the national economy. There will be many developments from industrial research which contain patentable novelty and embody inventive concepts. Will the public be best served if industry is restricted in the use of such developments? I think not. Such a procedure, in my opinion, would go contrary to the whole principles of this proposed industrial research program. I think that all developments from industrial research fostered under this proposed legislation should be widely published and made available, without restriction, to every industry in the Nation in the interest of the general welfare. This proposed legislation should also be so drawn that scientific inquiry concerning all aspects of our industrial economy may be adequately supported. Research is always a hazard to investment capital. New methods and tools of production also upset many established economic and sccial relationships. The development of the atomic bomb has posed a most colossal problem in human relationships. Accordingly, therefore, as this research program develops, it will probably be found important to the general welfare that it be established with collateral research as effecting the social and economic aspects of industrial progress.

I wish to extend my remarks over the mimeographed sheets which I handed you to this effect: First, in a sense all science is social science. One of the important functions of this legislation is to foster the use of the scientific method in solving the problems which constantly face us in carrying on this process we call civilization.

This process is based on three great sources of power-the natural resources power; our tool power, by which I mean our factories and railway systems and all that combination of productive equipment which can be called tool power; and our manpower, by which I mean the social and economic institutions and arrangements we make for working together in carrying on our production and general way of life.

These three are indivisible. They are the three legs of the stool on which civilization sits.

The CHAIRMAN. In other words, if we remain in proper economic balance they will remain in balance? When you have a depression or inflation it means that those three factors are out of balance?

Dr. RAUTENSTRAUCH. Right. Perhaps I can illustrate my meaning by a story. The story is told of a couple of scientists who wished to carry on a research in secret and, therefore, went out in the far country in the woods where they hoped they would not be discovered.

It happened, however, that a native prowling through the woods ran onto their establishment, and he looked in the door and he said, "What be ye fellows doing in here?"

Well, they thought that he was a rather harmless individual and it wouldn't amount to very much, and thought they would tell him. So they said, "We are carrying on a research to find a universal solvent."

"Well, now," he said, "ain't that nice. What be ye going to put it in?" (Laughter.]

In contemplating research in the physical sciences, I think we also have to consider what are we going to put it in?

The CHAIRMAN. That is a good bit like the answer to perpetual motion, which could be attained only by the removal of friction. But when friction is removed, you can't hold a machine together.

Dr. RAUTENSTRAUCH. That is true, sir.

If the know-how, the scientific knowledge we now possess without any further research, were socially applied and made socially available, our standard of living and our cultural stature would be raised to much higher levels. By all means let us promote research in the social sciences on the widest possible basis.

I view this bill as having great possibilities in social invention as well as promoting invention in materials, processes, and products. Social invention, sir, you will find, follows about the same course as mechanical invention. The first devices are generally crude. By operating them, we learn where we have made mistakes. Reviewing our mistakes, we build better patterns. So, we find in social invention the history of the automobile. The first model was very crude and was booed off the streets. The present model came through a series of developments. I feel that this type of legislation is the beginning of social invention which is of great significance to the development of our Republic.

The CHAIRMAN. I have one or two questions I want to ask you. One is on the patent question. The phraseology of the bill is not intended to do it, but there is a fear that the invention via public funds of something in addition to something already invented would take away the oirginal invention from the inventor. Have you studied the bill to see whether you think that would be the effect? As I see it, under existing patent law-and we are advised that the bill is within the patent law-if X company had invented and had a sole and exclusive patent on a wheel and axle, and they were keeping it on as the small boy used to, by wrapping string around the end of the axle, and if public research invented the nut to hold it on

Dr. RAUTENSTRAUCH (interposing). You would be estopped from using the wheel and axle on which to apply the nut.

The CHAIRMAN. That is their contention. I don't see that.

Dr. RAUTENSTRAUCH. That is true under patent law, sir. The patent law gives you the right to prevent others from using.

The CHAIRMAN. The wheel and axle?

Dr. RAUTENSTRAUCH. That is right, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; but what I mean is whether X company would lose their patent rights and they would become public property then on the wheel and axle.

Dr. RAUTENSTRAUCH. No, sir; that is not true.

The CHAIRMAN. My theory of the patent law is that they still hold their patent on the wheel and axle

Dr. RAUTENSTRAUCH. That is true, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. And can use the nut.

Dr. RAUTENSTRAUCH. No, sir; they cannot use the nut.

The CHAIRMAN. If it becomes public property, as is contemplated under this.

Dr. RAUTENSTRAUCH. Then they can use the nut.
The CHAIRMAN. Anybody can use it.

to their patent, which they can use.

Dr. RAUTENSTRAUCH. That is true, sir.

That is simply in addition.

The CHAIRMAN. But anybody else can use it on some other device if they want to.

Dr. RAUTENSTRAUCH. That is correct. You are quite correct, sir. But the man who has the patent on the wheel and axle could prevent others from using that combination.

SCIENCE LEGISLATION

The CHAIRMAN. The nut on a wheel and axle.

Dr. RAUTENSTRAUCH. That is right.

I can cite you a very good case in patent history, and that is the Selden patent. You may recall that. In the early days of automobile development, the Selden patent was thrown into the arena, and a number of the automobile manufacturers took license under this patent. It is the broad, basic claims to the application of the gasoline engine to the road vehicle. Henry Ford, as you might expect, wouldn't recognize the Selden patent, and he broke the Selden patent. The automobile industry itself has found that it doesn't pay to have expensive patent litigation, so they have a patent pool, a take-in and take-out. There is a provision in that that a company may put in a patent and claim that it is a notable development in the art, and somebody has to determine whether it is notable. I happened to be retained by the Automobile Chamber of Commerce to represent it in the first and, I think, only case of that kind, and that patent was not sustained. It really wasn't a good patent. They have found that they can operate very much better by having a great degree of freedom in their operations.

I should like to refer specifically to some of the sections and paragraphs in the bill.

In section 2, paragraph (a), it is proposed to provide adequate public support for a number of types of research, including the social sciences, and I think the bill should be expanded to state a little more definitely how that is to be implemented.

The CHAIRMAN. Doctor, don't you think the proper way to do that is by the implementation of the committees?

Dr. RAUTENSTRAUCH. That is true, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. In other words, setting up specific committees, each one to take over definite, certain field in which they will devote their entire attention.

Dr. RAUTENSTRAUCH. In that connection I should like to point out that section 3, paragraph (c), proposes the divisions under which the foundation shall operate, and among these is a Division of Basic Science. I would suggest that, in place of a Division of Basic Science, there be designated two divisions: a Division of Physical Science and a Division of Social Sciences. I think I would emphasize social science right there where you begin to

The CHAIRMAN (interposing). That is what I am talking about by committees; those divisions.

Dr. RAUTENSTRAUCH. I think in the bill itself social science should be mentioned right there.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Dr. RAUTENSTRAUCH. Otherwise, it is likely to get lost in the shuffle. I think that is the course to follow within the intent and meaning of the bill.

I think also the committee should consider putting in a Division of Industrial Research and Development, because I think that is something that stands out by itself and again is likely to be lost in the shuffle unless specific provision is made for it.

The CHAIRMAN. Doctor, I don't know whether you are familiar with it or not, but following World War I, and probably with money owned by the United States of America, the United Kingdom set about the job of subsidizing British industry by the building of laboratories at great numbers of their factories.

Dr. RAUTENSTRAUCH. Yes; I happened to have met Sir Francis Heath, who was in charge of that during the First World War.

The CHAIRMAN. I feel that a foundation like this will accomplish more than would be accomplished by creating a committee to go out and select plants at which laboratories should be built at Government expense. What is your idea?

Dr. RAUTENSTRAUCH. I wouldn't want to commit myself on that. There is a great deal of merit in what you say, but there are occasions, perhaps, when both types of procedure may be justified. I should like to think a little more about that before making a definite com

mitment.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you think that English system might tend in the future to hamper the theory of free competitive enterprise because it gives to one plant laboratory facilities, and a competitor plant might spring up without those laboratory facilities?

Dr. RAUTENSTRAUCH. Yes; to that extent, I would say, most certainly it would do so.

There has been some testimony which I heard yesterday and some which I read prior to yesterday, dealing with the attitude of the scientists and engineers toward certain of these problems. You probably noticed that the engineers had certain points of view, the social scientists had other points of view, and the scientists in general had different points of view. I think that in reviewing these recommendations we might remind ourselves that many people who are called scientists are not scientists but are highly skilled technicians, and I would suggest that one has not the right to be called a scientist until he has developed a philosophy concerning the subject matter of his work.

I would also like to call attention to the fact that engineers are trained, and not educated. I know, because I have taught engineering for about 45 years, sir. They are trained to be good, obedient technical servants. I think that should be taken under consideration.

The CHAIRMAN. And their system of operation is very similar in its discipline to that of troops.

Dr. RAUTENSTRAUCH. Quite right, sir. Perhaps I might refer to the English poet Wordsworth and his poem Peter Bell.

A primrose by a river's brim

A yellow primrose was to him,
And it was nothing more.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Doctor. If you have anything further that you think of on what we have been discussing, any way we can help out by the utilization of universities and the utilization of educational facilities to aid industry, I should certainly like to have your thoughts before the bill comes on the floor.

Dr. RAUTENSTRAUCH. Thank you very much, sir. I am very glad to be of service to the committee.

The CHAIRMAN. General Magruder is the next witness.

TESTIMONY OF BRIG. GEN. JOHN MAGRUDER, DIRECTOR, STRATEGIC SERVICE UNIT (FORMERLY OFFICE OF STRATEGIC SERVICES)

General MAGRUDER. This is a new experience for me, sir, and I should like to introduce this by stating my competence, or limited competence, to appear before your committee. I come under that category of trained rather than educated men.

The CHAIRMAN. You belong to the Corps of Engineers?

General MAGRUDER. No, sir; I don't, unfortunately. I am an artilleryman. But I think soldiers come under the same category. The CHAIRMAN. Yes, they do.

General MAGRUDER. I suspect the reason I was asked to appear was because of the experience I have had in the intelligence field. The greater part of my service has been spent in that field both in military intelligence service before the war and I spent 3 years during the war working in the intelligence field in the OSS. During this time I came in contact with the social scientists and developed an appreciation and understanding and high degree of regard for these gentlemen with whom I had not had very wide experience in the conventional military intelligence or combat field. Soldiers are laymen in the field of the social sciences; the social scientist are laymen in the strictly military field. But in all of the intelligence that enters into the waging of war soundly and the waging of peace soundly, it is the social scientists who make a huge contribution in the field in which they are professionals and the soldiers are the laymen.

It is with that thought that I appear here. I shall read my state

ment.

The CHAIRMAN. Go ahead.

General MAGRUDER. The position of the War Department on the proposed legislation has been stated by Secretary Patterson and by Brig. Gen. William A. Borden. Their views dealt primarily with the importance of the physical sciences. In your deliberations on the role of science in government the War Department favors also inclusion of consideration of the social sciences. In this term is included those systematic studies which treat of man in his relationships with his community-economics, political science, sociology, history, and geography among others. Their role is vital, both in the strategy of war and in the strategy of peace, and the War Department takes the view that their encouragement is worthy of sponsorship.

Wars begin when the nonmilitary instrumentalities of strategy are unable to provide the formulas of peaceful settlement. Until the outbreak of war the strategy of the participants is based on international law and other techniques of international negotiation and arbitration, on political and economic inducements and pressures, and on social, cultural, and psychological quid pro quos. When these fail the strategy becomes that of physical might. But it would be a most serious error if it were implied that a state of war reduces the national strategic arsenal to the single weapon-armed force. This war has demonstrated that the role in wartime of the nonmilitary instrumentalities of strategy is only slightly less important than in peace. I need direct your attention only to the manner in which we,