Dr. HANDLER. May I ask Mr. Brown whether he thinks that the Congress will support this endeavor-I don't mean in dollars. Those of us who have faced congressional committees with respect to the activities of the National Science Foundation have repeatedly been plagued with the problem of defending biological projects because of seemingly silly titles. Will the Congress look sympathetically upon the list of titles in the social sciences, or are we going to have to defend those one at a time and explain that, yes, this is important information, and, no, we don't know how it will be used? Mr. BROWN. I can assure you that you are going to have to defend everything you do in this area; you are going to have to defend it very strongly. Dr. HANDLER. We should be forced to defend it. That is not the question. The question is whether it would be regarded sympathetically or whether it would be regarded unsympathetically. Mr. BROWN. The Congress is far from homogeneous on this matter. Dr. HANDLER. Is there any trend discernible? Mr. BROWN. Well, think Mr. DADDARIO. We have not examined it as yet. We certainly will question it very carefully to see just what kind of a base it is built upon. You can probably give us some judgment about how you did before the Appropriations Committee in defending this particular program, which may be the reason you raise the question you already have. Dr. HANDLER. It may have; yes, sir. Mr. BROWN. I think you will find that-if I may just venture a guess that this committee will support your proposals and that the Appropriations Committee will cut them. Dr. HANDLER. We will be grateful to you, sir. Mr. DADDARIO. Dr. Handler, we do not know how this is going to work out, and it would be premature on the part of this committee to even try to answer your question at the moment. Obviously this is a subject which needs to be discussed and which needs the greatest attention and the best arguments that can possibly be raised. I think sometimes we have not done as good a job as we could have done in putting together the arguments in support of some of those things which we feel so strongly about. Perhaps that is because we feel so strongly about them and we assume that others must also. Therefore, we do not buttress up our own arguments as we should. I say that so that I might caution you that we intend in this particular area to analyze it in as thorough a fashion as we possibly can. Mr. BROWN. Let me venture a suggestion as to how you could enhance the receptivity of the Appropriations Committee to some of this research. If I understand Dr. Brim correctly, he indicated that the studies in minority group attitudes indicated that the increasing social mobility could have been used to predict the riots. Now you will find a number of people on the Appropriations Committee who, with that kind of information, would argue that we should not therefore have permitted the social mobility, and they would be glad to fund studies of this sort that would demonstrate that point much more fully than they have in the past. I think that the point I made originally with regard to your enunciation of areas in which there are value judgments to be made is going to cause some very serious problems, because the areas in which the greatest research is necessary are those in which there are the greatest conflicts-of-value judgment at the present time. I think if you are to extrapolate from what your studies in social mobility have shown to other parts of the world you might be able to predict some serious difficulties in other parts of the world. This might have some direct bearing upon other major expenditures that we make at the present time, and hence has some value for program planning in a very real way. I am sure you want to close the hearing, Mr. Chairman. Mr. DADDARIO. I am not particularly anxious to close it. Mr. BROWN. I will defer any further questions. Mr. DADDARIO. Will you be available to us, Dr. Brim, as we go along during these hearings? Dr. BRIM. Yes, sir. Mr. DADDARIO. We may have to come back to you. Dr. BRIM. I will be very pleased. Mr. DADDARIO. As this discussion indicates, there is a tremendous amount of concern. I think that what has been said this morning has gone a long way toward clearing up some of the problems as I have seen them. But I think we still have a long way to go. I want to thank all of you for the help you have given this subcommittee in this first day of our hearings. We are grateful to you all, and we are anxious in the days ahead to analyze not only this last subject we were discussing, but several others which are contained in the budget before us. We believe that you can be of help as we go along. This subcommittee will adjourn until tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock at this same place. (Whereupon, at 1:01 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Tuesday, March 18, 1969.) 1970 NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION AUTHORIZATION TUESDAY, MARCH 18, 1969 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND ASTRONAUTICS, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10:05 a.m., in room B-374, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Emilio Q. Daddario (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Mr. DADDARIO. The meeting will come to order. Our witness this morning is the Director of the National Science Foundation, Dr. Leland J. Haworth, who is accompanied by Dr. Louis Levin the Executive Associate Director, and Mr. William Hoff, General Counsel. We have before us a series of documents, Dr. Haworth, and you may proceed in any way you like to give your testimony. STATEMENT OF DR. LELAND J. HAWORTH, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL Dr. HAWORTH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you know, I have a written statement which is overlong to read. I plan to read part of it and discuss other parts. The charts you have are simply extra copies so they can be laid to one side and you don't have to thumb through the document to find them. Mr. Chairman, as I said yesterday, it is always a privilege to appear before this committee. I don't know how many times I have so appeared. It has always been enjoyable and profitable. This time I think it is unusually important because this is the first authorization hearing for the Foundation and will, of course, be the first of many. The fact that it is first, I think, makes it have to have an unusual character in that it will be necessary to give more background than will be needed in future years. To show you how important it is, if I can make a personal remark which is probably not appropriate for the record although I would have no objection: You know and many others in the room know that I came to Washington a widower. I am no longer a widower. I haven't been for about 6 years. When my present wife and I first started seeing each other, it was very near Christmas and she gave me a necktie. I call it my magic necktie. I wear or carry it on every aircraft flight. I wear it to everything of great importance. It has had to be remade once. I consider this hearing so important that I have on my magic necktie. Mr. DADDARIO. We are indeed honored, Dr. Haworth. Dr. HAWORTH. I shall start about halfway down page 1. We need to give some background material although you are quite familiar with the Foundation and there are many details you haven't had the opportunity to hear. I can't possibly give all those details, but I want to try to give a sort of rounded picture of the Foundation. I will start first by a bit about what I believe to be the status of science in this country and especially basic science and science education and the academic relationships, talking about the role of the Federal Government and NSF's place in that role, then a brief discussion of how we have tried to go about allocating resources for the Foundation in our budgetary and authorizations requests and so forth, then very briefly an outline of the program structure and finally some general remarks looking to the future. So I shall start to read and read perhaps 12 pages, then try to telescope the remainder. FEDERAL SUPPORT OF SCIENCE IN THE UNITED STATES Because science and its applications have become such a significant part of our society and culture, they have received increasing attention over recent years. This bodes well for the health of science as well as for the interrelationship between science and education, and between both of these and government at all levels-particularly the Federal Government, which has come to play such an important role in scientific affairs in order to promote the national welfare and security. Despite the importance of Federal science support, many other sources can and should provide support to the science enterprise of the United States, the status of which is highlighted by the following: Science and its applications in the United States have experienced a growth and achievement of such range and size that reality has outraced prediction. This country has achieved a position of world leadership in basic science, as is attested by the dramatic increase in the percentage of American Nobel laureates in recent years and by the substantial portion of the world's scientific literature now appearing in American journals; technology based upon scientific results has contributed vitally to the national security, to human longevity, to the dignity of life, to the great reduction of degrading work and, potentially, to the future stability of society through the exploration of the mechanisms of social awareness and social change. Scientific activities in the United States are characterized by widespread diversification in both support and performance. A decisive factor in the advancement of American science to its position of leadership has been the great growth since World II in financial support by the Federal Government which is now the major source of funding across the spectrum from basic research to development; industry is the major performer and a substantial source of funding for applied research and development; the academic institution is the major performer of basic research. We are now in a period in which significant changes have and are taking place in the patterns of support and performance. In place of |