I am invited here as a working biologist, active in research and teaching. I have this prepared statement. There are 31⁄2 pageswhich I would like to read, and I would like to submit the first part of my prepared statement for the record.

Senator MAGNUSON. Go right ahead. (The material referred to follows:)

PORTION OF THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. H. B. STEINBACH, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF Zoology, WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY

Scientific research is a valuable national asset. It deserves support. This has been so ably expounded that we can assume the point has been made. In similar fashion it has been stated that the individual scientist should be encouraged to work according to the best dictates of his own scientific conscience. A companion principle is that basic research, insofar as it can be distinguished from applied research, is, from any long-range point of view, the most important phase of our national scientific life. Scientists have always known that theories developed without thought of immediate practical application are of fundamental value. The whole world is now aware of it. But the awareness does not always give comprehension of just what it means; that all competent investigators should be encouraged to collect any set of facts or develop and test any theory, provided only that the work is done with intelligence recognizable by fellow scientists.

In many instances, of course, immediate practical applications are recognizable at an early stage. Perhaps this is true more in physics and chemistry than in some of the other branches. In biology immediate practical values are seldom seen at the time the work is being done. Sorting out a lot of queer bread molds and developing theories of their interrelationships would probably have seemed silly to many, and yet such work was of great importance in controlling and guiding the development of penicillin. The medical use of penicillin is one of the outstanding achievements of modern times. Yet from a long-range point of view the most important work is the basic biological research that has been done or must be done. In a sense, penicillin is a brilliant light shining on civilization, but the important developments were and will be in the basic research powerhouse hidden from public view.

Not only medicine but also agriculture bases its practical advances on biological research. Each year our agriculturists are, for example, finding ways of increasing fruit yields by the use of sprays containing plant hormones. Such techniques have added greatly to our national health and income. But these techniques are only the application of basic knowledge about plant hormones which was developed by biologists who worked from a general interest in the problem of what makes plants grow. We may expect to benefit greatly from other future developments in applied agriculture; but we should bear in mind that such developments will be largely inspired by basic biological research.

Biology is the least understood and appreciated of all the basic sciences. Biologists as a group have never been primarily absent-minded bug hunters nor have they been people interested only in collecting animals and pickling them in alcohol. Biologists are people who are trying to draw predictable conclusions about the most complex systems known. Living cells, small bits of our own bodies, are so complex that they have defied complete analysis as yet. But investigations into them are opening up new fields of fundamental interest to other basic sciences. Many years ago, a botanist studied the shrinking and swelling of the tiny living units of plants. These observations, and conclusions drawn from them, allowed chemistry to develop some of its most basic theories in industrial use today.

It is unfortunate that biology is known best as it contributes to such great applied sciences as medicine and public health. Biology is more important than any of its practical fields. Biology has made its greatest contributions to social welfare by means of fundamental theories on which work toward practical ends is based, for biological science has literally been the wellspring of advances in medicine. Biology is a science in its own right and should be so recognized in any consideration of support of scientific research.

The need for support of general biology is in fact more crucial than for most other basic sciences because of the great diversity of its researches and researchers. A competent biologist today is apt to be required to know not only facts about both plants and animals, but, in addition, modern theories of chemistry, physics, and mathematics. For example, one who wishes to work on cell division, a

SCIENCE LEGISLATION

problem incidentally fundamental to cancer research, must be aware of the intricacies of the process as it occurs in many types of living things; and he also is quite apt to find himself using radioactive tracers, or doing some research on the chemical and physical properties of large molecules, or having a protracted 'session with the mathematics of fluid surfaces. This requires broad and extensive training and points to the desirability of one special phase of the bills under consideration. That is, the provision for training of young workers in the field. It should be possible for a promising student of biology to work uninterruptedly without worry about where his next meal is coming from. If it is difficult for him to get correct training in physics in his local school he needs to spend 6 months or a year at some other laboratory. He should, in short, be able to make use of At more advanced stages he should be free to the best facilities of his country. It is an absolute necessity, travel abroad should his field of interest call for it. for our national welfare, to support the training of students in the basic sciences. This support should be available at the earliest college levels. Otherwise we will lose in the future, as we have lost in the past, a large percentage of people capable of doing basic science research to industry and business where the financial rewards are greater with a much shorter training period. As matters now stand, many biologists feel impelled to tell prospective students, "Do not go into biology unless you see no other way of being happy. There is no assurance that your work will be supported and that you can earn a decent living when started." Private foundations, universities, and the National Research Council have all been helping to support promising young scientists. But the support is neither adequate for a given individual nor does it spread over a wide enough It is not possible to give a single comprehensive test and pick a great scientist. We must carry an overhead of extras from which the most able will Difficulties of selecting students may be illustrated emerge at any given level. by the story told that Gregor Mendel, the man whose experiments with sweet peas have revamped our agricultural economy, flunked his college exams cold. It need not be pointed out again that basic science has done a remarkable job in the past. It is now in a position where any assistance at all cannot help but While some research projects yield big dividends in comfort and safety for all. are handsomely supported, the majority are not, and the majority of scientists An eminent authority has recently noted are underpaid on a comparative scale. how silly we are, as a nation, when we not only assume we can buy the biggest brains of the country for the smallest salaries, but then proceed to expect the big brains to wash their own dishes.

range.

Testimony has shown that the medical sciences need much support, but the needs of basic biology are even greater. Because the biological roots from which spring fruitful developments in agriculture, medicine, and public health are hidden from the public eye, society has been chary in its support of biology. Business and industrial grants are generally made only for applied work in such fields as nutrition and pharmacology, and even the Rockefeller Foundation, an organization which has done an outstanding job in supporting fundamental research, has been far more liberal with medical science than with basic biology. Prior to 1944, for example, the foundation carried 60 projects averaging near $40,000 in medical science, and about the same number of projects averaging under $14,000 in basic biology. But basic science makes greater contributions to medicine than such sparing help would indicate. Taking the Nobel prizes as a criterion, we may note that more than a third of the prizemen in physiology and medicine do not hold the M. D. degree. They are holders of Ph. D. or Sc. D. degrees, which is to say that they were presumably trained in basic science, not applied medicine.

Senator MAGNUSON. I can stay late, if you gentlemen don't mind, but if you want to go, why it is all right.

Dr. STEINBACH. Basic science is in a position to benefit if Federal funds from any type of administrative set-up are forthcoming. It is, of course, earnestly hoped that any administration will recognize the need for freedom of the individual scientist and the need for participation of active research workers in the administration. Allocation of supporting funds for research should carry at least as much freedom as that found accompanying grants from private foundations. Under a typical set-up, a request for support of a general project is received by a foundation. This request is judged as much on the quality of the research worker as on the specific project. If approved, funds are

allotted to the nonprofit institution in which the scientist works, which then disburses the money at his instigation. Only the individual scientist determines the specific steps taken in the research work. In other words, scientific decisions are made by the people who apply for funds. To the administrations of the institution and the foundation the project usually remains only generally known until results are announced. This may seem a little like throwing money blindly into a river. In a sense it is, and it is up to any foundation or administration to pick out good rivers.

Thus the administration of funds for basic research is a subject of great interest and worthy of close scrutiny. Support must be made available in such a manner as to insure the preservations of the rights of the individual scientist to pursue his own lines of thought. Bills S. 1297 and S. 1285 differ somewhat in this respect. In the statement of basic objectives, S. 1297 gives its purposes as follows: "To provide for adequate public support for, and to otherwise encourage scientific research and development-." S. 1285 reaches somewhat past these goals and states, as a major objective, "To initiate and support basic scientific research and development-." S. 1285 thus appears to advocate a science foundation empowered to direct the specific type of work done. In other words, to initiate it. The desirability of this may be questioned.

The administrative plans for the two bills appear to follow directly from the philosophies expressed in the respective statements of purpose. S. 1285 creates, at the top of the foundation, an unpaid board, presumably of scientists. This board, acting under the directives of the bill might well feel itself charged with the true initiation of scientific research projects, allocating funds to those who will work on them. In contrast, S. 1297 provides for a Presidential appointment of a director, together with an advisory board with which he must consult on major policies. A single responsible public official, bound by the enabling act to "support and otherwise encourage" research would certainly hesitate before attempting to specify new projects which some other individual should carry out.

If it is agreed that basic research should be planned generally on the individual-scientist level, then it would seem to follow that the form of administration provided by S. 1297 is desirable.

It is interesting to note that, at first sight, S. 1285, with all control vested in a sizable board may appear to be more democratic so far as scientists are concerned. This would be true if the foundation was really intended to be a directive agency instead of one providing support and encouragement. However, the overwhelming preponderance of testimony already given, points to the necessity of having scientific decisions made by the men who do the work and plan the individual experiments. Others have mentioned the desirability of having as a director a single official with public responsibility and the difficulties in administering the over-all board set-up. Therefore, it seems apparent that the frame work provided by S. 1297 provides for a maximum of support and operational efficiency with a minimum of interference with the working scientists.

Science, as all other types of human activity, is not, of course, without its directive influences. Two of the most healthy of these influences that could be called directive are covered in both of the major bills under discussion. I refer to the provision for the dissemination

of knowledge by way of publications and for the promotion of national and international cooperation between scientists. Any increase in mutual understanding is bound to exercise a healthful controlling influence merely in telling every individual what is being done in his field and suggesting new angles of approach. This is the system at present. It works well and will work better with more support.

This discussion has been based mostly on the needs of basic science as carried out by the lone-wolf type of worker. It seems probable that group projects will grow in popularity and success as funds are available to facilitate such activity. Some suspect that the preoccupation of basic scientists with smaller individual projects is because they literally cannot afford, financially, to collaborate with any others more distant than the next room.

I note with pleasure that S. 1297, in the declaration of policy, specifically instructs the foundation to cooperate with scientific societies. The professional scientific societies are among our strongest scientific assets, and if basic research planning should be contemplated on other than the individual level, it should be restricted scientific society that functions first, since, by definition, they are the groups closest to the working scientist. These societies deserve the financial support and moral encouragement embodied in this provision.

Senator MAGNUSON. Doctor, would you advocate the publication, by Government appropriation, of a monthly or weekly, or whatever it is the Board may decide upon, journal?

Dr. STEINBACH. I think my inclination, having been mixed up in publication, would be to act through the existing agencies

Senator MAGNUSON. There has been a suggestion made

Dr. STEINBACH. Insofar as it is possible. I suspect a wise group in any of the particular divisional levels might request that sort of thing. The abstracting service, for example, needs considerable help in biology.

Senator MAGNUSON. Are there sufficient scientific publications throughout the country, if they were given free access to what the Research Foundation was doing, to cover the field rather than have them have their own journal?

Dr. STEINBACH. That would be a rather difficult question to answer. If the volume of basic research increased greatly, then many of our special journals would be past the breaking points. A survey carried out some years ago showed that most of the biological journals felt they published most of the papers they wanted to publish.

Senator MAGNUSON. How do most of the scientists feel about it? Dr. STEINBACH. In my experience, the problem is not crucial except for the abstracting service, but it would be immediately there is an increase of stimulus to research.

Senator MAGNUSON. Within the authority of the foundation as suggested by these proposals surely they could work out some methods whereby the knowledge could be disseminated.

Dr. STEINBACH. The appropriate legislation I think in all the proposals could cover that adequately.

Senator MAGNUSON. They could well even use funds for that purpose. They could make a grant-in-aid to a scientific journal on some particular problem.

Dr. STEINBACH. I had rather judged the committee print of 1297 aid that rather specifically.

Senator MAGNUSON. Yes. You might be doing some work in the biological sciences whereby they could take you probably have a biological journal, do you not? They might give them the money to publish what is being done, so all the biologists could know about it. I think we would rather work it out that way. I hope it is your opinion, too, that we would have possibly a Government monthly journal. I am afraid I might want to get some statements in there, and some of the rest of the Senators. You had better keep that free, too. [Laughter.]

The suggestion has just been made that the monthly journal be a catalog of all Federal papers. Would that be desirable?

Dr. STEINBACH. The full data on all experiments must be made available. Whether that is in the form of manuscripts or microfilm or anything of that description, is something the scientific societies have to settle themselves.

Senator MAGNUSON. We had a man, Dr. Davis, who said he represents a nonprofit institution, Science Service. Now the foundation could well subsidize and organize such as that, being nonprofit, to see that as great an amount of this material is available as possible.

Dr. STEINBACH. There have been in the past two or three attempts to have titles of papers in the major biological journals listed and sent to subscribers. I think they failed because of lack of funds. I found them very useful.

Senator MAGNUSON. Of course, Davis said, as I recall his testimony, this microfilm, if we could we will have all that right here in a very small building in Washington, for the use of anyone, and it could be transposed very cheaply. He also suggested that microfilm probably wouldn't cost as much as typing it out here, and possibly we could look forward to that.

Dr. Waksman, we will be glad to hear from you, sir.

TESTIMONY OF SELMAN A. WAKSMAN, MICROBIOLOGIST, NEW JERSEY AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION; PROFESSOR OF MICROBIOLOGY, RUTGERS UNIVERSITY

Dr. WAKSMAN. Senator, I will try to summarize the statement I have prepared. I am from Rutgers University and the New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station. I am a member of the National Academy of Sciences and of many other scientific societies. I presume I am the only one to speak for the lower form of life, the microbes. Most of the witnesses here speak for higher forms of life.

Senator MAGNUSON. You are against all microbes?

Dr. WAKSMAN. Not necessarily. It happens I deal with the beneficial microbes.

Senator MAGNUSON. There are two types. The ones I get are always bad ones.

Dr. WAKSMAN. For every harmful one, there are probably thousands of beneficial ones. I am going to try to present illustrations of those beneficial microbes.

Senator MAGNUSON. Doctor, I want to qualify you. You are the discoverer of streptomycin, which is comparable to penicillin and sulfa drugs?

Dr. WAKSMAN. Yes.