial or complete solution of this important, complex problem should not be anticipated in legislation • providing for a National Research Foundation. It was suggested in the President's recent message that the proposed National Research Foundation should take in the social sciences. With all respect, we think it would be a mistake to give the new agency any such responsibility. Both the Kilgore-Johnson-Pepper and Magnuson bills are based on the premise that there is a continuing emergency which warrants Federal support for scientific research and education. This new program should be planned and carried out by men and women familiar with the subject; their interest and attention should not be diverted by requiring them to look after research and education. Indeed, the presence of the social sciences in the legislation would give rise to problems and difficulties which, in our opinion, would greatly prejudice the foundation. Looking only at the scholarship and fellowship program, it is believed that a fellowship board could do an excellent job in the selection and support of scientific students; it would be faced with a very different sort of task, a task for which it would not be well qualified, if it were required to make comparable provision for students of political science, economics, sociology, law, and so forth-in fact, every subject not comprehended by the natural sciences or the humanities. Lastly, freedom of inquiry must be safeguarded to the utmost. For long centuries science has fought all would-be dictators-superstition, ignorance, prejudice, religion, bureaucracy, autocracy, ambition, greed, and recently fascism. It may truly be said that all that we cherish in our culture has been acquired in consequence of this successful battle. Now science has reason to fear that freedom of inquiry, the right of every man to explore the universe in his own way, may be forfeited to a national policy in which young men and women, moved by the pressures of financial needs, advancement, security, opportunity, and so forth, will be deflected from independent. development and drawn to the powerful foci created by Federal dollars; and that utility, rather than the discovery of truth for its own sake, will become a national goal. Did this happen the United States would turn toward a new Dark Age dominated by technocracy, its scientists would be turned into scientific ants, and countries which offer haven and support to intellectual rebels would lead the way to better things. We should not, as a national policy, use dollars to force scientists to devote themselves to imposed intellectual interests. The preservation of intellectual and scientific freedom against the danger of economic bondage is a "fifth freedom" to which we must dedicate ourselves. This can be achieved only if the scientist who does not want to participate in an organized program is aided along with him who does. Here is the last and most powerful argument in favor of a National Research Foundation in which the responsibilities for policy-making devolve directly on a commission or board, and through the board, on the subsidiary scientific divisions. Failure to recognize that competency, interest, responsibility, and sincerity of purpose must permeate the foundation from top to bottom, that they must transcend all other considerations, can do science more harm than good. To neglect them is to court national scientific disaster. It is a question, then, of how these desiderata can be attained. When the Palmer committee was in consultation with scientists throughout the country, the details of a National Research Foundation could not be clearly visualized. Now, wishing to obtain the opinion of our consultants on these details, on behalf of the committee I have polled those with whom we consulted or had correspondence, for an expression of opinion. All these persons had been sent copies of the Kilgore-Johnson-Pepper bill and of the Magnuson bill in advance, without comment. In order to obtain answers expeditiously and without prejudice, a tabulation was prepared, based upon the proposals in the two bills, as presented in the subcommittee print prepared in August by Senator Kilgore's staff. I would be pleased to have a copy of this tabulation and of the covering letter accepted for the record. Dr. SCHIMMEL. Do you have that here? Dr. SMITH. Yes, sir. (The tabulation and the letter referred to follow:) Memorandum from Homer W. Smith. DEPARTMENT OF PHYSIOLOGY, Since my memorandum of September 21, I have been requested by Senator Magnuson to testify in the joint Senate committee hearings on the five bills mentioned in that memorandum. The two bills of major importance are, of course, the Magnuson bill and the Kilgore-Johnson-Pepper bill. These hearings have been postponed until the week of October 29, in order to permit Senator Pepper, who is extremely interested in the medical aspects of this legislation, to return from Europe. I expect to present the views entertained by those who served on Dr. Bush's Medical Advisory Committee, and to reaffirm certain important points which were made in that committee's report to Dr. Bush. In addition, the members of that committee have proposed that this memorandum be circulated to our consultants, with the enclosed tabulation of the major points involved in the legislation, and with the request that you express your preference with respect to various points in the two bills named above and, if you desire, give reasons for this preference. If this tabulation is returned to me promptly in the enclosed envelope, the results will be organized with the aid of the other members of the committee and presented as an integral part of my testimony. Care will be taken to dissociate the information obtained in this informal poll from opinions which have been endorsed only by members of the Medical Advisory Committee. Where formal resolutions from groups of scientists or other persons concerned are available, one copy should be sent to Senator Warren G. Magnuson, chairman, subcommittee of the Senate Commerce Committee, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C., and one copy to Senator H. M. Kilgore, chairman, subcommittee of the Senate Military Affairs Committee, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. One copy should also be sent to Mr. John Teeter, 1530 P Street NW., Washington 25, D. C., who is acting in an executive capacity for Senator Magnuson in organizing the congressional hearings. Will you please express on the attached sheets by means of a check mark your preference as between the Magnuson bill and the Kilgore-Johnson-Pepper bill with respect to the details here indicated. If you have a preference for either bill without qualification it may be indicated in item 20. If you feel that it is necessary to give reasons for your vote on individual points, please complete the ballot as far as possible and return it anyway, placing your comments upon a separate sheet. Please return at your earliest convenience. Time is short. The hearings on the medical sections of the bills are scheduled for October 29 and 30. SCIENCE LEGISLATION Comparison of scientific research bills S. 1285 (Magnuson) and S. 1297 (Kilgore- [Number of ballots returned through Oct. 20, 1945-295] Vote for 1 1. Magnuson: National Research Foundation.. Kilgore: National Science Foundation..... Top authority: 2. Magnuson: Powers vested in board of 9 members (no compensation) 258 Kilgore: Powers vested in director ($15,000 a year) appointed by 15 270 10 3. Magnuson: Board selected on basis of demonstrated capacity to .Kilgore: Directs foundation to survey and study all Government-financed C. Military research: 5. Magnuson: Sets up division of national defense, with advisory committee D. Medical research: Name: 6. Magnuson: Division of medical research. Kilgore: Research committee for health and medical sciences. Composition: 7. Magnuson: Advisory committee appointed by board. Functions: E. Other research: 9. Magnuson: Sets up, in addition to above, divisions of physical sciences, F. Research facilities: 11. Magnuson: Does not specify type of institution. Kilgore: Directs foundation to use existing facilities of Federal, State, 12. Magnuson: Does not specify proportion of funds to be devoted to the Kilgore: Specifies that not less than 20 per centum shall be expended for 10. Magnuson: Authorizes foundation to support scientific research through Comparison of scientific research bills S. 1285 (Magnuson) and S. 1297 (KilgoreJohnson-Pepper) before the United States Senate-Continued G. Research findings: Vote for 1 Magnu Kilgore son 13. Magnuson: Sets up division of publications and scientific collaboration Kilgore: Authorizes foundation to grant renewable 1-year fellowships and 16. Magnuson: Persons receiving such scholarships and fellowships to be I. Annual appropriations: 17. Magnuson: Authorizes such sums as may be necessary. Unobligated Kilgore: Authorizes such sums as may be necessary.. Compensation: 18. Both bills visualize that top board will give their (part-time) services gratuitously, except for per diem while in travel status. Do you approve or disapprove the principle that members of the top board should be remunerated for their services? Approve.. 179 95 19. Magnuson: Specifies that civilian division members shall be compensated at the rate of $50 a day while engaged in the business of the foundation. Kilgore: The present bill is ambiguously worded on this point (see sec. 402, sentence 1 and sentence 3). Do you approve or disapprove of the members of the division of medicine or the research committee for health and medical sciences being compensated while engaged in the business of the foundation? Approve. 20. In general, I favor the following bill (answer optional). Signature.. Ninety-five percent of the 295 votes cast are in favor of a board of nine members appointed by the President, as provided in the Magnuson bill. Ninety-seven percent prefer that this board contain no ex officio members, again as provided by the Magnuson bill. Ninety-five percent prefer the Magnuson instruction that the foundation "promote a national policy for scientific research and scientific education" to the original Kilgore provision that it survey and study all Government-financed research and development, and send to the President and the agencies concerned recommendations on these matters. Ninety-seven percent prefer that the members of the Division of Medicine be appointed by the board, as in the Magnuson bill, rather than by a director. And 90 percent prefer the name Division of Medical Research, as used in the Magnuson bill, to Research Committee for Health and the Medical Sciences, and also the name, National Research Foundation. On the matter of patents and on six other points of comparison between the two bills, the Magnuson bill is favored by 76 to 92 percent of the votes. In answer to questions 18 and 19, concerning the principle of remuneration for time spent in the services of the foundation by members of the top board and the divisions, respectively, 65 percent favor remuneration for the top board and 86 percent favor remuneration for division members. Of 228 persons who answered question 20, which calls for an expression of preference between the Kilgore and Magnuson bills as a whole, and which was marked optional, 226 voted for the Magnuson bill. Ninety-nine percent of these ballots were signed, giving the person's official position, as requested. Dr. SCHIMMEL. Dr. Smith, may I ask you a question? Have you ever conducted polls before? Dr. SMITH. I think I may say yes to that. Dr. SCHIMMEL. Are you familiar with the techniques developed by Gallup, and others, although not always adhered to by them, for assuring that a poll is objective? Dr. SMITH. I don't understand your word "objective". In this case the poll would have significance only when the ballot is cast by an informed person. Dr. SCHIMMEL. The method involves what are known as leading questions. There is a scientific technique developed to make sure the polling is accurate and objective. Are you familiar with that technique? Have you studied it? Dr. SMITH. Not as a technique, but, in order to avoid that possible error, we utilized almost exactly the comparison of points which is made in the joint print which I mentioned, which was drawn by your staff. Dr. SCHIMMEL. The reason I asked that is I understand you did that. I know you did that, but, for example, I have at various times studied the technique, and although I don't claim to be an authority on it at all, it seems to me there is one basic error in the whole poll that would be obvious to anyone who made a study of scientific polls. There are two key words, Magnuson and Kilgore, throughout the questions, which virtually invalidates each individual question, because the people will then bring to each individual question a certain background of discussion that, for example, the Bush committee may have had on these various problems. I am just indicating that from the viewpoint of the scientific technique of polling, the use of any sort of key which would be common to all questions would automatically make such a poll unobjective and unscientific. I just wondered whether you studied these techniques, because the presence of a key word in each question would be sufficient automatically to bar it from being an objective question. Dr. SMITH. Dr. Schimmel, there is no prejudice in this country against a bill because it carries a name. Men have given sincere thought to the fundamental principles involved and the ballot itself indicates they have supported it. Frequently they voted for the Kilgore proposal and frequently for Magnuson. The two bills represent different approaches to a problem, and the ballot cast, therefore, I contend, remains completely objective in terms of the principles and it is not influenced by the fact they have been drawn. and carry the names of their respective proponents, which serves not only as a convenient method of reference, but serves to give focus to the points of view. Dr. SCHIMMEL. I just wanted to point out to you that names or key symbols should not generally be attached to the alternative answers to a question. I am not discussing at this point the prejudice or lack of prejudice or influence or anything of that kind, but as an objective |