research equipment can be also used for the instruction of science students, so that the graduate research institution gets some useful spin-off into the undergraduate program, but the undergraduate liberal arts college needs to make substantial investments in keeping its teaching apparatus up to date. The undergraduate Scientific Instructional Equipment Projects program, which was restored upon the recommendation of this Subcommittee in the FY 72 budget at the level of $2.8 million, has been most useful to undergraduate teaching institutions. These are matching grants and thus have been maximally effective per federal dollar expended. This item is cut by $0.4 million in the FY '73 budget. A restoration of funding at the level of $9.0 million is probably barely adequate to fund meritorious proposals in the hands of the reviewing panels.

While the thrust of my remarks has been toward the implications of the proposed NSF budget for general science education of the citizen, I make no apology for the fact that our science departments will continue to provide quality scientific instruction for future scientists. As worrying as the current job situation is for scientists and engineers, surely it is not in the national interest that the education of potentially creative scientists should be absolutely shut down. If past patterns of career decisions and educational timing hold up, an eight year old school youngster of today (whom we may imagine to possess unusual scientific aptitude) will typically decide to become a scientist around the year 1980, would enter graduate school around the year 1985, and begin his or her career as a fledgling research scientist in about 1990. The point is surely clear: those of us who are urging the Congress and the OMB to consider carefully whether or not the NSF is giving due attention to elementary school, secondary school, and undergraduate level science teaching support need make no apology because of the current job situation or graduate school malaise. Genuinely long-range national policy issues are involved, and we appreciate the forthright and cogent manner in which you, Mr. Chairman, raised precisely this issue in your introductory remarks in the initial hearing session last Tuesday week.

I wish to make specific mention of an NSF program which, while amounting to peanuts relative to the overall NSF authorization, had an "amplification" effect of striking proportions in producing good quality science teaching. I cite the Science Faculty Fellowship program, now officially defunct, though a somewhat related program, the College Teacher Program, survives at the level of $3.6 million. The original Science Faculty Fellowship program enabled college teachers, particularly at four year undergraduate institutions, to spend time at a university or research institute in "catching up" and retraining. The problem of obsolescence is as real for the science teacher as it is for an industrial firm. Two factors would make such a program especially useful today: the greatly decreased mobility of faculty members, and the increased thrust toward interdisciplinary science teaching-particularly in courses for non-science majors. Like a number of other NSF programs, this program stimulated a matching commitment of funds by the institution which would benefit from the teacher's retreading, and so the federal investment was amplified. This Subcommittee recommended last year that the Science Faculty Fellowship program be restored at the level of $2 million; I would hope that you would stick to your guns and enforce your recommendation for the FY '73 budget by stipulating such funds in the authorization bill.

I do recognize an obligation to suggest where requested funds might be reduced, in order to provide the additional funds we have asked for. We hope you will look closely at the following budget items: the new $4 million program entitled Institutional Grants for Research Management Improvement, and a $3 million new program entitled Other Experimental Projects. We are not experts in these areas, and we do not wish to disparage needed innovations, but both of these programs need considerably more explanation and justification before one can decide whether they are worth more than the thrust which could be given existing programs in pre-graduate level science education with the same amount of money.

This Subcommittee has heard much talk by presidents and deans about programs which are supported in the educational section of the NSF budget. It is a real pleasure to introduce to you a student at one of our colleges who has had personal experience with several of these programs. Darryl Banks is a senior at Coe College in Cedar Rapids, Iowa; he is majoring in chemistry and his experience with National Science Foundation supported programs began

when he was still a high school student in Kentucky. He is a Rhodes Scholarelect from the state of Iowa and will take up residence next fall at Oxford. I think it very appropriate that you hear his educational autobiography, and have a chance to put questions to him about his perceptions of some of these programs of which I have been speaking.

(Biographical sketch of Mr. Banks is as follows:)

R(OBERT) DARRYL BANKS

Born Madisonville, Kentucky, 1950. Graduated Hopkinsville (Ky.) High School, 1968; National Achievement Scholar; National Merit Finalist; Presidential Scholar from Kentucky, 1968.

To graduate Coe College, 1972; Member, Coe College Band (3rd Clarinet), 1968-1970; Intramural Sports (track, paddleball, basketball), 1969-1972; Member, Afro-American Self-Education Organization, 1969-1972; Parlimentarian, Coe College Student Senate, 1969-1970, 1971; Men's Judicial Board, 1968, 1969; Student Affiliate Member, American Chemical Society, 1969-1972; Coe Chapter Vice President, 1969-1970, President, 1971-1972; Departmental Assistantship in Chemistry, 1970, 1971; Member, College Committee on Admissions and Financial Aid, 1969-1971; Assistant Resident Director of Dormitory, 1972; Teaching Assistant and Counsellor, Special Summer Students Program, 1970; Dean's List, 1968, 1969, 1970; Phi Beta Kappa; Phi Kappa Phi; Rhodes Scholarship.

National Science Foundation Student Science Training Program participant, summer 1967. National Science Foundation Undergraduate Research Participant, summer 1970 Research: Cobalt Amino Acid Complexes. Argonne Semester Program of the Associated Colleges of the Midwest (supported by National Science Foundation College Science Improvement Program B), 1971 Research: A Neutron Diffraction Study of 5-Sulpho-Salicylic Acid.

Mr. DAVIS. We will be glad to have you.

STATEMENT OF DARRYL BANKS, COE COLLEGE

Mr. BANKS. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I thank you for the opportunity today to share with you some of my experiences in the National Science Foundation's undergraduate pro

grams.

As a participant in three of the science education programs for undergraduates that are funded by the National Science Foundation, I would like to talk to you today on behalf of further Federal Government support of these programs.

I am presently a senior at Coe College, Cedar Rapids, Iowa. During the past 4 years that I have attended Coe, I have participated in National Science Foundation programs for undergraduate research. From the beginning of my college career I have tried to mold these experiences into an instrument for preparing me to make effective contributions to contemporary and future society.

As a junior in high school, I attended the summer student science training program at Coe College. This was my first exposure to National Science Foundation programs. I found that the program provided students from poor educational backgrounds with the opportunity to do advanced study in several areas of science and to come into contact with capable scientists who were doing research in various areas of chemistry and biology. I feel that the incentive and the exposure to new and different scientific techniques that were provided by the program have been invaluable to my educational development.

At Coe College my major academic interest has centered around a concentration of study in the field of inorganic chemistry. In the summer of 1970, I participated in the undergraduate research participation program at Coe College which is another National Science Foundation program.

This program was very beneficial for a couple of reasons. The first was, it gave me a chance to supplement my college education with research experience. It gave me the opportunity to do an in-depth study of a chosen field in science without interrupting my academic year studies. Within the span of an academic year, you just don't have the time to do in-depth research like this. Furthermore, I really feel that this research experience provided opportunities in advance scientific operation.

One of the most enjoyable experiences I have had has been during this past semester at the Argonne National Laboratory under a program sponsored by a COSIP B grant to the Associated Colleges of the Midwest. This program allowed for onsite study at Argonne in various disciplines of physics, chemistry and biology. I was studying in the chemistry division, where I did X-ray and neutron diffraction studies of hydrogen bonding in crystals of salicylic acid 5-sulfonate. The Argonne experience allowed the student to observe actual scientific research in action. Moreover, Argonne provided the opportunity to work closely and cooperatively with capable scientists in the creative world of scientific research. Above all, I feel that the Argonne program provided the exposure and incentive that is necessary to produce qualified scientists in this country.

In this light and in the light of past testimony that you have heard, I urge funding for the National Science Foundation education programs, especially SSTP, the undergraduate research participation program and, above all, the COSIP programs, especially COSIP A and COSIP B.

Students now are getting very interested in many new things, not only with the environment but also with the health services, along with basic research. I think it is necessary that the funding of these NSF programs be increased to allow greater participation.

It is my opinion that the National Science Foundation science education programs have provided the incentives and opportunities not only for myself, but for hundreds of other students to gain further knowledge and training in the various disciplines of science. These experiences are a very valuable contribution to the intellectual and educational development of your scientists.

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much.

It certainly is a pleasure and very refreshing to hear a consumer report and to see such good results coming about.

I take it that there is ample testimony to use practically all of our time this morning, so I will refrain, at least, from extensive questioning.

Mr. Mosher, do you have any question you would like to ask?

Mr. MOSHER. Well, Mr. Banks, will you be reading in the sciences at Oxford?

Mr. BANKS. Yes, I will. I plan to read for the B.A. in science and inorganic chemistry.

Mr. MOSHER. In the B.A., you won't go for a doctorate?

Mr. BANKS. Well, according to the rules, you must have a B.A. from Oxford before you can even apply to graduate schools. So, right now I am planning for a reading of the B.A. in science.

Mr. MOSHER. Are you suggesting to us that had it not been for the opportunities and incentives that you have had in the various National Science Foundation programs, you never would have had the opportunity to go on to a Rhodes Scholarship at Oxford?

Mr. BANKS. I think the experience that I received under the various NSF programs played a large part in my selection. They added quite a bit as far as exposure to new techniques, broadening my scientific training. I think this really helped.

Mr. MOSHER. With your excellent qualifications you must have had opportunities to go immediately into graduate school in various places, scholarships here in this country.

Mr. BANKS. That's true. I was in the process of applying to the graduate school here in America.

Mr. MOSHER. When you come back, will you take your doctorate here?

Mr. BANKS. Most likely. I really haven't reached a decision yet. However, there is still the opportunity to continue a graduate education at Oxford.

Mr. MOSHER. Are you impressed with what Oxford can offer you in the sciences in competition with the graduate schools here?

Mr. BANKS. Yes, I am. One thing that impresses me most is that not only can I continue my training in the sciences and my chosen discipline, but also I will have ample opportunity to further my total education.

I am not saying you can't do that here in America, but I think the opportunity that Oxford presents-this opportunity of having a Rhodes Scholarship-will really be a plus.

Mr. MOSHER. I am sure all of us envy you this opportunity. Congratulations.

Mr. BANKS. Thank you.

Mr. DAVIS. We have reached a little point here where we have to make a decision about who the next witness will be. Professor Harrison, would you like to offer your testimony at this time?

Dr. HARRISON. I would be glad to.

(Biographical data on Dr. Harrison follows:)

ANNA JANE HARRISON, PROFESSOR OF CHEMISTRY, MOUNT HOLYOKE

COLLEGE

Born, December 23, 1912, on a farm in central Missouri (Benton City). Degrees: AB (1933), BS in Education (1935), MA (1937), PhD (1940) University of Missouri with H. E. Bent; 1933-1935 Rural school teaching during another recession; 1935-1940 Teaching assistant, University of Missouri; 1940-1945 Instructor to Assistant Professor, Sophie Newcomb College, New Orleans; 1943-1944 OSRD Research on the collection and detection of toxic smokes. University of Missouri with H. E. Bent; 1945- Summer, Research on the infrared absorption of glasses, Corning Glass Works; 1945 Assistant Professor to Professor, Mount Holyoke College; 1947-Associate Professor: 1950Professor; 1947 Frank Forrest Award, American Ceramic Society; 1952-1953 Sarah Berliner Fellow, AAUW. Research in flash photolysis at Cambridge University with R. G. W. Norrish and G. Porter; 1959-1960 PRF International

Grant. Research vacuum ultraviolet photolysis at National Research Council of Canada with E. W. R. Steacie and K. O. Kutschke; 1959-1965, 1970 Board of Publication, Journal of Chemical Education, 1963-1965 Chairman; 1959-1969 Visiting Scientist, Division of Chemical Education, ACS; 1963-1966 Women's Service Committee, ACS; 1964-1970 Councilor, Division Chemical Education, ACS; 1966-1970 Council Committee on Chemical Education, ACS; 1968- Consultant on College Chemistry, Division of Chemical Education, ACS; 1968 Summer, consultant USAID/NSF in India. Stationed at Banaras Hindu University; 1969 Manufacturing Chemists Association Award in College Chemistry; 1971 Chairman, Division Chemical Education, ACS.

Publications in absorption spectroscopy and photolysis-vacuum ultraviolet for the most part in: Journal of the American Ceramic Society, Journal of the American Chemical Society, Journal of Chemical Physics, Journal of Physical Chemistry, Proceedings of the Royal Society, Review of Scientific Instruments, also publications in the Journal of Chemical Education.

Member of: Sigmi Xi, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Association of University Professors, National Science Teachers Association, New England Association of Chemical Teachers, and the usual collection of organizations dedicated to conservation and other good works. Non academic activities include gardening, trail riding and travel. Non academic interests include music, drama and the other arts.

STATEMENT OF PROF. ANNA J. HARRISON, PROFESSOR OF
CHEMISTRY, MOUNT HOLYOKE COLLEGE

Dr. HARRISON. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it is my privilege to appear as a witness for the Association of American Colleges and the National Council of Independent Colleges and Universities. These two organizations together constitute about a thousand institutions, about five-sixth of which are independent institutions.

I am a scientist and a teacher as compared to the other people who appeared as being either administrators at the moment or students, not meaning to imply that they are not scientists.

At the beginning, I would like to express a very widespread and very deep appreciation on the part of the academic community for the interest that congressional committees, including this committee, have shown in science education last year, and I am sure we all share a certain degree of disappointment that some of those efforts have not given us more immediate returns. But, the appreciation is certainly there.

As a teacher, and I will speak from that point of view because I think this is the viewpoint I am in a position to present to you, one looks at students both as the past, present, and the future. What you see, what you are concerned with in the student you are teaching, is what lies in the future. Also, what you can do at the time depends on what has occurred with that student in the past.

So, my intent is to speak for the whole of science education, not particularly the 4-year span of the undergraduate colleges. Now, it is helpful to me in doing this if we play a little numbers game and think of 100 individuals of any particular age group. What happens to them over a period of time? Ninety-five of those individuals, statistically, will enter high school; 75 of those individuals will graduate from high school; 50 of those individuals will enter college and 25 of those individuals will receive a baccalaureate degree. Of that 25, a much smaller number of course will become scientists or involved professionally in things that are science dependent.