Page images
PDF
EPUB

Member, Tau Beta Pi; Chi Epsilon National Civil Engineering Honorary sa ciety; Sigma Xi. Received Navy's Civilian Meritorious Service Award, 1946. Registered professional engineer.

Member, Pressure Vessel Research Committee and chairman, design division, Welding Research Council, 1953–59; consultant, Committee on Undersea Warfare, National Academy of Sciences, 1957–58; member, Panel on Naval Vehicles, from 1960; American Society of Civil Engineers, engineering mechanics division secretary, 1958–61, executive committee from 1962, and member, research committee, from 1963 ; Society for Experimental Stress Analysis, president, 1957–58, executive committee, 1955–56 and 1959–62; American Society of Mechanical Engineers, member, committee to evaluate code stress basis of pressure vessel design ; American Association for the Advancement of Science; National Society of Professional Engineers.

Author of 70 papers concerning structural and applied mechanics; strength of ships and submarines; experimental stress analysis; thin shell structures; development of deep submergence vebicles; oceanography; science information ; scientific manpower and resource planning; research management; Federal science policy.

WILLIAM LYON HOOPER, TECHNICAL ASSISTANT, OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND

TECHNOLOGY

Date of birth: November 1, 1935.

Education: Graduate school, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, School of Industrial Management, 1958–60; honors-SIM scholarship, MIT scholarship, Industrial Management Review (chief editor). College, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1953–57, B.S.; major, civil engineering; honors—Sigma Xi, Tau Beta Pi, Chi Epsilon, Scott scholarship key, Dubach Award, W. A. Conant scholarship. High school-Hamden High, Hamden, Conn, 1949–53.

Employment: February 1963 to present–Technical assistant, Office of Science and Technology; primary interest in scientific and technical manpower and education issues and R. & D. management problems. September 1962 to January 1963—Research associate, MIT School of Industrial Management; duties included graduate instruction and development research. July 1961 to August 1962—Acting Assistant Secretary, Government of Western Nigeria, Ibadan, Nigeria (MIT fellow in Africa program). After a short period in the industrial Promotions Commission advising on the development value of specific business ventures and on implications of alternative forms of Government participation in ownership, I was reassigned to the Treasury to reorganize the administration of technical assistance. Subsequently participated in revising the regional development plan and advised on the financial and management implications of new expenditure proposals. June 1960 to June 1961-Assistant to the regional controller (West Africa) of the Colonial Development Corp., Lagos, Nigeria (MIT fellow in Africa program). Responsibilities included analysis of investment possibilities, study of management problems, executive salary review, valuation analysis, and administration of a 17-man African staff. Special responsibilities related to the management of three CDC-sponsored investment companies in Nigeria and Sierra Leone. June 1957 to September 1958—Technical engineer, Procter & Gamble, Cincinnati, Ohio. Primary duties were to provide solution for civil engineering problems in projects requiring interdepartmental coordination and to integrate efforts of other departments in projects specifically the responsibility of the civil engineering department. Summer 1956-Structural research engineer, Convair Aircraft, Fort Worth, Tex. Author of "Application of the Lattice Analogy to the Structural Analysis of Low Aspect Ratio Delta Wings." Participated in dynamic model testing, wind tunnel construction, and testing. Summer 1955—Assistant engineer, tools and materials, Southern New England Telephone Co., New Haven, Conn. Summer 1954-Assistant engineer, outside. plant and equipment, Southern New England Telephone Co., New Haven, Conn.

Articles : (1) "United States Foreign Aid Policy as Seen from Nigeria,” “Managing Economic Development in Africa,” MIT Press, 1963; (2) "Comments on Nigeria's 1962–68 Development Plan,” “Managing Economic Development in Africa,” MIT Press, 1963.

STATEMENT OF DR. JEROME B. WIESNER, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY; ACCOMPANIED BY DR. EDWARD WENK, JR., EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, FEDERAL COUNCIL FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY; AND WILLIAM HOOPER, TECHNI. CAL ASSISTANT ON OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY STAFF

Dr. WIESNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think my departure is not that imminent. I have at least two more congressional appearances. I shall probably be here through January and then return to Massachusetts.

The CHAIRMAN. So will we.

FEDERAL ROLE IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

Dr. WIESNER. I hope you are here much longer than that.

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee: I am pleased to appear before this committee today because it gives me an opportunity to discuss broad problems in the development of our Nation's resources of scientific and technical manpower and Federal Government-university relationships, subjects which, as you know, have been of great concern to me for some time. The increasing interest shown in these issues by the Congress is most encouraging. This hearing as well as others currently underway or recently completed should help lay the foundation for continuing, knowledgeable discussion of the Federal role in science and technology by the public.

The Federal Government, as you know, has long supported research and development in universities and other academic institutions, primarily, of course, to develop basic research knowledge which we need to support our many Federal programs. Federal support for university programs is now increasingly required because of the need for scientists and engineers as well. Many of these programs, in fact most of them, are conducted by mission-oriented agencies, as Senator Smith has already indicated, and I believe one should continue to support the programs in this manner.

CRITERIA FOR FEDERAL SUPPORT OF UNIVERSITY TRAINING AND RESEARCH

I believe that every Federal program in support of university training and research must pass four tests: (1) The need for it should be amply demonstrated;

(2) The sponsored activities should form an essential part of the agency's mission;

(3) The universities participating must be enabled to make a more effective contribution to national educational and manpower needs;

(4) No other more effective alternatives to Federal support are available.

By way of example, two parts of the NASA "sustaining university program," the facility grant program and the research grant program, are so closely and obviously sinked to the mission of the space agency that I doubt that if they need support on other grounds. NASA facility grants are awarded to universities which are being asked to bear major and continuing responsibilities for scientific or engineering research related to the space program where such facilities are required for the successful attainment of program objectives.

There is little difference between a grant of this type and an expenditure for the expansion of facilities at an in-house research center or industrial laboratory, except that here the university customarily pays a part of the cost. The university facility is also likely to contribute indirectly in the training of graduate students because they usually will participate in university research activities as research assistants or as full-time students working on theses. In most cases, NASA research or facility support will enable a faculty member to become more knowledgeable in a given field and, therefore, a better teacher; but this is not a primary motive in the case of NASA support.

NASA MAKES SMALL BUT IMPORTANT CONTRIBUTION TO DEVELOPMENT

OF GRADUATE EDUCATION

The interdisciplinary research program has the objective of fostering a balance in university research efforts by encouraging longer range interdisciplinary research-essential frontier thinking which is difficult to incorporate into more narrowly defined project research. The NASA witnesses who follow will discuss the essential nature of these two programs in greater detail. Let me only repeat that the facility and research support proposed by NASA does contribute in a positive way to the development of graduate education in the science and in engineering, although the NASA contribution forms only a small portion of national needs in these areas. It is, nonetheless, a very important portion.

NASA PREDOCTORAL TRAINING IS LONG-TERM INVESTMENT

The NASA predoctoral training program is not as closely and obviously related to the day-to-day operational responsibilities of the agency as it is to the longer term investments required to assure a competent and up-to-date cadre of scientists and engineers who are critically required for the accomplishment of our national goals, including command of the space environment. I know that this committee has already taken note of the importance of the national needs for scientific and technical personnel and I was gratified to see reference to earlier studies on this subject included as an appendix to the published record of your hearings last June.

PRESIDENT KENNEDY VOICED CONCERN OVER MANPOWER IN 1961

The administration's concern about the adequacy of our high-level manpower resources is not of recent origin. As a matter of fact, previous administrations have been concerned about this problem as well. In May of 1961, President Kennedy in a message to Congress stated :

I believe we should go to the moon but I think every citizen of this country as well as the Members of the Congress should consider the matter carefully in making their judgment, to which we have given attention over many weeks and months because it is a heavy burden * * * this decision demands a major national commitment of scientific and technical manpower, material and facilities, and the possibility of their diversion for other important activities where they are already thinly spread.

THREE FACTORS COMBINED TO FOCUS ATTENTION ON PROBLEMS

Later in 1961, three factors combined to focus attention on the size and quality of scientific and training activities of the United States. First, plans were being formulated for the rapid expansion of NASA and, as part of this process, efforts were made for the first time to estimate the magnitude of the future manpower requirements for generating and maintaining an unmatched space capability. At the same time the NSF completed an extensive documentation of the Soviet technical training system. It became obvious that the Russian educational system was skewed toward science and engineering, that their university output in engineering was several times larger than ours. Third, while the Soviet output was rising, U.S. engineering enrollments had sharply declined and leveled off.

SCIENCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE WAS ASKED TO EXAMINE PROBLEM

The President, in January 1962, requested his Science Advisory Committee to examine the Nation's resources of scientific and technical personnel in relation to the demands being placed upon these resources by industry, universities, Federal Government, and local and State governments—for the expansion of activities contributing to the achievement of national objectives such as military security, space exploration, economic progress, medical advancement, assistance to developing nations, and education of future manpower.

PANEL ON SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL MANPOWER ESTABLISHED

A Panel was then established under the chairmanship of Dr. Edwin Gilliland, chairman of MIT's Department of Chemical Engineering, to undertake this massive task. Early in the study it became apparent that little could be accomplished simply by attempting to match inadequately defined aggregate demands to projected supply. The Panel examined vast quantities of existing data, talked to numbers of employers of scientific and technical manpower in many fields of endeavors, inside the Government and out. The final judgment of the group was that, despite local problems, there was not likely to be severe general shortages of trained people in the areas studied-engineering, mathematics, and the physical sciences or EMP as we call them. Nearly 70,000 students are earning undergraduate degrees annually in these fields. As college enrollment continues to rise as a result of the postwar boom in number of children, it is expected that enrollment in these fields will rise correspondingly. These conclusions will require periodic review as we receive additional enrollment and employment data.

PANEL FOUND A MATTER OF SERIOUS CONCERN

The Panel did find a matter of serious concern—that there was a serious potential manpower bottleneck because of the inadequate numbers of engineers, mathematicians, and physical scientists who combined technical ability with graduate training. I should like to add that nothing we have seen during the last year has caused us to believe that their judgment was seriously wrong.

The Panel became convinced that such highly trained personnel will be needed by so many sectors of the economy in substantial numbers that every effort should be made during this decade to increase the output of quality EMP graduates without, however—and this is important-exceeding the capabilities of universities to find able students, hire suitable faculty members, provide suitable physical plant, and maintain the quality of instruction. It should be emphasized that universities themselves must be the major consumers of advanced degree holders in EMP for teaching, if the surge of undergraduate enrollments is to be met without degrading the quality of scientific and technical education. It was also abundantly clear that the Federal Government bore a major responsibility to insure the adequacy of our scientific and technical manpower resources because the Federal Government's R. & D. expenditures currently support about twothirds of our professional R. & D. work force. Obviously if these billions of dollars are to purchase continued scientific and technical leadership in the future, we must have available adequate manpower, adequate in numbers and quality.

LACK OF FUNDS TURNS AWAY MANY QUALIFIED CANDIDATES

Several important aspects of graduate education of significance to this discussion were uncovered by the Panel. More than half of all engineering, mathematics, and physical sciences graduate students do not carry a full-time, or near full-time, academic load.

They are part-time students, whose main endeavor is earning a living. Many competent B.S. degree holders are tempted away from full-time graduate education by high starting salary offers, especially in engineering where the typical student comes from a relatively low income family. Yet, even 1 year of graduate training is critical because the students' exposure to technical subjects is actually doubled by this additional year. The Panel also discovered that many universities recognized the need for increased numbers of graduate fellowships, but were forced to turn away many qualified candidates due to lack of funds.

EMPHASIS ON ADVANCED TRAINING AT GRADUATE LEVEL

I want to underline the Panel's emphasis on the value of advanced training at the graduate level. The variety and complexity of fundamentals that underpin scientific research have grown enormously. Many fields now embrace two or more disciplines and require a thorough grounding in each. Similarly, engineers are called upon to use more sophisticated scientific concepts in the design of military and space systems which, in turn, manifest unprecedented demands for reliability and economy. I do not think I have to say much more about that to this committee. Civilian industry, which faces tasks such as the development of natural resources, improvement of transportation systems, and the control of environmental pollution, must also advance by converting new scientific knowledge to technology, and for this purpose requires men who can draw upon understanding in fields of management, economics, law, behavorial sciences and natural sciences, as well as engineering. Research and engineering activi

« PreviousContinue »