old. familiar programs there and I am certain it is going to make all kinds of problems for everyone who files a proposal because you are going to have to rethink what you are doing.

Mr. MOSHER. But that's not bad.

Dr. HARRISON. That's not bad. It may be inconvenient, but it's not bad.

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much, Professor Harrison. I think you made a real contribution. All the witnesses this morning have made a contribution to this committee.

Dr. HARRISON. Oh, I am supposed to introduce someone. Should I do it now?

Mr. DAVIS. Yes, that would be perfectly in order.

Dr. HARRISON. I would like to introduce Dr. Bunting, president of Georgia College, and he is representing the American Association of State Colleges and Universities. He has a statement which I would like to ask to have read into the minutes and he is here.

Mr. BELL. John, may I ask a question?

Mr. DAVIS. Certainly.

Let me welcome Dr. Bunting. We are glad to have you. I have a copy of your statement, myself.

(A biographical sketch of Dr. Bunting is as follows:)

J. WHITNEY BUNTING, PRESIDENT, GEORGIA COLLEGE

Dr. Bunting became president of Georgia College in 1968, after serving as dean of the College of Business Administration at the University of Georgia in Athens for five years.

Dr. Bunting attended the University of Pennsylvania, where he earned B.S. and M.S. degrees in economics, the Master of Business Administration degree, and a Ph.D. in economics. During that period he also did graduate work in sociology at the University of Louisville in Louisville, Kentucky.

Dr. Bunting began his teaching career in 1937 at the Junior College of Commerce in New Haven, Connecticut, as an instructor in economics. After holding teaching and administrative positions there and at Hanover College in Hanover, Indiana, and Hobart College in Geneva, New York, he took a position as Professor of Economics at the Atlanta Division of the University of Georgia, and a year later, he became Professor of Economics and Director of the Bureau of Business Research at the University of Georgia at Athens.

In 1952, Dr. Bunting was named president of Oglethorpe University in Atlanta, a position which he held for three years. From 1955 until 1962, he served as an educational consultant for the General Electric Company, and was Professor of Finance at New York University in New York City from 1957 to 1962. In 1962, Dr. Bunting was named Dean of the College of Business Administration at the University of Georgia.

Prior to joining General Electric, Dr. Bunting had served as an officer and consultant with several business firms, including the Southern Company in Atlanta.

During World War II, he served in the Navy as a supply corps officer.

Dr. Bunting has also been active over the years as an author and contributor to a number of publications. He has written two books, Ethics for Modern Business Practice and Essentials of Retail Selling, and has been contributing economics editor for "Electrical South" magazine.

He has been the recipient of an Honor Certificate from the Freedom Foundation in Valley Forge, Pennsylvania.

Dr. BUNTING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

You have all that I wanted to say.

(Prepared statement by Dr. Bunting submitted for the record is as follows:)

PREPARED STATEMENT BY DR. J. WHITNEY BUNTING

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to have the opportunity to submit for the record, comments concerning the National Science Foundation's programs for the Fiscal Year 1973. Although the 288 institutions of higher education comprising the American Association of State Colleges and Universities necessarily differ in many ways, our standpoint with regard to the role of science education in our institutions is something we do agree upon. The American Association of State Colleges and Universities is comprised of institutions that enroll almost 25 percent of the student body in American colleges and universities. A large percentage of these institutions originated as normal schools and teachers' colleges responding to the demand in the communities of America for teachers to educate the growing number of children attending elementary and secondary schools. Today, our institutions graduate approximately half of all the teachers in the country certified by their states. It is perhaps an obvious conclusion that the quality of Education in America's schools today, to a very real degree, depends on the quality of training we can offer our students.

For a number of years, we have pleaded the case on behalf of undergraduate science education programs in the National Science Foundation, pointing out that increasing enrollments in the sciences, the impact of inflation on the cost of education, and the greater sophistication of equipment and training involved in science education in colleges and universities all combine to require increased funding in virtually all of the programs sponsored by the National Science Foundation. Much to our regret, and indeed surprise, we have found, particularly in the last two years, a tenacious determination on the part of officials responsible for designing programs for the National Science Foundation to cut back to a bare-bone level, if not to cut out entirely support for programs which we believe have proven themselves in the quality of persons they have produced and the level of learning and understanding that they have enhanced in American colleges and universities, and through them, in the high schools and elementary schools in the country.

We are generally concerned today for, as noted by Chairman Davis in his opening remarks on February 22, "The decisions which are made this year will determine a number of important science and technology policies for years to come." Further, we fully endorse the concern Representative Davis has with the "systematic reductions in science education and institutional support since Fiscal Year 1968." As indicated in Representative Davis' statement, the National Science Foundation should be obliged to consider manpower issues, in the long run, rather than to assume that the so-called "surpluses" or even the genuine unemployment problems of this year and even next year are the sole basis for determining policies toward training programs that will be turning out scientists and technologists for the 1980's and beyond.

Because of the nature of our institutions, I will confine our observations to undergraduate training. Recently, I listened to an economist discussing the virtual impossibility of beginning to resolve the problems that come under the rubric of "environment" today in the United States because of the extraordinary economic illiteracy in the country. Unless the citizenry can understand the economic implications of pollution control, for example, and understand the true nature of the free-enterprise system, there will be a great deal of responding to slogans and to pious and well-intended declarations that may well make for bad ecology and unsuccessful environment control. The economist noted that he estimated that as many as 75 percent of all high school teachers of economics had never taken even one three-credit course on economics while in college. A salient fact such as that may be enough to indicate why we believe that in its support for programs of training and education in the physical, biological, and social sciences, the National Science Foundation should be rapidly expanding its support rather than cutting it back. The officials of the Foundation and those in the Office of Management and Budget who determine the direction of that agency's programs would do well also to evaluate and perhaps anticipate the impact of the so-called "Women's Liberation Movement” on science education. Brought to my attention this week was the article in the Washington Post's, "Parade" section of February 20, 1972, which emphasized that the opportunities for success for women interested in careers lay in practical studies. The article noted that the traditional liberal arts education

would offer most women few career opportunities other than teaching, and that they would do well to turn their attention to the fields of science and engineering. In our institutions, the number of students, men and women, taking first-year chemistry and biology courses is rapidly increasing. One obvious reason for this is the awareness of the falling off of vacancies in teaching positions in many parts of the country, not because the teachers are not needed, but because schools boards are strapped for funds required to fund positions. An area of growing interest is the allied health professions, in which a great variety of the careers beckon and which requires basic science training for the future paramedical professional.

A problem that we are confronting with these additional students in science is the lack of sufficient modern equipment in the laboratories of our institutions. We are told too often by former graduates that when they accepted their first teaching position, they found themselves with far superior equipment in their high school laboratories and classrooms than they had to study with in their college or university. Incredibly enough, the Instructional Science Equipment Program (ISEP) was actually shut down last year and in this current Fiscal Year, has resumed at what can only be considered a tantalizing and frustrating budget level in face of the acknowledged need.

Because we live in a society where little actions are meant to signify and symbolize much more than we take note, education programs of the National Science Foundation were moved physically from downtown to an inconvenient address in a section far north of the city. We do not question the fact that space may have been short in the headquarters building, but we ponder whether sufficient efforts were made to keep the education programs close to the area visited by out-of-town educational institutional representativeswhether any real savings will result by putting the offices almost beyond reach of the visitors that those National Science Foundation programs are intended to serve.

Since college presidents today are deeply engaged in reorganizing many aspects of our own institutions, we have to applaud any reorganizational activity in federal agencies that strives for greater efficiency and effectiveness. But, we wonder if all of the changes in titles of the National Science Foundation's programs is motivated by the quest for efficiency, since it took several days of work for us to find the parallel programs under the old titles, and thereby be able to interpret what the Administration's request for funding of education programs in Fiscal Year 1973 really was. Again, a symbol saying more than is obvious. Earlier, we were concerned to learn that for the current Fiscal Year, the Office of Management and Budget had impounded a substantial sum of money, a disproportionate segment of which came out of the education funds appropriated by the Congress. We do not think it naive to assert that we believe that four subcommittees of Congress, after detailed study and the taking of testimony by federal and public witnesses to determine what kinds of funds should be authorized and appropriated, who then specify very clearly in the legislation what their intentions should be, have greater sense of the wishes of the citizenry of this country than do a few faceless and unidentifiable officials in the Office of Management and Budget and the National Science Foundation. To be perfectly frank, we are displeased with the implicit arrogance of the impounding action this year. We would not presume to advise the Congress on what actions it might take to obviate repetition of such action in the coming years, but we would emphasize our support for any such action the Congress deems appropriate to take.

In closing, I think it useful to consider the wisdom of George Santayana's observation that those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. It should not be necessary for another kind of Sputnik to appear in our midst every two decades before we understand that one basic strength of this country lies in its educational system. Expenditures on education by the country should not be placed in a debit column of accounting, but rather be listed as investments.

We who have made education our careers, recognize the supportive role the members of this subcommittee have had in helping to create educational programs and to sustain them for the benefit of all of the citizenry of this country, and for this we are grateful. I thank you for the opportunity to offer this testimony.

Mr. DAVIS. All right. We will have it included in the record.

Mr. Bell?

Mr. BELL. Miss Harrison, how many of the science students that you mention in your statement become science majors?

Dr. HARRISON. The 140 I spoke of are science majors and they will be receiving a degree in June with an A.B. in one of the sciences. I am only bringing this in to try to make the point that although I am speaking here today for those 90 individuals who do not become scientists, my life has been

Mr. DAVIS. May I say something, Dr. Harrison? Mr. Bell didn't hear the preface to your 90. The 90 refers to an imaginary 100 people that Professor Harrison was using just as an illustration. She told how many of them would finish high school, how many would get a degree and how many would go on and become scientists. The 90 she's speaking of are the 90 who don't become scientists out of an imaginary 100 students in this country.

Mr. BELL. I see.

Now, why is so much emphasis given Miss Harrison, to science training to these persons who don't eventually become scientists? I see not only in your report, but in somebody else's statement also, impressed on us the importance of making science available to students and almost pushing them into it if you can.

Dr. HARRISON. No, this is quite the contrary. My feeling is that pushing them in doesn't do any good. It is not the people who become scientists I am concerned with at this moment. I am concerned with the people who become scientists, but at this moment I am talking about the people who do not.

In a democratic society, which is also a technologically based society, many of the decisions that have to be made depend uponthe quality of those decisions will depend upon the background the people who make those decisions bring to it.

Mr. MOSHER. Will the gentleman yield just a moment?

Mr. BELL. Yes.

Mr. MOSHER. It is obvious that most members of Congress who make terribly important national decisions concerning science and technology are not from that group who become scientists. Therefore, thinking of Congress alone it is evident to me that hopefully we might have a little comprehension about what science is all about and the scientific way of thinking.

Mr. BELL. I don't want to belabor the point with my friend, but I might point that you finished college or I finished college many years ago, and what I may have gotten out of science by the time I reached Congress was so forgotten by now that I don't think it would do me much good.

Mr. MOSHER. Well, I am disappointed in you.

Dr. HARRISON. This is exactly the thing that I am concerned about because I don't think any school can teach anyone, even those people who become professional scientists, enough science at the time they are in college. Only half those people even go to college, much less get a degree. You can't possibly teach them enough science in order that they understand science, really, or understand the impact of science on the society.

It does make a great deal of difference though whether those individuals come out of whatever education they have with a concept of themselves, that they have the capacity to learn about scientific developments, and the manner in which those interrelate with society from the public media.

To me, all this talk about understanding of science is nothing more or less than attitude of mind. If people feel they can listen to these things or can read these things and come out with an element of comprehension, and they do it, then they will understand science in the level at which they are capable of understanding science.

Mr. DAVIS. I would like to say in my own case that I got enough science in high school to make a camp follower out of me, and I still am a camp follower.

Dr. HARRISON. The people who come out as camp followers, have it made because they continue their education.

Mr. DAVIS. That has been true in my case. I think Dr. Salter's comments about the importance of at least making science education available to a nonscience major is very well put and very important, especially as technology becomes more and more a part of our economy as well as our society, generally.

Mr. BELL. I may sound, Mrs. Harrison, like the devil's advocate, but I am not trying to be. I really do lean very much to science and the study of it. But, there are some questions that occur to me on this subject.

I know that when I first came to Congress, we were still in the middle of the move towards trying to encourage as many scientists and engineers as possible. The concept at that time was that the Russians were getting ahead of us. I still think we should be ahead of the world in this field, if we can.

However, you indicated in your comment a few moments ago that we have quite a number now of scientists developed over a period of time. I have a particular problem in my own district, which is electronically oriented, and great numbers of unemployed scientists, some of which are now driving taxicabs, with Ph. D. degrees. This is a serious problem and has become a serious problem.

I am not, anymore, so sanguine about let's move in the direction and get as many people oriented to science and the study of science as much as we can. Not that that isn't important, but there must balance here somewhere, and whether or not we may be overemphasizing it. On the other hand, maybe we should be a little bit more practical about some of our problems that we are facing today.

Dr. HARRISON. There are a variety of ways in which you can be practical. We have gone through a period in which society has had a very high value on the production of scientists. The academic community accepted that value judgment and we have learned how to produce very highly trained scientists, and I think we have really done very well at it.

In the process of this, we have, I think, not devoted the same effort towards being able to help all people obtain a higher level of scientific literacy and this is what I have been worrying about this morning.

Now, leaving that and coming over to the people who become pro