1981 NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION AUTHORIZATION WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 1980 U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:15 a.m., in room 2318, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. George E. Brown, Jr. (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Mr. BROWN. The subcommittee will come to order. We anticipate there will be some additional members here shortly but, in order to use all of the time, I am going to make a few opening remarks. The witnesses don't need to listen to these, but, for the record, I will make them. Today, we come to the last in our series of authorization hearings on the National Science Foundation, and we will consider research in the behavioral and social sciences. I believe we should try to view these in relation to the whole of science, and to the current system of research support. This year, we are paying particular attention to these areas because of questions raised last year on the House floor as to the adequacy, appropriateness and eventual utility of some of this research. With our witnesses today, we hope to address some of these concerns in the most straightforward fashion. Looking back to the beginnings of the Foundation, we might note that the sciences in these areas did not start out with a most favored status. In fact, they were not officially included in the original charter but have instead been obligated to fight for a rightful place at the Foundation over the years. And, so, characterized perhaps as "hardened by time and circumstances," they should be accustomed to the kind of careful, if well meaning, scrutiny represented by hearings such as this. In fact, I have reason to believe that most of these researchers welcome a chance to speak as an opportunity to tell us about the best and most promising work in their fields. We will be unable to cover, in detail, all of the disciplines representing the behavioral and social sciences at the Foundation. Nevertheless, I hope we will be made aware of the many contributions in economics, education, and health produced by these sciences. We may even learn something about their lessons for designing government and societal programs for maximum efficiency and best use of tax dollars. We also hope to hear a little about the interdisciplinary nature of research in these fields which would seem to be one of its added strengths. Our list of esteemed witnesses for this morning includes Dr. Eloise Clark, Assistant Director for Biological, Behavioral and Social Sciences at the Science Foundation, who will be accompanied by many assistants, I see. After the witnesses from the Foundation finish, Dr. Herbert Simon, winner of the Nobel Prize in economics, coming to us from the psychology department of Carnegie-Mellon University. We will look forward to hearing from him. At this point we will include opening statement of Mr. Hollenbeck. PREPARED OPENING REMARKS OF MR. HOLLENBECK, RANKING MINORITY MEMBER OF THIS SUBCOMMITTEE Mr. Chairman, it's a pleasure to join with you in welcoming our distinguished guests here today. As I made clear in my remarks which I submitted in writing at the beginning of these hearings, I believe the social sciences are of highest importance. We only need to recall the recent Three Mile Island disaster to see how our inability to understand the human factors in the design of a complex technical system very nearly led us to a catastrophe which could have rendered a large section of the nation unhabitable for many years. In numerous other instances, we can think of situations where the pure technological hardware solution to a problem simply failed to work because it did not take into account the human beings with whom it must interact and with whom it must work. That does not mean, of course, that every piece of social science research is perfect. There is good and bad research in every discipline and, indeed, in every form of human activities—whether it is manufacturing, science, the arts, or agriculture. Not every piece of research or every commercial venture is an earthshaking innovation. And the failure to achieve objectives are not limited to social science as indicated by the fact that 90% of all new businesses fail. Yet, we still believe it important to stimulate and support innovative new businesses. By and large, I believe that we are beginning, through very slow, long hard work by social scientists around the world, to gain a greater understanding of human psychological and social relationships. This will prove vital to the solution of our problems of material and energy shortages. But enough-today we are here to listen to the social scientists themselves speak about their work. And I am sure that it will prove interesting. One final point that I would make. Namely, that there has been a lot of controversy about so-called "silly grants" which the public has failed to understand. They lead to accusations about wasteful expenditure of government money. Upon better understanding of the subjects, in 99.9 percent of the cases, concerns have been relieved. Therefore, I think it would be helpful if the Science Foundation were to direct that its grantees place on the title of their research projects the purpose for which research is being undertaken so the people can understand why it is that we choose to investigate for example, homosexual seagulls. This does not mean that every purpose must imply an immediate application. The purpose itself may be filling links in our basic understanding of, for example, hormone systems, as in the case cited here. Nevertheless, I believe that this simple change of procedure would do much to alleviate public misunderstanding. In our Subcommittee and Committee deliberations, I intend to offer amendments or Committee views which are appropriate to achieve this aim. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses. We will start with Dr. Clark, this morning, and you may proceed in any way that you wish, Dr. Clark. Would you like to introduce Dr. Friedl? [The biographical sketch of Dr. Clark follows:] DR. ELOISE ELIZABETH CLARK Dr. Eloise Elizabeth Clark joined the National Science Foundation in 1969 as program director for Developmental Biology. Since then she has been program director for Biophysics; section head for Molecular Biology; division director of Biological and Medical Sciences; deputy assistant director and acting assistant director of the Biological, Behavioral, and Social Sciences Directorate. She was nominated by the President in July 1976 and confirmed in September by the Senate to her present position. NSF's Biological, Behavioral, and Social Sciences Directorate supports research in the major areas of: (1) physiology, cellular, and molecular biology; (2) environmental biology; (3) behavioral and neural sciences, including phychology, anthropology, and linguistics; and (4) social sciences, including eco'nomics, sociology, and political science. Specialized research facilities, equipment, workshops, symposia, and conferences, as well as doctoral dissertations are also supported. Dr. Clark completed a Bachelor of Arts degree in 1951 at the Mary Washington College of the University of Virginia. She completed her Ph. D. at the University of North Carolina in developmental biology in 1957 and continued postdoctoral research in physical biochemistry at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, and at the University of California, Berkeley. Dr. Clark came to NSF from the biology department of Columbia University where she taught graduate and undergraduate students. Her research interests were in the physical biochemistry of proteins molecules. She also taught at the Woods Hole Marine Biological Laboratory for several summers. During her tenure at NSF, Dr. Clark has worked on a number of interagency and professional committees. She is a member of the Board of Regents for the National Library of Medicine and the policy committee for the competitive grants program at the Department of Agriculture; she serves on two White House committees: the Interdepartmental Task Force on Women and the Interagency Task Force for the Conference on Families, and two FCCSET1 committees: the Committee on Health and Medicine and the Committee on Food and Renewable Resources of which she is vice chairperson. She is a member of a number of profession societies, including the American Institute of Biological Sciences, American Society for Cell Biology, Marine Biological Laboratory at Woods Hole, Society for General Physiologists, Biophysical Society, and Sigma Xi. She has served on the council of several of them and is currently on the Board of Directors of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. She is a member of Phi Beta Kappa and a Distinguished Alumna of Mary Washington College; she holds an honorary degree from King College and is listed in a number of biographical references. Dr. Clark resides in Washington, D.C. STATEMENT OF DR. ELOISE E. CLARK, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR BIOLOGICAL, BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES, NSF Dr. CLARK. I would be happy to. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to introduce my colleagues, Dr. Ernestine Friedl, dean of arts and sciences at Duke University, an anthropologist and member of the National Science Board; Dr. Richard C. Atkinson, Director of the Foundation, and Dr. George C. Pimentel, Deputy Director. Later, other witnesses will describe some of the research results, and I will introduce each, in turn. Let me briefly present a setting: First, the social and behavioral science activities are the smallest part of the Federal effort in basic research. Basic research in the social sciences, collectively $133 million, represents about 3 percent of the total Federal basic research budget; including support for psychology increases the amount to 5 percent. Those numbers cover a variety of research by individual agencies, but they reduce to a relatively small investment when considered in light of the difficult problems the Nation faces. Research support for these fields represents 4 percent of the Foundation's budget and a smaller portion of the Federal total. When viewed from the perspective of university-based support of basic research, these amounts take on greater importance; they repre 1 Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering, and Technology. sent 41 percent of the available support. In two fields, anthropology and political science, NSF is essentially the sole source of funding for basic research efforts at universities. Even in economics, where the Department of Agriculture contributes strongly to related studies, NSF support is unique because it is the only program that considers unsolicited competitive applications. If Federal support of research in all of these fields were eliminated, the savings in the Federal budget would be modest, but the costs in knowledge lost would be incalculable. Given that the dollar figures are so small a fraction of the total Federal budget, we might ask why their investment has attracted so much attention-or even occasionally, criticism. There are probably a number of answers; and this issue, insofar as it relates to the role of the National Science Foundation, has been a matter of congressional discussion since the original legislation was proposed. Premissive authorization for the coverage of these fields-the language used, "other science" was changed to explicit authority during the 1968 review of the NSF act by this committee. But this authorization has not been translated into substantial public acceptance, and those of us at NSF must face the issues squarely as we request annual congressional authorization of funds for support of research in these fields. NSF's programs have concentrated on developing sound data bases for many fundamental issues. Although NSF cannot claim credit for providing support, the Nobel Prize in economics in 1979 serves as a reminder. The contribution of Schultz and Lewis was recognized because their analytic work demonstrated the importance of investments in education and research. Such investments constitute vitally important and undervalued resources, as their research makes clear, for developing countries. Similarly, work supported by NSF in social and behavioral fields has often proved important for applied and policy purposes even though it was undertaken because it was judged primarily important for advancing the state of knowledge. When we further recognize that NSF sponsorship represents one of the limited sources for investigator-initiated, as opposed to sponsor-requested research, these programs assume even greater value. The cumulative research effort has led to a body of technical and scientific knowledge in the behavioral and social science fields that makes the United States a world leader. NSF support of fundamental research in these areas has concentrated on the scientific rather than the social issues-attempting to improve theory, method, and data. As a result, projects sometimes have been labeled frivolous, wasteful, or useless. But surely it is not frivolous to advance knowledge and understanding of human behavior and social institutions. And in competitive situations where less than 30 percent of the proposals are supported-in some cases fewer than 20 percent-the review procedures and criteria are so stringent that no undertaking judged wasteful by expert, scientific reviewers has a chance of being funded. Further, more often than not, the results of these projects have been of high utility. William Safire recently reminded us of the pejorative newspaper term "Afghanistanism." It was used to criticize coverage of far-off, remote places where little happened of interest to Americans. "Afghanistanism" has become an inappropriate term as recent events cause previously specialized and obscure topics to loom large on the front pages of our newspapers. May I suggest a parallel: Individual NSF research grants have been subjected to a highly similar form of ridicule. That we have supported scientific research on such topics as religion among the Sherpas of Nepal, the contributions of Islamic science, or the visual system of grasshoppers has received criticism from some quarters. Yet such research efforts, recommended after thorough scientific review, add importantly to our store of knowledge, they are in keeping with the mission of the Foundation and surely they are not "silly research grants." Advancing knowledge is never easy and it is particularly difficult in situations where sensitivities run high. But we might recall many instances where results from social and behavioral fields have filtered quickly into daily usage-and we have forgotten their research origins. For example, basic research in economics has provided the accounting system for tracking the gross national product, techniques for cost-benefit analysis, and the key to econometric modeling used currently by the Federal Reserve Board. But the development of the latter, as I described in my written statement, resulted from NSFsupported research activities. In cost-benefit analysis, we see the role of the NSF programs as improving the techniques that are used, broadening the variables that can be measured, expanding the data base for testing the technique, and assisting in experimental uses of the analysis. Many other examples can be provided and are mentioned in the statement submitted for the record. In the interest of the committee's schedule and the other witnesses, I will not elaborate further on program content, or organizational, or other aspects pertinent to your review. I shall be pleased to answer any questions you may have. What I hope will be demonstrated today is that the Foundation has pursued its programs in these fields responsibly and well, honoring congressional mandate and contributing to general well being. We need the support of the Committee on Science and Technology if we are going to continue with the pressing tasks of improving theory, developing better analytic methods, and providing more comprehensive data resources for important research findings in the behavioral and social sciences. They are, in the last analysis, in the national interest. Shall I proceed with the four witnesses who are scheduled, or do you want to have questions? [The prepared statement of Dr. Clark follows:] |