social life. This social brain reacts to fellow-man, governing our family relationships, friendships and fears of strangers, influencing our feelings of social status, identity and the self. Social pollution will occur when man's relation to man is distorted or destroyed by activities based purely on the contrasting rational and logical decisions produced by the third part of the brain, the cortex, the seat of the intellectual and conceptual brain and latest addition to our central nervous system. It is responsible for and relates to the man-made environment, science, technology and the arts. Rational thought and logical operations govern our voluntary and conscious activities, and contribute to the contractual fabric of our society.

In our highly technological environment, the functions of the biological and social brains are impeded by environmental and social pollution, the side-effects, the undesirable by-products of the intellectual brain. In our elation over the progress of western intellectual progress in fighting natural threats in our environment (e.g. disease, hunger), we have overlooked the built-in possibility that science and technology will create man-made environmental threats, not only for biological, but also for social and intellectual life. What I am saying is that one-sided expansion of intellectual brain experience has led to diminished and harmful experiences for biological and social life. Indeed, we are seeing that the presently predominant linear thinking, still conceiving of the world in terms of cause and effect, leads to impoverishment of the culture to which it contributed, witness the counterculture and its demands for attention to the non-rational aspects of the personality and non-linear, comprehensive, and intuitive modes of thought. Federal support for scientific research and technological development should pay attention to fostering the knowledge of all of the ways in which human experience specifically influences human functioning in relation to his natural and built environment. If we could have foreseen to what extent the internal combustion engine would pollute the air, we would have taken seriously the experience of members of the pre-World War I generation, who protested against the smoke and stench of gas. We might have come up with an alternative motor long ago and not have geared the greater part of our economy to the automobile and its consequences.

My point is that thanks to our modern means of communication today we are in a position to pay attention to any and all experiences, be they expressed as majority or minority opinions. What we lack is the commitment to establish methods and procedures of systematically eliciting and recording the predominantly unconscious biological and emotional reactions to our built environment. We also should allow for irrational and intuitive feelings in our calculation of the impact of rational socio-physical planning and in programs of "user evaluation." It makes no sense to express fresh air (a biological experience) in terms of creating anti-pollution devices (an intellectual experience). Yet most of our environmental problem-solving is done in such a manner, that, when procedures standard for economic and technological accounting have been applied to the non-economic and non-technological aspects it is assumed proven that everything humanly possible has been done. I submit that we should develop additional methods and procedures to arrive at an "experiential cost-accounting," in which we attribute importance to all of human experience in proposed environmental intervention, and calculate anticipated profits and losses in biological and social experiences. If we believe in the value of providing a wide spectrum of experiences much of our mass-produced built environment can be considered to offer a diet deficient in biosocial experience, just as our mass production food diet has become deficient in certain food stuffs.

In assessing the above factors there is need for small-scale comprehensive experimental manipulation of the socio-physical environment. Since such research is expensive and hard to come by, we must take advantage and study existing relatively closed social systems, e.g., life in communes and in groups experiencing long-term isolation. Research on group life under such conditions focuses on specific aspects of functioning rather than looking for the interrelatedness of biological, social, and intellectual experiences. Efforts should be expanded and intensified to enable computer simulation of these conditions.

Once we gain a new understanding of non-intellectual human resources and allow development of new ways of communal action in our social systems, we

will need enabling legislation. Much can be learned here from the problems we encounter and anticipate in outer space. Particular support should be given to research projects that indicate active interest in the juridical aspects of their objectives.

Now I would like to discuss specifically which areas of the proposed National Science Foundation budget for Fiscal Year 1973 could accommodate the above research concerns. They have definite implications for all programs under the section on Research Applied to National Needs. Especially the program in Exploratory Research and Problem assessment should give priority to projects that provide for user evaluation and look at juridical implications. The program for graduate fellows and the science education improvement program should also devote a proportion of their budget to applications stressing awareness of the need to develop leadership in "experiential cost-accounting." There is the possibility of including the research concerns arising from small-scale environmental manipulation in several of the existing NSF programs. Recommendation should be made that the monitoring of human experience be a part of the National and Special Research Programs in arctic, antarctic, and oceanographic research.

In deciding which investigators and what facilities should receive support, preference should be given to multi-disciplinary teams, especially if this leads to the research being conducted on a multi-agency base. This practice provides the best conditions for surpassing not only the boundaries of traditional disciplines and professions but also those of bureaucratic conformity. In addition, the National Science Foundation could exert its influence in monitoring the effects of environmental intervention funded by many different federal agencies. It has been documented that little research has been done in the social and psychological impact of mandated programs. Research, possibly jointly funded with the responsible federal agency, could be encouraged and lead to a blending of existing federal policies. The following important possible recipients may be mentioned:

1. Independent research centers with proven capability of multidisciplinary work. These may be university, government, or privately sponsored, but if they draw from these resources, assurance must be sought that the research would not be subject to bureaucratically imposed traditional limitations. 2. Professional and scientific organizations for specific man-environment directed educational and organizational activities, e.g., conferences, workshops, seminars, and publishing.

3. University Faculty activities, especially in providing graduate fellowships in areas where multi-disciplinary research needs are most acutely felt, e.g., architecture, environmental and urban systems and planning, health and mental health, the social sciences, law, economics and political science.

In summary, I would like to underline the importance of allowing for expression of all types of opinion in determining our future environments. An empathic and tolerant attitude on the part of our federally supported researchers should be fostered, for, as John Stuart Mill wrote: "The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is that it is robbing the human race."

Thank you.

Dr. EBERHARD. All right.

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Coughlin, do you have any questions?

Mr. COUGHLIN. Just one very brief question. You indicated that the National Science Foundation showed little interest in your research proposals. Could you give us some idea of what kind of research proposals you are talking about?

Dr. EBERHARD. Well, one of the areas of research that would be obvious, I think, would fall within the social sciences, so to speak; namely, the relationship of people to spaces.

A meeting like this that is conducted is affected by the quality of the light, by the quality of this room, by the temperature of this room. Yet, our knowledge, as architects, when we design such

spaces, about the impact which such spaces have on us as human beings is very limited.

So, there are psychological aspects, there are physiological aspects and even sociological aspects about how we are organized here. The fact that you are on that side of the room and we are on this side of the room is a sociological phenomenon. We make decisions about spaces like these every day when we design buildings.

But, our knowledge about what the impact of our decisions are on how well this committee functions and on how well the people here participate with you is based essentially on intuition.

We have made proposals in the past that we would like to do research in these areas of concern, about man and his physical environment. They just don't fit neatly into any existing categories, and particularly as they come from the school of architecture there is immediately a categorization problem.

It depends on what one's view of architecture is, how appropriate the proposal is and therefore how it is received by the National Science Foundation.

Mr. DAVIS. I learned recently of a slum in San Juan, about which a book was written. It was wrecked by a hurricane. So the government of the city of San Juan built some pretty good housing out of concrete blocks and moved the slum dwellers into it. They were exceedingly unhappy. So in the dead of night, they rushed back down to the beach and rebuilt the slum and are back there now and very happy.

Dr. EBERHARD. Not only in Puerto Rico. We have cities in the United States which I think unfortunately our Federal funds have been used for such purposes ineffectively.

Mr. DAVIS. Yes. As a matter of fact, I think it would be a very rewarding study to see what goes into the production of the attitude that makes people prefer some way of life. It is more than just the building. Is it the nearness or maybe other things?

I often wonder, too, what the impact of the trailer dwellers we now have in the United States is going to have, sociologically speaking. Dr. EBERHARD. We believe those are fundamental questions and therefore qualified for support.

Mr. DAVIS. They are. I think a relationship could be established between the crime rate and the kind of living quarters people occupy, maybe the closeness or relative privacy that they happen to enjoy or the lack of it or the benefit of it. I think those questions are certainly ones that could use scientific research.

Dr. EBERHARD. We would like to participate and we hope that your committee will let the National Science Foundation

Mr. DAVIS. We will certainly take your testimony under consideration and we are grateful to you for your contribution to our hearing.

Dr. EBERHARD. We will be happy to cooperate.

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much.

We have Mr. Morris R. Lerner with us this morning, chairman of the science department from the Barringer High School, Newark, N.J.

(The biographical sketch of Mr. Lerner follows:)

MORRIS R. LERNER, CHAIRMAN, SCIENCE DEPARTMENT, BARRINGER HIGH SCHOOL

New York University, BA, Physics, 1938; New York University, MA, Science Education, 1941; Additional Graduate Work in Physics and Science Education, New York University City College of New York, University of Colorado.

Military Training: Naval Training School, Radar, Bowdoin College; Naval Training School, Radar, M.I.T.; U.S. Navy (Lt.), 1943-1946; Chief Instructor, Radar, 1944-1945; Countermeasures School, Pacific Fleet Radar Center.

Teaching experience: Barringer High School Newark, N.J. (Physics), 1939-1941; Newark Junior College (Mathematics), 1940-1942; Central High School, Newark, N.J. (Physics), 1941-1943, (Physics), 1946-1948; Barringer High School, Newark, N.J. (Physics), 1948-1956, (Chairman, Science Dept.), 1956-present; Coordinator of Science Materials for Newark Secondary Schools, 1962-1964 (In this position I was in charge of budgeting, specification, ordering and distribution of all science textbooks and materials of instruction. I was also in charge of the design of all laboratory facilities. In addition to designing laboratories for existing schools (where needed), I designed the entire science department wing at Barringer High School (completed June, 1964). I also set up the specifications for the reproducing and record systems in the music rooms of Barringer High School, as well as the language laboratory); Fairleigh Dickinson University, Teaneck, N.J. (Coordinator of Science & Mathematics MAT Program), 1969, 1970; Rutgers University of Newark, N.J. (Adjunct Professor of Education), 1970, 1971, 1972.

Honor societies: Sigma Pi Sigma (N.Y.U.), National Physics Honor Society; Phi Delta Kappa (N.Y.U.), National Education Honor Society.

Professional societies: National Science Teachers Association; National Science Supervisors Association; American Association of Physics Teachers; American Association for the Advancement of Science; Federation of American Scientists; Audio Engineering Society; New Jersey Science Teachers Association (Fellow, 1967), Annual Citation Scroll, 1971 (for distinguished service); Science Teachers Association of Newark (President, 1963-1964).

From 1947 to 1965 I was actively engaged in the field of audio engineering and sound reproducing systems. This activity ranged from consultation to actual installation of equipment.

Consultant in Physical Science, Parker Publishing Co., division of PrenticeHall, Inc., 1966-1968.

Other educational activities: Chairman, Physics Curriculum Committee, Newark, N.J., 1947-1949; Developed and introduced a two-year combined Physics-Chemistry course (Integrated Science) in 1960. Reported in "The Science Teacher" February, 1964; Conducted In-Service Institute in Science for Elementary Science Teachers, 1961-1962; Associate Director-NSF InService Institute for Elementary Science Teachers, 1964-1965; Instructor in Electronics, Christmas Science Workshop, Fairleight Dickinson University, Madison, N.J., 1964-1965.

A three day workshop for science teachers to learn basic electronics, wire and use a V-O-M, learn to operate an oscilloscope and to use this as a display device for various transient phenomena.

Chairman, 1963 NSTA Eastern Regional Conference, Newark, N.J.; Program Chairman, 1968 NSTA Northeast Regional Conference, New York City; Program Chairman, 1970 NSTA Northeast Regional Conference, Atlantic City, N.J.; Presented papers at national conventions of the National Science Teachers Association in 1963, 1964, 1965 and 1967, and have spoken to many other groups on various aspects of science education and science teaching, particularly interdisciplinary courses.

Elected to the Board of Directors of the National Science Teachers Association as Director for Region II, 1966. During this time (1966-1968) I chaired meetings of the NSTA at the national conventions and was active on a number of committees, most notable the Publication Committee.

I have been a member of the New Jersey Science Teachers Association Curriculum Committee and the major author of their publication "Science for the Terminal Student."

I was one of the seven founding members of the Federation for Unified Science Education (FUSE).

NSTA Delegate to British Association of Science Education Convention, Bristol, England, 1968.

Paper presented at AAPT summer meeting, 1969, "Physics and the Nation's Racial Problem."

Member, Council on Physics In Education (1970-1973) of the American Association of Physics Teachers.

President, National Science Teachers Association, 1971-1972.

Publications: A number of articles in "The Science Teacher."; Articles in a number of other professional journals; "How To Use An Oscilloscope"NSTA Monograph; received AAPT "distinguished service citation," Feb. 1972. Mr. DAVIS. You may proceed, Mr. Lerner.

STATEMENT OF MORRIS R. LERNER, CHAIRMAN, SCIENCE DEPARTMENT, BARRINGER HIGH SCHOOL

Mr. LERNER. Thank you, Mr. Congressman. It is an honor and privilege for me to be here.

I represent the National Science Teachers Association, which has a current enrollment of over 40,000 members and subscribers from all levels of education; elementary, secondary and collegiate.

In a sense, I feel that I am in a fortunate position because all of the speakers who have gone before me have pretty well made a case for a need, and, in fact, in the film, Mr. Congressman, you, at that time, already recognized the implication for the matter of education in that area and it was interesting that you also recognized that it was a kind of education that had to take place in the elementary and secondary schools.

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, sir.

Mr. LERNER. Which is an important item and it is to this point, of course, that I would like to speak here.

Now, I am not going to go through the entire report which we have and which I assume will be in the record, but I have a summary statement.

Mr. DAVIS. Yes, your entire statement will be in the record.

Mr. LERNER. This is just a little summary statement to indicate some of the highlights which I think are even more important now that these other statements were made. It will merely indicate a little bit of the history of the application of education in the National Science Foundation with respect to this sort of a problem and our rationale for our position and recognition of what we feel ought to precede needs in this case.

This document, this summary, is a position statement, together with recommendations from the National Science Teachers Association relative to educational programs and budgets of the National Science Foundation, particularly at precollege levels.

It is the result of noting with great concern what seems to us to be a serious, threatening decrease in financial support for such educational programs over the past 2 years, coupled with our firm belief that more and better science education, not less, either in quantity or quality, is an imperative for all children and youth in these days of growing concern about societal problems and national needs.

It is our contention that the educational programs of NSF in these specific areas must be maintained and strengthened and that new ones must be designed in order to help schools, school systems,