with mature judgment and experience, and each competes with all other proposals for support in a particular technical area. Each program manager looks for the best solution to his own most critical problems, and a proposal related to several areas will obviously be regarded by different program managers as having different priority; however, unless highly rated by at least one, it is not supported. The complexities of priority assignment in physical sciences by physical scientists, or in social sciences by social scientists, probably do not differ substantially, but, since results of research studies in either field cannot be precisely predicted, priority assignment is always complicated and is necessarily a matter of scientific judgment.

Question 9. What percentage of NASA grants is for basic research and what is for applied research? Do you have methods of testing the results of your grants for research contracts in the physical and life sciences? In the social sciences?

Answer. As has often been pointed out, there is no clear dividing line between "basic" and "applied" research. With rare exceptions, a research activity in either category contains significant elements of the other. All NASA research grants are for investigations in which the basic elements predominate.

Basic research may be defined as that type of research which is directed toward increase of knowledge in science. It is research in which the primary aim of the investigator is a fuller knowledge or understanding of the subject under study rather than a practical application thereof. This definition is extended to include the development and procurement of special instrumentation required for the conduct of research as well as all special services which may be required for the performance of the research. Thus in the case of space sciences, "basic research" includes satelliteborne instrumentation for measuring physical phenomena as well as the processes required in the data analysis. The definition does not include the spacecraft per se (including telemetry and data conditioning equip ment) nor the launch vehicle nor the data reduction (as opposed to data analysis). The definition of basic research as applied to all flight projects includes only that portion of the flight project which directly contributes to a fundamental understanding of a basic phenomenon.

The total NASA sponsorship of this kind of basic research in fiscal year 1962 was $46.3 million and in fiscal year 1963 was $58.8 million. During those 2 years, the total NASA R. & D. appropriations were $1,253 million and $2,458 million, respectively.

Results of research performed under grants can be measured by the degree to which new knowledge or discoveries generated by the research are utilized in space experiments, result in improvements of materials or components or, as byproducts of the space effort, become channeled into new or improved industrial products and processes, of benefit to the general economy, or influence scientific thought and instructional course content at educational institutions.

In addition to appraisal by NASA, in light of NASA requirements, the results of this research are, as a consequence of their publication in reputable technical journals, subjected to the characteristically critical scrutiny of the entire scientific community.

Question 10. Do you think the demands made by defense and space upon our supply of scientists and engineers is so great that private industry is suffering from a shortage—particularly a shortage in persons capable of doing basic research?

Answer. A comparison of NASA projected requirements for scientists and engineers with data prepared by the Department of Labor published in the Manpower Report of the President, March 1963, shows that NASA requirements for such personnel will be only 4.3 percent of the national requirements by January 1, 1964. We do not anticipate NASA's requirements for scientists and engineers at any time during the rest of the decade to exceed 6.6 percent of the estimated total national supply of scientists and engineers.

We are not in a position to evaluate requirements for scientists and engineers of the defense program. Through its predoctoral training program, NASA is providing for the training of scientists and engineers. Many of these trained people will ultimately become involved in basic research at colleges and universities, industrial firms, and Government laboratories. The program was planned to achieve the goal of an output of 1,000 Ph. D.'s per year by the school year 1967-68. Some of these graduates would presumably be employed by NASA as well as universities and private industry. For these reasons NASA does not feel it is causing private industry to suffer a shortage of scientific and engineering

manpower.

Question 11. There has been much interest and many public statements have been made concerning industry-oriented spin-off from the space program, but not much has been said about industry's actually putting to use the technical information. Do you have any opinion pertaining to the question of whether industry is really interested in the application of new methodology developed by NASA programs and will they, in fact, prepare themselves for greater utilization of such modern techniques?

Answer. The growing volume of mail confirms NASA's opinion that industry is keenly interested in the industrial applications of NASA-developed research. What is particularly encouraging is the type of company which is responding— not only are the large heavy industries interested, but a large percentage of inquiries and requests have come from small businesses in little towns across the country. Another pattern is emerging in requests from individuals on the production line-working engineers, plant managers, welders, etc., as well as company officials.

The following statistical facts sustain these observations:

As a result of an article on the technology utilization program which appeared in the autumn issue of Engineering, the publication of the Engineers Joint Council, over 950 letters asking to be placed on the mailing list were received. The membership of the EJC, to whom the article was addressed and from whom the responses came, is representative of the type of company and individual whom we feel can best utilize information on NASA's innovations.

Nearly 6,000 individual requests have been received for the first booklet issued by the program, titled "Selected Welding Techniques." Again this response was a cross section, not only of big and small business, individual welder, and company president, but of types. A runthrough of letterheads showed requests from such diversified sources as bakeries, creameries, and food processors; suppliers of dental, optical, and orthopedic equipment; several insurance companies and banks; makers of outdoor advertising and neon signs; bottling companies and laundries; a film laboratory and a radiology medical group. Obviously large manufacturers and their various branch offices and departments were well represented, along with Government agencies, universities, trade and vocational schools, public development groups, and labor unions.

Another 7,000 copies have been distributed to the mailing list, the news media, to NASA Centers, and research institutes for regional use, and at meetings and conferences, for a total of over 13,000.

Five hundred and forty-two requests for NASA technical information have resulted from 125 field visits to companies by the Midwest Research Institute. MRI is conducting the pilot study effort in the Midwest.

Five hundred and thirty-two midwest industrialists returned a register noting their technical areas of interest as related to NASA's R. & D. program to MRI.

Twenty-nine cooperating companies in the Indiana University Aerospace Research Applications Center pilot program have prepared profiles of their interest areas for transferring NASA technology to industrial use and are paying $5,000 per year for the services the Indiana Center is providing in the handling of technical information furnished through NASA.

NASA does not have a system under which we could determine the extent to which the new methodology developed by NASA programs is in fact being utilized.

Question 12. Who retains title to the facilities constructed with NASA funds? If a decision is made to transfer title to the university, how is this decision made? In the buildings constructed to date, in whom has the title been vested?

Answer. The statutory authorizations under which NASA supports the construction of research laboratory facilities at the university are explicit with respect to ownership. Under them, title to facilities constructed or purchased with NASA research and development funds shall vest with the United States, unless the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration determines that the interests of the national program of aeronautical and space activities will best be served by vesting title in the grantee. Determination to vest title in the grantee, pursuant to its request, is made by the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration on an individual case basis at the time the grant is made.

Factors which will be considered in making this determination include:

(a) Ownership of the land upon which the facilities are to be placed or constructed. In every grant made to date, NASA has insisted that the gran

26-460-64

tee own or have the right to control the use of land upon which the proposed facilities are to be constructed. No grant has included allowances for land acquisition.

(b) Feasibility of removal of the facilities without substantial impairment of their value.

(c) Intentions of the grantee respecting its use of the facilities over the 10-year period next following award of the requested grant. The extent of NASA supported research and training will, of course, vary from year-toyear, as will the number and quality of proposals. However, intentions, as set forth in a memorandum of understanding, are reasonable reflections of the extent of past and present programs.

(d) Intentions and plans of the grantee to accommodate and promote research in space-related science and technology through use of facilities to be acquired.

(e) Whether ownership by the grantee will enhance its long-range potential to conduct research in space-related science and technology.

(f) Whether funds other than those provided by the Government will be used in connection with the purchase or construction of the facilities. A grantee whether its funds are included in the actual construction effort or not, must make a significant contribution to the total cost by virtue of staff salaries, supporting facilities, office furnishings, movable research equipment, and expendable supplies.

Maintenance and operation of the facilities are the responsibility of the grantee, and when title is vested in the grantee, it is a provision of the grant that no charge will be made to any agency of the United States respecting the use thereof in connection with any Government-sponsored research. This is to prevent an institution from being awarded the full cost of the building and fixed equipment, and then recovering this amount again through accelerated amortization and/or use charges.

There are also considerations from NASA's viewpoint which militate against its retention of title to facilities acquired under this program. Foremost among these would be the nonownership of land or lack of rights to control its use or access. Title to a structure under such terms would be of little practical value. Ownership also carries with it certain broad responsibilities for staffing, along with various items of office and research equipment, expendable supplies, utilities, maintenance, and protection as well as the added burden of prudent care involved in ownership and operation. Additionally, ownership entails a program of proper utilization of the facilities consistent with the research and training requirements of NASA on the one hand, and the educational and other needs of the universities on the other. Fulfilling these requirements should be accomplished by complementary programs if we are to reap the greatest national benefit in years to come, and it seems to us that the university is best equipped to plan, propose, and implement such programs.

The NASA authorization acts further state, "appropriations for research and development may be used for grants to nonprofit institutions of higher education, or to nonprofit organizations whose primary purpose is the conduct of scientific research, for purchase or construction of additional research facilities; and title to such facilities shall be vested in the United States unless the Administrator determines that the national program of aeronautical and space activities will best be served by vesting title in any such grantee institution or organization." In all of the grants awarded to date for the construction of research facilities, the Administrator has determined that title will vest in the grantee. Question 13. How restrictive is NASA in determining the use of a facility? Can a university a year or two after acquiring a facility decide to turn out the science and engineering and use the building to house the music or Egyptology department?

Answer. A memorandum of understanding between NASA and the university recipient of a grant for laboratories sets forth the intentions of the grantee respecting the use of the facilities for space-related research over the 10-year period following the award of the grant. NASA policy governing facilities grants also states our intentions respecting the use of the facilities over a 10-year period, and stipulates that the facilities are for the purpose of conducting research in space-related science and technology. This "policy" becomes part of the grant when awarded to the university and is accepted by the university without equivocation.

The research activities to be conducted in the facilities are outlined by the university in its proposal requesting NASA support. It is the responsibility of the university to insure that the areas of research to be conducted in the proposed facilities are properly within the realm and definition of space-related science and technology. NASA makes no commitment, implied or otherwise, to accept any proposals for research to be conducted in the proposed facilities at some future date.

Nor do we wish to direct or restrict the course of the research activities for an arbitrary and fixed period of time. Research developments or NASA's requirements may change in such a manner as to negate the apparent benefits from such latter actions. In no case have we been confronted by a university with the concept that music falls within the scope of space-related science and technology or that music should replace such space activities. Similarly, none of the recipients of laboratories constructed with NASA funds have been found to support departments of Egyptology.

Question 14. How do you know that the NASA training program will really increase the number of Ph. D.'s graduating in any one year? Doesn't the top student only find that he has a greater range of choice of fellowships to accept? What information do you have to support the contention that the program will increase the rate of production of Ph. D.'s?

Answer. There has been no sign of any decrease in the number of doctorates awarded as a result of other programs. Ph. D.'s produced by the NASA program represent an increase in the national yield. The top students do have a greater range in choices. However, it must be remembered that one student may only accept one award. In addition to fellowships and traineeships, universities usually have teaching and research assistantships available for graduate students. If a top student who has been working on an assistantship receives a fellowship or traineeship, the assistantship is available for another student who was not previously able to enter graduate school because of financial conditions or who had not been able to get direct research experience. Thus, more graduate students are clearly able to enter training even though the top students may have a wider selection. Since we want to support only the most capable and most promising students in order to develop the maximum potential of this national resource, we must find ways and means of attracting them to the space-related fields of study.

Almost without exception, institutions applying for NASA training grants have requested support for more students than available funds would allow. A number of institutions also have reported receipt of applications from several times the number of students allocated to them. Proposals received for the school year 1964–65 indicated that these universities could handle over 2,100 new students if support were available to them.

This program was started to assist in the predoctoral training of some of the scientists and engineers which the space program will demand in future years. This does not mean, however, that all of the people trained under the NASA program will be employed directly by NASA. Some may remain at colleges and universities and become involved in research projects which are supported by NASA. Others may be employed by private industries which are involved in contracts with NASA.

Question 15. Would you give the committee an example of a facility grant? Specifically, how was the proposal received; how was it evaluated; why was it selected; what research and researchers will be housed in the new facility; what pressure did it relieve for the university; and what did construction of the facility do for the space effort?

Answer. The following is a brief history representative of the events preceding and following the award of a grant to Harvard University on October 26, 1962, for the construction of a biomedical annex to the cyclotron.

Based on a research proposal made by the university as a result of discussions between members of the university's staff and NASA's Office of Manned Space Flight in 1961, a research grant was awarded to Harvard University in mid-1962 for "interdisciplinary studies of the effects of high energy protons on biological systems." The research effort was also to include participation in the nationwide cooperative study on shielding materials related to the Apollo mission. The original research proposal included a request for $240,000 for construction of additional laboratory space expected to be required as the research effort progressed. This request was subsequently reduced to $182,685 after preliminary studies and discussions with NASA, and was resubmitted in 1962.

The proposal for additional laboratory space was sent for evaluation to several interested NASA Headquarters Offices and Research Centers. Coordination with other Government agencies, particularly NIH, NSF, and ONR was effectuated. Comments of scientists at the Massachusetts General Hospital who are cooperating in studies utilizing the proton beam of the cyclotron was received. A site visit was made to ascertain the need, the feasibility, and to discuss policy and procedural matters likely to be involved. Based partially on the foregoing, the proposal was selected for support because of the potential contribution which could be made to the NASA space program. A unique opportunity existed at Harvard in that its cyclotron was one of only three of its type available; the others being located at the University of California at Berkeley and Uppsala University in Sweden. Harvard also had a very competent staff to perform studies of proton interactions with biological materials. The research activities to be conducted could contribute significantly in determining either the shielding criteria for Apollo or the biological risk to our astronauts from solar flare proton radiation.

Contemporaneously, the Administrator made a determination that a grant for construction of this biomedical annex was necessary to the national program of aeronautical and space activities, was in accordance with approved agency policy and procedures, would benefit the United States enough to justify the grant, and that title would be vested in the grantee. Subsequent to this determination, funds in the amount of $182,685 were granted to Harvard University, with the stipulation that construction could not be initiated until NASA had approved the working drawings and specifications.

During the development of working drawings, a number of consultations among NASA personnel, Harvard officials, and representatives of its contract architect were held. These meetings served to introduce constructive design changes prior to bidding, and to insure compliance with the letter and intent of NASA policy and procedures governing facilities grants.

At the time the plans were submitted for competitive bidding, review of these same documents was initiated at two NASA Research Centers. There, technically qualified personnel who are engaged in all aspects of facilities acquisition, reviewed the documents for accuracy, completeness, and technically feasibility. Later further review in NASA Headquarters established that the building was appropriately designed to accomplish the scientific program and that it was economically acceptable based on bid data. Taking all of these facts into consideration, in January 1963, approval was granted to begin construction. Construction was initiated in February 1963, and through personal contacts, visits, letters, and progress reports, continuing management cognizance was maintained. This permitted prudent assessment of the actual progress, materials of construction, quality of workmanship, adherence to existing codes, and required change orders. Architectural inspection and construction supervision by independent means was maintained to assist in the foregoing and to insure proper value received for the Government funds expended. At the time of approximate 50-percent completion, an audit was performed to insure that funds were being spent only for the intended purposes and in accordance with proper and prudent management methods. NASA officials, university officials, and contractor and architect's representatives participated in final inspection in July 1963, and the building was accepted as essentially complete with the exception of the final change order and miscellaneous "clean-up" items as noted on the "punch-list." Upon satisfactory resolution of these minor items, final payment will be made to the university. The total project cost is expected to be about $160,000, and the unused portion of the grant will remain with NASA.

The biomedical annex is a two-story, 4,500-square-foot laboratory addition to the cyclotron located at a point where the proton beam can enter the operating room. It is the first building so far completed under this program, and dedication ceremonies were held on November 7, 1963. Completion of this structure has permitted NASA to take advantage of a unique opportunity to have studies performed on proton interactions with biological materials. Research utilizing the cyclotron is permitting simulation of space proton irradiations. Little such information is currently available to establish effective design criteria for Apollo or to predict the biological risks to astronauts. Working space in the congested area surrounding the cyclotron was simply not available to do this before construction of the annex.