stands out in very healthy contrast. I feel that the overall evolution of science and technology in the United States will be far more rapid if we have a healthy space program than it will be if we do not, provided we continue to recognize both the good and the bad effects the program may have on our economy and social structure and do what we can to mitigate the latter. The impact of the space program on our universities is one important facet of the problem which merits watching. If we examine the policies of the various agencies which support science and technology in a way that has a direct effect on the universities, we find considerable variation. Let me review some of the more important examples. First, there is the National Science Foundation, which is not mission-oriented and considers its key role to be that of providing support to universities in most major areas of science and engineering through grants. The National Science Foundation does not play a very direct role in guiding the flow of students into employment, although its indirect influence is enormous. The National Institutes of Health resembles the National Science Foundation in that it has broad responsibility for supporting research directed toward the improvement of the national health. It differs from the National Science Foundation in that it also operates in-house laboratories, which, interestingly enough, have suffered seriously from losses in personnel to the universities and nonprofit laboratories which are supported by grants from the Institutes. Doubtless the money furnished for research by NIH is having a significant impact on the number of students who choose the life sciences instead of medicine as a profession. Despite the aforementioned losses of personnel in the indispensable in-house laboratories of NIH, there is little doubt that the policies of NIH have done a great deal to bring the country's best minds and talents to bear on the essential problems of public health. In the years that immediately followed World War II, various agencies of the Department of Defense, particularly the Office of Naval Research, felt called upon to support university research in breadth and depth, on the principle that a healthy intercourse between the universities and the research agencies and facilities of the Department of Defense would benefit both and thereby provide maximum support to the Department's mission. In the intervening years, the Department of Defense has interpreted its mission more and more narrowly, having apparently adopted the general view that day-to-day association with university science was overemphasized in the past, and that the National Science Foundation and NIH are doing enough to maintain a healthy research atmosphere in the universities insofar as the needs of the Department of Defense are concerned. There are a few areas in the Department which have retained the original policies, but they are few and are under growing pressure to reform. It is still true, I should say, that a very large number of university graduates end up working for Department of Defense contractors or in Department of Defense laboratories and agencies, so the Department inevitably depends to a considerable extent on the health of the universities. Immediately after its establishment in 1947, the Atomic Energy Commission adopted policies toward the uinversities somewhat like those the Department of Defense agencies had at the time. That is, the AEC began to support the universities in breadth and depth, recognizing that this policy would, in the long run, be of mutual benefit. Over the years, the Atomic Energy Commission has not deviated significantly from this policy. Unlike the Department of Defense, the AEC has, on the whole, tended to strengthen and reaffirm its original policy on a broad front. It is true that the contracting procedures of the AEC are rather more complex and cumbersome than those of some of the other agencies. This, however, is a detail, and adjustments can be made in due course. Since the space agencies, including NASA, are much more mission oriented than either the National Science Foundation or the National Institutes of Health, I see little reason to expect them to provide the same general type of support to universities that NSF and NIH provide, unless evidence arises to show that certain specialized areas are being grossly neglected. It is clear that more appropriate bases for comparison are provided by the Atomic Energy Commission and by the Department of Defense. It is particularly important that NASA make such a comparison at this time, while it is in the process of establishing its own policies. There are two good reasons for this: (1) the quality of NASA's own effort will depend significantly upon the quality of the product of the universities, and (2) NASA presumably has a long life ahead of it and may well determine the course of many aspects of science and technology in our coun try, not the least of which may be the vigor and effectiveness of some aspects of university life. On the whole, I strongly recommend that NASA consider adopting policies relative to the universities more nearly like the present policies of the Atomic Energy Commission than like those of the Department of Defense. I realize that NASA, unlike the AEC, operates its own in-house laboratories directly instead of depending upon contractors, but this, I feel, is a detail in the larger picture, since the large contract laboratories of the AEC are, in a sense, also in-house laboratories, What strikes me as the most significant consequence of the differences in the policies now followed by the AEC and the Department of Defense is that a very large number of university scientists and engineers have a sense of direct responsibility for the program and welfare of the AEC, whereas the trend is in the opposite direction for the Department of Defense. I find very few scientists or engineers under 40 in universities who feel the sense of close communion with the Department of Defense that my own generation did in the corresponding age period. I believe an important part of this difference stems very directly from the fact that the Atomic Energy Commission has continued to support university research broadly and in depth while remaining well within the framework of its mission, whereas the agencies of the Department of Defense have tended to become more and more selective and restrictive. This gradual withering of the bonds between the Department of Defense and the universities can be justified only if one assumes that the very indirect channels which now exist are adequate. Such an assumption strikes me as being exceedingly dangerous. I think the policy adopted by the Atomic Energy Commission is a far more conservative and reliable one in the long run. CONCLUSION In brief, then, it is my hope that, once this period of organization and adjustment is over and NASA has become established, it will adopt policies resembling those of the Atomic Energy Commission, to the extent that its frame of reference permits. This, I feel, will assure a long and intimate period of communication between NASA and the universities, with optimum benefits to both. I see no reason why the establishment of such a policy should affect the in-house laboratories of NASA adversely. On the contrary, it seems to me that such a relationship will result in the NASA laboratories' obtaining the services of an appropriate number of the most talented graduates of the universities. STATEMENT OF KHRUSHCHEV The CHAIRMAN. I am almost tempted to put into the record the remarks of Mr. Khrushchev on this very question, which seems to me to sustain those people who want to see this done in the universities. I shall only read a little paragraph or so from his remarks of April 26, 1963: In foreign countries, specially in the United States, strictly speaking, many scientific developments are worked out by universities. The capitalists finance these universities and give them orders, and the universities work out this or that theme in which the firm is interested. As for us, corresponding research institutes are created for the development of various scientific questions. This is good. However, why not use the enormous army of scientific workers in the higher education schools to do scientific research work for the development of this or that problems important to the national economy? So we have confirming information from them. I believe we are ready for Dr. Smull to take the stand. Senator SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I have four questions I would like to submit to Mr. Webb to answer for the record, rather than take the time to answer them here. (See p. 116.) Mr. WEBB. Mr. Chairman, perhaps you want me to give you these personnel statistics in a statement for the record. You asked for them yesterday, on our scientists and engineers, in order to make sure that they were available to you to relate to the previous statements, saying that we really were not going to preempt most of the Nation's capacity. The CHAIRMAN. We went to the trouble of telephoning the author of the original statement and he has a quite different version of what he said and how he got his figures. I want to try to relate that to the statement of the Senator from Wisconsin, who guaranteed the accuracy of his figures by saying he worked on them a long time and his staff came up with the answer. I think we will want to try to clear up the discrepancies. Go ahead, Dr. Smull. Mr. WEBB. Dr. Thomas L. K. Smull is coming forward, Mr. Chairman, to take Dr. Newell's place. The CHAIRMAN. We will put his statement in the record in full, but since we are running short on time, perhaps he can skip parts of it. Mr. WEBB. I think he can probably summarize his statement and offer the whole statement for the record. The CHAIRMAN. I think that would be fine. We will be glad to have you summarize your statement, Dr. Smull, if you can. Go ahead. (The biography of Dr. Smull follows:) DR. THOMAS L. K. SMULL, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF GRANTS AND RESEARCH CONTRACTS, NASA Age: 47; children: Sharon, 17. Education: B.A. (1937) Ohio Northern University; B.S. (aeronautical engineering) (1939) University of Michigan; B.S. (mechanical engineering) (1939) University of Michigan; Sc. D. (aeronautical engineering) (1948) Ohio Northern University. 1960: Director, Office of Grants and Research Contracts. 1958-60: Assistant Chief, University Programs, NASA. 1950-58: Chief, Research Coordination Division, NACA. 1948-50: Aeronautical research scientist, NACA. 1942-48: Aeronautical engineer, NACA. Staff, President's Air Policy Commission, 1947. Consultant, Reesarch and Development, Congressional Aviation Policy Board, 1948. Registered professional engineer-State of Ohio. Member of the Council of the Armed Forces-National Research Council Committee on Hearing and Bio-Acoustics. Societies: Associate fellow-Institute of the Aeronautical Sciences, American Geophysical Union; Alpha Phi Gamma; Theta Alpha Phi. Organizations: National Aeronautics Association, Aero Club of Washington, Sigma Phi Epsilon, University Club of Washington, Hampton Yacht Club, West River Sailing Club. Publications: "New Horizons in Aeronautical Research," Aviation Annual for 1946; "Today's Research for Tomorrow's Aircraft," Aviation Annual for 1947; contributor, Collier's Encyclopedia. STATEMENT OF DR. THOMAS L. K. SMULL, DIRECTOR, GRANTS AND RESEARCH CONTRACTS, NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION Dr. SMULL. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, Mr. Webb and Dr. Newell have discussed with you the reasons why it is so important for NASA to have a broad, yet close, working relationship with the Nation's colleges and universities. I would like to describe this program and its management in some detail. DEALINGS WITH UNIVERSITIES REQUIRES SPECIAL CONSIDERATION From the beginning of NASA in 1958, it has been recognized that dealings with universities and nonprofit research organizations require special consideration. The business relationships and methods of administration of research differ considerably from those of the vendor-customer system, driven by the profit motive, that forms the basis of our commercial and industrial economy. NASA's parent organization, the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, had been sponsoring research in educational institutions since 1918. During the past 20 years it and other mission-oriented agencies within the Federal Government, such as the military departments, have demonstrated the desirability of separate organizational units designed to deal specifically with this area of activity. The Office of Naval Research was the original venture in this direction, the success of which pointed the way to the establishment of the Office of Scientific Research in the Air Force, and the Army Research Office. Similarly, NASA maintains within its organizational structure a group which serves as the focal point for relationships with nonprofit scientific and educational institutions. Under NASA's current organizational arrangement this group has been designated the Grants and Research Contracts Division of the Office of Space Science and Applications. RESPONSIBILITY OF GRANTS AND RESEARCH CONTRACTS DIVISION It is responsible for establishing policies and procedures for NASA's dealings with these organizations and for administering those segments of the university programs that emanate from NASA headquarters. Although organizationally located within the Office of Space Science and Applications, its responsibilities are agencywide. Thus it serves all of NASA, including the Office of Manned Space Flight and the Office of Advanced Research and Technology in administering those phases of their programatic activities that are carried on in nonprofit scientific and educational institutions. These activities are mainly what we term project research, and they are either an integral part of or in direct support of rather specific requirements of ongoing NASA programs. Examples are Van Allen's experiments that have been flown on several of the NASA Explorer satellites, research in energy conversion directed at improving fuel cells or basic studies of high strength metals that might be suitable for use in supersonic transports. SCOPE OF UNIVERSITY ACTIVITIES REVIEWED IN 1961 In 1961, when the landing of an American on the moon in this decade was defined as a national goal, NASA reviewed the scope of its university activities. During that summer a group of university consultants was assembled by NASA to examine our relationships with universities and the scientific community. In general, the group represented the various echelons of management within universities, the principal scientific disciplines in which NASA is interested, and a reasonable geographical distribution of the institutions already involved in NÄSÄ programs. It emphasized the fact that NASA, to achieve established goals, must take steps to stimulate the training of Ph. D.'s in the space related sciences and technology which were already in short supply and for which the need was increasing, assist in alleviating the critical shortage of research laboratory facilities in the universities, and seek ways to broaden the base of research participation by universities in the NASA program. Consideration of the recommendations of this group, as well as numerous discussions, both within and outside the Federal Establishment, gave rise to NASA's sustaining university program. This is the name that has been given to the program characterized in the fiscal year 1964 budget as "training, facilities, and research grants." Before going into detail on the management of the sustaining university program, I would like to give you an idea of NASA's total involvement with the Nation's universities. The following table summarizes the funds which were obligated to some 130 universities by NASA during fiscal year 1963. Summary of NASA fiscal year 1963, obligation to universities 1 1 1 Does not include funds made available to California Institute of Technology for operation of Jet Propulsion Laboratory. RESEARCH FACILITY GRANTS MADE FROM HEADQUARTERS The CHAIRMAN. May I ask you what is this $7,400,000 item for research facilities at headquarters? Dr. SMULL. The program is administered from headquarters. These are grants made by our staff in headquarters. The field center activities are by contractual arrangement directly between the centers and the university. The CHAIRMAN. What did you spend the $7 million on? Dr. SMULL. Those were the grants to universities for facilities that were obligated during fiscal year 1963. The CHAIRMAN. I do not understand why it reads "Headquarters." You did not build the buildings here for them? Mr. WEBB. No. Could I say here the Apollo guidance system has been conducted by MIT under contract with the Houston center? The Houston facilities were not equipped to do that. But these facalities grants we administer from NASA headquarters. It simply means the handling of the agreement with the university is done from NASA headquarters. Dr. SMULL. This is all work done in universities. |