« PreviousContinue »
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, they will be included in the record.
(See pp. 12, 13.)
The CHAIRMAN. May I say to you now that I know Jim Webb's time is tight and
he only has a short statement to make. Senator SYMINGTON. Mr. Chairman, I would ask, if there are questions after studying Dr. Wiesner's testimony, that he be asked to answer these questions.
The CHAIRMAN. I am sure Dr. Wiesner will be glad to answer them. As a matter of fact, in this question of 25 percent, we are trying to find out from Professor Commoner the basis of his objection. We have him on the line. I am going to ask unanimous permission that we include his statement in the record. Dr. Commoner is a professor of biology at Washington University in St. Louis and is chairman of the Committe on Science in the Promotion of Human Welfare of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
I should also like to place in the record a statement I have requested from Dr. Fred Harvey Harrington, president of the University of Wisconsin and chairman of the Legislative Committee of the Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges.
(The letters from Dr. Commoner and Dr. Harrington follow :) (NASA reply to Dr. Commoner is on p. 134.)
St. Louis, Mo., December 5, 1963.
DEAR MR. DI LUZIO: I am sorry that this response to your telephoned request for further information regarding my comments on the effects of the space program on scientific research has been delayed. This past week has been a difficult one for all of us.
I believe that the specific statement that came to your attention originated in an address that I delivered before the annual convention of the National Science Teachers Association in Philadelphia on March 30, 1963. A copy of the address is enclosed. (It has since been published in the October 1963 issue of the Science Teacher.) The statement in question is:
“NASA indicates that it will need some 70,000 scientists and engineers next year (this is about 10 times the annual production of Ph. D.'s in science and engineering); by 1970, NASA will require the services of one of every four in the country. Clearly, as it is presently projected, the NASA program will encompass a substantial portion of the Nation's scientific effort. Since NASA-supported work is necessarily directed toward the general area of space investigation, and is for a decade dominated by a single mission, placing a man on the moon, the program is bound to have considerable effect on the overall course of scientific investigation in the United States."
The sources for the factual statements contained in the foregoing paragraph are the following:
1. An article in Aviation Week and Space Technology for November 19, 1962, which summarizes the NASA-University Conference on the Science and Technology of Space Exploration held in Chicago on November 1-2, 1962, quoting Dr. Hugh L. Dryden, states :
“ 'It has been estimated that by 1970 as many as one-fourth of the Nation's trained scientific and engineering manpower will be employed in space activities,' Dryden said.”
2. A UPI dispatch from Washington on March 20 states:
"About 73,000 scientists and engineers will be needed to carry out the U.S. civilian space program in the next fiscal year, a congressional subcommittee was told yesterday. A total of 11,300 will be employed by NASA. The 62,000 others will work for NASA contractors, Robert C. Seamans, Jr., Associate Administrator of NASA testified."
3. Data published on page 13 of "Investing in Scientific Progress, 1961–70" (published by the National Science Foundation in 1961) show that approximately 7,000 doctorates in science and engineering would be awarded in 1963.
The foregoing material provided the basis for my remarks in March. I am aware, of course, that the sources are not as detailed as one would wish. However, as I had indicated in our telephone conversation, although I had made considerable effort, at the time, to obtain a detailed analysis of the manpower needs of the space program, such information appeared to be unavailable, at least publicly. In my capacity as chairman of the Committee on Science in the Promotion of Human Welfare of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, I had earlier discussed this problem with several Government officials. While it appeared that an analysis of the manpower problem created by the projected NASA program had in fact been made within the Government, I was told that the information was not available for release. However, nothing that I learned at the time appeared to contradict the general estimates already reported by Dr. Dryden and Mr. Seamans. Moreover, the estimate was confirmed by the projected size of the NASA budget, using as a measure of manpower needs the figure of $40,000 to $45,000 expended per research person annually. This figure has been established as a rather general one by calculations reported by the Department of Commerce and by several industrial scientists.
I am aware, of course, that more recently various Government officials have stated that the 1-in-4 estimate is too high. However, I do not yet know how these new estimates have been made, and would be grateful for any relevant data that you have. The problem is of considerable interest to the AAAS Committee on Science in the Promotion of Human Welfare, in connection with a report which we are now preparing concerning the effects of social demands on the structure of science. For this purpose, we are very much interested in detailed quantitative calculations which show what effect the NASA program will have on the availability of scientific manpower.
What has concerned us most is that the NASA program was apparently planned, and important national commitments made, before its impact on the Nation's total scientific establishment was evaluated (or at least before such an evaluation, if it existed, was made public). I have been personally concerned over what I regard to be an inadequate evaluation of the NASA research program, as it impinges on my own field of research, biology. In addition to the remarks contained in my address of last March, I have commented on this problem in a commencement address delivered in Philadelphia last June. Since you may be interested in the latter, I also enclose a copy of that address.
I trust that this information will be of use to you, and shall be happy to consider the problem with you further. In the meantime, I hope that you can send me material that you have in hand regarding the impact of the NASA program on the Nation's overall scientific program, for this would be of immediate use in the preparation of our committee's report. Sincerely yours,
THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN,
Madison, Wis., December 3, 1963. Hon. CLINTON P. ANDERSON, Chairman, Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR ANDERSON: The Association of State Universities and LandGrant Colleges has noted with interest the hearings now being held by the Senate Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences concerning the sustaining university program being conducted by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and should very much appreciate being allowed to file the following statement endorsing this program.
We fully believe that the mission of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, as established by the Congress in the NASA enabling legislation, justifies and requires its support of basic research and training in aeronautical and space-related science. We further believe that the NASA sustaining university program is soundly designed to meet this requirement. In addition, however, this program serves to strengthen, rather than weaken, the universities, and is in the best general interest of the Nation.
As you well know, the mission with which the Congress has charged NASA includes “the expansion of human knowledge of phenomena in the atmosphere and space" and the “preservation of the role of the United States as a leader in aeronautical and space-related science and technology.” It seems clear that these goals cannot be reached without the aid of university basic research. In fact, the Congress would be justified in feeling that NASA was not fully discharging the responsibility with which it has been charged unless it assumes a
ve role in supporting this necesary research. Further, this mission cannot be accomplished without highly skilled and trained people.
The NASA sustaining university program was designed to carry out these functions. Actually, if NASA had not done so, it is unlikely that the necessary research and training would have been accomplished. Space exploration has, as yet, little commercial application. The cost prohibits any significant conquest of space as a result of individual-or even of organizational-effort, short of the Federal Government. It seems clear, then, that if NASA does not assume vigorous leadership, the mission assigned to it by the Congress will not be discharged. And without at least modest efforts—and the NASA sustaining university program is a modest one, by any standard-neither the necessary manpower for the job nor the foundational basic research needed will be long available. It needs to be added here that one of the most frequently heard criticisms of the NASA program is that it “gobbles up” a large percentage of the available research talent in the physical sciences and engineering. It should be noted, however, that in actual fact NASA is adding to the pool of talent rather than merely draining from it through its program of predoctoral traineeships.
With this program, we admit to a special interest. This interest stems from the fact that, while making it possible for the universities to serve NASA's basic needs for research and training, it also preserves and strengthens the ability of the universities to discharge their fundamental and unique responsibilities for instruction, research, and service. It should be unnecessary to point out that unless this ability is maintained America will have lost one of the basic pillars on which its strength rests.
The traineeship part of the program, for instance, provides help for graduate students through the university. Students apply for fellowships to the university, and not to a Federal agency, and the university, and not the agency, selects those who are to receive the fellowships, just as it does with fellowships and scholarships supported by funds from such sources as State appropriations, voluntary gifts, and corporate grants. Because of this, the university is enabled to maintain control over its own programs, serving in those areas in which it knows it is best qualified to serve, rather than diverting its energies into areas dictated to it by forces from outside the institution. Furthermore, this type of program makes it unnecessary for the institution to engage in an essentially barren public-relation race with its sister institutions for national prestige in order to compete successfully for the type of students it needs in order to maintain the quality of its graduate programs and, consequently, its ability to serve well the State, local, and National interests.
Furthermore, through this program, the student remains responsible to the institution at which he is matriculated. It should be clear that a student who has won a fellowship in a national competition, has himself selected the institution he is to attend (after receiving the fellowship, and not before), and is paid a monthly check by the agency granting the aid is not likely to feel a great deal of responsibility or loyalty to the institution. Perhaps much is gained by putting the transaction on such a businesslike basis, but surely much is lost also when the value structure of a governmental agency is allowed to replace those academic values to which the institution owes allegiance.
Much the same sort of thing can be said for the research portion of the program. Within conditions laid down by the granting instrument, the university itself, usually through an interdisciplinary committee of faculty and administrative officers, directs the program. Again, this permits the university to serve where it can serve best. Further, it permits the university to coordinate this program with others for which it has the responsibility and, through such coordination, to strengthen both by reducing fragmentation of effort. The step-funding mechanism designed by NASA provides a climate that leads to greater stability of effort and reduces that pressure for immediate results that plagues much of our present research effort.
Even though it is widely recognized that those actions and measures that help the universities strengthen their programs are good-even necessary-for the country as a whole, there are other reasons for our belief that the NASA programs provide a superior mechanism for enabling the universities of the country to serve better the interests of the Nation.
The training grant program, for instance, reduces the tendency for those who have won fellowships in national competition to concentrate in a few prestigious institutions in a few States. And, by doing this, it also reduces the flow of the better qualified faculty members from their geographically dispersed points of origin to these few institutions. The national importance of developing and maintaining additional centers of research and academic competence has been widely recognized, especially now that the effect of such centers on the development and growth of local industry is well understood. On the opposite side of the coin, the effect of any truly significant geographical concentration of America's intellectual competence in a few areas should be equally clear.
With the research component, talent that could not otherwise be enlisted in the national service is made available. It should be clear that a local committee has a much greater opportunity to identify and enlist local talent than does a centralized Federal agency, especially since the talent we seek in this instance involves research competence, which is not necessarily correlated with the skills in persuasion often needed to win grants in national competition. It is even true that many of those possessing outstanding research competence are reluctant to enter into national competition for grants and contracts, not wishing to divert that much time and energy from their work. No centralized mechanism can identify and enlist these people, but local committees can do so, especially since the effort would become something not apart from, but actually a part of, their regular university responsibilities. The effect on the possibility of identifying and enlisting the service of outstanding young faculty members who have not yet developed a national visibility is obvious.
Only recently, the Senate Committee on Appropriations released Report No. 620 in which it noted that NASA “has initiated an academic grant program Because of the overlap with other governmental grant education programs, the committee questions the propriety of such a program * * *.” In this, we feel, they are mistaken. From the standpoint of the universities, no other agency has an "academic grant program” with the features of this one. From the standpoint of NASA, no other agency has programs directed at discharging its responsibility for “the expansion of human knowledge of phenomena in the atmosphere and space.” There is no evidence that we know of that indicates these programs take human or material resources from other programs. In fact, at most of those institutions at which these programs are located, up to 10 qualified students apply for every traineeship that can be awarded.
I should like to repeat: we strongly feel that the sustaining university program designed by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration is in the best interest of the Nation, is necessary for the discharge of the mission given by the Congress to NASA, and serves to strengthen America's university research and instructional competence. For these reasons, we hope that this statement can be read into the record of the hearings before your committee. Sincerely,
FRED HARVEY HARRINGTON,
Chairman, Legislative Committee of the Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges. (The biography of Mr. James E. Webb follows:)
JAMES E. WEBB, ADMINISTRATOR, NASA President Kennedy appointed James Edwin Webb Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration on February 14, 1961.
Mr. Webb is a Member of the Federal Council for Science and Technology, the President's Committee on Equal Opportunity, and the National Aeronautics and Space Council, and is Chairman of the Distinguished Civilian Service Awards Board.
An attorney and businessman, Mr. Webb has served in high governmental and industry positions. He has been active in aviation and education. He is a former Director of the Bureau of the Budget and a former Under Secretary of State. He has been a vice president of the Sperry Gyroscope Co., New York City, chairman of the board of directors of the Republic Supply Co., and a director of Kerr-McGee Oil Industries, Inc.—both with headquarters in Oklahoma City, Okla.—and a director of the McDonnell Aircraft Co., St. Louis, Mo.
In private life, Mr. Webb was a member of a number of Government advisory boards, including the President's Committee to Study the U.S. Military Assistance Program-popularly known as the Draper Committee. He has been engaged in many public service programs related to his long-term interest in science.
Born October 7, 1906, in Granville County, N.C., Mr. Webb graduated in 1928, from the University of North Carolina with a bachelor's degree in education. Later, he studied law at George Washington University, Washington, D.C., and was admitted to the District of Columbia bar in 1936.
In the early 1930's Mr. Webb became a U.S. Marine Corps Reserve Officer and pilot, and he currently holds a commission as a lieutenant colonel in the Marine Corps Reserve.
In 1936, he joined Sperry Gyroscope, serving during 7 years as personnel director, assistant to the president, secretary and treasurer, and vice president.
Mr. Webb became an Assistant to the Under Secretary of the Treasury in 1946. Later that year, President Truman appointed him Director of the Bureau of the Budget, a position he held for 3 years. From 1949 to 1952, Mr. Webb served as Under Secretary of State in the Truman administration. From 1953 to 1958, Mr. Webb served as president of the Republic Supply Co., and became chairman of the board in 1958. Between 1952 and 1959, he engaged in a number of business activities, including aircraft manufacturing and accessories, oil equipment and supplies, banking, and law.
In 1959, Mr. Webb reduced his activity in business and returned to Washington, where until his appointment to NASA he devoted much of his time to public service. Activities in which he participated or continues to be active include:
President, Educational Services, Inc.; chairman, Municipal Manpower Commission; board chairman, Meridian House Foundation; advisory council, School of Industrial Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Visiting Committee, Graduate School of Public Administration, Harvard University ; Federal City Council, Washington, D.C.; trustee, George Washington University, Washington, D.C.; Advisory Committee, 1960–61 Presidential Transition Project, Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C.
Mr. Webb has been awarded the following honorary degrees: L.L. D., University of North Carolina, 1949; Syracuse University, 1950; Colorado College, 1957; George Washington University, June 1961; Sc. D., Notre Dame University, June 1961; Washington University, St. Louis, February 1962; and the University of Kansas City, December 1962. He also received honorary degrees from Northeastern University in Boston and Oklahoma City University.
Mr. Webb lives at 2800 36th Street NW., Washington, D.C., with his wife, son James Edwin, Jr., and daughter Sarah Gorham Webb.
(Revised January 31, 1963.)
STATEMENT OF JAMES E. WEBB, ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL
AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. WEBB. Mr. Chairman, I had expected to ask you to let Dr. Newell give a statement of about 15 or 18 minutes and then read one that would take about 2 minutes and develop most of what you wanted through questions.
If this is more convenient to do tomorrow, I would be very happy to come back, because I think this is one of the most important subjects before the Space Agency and this committee.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, I intend to adjourn soon, if there is no objection. Therefore, I feel that perhaps what you have just now suggested might be the more acceptable way to do it.
Senator Smith was going to try to be obliging to you and submit you a list of questions, and you submit answers. But it is much better, I think, to ask those questions directly.