Dr. POWELL. I would not want to come out for any reduction in the support for the basic research as a former research scientist myself. I think that is crucial and a cut in research funds would be not consistent with the national interest in the long run.

It is true that many of the people on these fellowships are in completely research programs and there might be some way to fund them through the graduate institutions research projects.

I haven't really thought about that before.

There well may be other ways of securing funding from within the foundation itself. We are not talking about a lot of money. A few million dollars would make a difference with the SEPD program.

Mr. PEASE. Well, Dr. Powell, in your reply you seem to make the assumption which I think is commonly made, that you have a faculty member on a year-long grant doing research, but that is not the same kind of research or that doesn't count as research as it would be if it were being spent out of a research directorate, out of the Department of Defense, or whatever.

Don't you see or do you see any feasibility at all just to make sure that some of the research that is funded by the research directorate or by the Department of Defense is conducted by undergraduate college teachers who are on year-long grants?

Dr. POWELL. I think the distinction is not a completely logical one. I can imagine, for instance, a program in which recipients of basic research grants at major universities might have a component of support that would allow them to bring people in from undergraduate college for a semester or a year. This could be an almost automatic part of the program.

Dr. NELSEN. Let me just comment briefly at this point.

The second mode that was mentioned in the order of priority in the NSF report was tieing faculty members in with research done at other universities or in industry or other agencies outside the acad

emy.

One of my faculty members, when I talked about this suggested that instead of giving second priority to that mode why not build in research opportunities for undergraduate faculty through regular NSF research grants to larger universities.

This would provide research opportunities and at the same time is perhaps a way to free up more money in the science education area, to do both the intensive mode and the time-extended mode.

Mr. PEASE. I have been impressed with the discussion we had this afternoon, and what I sense to be a realization that there has not really been any systematic evaluation of the differences between the long-term mode and the shorter mode in terms of who participates, what kind of results we get, which one is more cost effective, and that sort of thing.

Would you agree there has not been any adequate evaluation?

Dr. NELSEN. I wouldn't agree there hasn't been any evaluation. In fact, I think the work we undertook last year with these 20 institutions was worthy of some attention as an evaluation.

To be sure, we did not look specifically at this question, the intensive versus the time extended mode.

And our findings are based only on interviews with faculty members themselves.

Thus, when you get into asking what is the most cost effective, that is a very difficult question.

If you are talking about what has the most effect on students themselves, that is very difficult to measure. It may take a long time to find that out.

But I think you have to look at the purposes you have in mind for each of these modes.

I don't think that there is really any question of the value of the sabbatical. Do we need a whole lot of testing to find out that it is a valuable mechanism. It's been with us a long time. We need to preserve it.

Colleges and universities will need support for sabbaticals in years to come. Many of them are giving them up because of the financial constraints.

Fewer faculty are taking full-year leaves. Many are taking halfyear leaves because they simply can't afford it financially.

Most colleges have a program whereby they take a half-year leave at full pay or full year at just half pay, and that is where the NSF fund helps provide salary support.

So, sure, that is something we need to continue to support and value. But the intensive mode is needed, too. There are so many faculty who need assistance and remember that a sabbatical comes only once every 7 years.

In the science field you need to have other mechanisms for reaching faculty along the way, after 2 years, after 3 years, after 4 years, because of the changes that continue to take place.

That is why I favor a mixture of programs.

Mr. PEASE. Thank you.

Mr. Brown?

Mr. BROWN. Gentlemen, let me apologize first for being delayed. I had another meeting or I would have heard your full testimony, but I do appreciate your statements which I have had a chance to read.

I think you can sense that the past feeling in this committee and the Congress in support of continuing a strong program of science education still exists. Our problem is where to try and exercise what small amount of leverage we may have in order to get the best results. We are not always sure of that.

We heard testimony this morning, for example, from representatives of the institutions that are involved in more engineering and science, that they need help on research instrumentation. You note the need for this but you place a higher priority on the continued upgrading of the faculty. Am I correct that this would represent your feeling of where any increased funds should go in the program?

Dr. POWELL. I think both are extremely important.

I have tried to teach science labs with inadequate equipment and, no matter how current you may be yourself, that becomes an impossible task. I would hate to make that decision.

Mr. BROWN. The problem of maintaining a high level of current skills in professional personnel is not unique to science teaching, as you know, and I noted that the medical profession has this same probÏem, and that there are some highly sophisticated efforts in this field involving a whole range of new information technologies which are

being developed and utilized in some of the teaching hospitals and medical research facilities.

In fact, the Veterans' Administration has experimented with the use of satellite communications, links connecting hospitals for purposes of training professional personnel. In some cases, subprofessional personnel.

This hasn't been a wholly successful demonstration but again the technology and the resources are changing very rapidly as we noted this morning in the demonstration using the video discs.

Is there any possibility that we can combine more than one goal here, and try and develop using these technologies programs both for upgrading the skills, shall we say, of the teachers and institutions such as your own, and at the same time developing new ways of using these communication computer related technologies. Are all of your institutions fully equipped with the latest in computer and television technologies, or is this something that you are having difficulty funding? Dr. NELSEN. The answer is yes and no.

Yes, we have some of the new technology. In the whole field of computer usage, for example, there has been a real revolution in education. More and more of our faculty members, even outside of the sciences, are making use of the computer in teaching.

But, no, in the sense that new instrumentation is being developed all the time. Not only in relation to computers but other areas and colleges are simply hard strapped to be able to continue to keep up with constant equipment changes.

So that is why I think each of us put in our testimony something about scientific equipment and instrumentation that will be needed down the line.

Mr. BROWN. Yes, I noted reference to instructional scientific equipment programs and the need for these.

I am not sufficiently familiar with this whole subject matter area to know just what can be done, but I am trying to visualize the system in which we have a complete chain of information flow from those at the highest level, if we may use the term, who are creating new knowledge to those who are transmitting that new knowledge to graduate students and those who are transmitting the basis for acquiring that new knowledge at every level of the educational system to the public. It is difficult to envision this kind of a system, but I think that is exactly what we are moving toward in this society. And I am looking for ways of helping to create that linkage, a term that I use frequently, that will tie these various things together.

Do you have any comments, I'd appreciate it?

Dr. POWELL. I think your vision is a correct one. How long it will take to come about, I am not sure. But clearly the sort of thing you are describing will begin to occur in libraries. Information technology is already very important there.

I think, however, at the present moment, I, at least, would not assign new technology a very high priority because I think that the bottom line will always be the well-informed faculty member in a well-equipped laboratory with bright, motivated students.

I don't think satellites or computers will make a tremendous difference, although they can help and will have some effect.

I think NSF should support those sorts of bread and butter programs.

Mr. BROWN. Well, I agree with that completely, and I also envision that we are going to make a lot of mistakes in trying to find a technological solution to this fundamental problem. But in addition to the mistakes, we may come up with a few of the right answers. At the same time it will help us to keep the whole system sort of in balance and everyone in touch with what is going on through the system. This is what I am looking for.

I have no further questions.

Mr. PEASE. Thank you very much, Mr. Brown.

I would like to thank both of our witnesses. I know Dr. Powell has a plane to catch, so we won't hold him up any longer. It has been excellent testimony and we are very grateful for your presence today. Dr. NELSEN. Thank you. Thank you for your interest.

Dr. POWELL. Thank you.

Mr. PEASE. Our final witness this afternoon, is Dr. Eugene CotaRobles, vice chancellor, University of California at Santa Cruz. Dr. Cota-Robles informs me he has given up his administrative duties and is now a full-time teacher.

So he is also a member of the National Science Board and we will appreciate having his perspective from both points of view.

[The biographical sketch and prepared statement of Dr. Eugene Cota-Robles, vice chancellor, University of California at Santa Cruz, follow:]

DR. EUGENE H. COTA-ROBLES

I am a member of a large (11 children) Mexican-American (Chicano) family from Arizona. My education in Tucson schools culminated with a Bachelor of Science degree from the University of Arizona in 1950.

After working 2 years as a quality control bacteriologist in industry, I entered graduate study at the University of California at Davis. I was awarded a Ph. D. in Microbiology at UC Davis in 1956 for a study of the "Biochemical organization of the nitrogen fixing bacterium, Azotobacter." I continue my studies with a postdoctoral fellowship in Stockholm, Sweden with Professor Claes Weibull.

My appointment as Assistant Professor of Microbiology at the University of California, Riverside began in 1958 and I was granted tenure in 1965 and promoted to Professor in 1969. While a faculty member at UCR I began electron microscopic studies of bacteria and their viruses which I am still pursuing. In addition to teaching and research I developed the first Educational Opportunity Program in the University of California in 1964. With students and faculty I planned a program of Mexican American studies at UC Riverside and became its first chairperson in 1969.

I joined the faculty of Penn State University as Head of the Department of Microbiology in 1970 and I helped the further development of this Department. I served at Penn State for 3 years where I initiated work on Chromobacterium violaceum. In 1973 I assumed a major administrative role as Academic Vice Chancellor of UC Santa Cruz, a position I filled until 1979 when I returned to my full time research and teaching position as Professor Biology at UC Santa Cruz. In 1979 I was appointed by President Carter to the National Science Board which guides the National Science Foundation.

STATEMENT OF EUGENE H. COTA-ROBLES, PH. D., PROFESSOR OF BIOLOGY,
UNIVERSITY Of California, Santa Cruz, CALIF.

Mr. Chairman, I want to express my appreciation to you and your subcommittee for this opportunity to address you on the topic of Minorities and Women as Underdeveloped Resources in Science. I want to make certain that you recog

nize that my appearance today is as a private and interested scientist-citizen rather than as a member of the National Science Board.

Prior to coming here today to testify before you I did consult with a number of minority and women scientists. I want to bring these individuals to your attention because these individuals have given my topic long and serious consideration, moreover they have developed solutions to some of the problems I will discuss today. The individuals are:

Dr. Thomas Cole: Professor of Chemistry and Director of the NSF-funded Atlanta University Resource Center for Science and Engineering.

Dr. Ciriaco Gonzales: Director of the highly successful Minority Biomedical Support Program in NIH's Division of Research Resources.

Dr. Rayna Green: Visiting Professor of Native American Studies, Dartmouth College [on leave from the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)].

Dr. Richard Griego: Professor of Mathematics and Director of the NSFfunded Resource Center for Science and Engineering at the University of New Mexico.

Dr. Nancy Kreinberg: Director of Mathematics and Science Education for Women at the Lawrence Hall of Science, University of California, Berkeley. Dr. Kreinberg directs an Office of Education funded program designed to improve mathematic instruction for women.

Dr. J. V. Martinez: Physicist in the Department of Energy whose 1975 testimony before the Senate subcommittee on Health and Scientific Research was instrumental in the development of the concept of Resource Centers in Science and Engineering.

Dr. Shirly McBay: Program Officer of NSF's Resource Centers in Science and Engineering. Dr. McBay's careful nurturing of this program has been crucial to its successful development.

Dr. Victor Rocha: Associate Professor of Biology at The University of California at Santa Cruz and the Director of an extremely successful Minority Biomedical Support Program.

Dr. Betty M. Vetter: Senior author of the AAAS Scientific Manpower Commission's report, Professional Women and Minorities.

The young people listed above are all qualified and competent scientists and teachers who have taken an active role in trying to insure that the underutilized talents and potential of women and minority students are directed to the further development of science in America.

Underdevelopment and underutilization of women and minorities in science can be understood as arising from various roots. The lowered expectations engendered in women and minorities from their early childhood onward contributes greatly to this underdevelopment. The problems of lack of access to advanced education either through financial difficulties or inadequate academic preparation also contribute to underdevelopment. A third major factor of course is the limited employment opportunities which affirmative action processes are striving to ameliorate. Women and minorities frequently have different cultural histories, and experiences and thus bring new and enriched perspectives into scientific inquiry. The intellectual resources of women and minorities must be used more effectively and appropriately by American society.

A simple way to appreciate the scope and extent of the underutilization of women and minorities is to examine the data regarding doctoral degrees granted in the fundamental science disciplines to women and minorities. Today a Ph. D. degree is required of virtually every individual who seeks the opportunity to perform original research within an institutional setting. In reality a new requirement has appeared. All candidates for appointment to basic science faculty at major universities are expected to have extensive postdoctoral experience and training. The impact of such a requirement on the employment of women and minorities has not been established, I cannot imagine that this impact has been a favorable one. Rather than consider postdoctoral experience I will focus primarily on doctoral degrees to examine underdevelopment and underutilization. The data presented in Tables 1 and 2 below are drawn from information collected by the National Research Council.