could not have laid out a planned program of developing the mineral and agricultural resources of the country, because he did not know what was there. When Hendrik Hudson went up the Hudson River he hoped he was finding the Northwest Passage, and it was only after these explorers, La Salle, and others, had gotten around a bit over the country, their various theories of the layout of the country could be put together and we will say a master theory developed as to just what this country of America was.

That was continually refined by further exploration, and later the mineral resources and agriculture possibilities and all of those things came out and I think exploring fundamental new scientific territory is very much like that. The success depends upon the quick putting together of all of the information that is gained by various people and coordinating that, getting the fundamental picture from all available sources. Going back now to the prepared statement:

The most important prerequisites for success in fundamental research involve such things as the following: Choice of a field of research which appears rich in possibilities; selection of some specific project in that field which will open up a path into its unknown frontiers; availability of suitable laboratory facilities and equipment needed for the work; above all, research personnel of imagination, originality, analytical ability, and sound training and skill. Of the utmost importance in opening up a great new field of science, like nuclear physics, or electronics or the understanding of physiological processes, is the greatest possible opportunity for exchange of ideas and information and mutual stimulation among all the workers in that field. This is the principal reason why discovery of fundamental facts of nature has never prospered under conditions which limit the free exchange of ideas-conditions such as patent consciousness, trade secrets, and military security.

An excellent example of the way this works is given by the history of the development of the radio tube. This development extended back at least a hundred years. For at least the last 80 years there have been hundreds of articles written and thousands of workers on observations and theories in the process of coming to an understanding of the basic scientific facts which are here involved. From time to time theories or observations were wrong but most of them added a little to the sum of previous knowledge. Then occasionally some lucky genius would make a generalization which would formulate some new law of nature, such as that governing the emission of electricity from a hot filament, or the passage of electrons through a vacuum. Then at some stage in the game an inventor comes along and sees a practical application, and out of this come the various types of radio tubes. The great industrial laboratories have shown great skill in making the practical applications of these ideas in the form of operating equipment of high efficiency and usefulness. These planned programs of application in the industrial laboratories are applied research and can be carried on with systematic planning and with definite objects in view, but the gaining of the basic information would have been greatly retarded and perhaps never achieved at all if it had been carried on in an atmosphere of patent consciousness or restriction in professional intercourse between workers in the field.

Research scientists know by experience that these are the ways in which they can make progress in their fields, and this is the basic reason why they are so unanimously asking for the maximum opportunity for those things that can be lumped together in the phrase "freedom for research." This is one of the main reasons why I prefer S. 1285 to S. 1297, in that S. 1285 allows greater flexibility by the National Research Foundation in handling any patent equities in accordance with the requirements of the various types of situation which we know will arise. Every such situation should be handled by the foundation in the manner best calculated to serve the public interest, but I do not believe that any single or very simple set of rules can be set up in advance for achieving this result without acting to the detriment of the main objective of the bill, namely, advancement of scientific knowledge. Consequently I believe that the statement of policy or objective for handling inventions in the public interest is about as far as the bill should go, and that the foundation itself should meet the various situations as they arise in accordance with this policy. These considerations that is for freedom of exchange of ideas, patent considerations and so forth-apply not only to certain aspects of the bills before your committee, but they also apply to the bills in respect to the development and use of atomic energy which have been submitted by Mr. Johnson and Mr. May and which are under consideration also at this time.

It has occurred to me that we can draw some useful conclusions by looking backward over a somewhat analogous situation, the development of the automotive engine and its applications in the airplane, the tank, the bulldozer, the automobile, and so forth. Suppose, about the time when most of us were boys, and the automotive engine was relatively in its infancy, some agency like the War Department had conceived the idea that this might be very useful as a future military development and had clamped down the imposition of secrecy in the further studies of high-octane fuels, metallurgy, thermodynamics, and engine design, and all other features which have to go to build the most efficient possible engine. These conditions of secrecy might have involved a prohibition against doing work in this field without a license and against any discussion with other workers in the same field except by Federal permission, and no right of publication of results unless this commission thought that they would be of no aid to any foreign government. We can easily see what the results of such a policy would have been. Our own development of the automotive engine and the great automobile and aircraft business would have been greatly retarded in this country. Other countries operating without such prohibitions would have forged far ahead of us. When this world war broke out we would have lacked what was perhaps our greatest asset, namely, the great industrial know-how and productive capacity which enabled us to throw overpowering amounts of mechanized equipment into the field, saving an enormous number of lives of our own troops, and enabling us to deal overpoweringly crushing blows to the enemy. In a similar way, with any development of an important new field of science which may have important practical application for either peace or war, it seems to me that our first consideration for national economy and national security must be to handle this development with a minimum of inhibitions and a maximum of assistance and inducements,

so that as a result we will be in a position of outstanding power in this field, and all this can be done on the basis of sound peacetime objectives, with military applications playing only a subordinate role, as they did in peacetime all throughout the period of development of the automotive engines and their uses.

My second comment has to do with the educational aspects of S. 1297 and S. 1285, considering education in the broad sense to include also the research which goes on in educational institutions.

For something like 80 years, if I remember correctly, the Federal Government has assisted in the development of programs of higher education in the various areas of the country through its system of grants to the land-grant colleges, primarily for agriculture and engineering or mechanic arts.

This Federal support has been of enormous value, particularly in the newer sections of our country. It has established strong educational centers long before the time when the economic resources of those areas would have justified the expense. Yet I am firmly convinced that over the period of years these costs to the Government have been justified many times over.

I have long thought that this program of Federal aid in education should be supplemented by a second program aimed not so much at spreading educational and research facilities over geographical areas of the country as at focusing on important scientific or technical objectives. Such a program, for example, would consider one after another of the most important industrial or agricultural or economic problems of the country and support a constructive attack on those problems at the places and with the personnel which show specially good promise of bringing about the desired results.

These two forms of Federal support of education and research may be likened to two important types of operation in aerial warfare. The one is area bombing aimed at bringing about desired results over a given area, and the other is pinpoint bombing, aimed at striking very specific objectives. Except for the fact that Federal support of education and research are aimed at constructive rather than destructive objectives, we may say that the program of Federal aid to landgrant institutions is analogous to the area bombing, whereas that type of aid which will be possible under these bills is analogous to the pinpoint bombing. I think both are highly desirable and in fact necessary to the best development of our country.

While on the subject of education I would like to say a few words. in high endorsement of the provisions of S. 1285 for fellowships and scholarships in the various scientific fields. Every educator knows how important such aid is in the development of highly promising young men and women who might otherwise find it financially impossible to secure an education commensurate with their talents and promise. I think most scientists would agree with me in saying that there was no influence in raising the United States from a third-rate position in science to the first-rate position which was so effective as the program of national research fellowships put into operation immediately after the last war and administered by the National Research Council with funds provided from the Rockefeller Foundation. An astonishing proportion of the top positions in American science are now held by men who had the benefit of these postdoctoral

627

fellowships. For example, in the organization of the Office of Scientific Research and Development a large number of these men held. positions on the committees, or served as technical aides, or directed or otherwise held prominent positions in the most important research projects. It would be invidious to mention these by name, but just by illustration I would say that the three men who headed the three great scientific establishments which developed the atomic bomb were all former National Research fellows. They were Dr. J. R. Oppenheimer, Dr. Ernest Lawrence, and my brother, Dr. Arthur Compton. Also, Dr. Henry Smyth who wrote the Smyth report on atomic energy was another one of these fellows. I could also mention Dr. DuBridge who headed the great radiation laboratory which was the center of microwave radar development, and Dr. P. M. Morse who headed the operational research group for the Navy Department, or Dr. George Harrison who first established the Research Section in the southwest Pacific area. were provided by the Rockefeller Foundation to give a boost to AmerThese National Research fellowships ican science at a time when this boost was very greatly needed, namely, immediately after the First World War. This is only one of a number of important fellowship programs which have been established by private foundations, and I think the experience has been such as to justify high hope now for an even greater usefulness under the operation of this proposed legislation. I think the usefulness can be greater because the need is greater, the opportunity is greater, and both now considerably exceed the possibility of adequate handling by private philanthropy.

Finally permit me to comment on the provisions of S. 1297 and S. 1285 which provide for scientific research in the interest of national security. I am glad to see that in the revised S. 1285 the essential aspects of H. R. 3440 have been incorporated.

One of the most important and effective achievements of this war has been the extent to which the military and scientific forces of the country, in which I would also include the industrial producers, have effected a working partnership. In this we have gone way beyond our totalitarian adversaries, Germany and Japan. In Japan, for example, we found such partnership to be almost totally lacking, and in fact we found in its place mutual jealousy and distrust. For our future national security it is important to keep this partnership alive because it did not spring up over night, it gradually developed as each group came to understand the problems, realize the competence and come to trust the other.

One of the outstanding illustrations of this was the situation in which I was recently involved in the Philippines. Here, under General MacArthur's command, there was established a Pacific branch of OSRD, reporting directly to the Chief of Staff and occupying a position in parallel with the Sixth or Eighth Army, the Seventh Fleet, or the Far Eastern Air Force; yet it was a civilian organization depending on the civilian laboratories of OSRD back in the United States for personnel, equipment, and advice. The plan was developed over several years of experience and growing mutual acquaintance. This kind of partnership between the scientific and the military groups is a thing which should not be lost but should be continued and cultivated as a permanent element in our national defense.

By this partnership we do not, of course, mean that military men have become expert scientists, or that the scientists have become expert military strategists. It does mean, however, that they must be acquainted with each other and with each other's problems; that the scientists should, as a matter of national duty, devote some of their attention to solving the technical and tactical problems of the military and the military should be kept abreast with scientific developments so that they can plan their equipment and operations to take fullest advantage of every technological possibility.

Both S. 1297 and S. 1285 are aimed at continuing and supporting this productive partnership. In this respect I believe that the provisions of S. 1285 are more advantageous in that they definitely combine the two features which were found by experience during the past 5 years to be most advantageous. These features are first, a small responsible committee in charge of the scientific program which is formed predominantly of scientists or engineers, but on which the armed forces have representation through which the needs of the various services and the opinion of their technical bureaus can be expressed; second, a larger advisory body which presumably_would be comprised of top-ranking officers of Army, Navy, and Air Forces, together with prominent scientists, engineers or industrialists who would be kept informed of the program, could suggest policies or directions in which emphasis should be placed, and who generally could serve both as an educational medium for their respective groups and as a coherent group comprising enough men in strategic positions to make it possible at any time of emergency to expand greatly the scope and cooperation between civilian and military on technological

matters.

In conclusion, let me summarize my principal views on the bills before your committee. S. 1248 seems to me to be primarily concerned with matters within the Department of Commerce. Insofar as it would plan to deal with matters on a broader scope, I should prefer very much to see them handled under the provisions of S. 1297 or S. 1285, because I believe that either of these bills would provide a stronger and sounder framework for national scientific development.

S. 825 and H. R. 3440 refer exclusively to scientific research for national security. Either of them would I think have been a distinct step in the right direction. However, the essential aspects of both of these seem to me now to be incorporated in S. 1285, and I believe that there are strong advantages in having this national security aspect made part of the larger program.

S. 1297 and S. 1285 are very similar in objective and general concept. Of the two, I am convinced that S. 1285 contains the sounder provisions wherever they differ. The more important differences seem to me to have to do with the basic organization of the foundation and the matter of handling patents.

As to organization, I believe that the vesting of the authority in a small commission would be both more effective and safer than vesting the final authority in a director. The program contemplated is too great and varied in scope and too important in its consequences, in my judgment, to be entrusted to the final authority of one individual. By long experience I have come to have great faith in the combined judgment, knowledge, and wisdom of a small competent group-far