ing to criticize the Foundation for having not solved all of that problem.

But I think it's something that we all need to give considerably more thought to.

This question arises, with regard to the evaluations research, Dr. Mosteller: Is it a legitimate role for the National Science Foundation to include a function of encouraging mission agencies to design their programs in such a way as to include a structured evaluation research component aimed at both basic and applied results? That is, improving the processes of both basic and applied research in the social science area. Would this be a way of accelerating progress in the social sciences? Would it be a legitimate thing to originate with the National Science Foundation?

Dr. MOSTELLER. Well, I think there are some aspects of that process which are legitimate for the National Science Foundation. For example, I think it reasonable that they might well provide information to mission agencies about methods and techniques and the ability of these methods to cope and the necessity for these methods to cope with the problems that the agencies are about to tackle.

Now, to give an illustration of something that does not interfere with the political progress, we have a small project within our own National Science Foundation project at Harvard which is trying to write up a story about the various methods of gathering data because legislators, political scientists and agency heads just really don't have time to learn very much about it.

They certainly don't want to know the details. So, we have been preparing a document that explains what the 12 or 13 standard methods of gathering data are, what their strengths and weaknesses are. It also indicates how such persons, decisionmakers and program managers, can learn to converse with the experts, the people who will propose to do studies or with people who have prepared studies, to try to give managers a chance to ask good questions and then perhaps get a feeling about the value of the proposed piece of research or the data gathering for their own purpose.

So, this seems to me to be an example of a way that the Foundation can make a contribution. I can't imagine the Foundation making rules, but I can imagine them making guidelines or making checklists that would be of considerable value to mission agencies and I think over the long haul, such contributions would be appreciated even though in the short run, they might look as if they were constraining.

Mr. BROWN. Thank you very much, Dr. Mosteller. I'd like to acknowledge Mr. John Wydler, the ranking minority member of the full committee an I'm willing to yield all the rest of the time until 4 p.m. to him. [Laughter.]

Mr. WYDLER. I will use it to thank you. I have no questions. I'm sorry I was so late. I just couldn't get here earlier. I'm sorry I missed the testimony, but I'm going to take it with me and try to read it. I know this particular area of the social sciences is the one that has caused us the most difficulty with the budget of the National Science Foundation because you are trespassing on areas which are of great concern to a lot of people who aren't particularly interested in sci

ence as such, people that are interested in the behavior patterns of individuals, including their children.

So, I will only caution those of you who are working in this field, for the good of the field, to try and keep your scientific studies scientific and try to keep them out of-keep away from telling people how they should act, behave, or what they should do with their lives because it will only create problems for those of us who have to approve your budget. I give that with a kind feeling of advice.

But, I think in some cases, those who have been in charge of these programs have exceeded the jurisdiction that the Congress intended to give to you in undertaking some of your programs. I'm trying to be vague enough so I don't say anything too offensive, but clear enough so that you will act on what I'm saying.

It might have some effect.

Mr. BROWN. Thank you very much, Mr. Wydler.

We have spent a full day on this hearing, recognizing the sensitivity of it.

Without objection, at this point I would like to insert a statement provided by Congressman John Ashbrook for today's hearing.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN M. ASHBROOK, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE

STATE OF OHIO

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for this opportunity to discuss a number of deep concerns I have about the current funding and direction of the Biological, Behavioral, and Social Science grants of the National Science Foundation. As you know I have been a critic of the NSF for some time now. During my years in Congress I have watched as the NSF has grown into an ever larger item in the massive Federal Budget. Each year that the NSF expanded I offered amendments to slow the growth of what I considered unwise federal spending. In 1979 a majority of my colleagues in the House agreed with my view of the NSF and an amendment cutting $14 million from the Foundation passed 219-174.

Unfortunately most of the money cut in the House of Representatives was restored in a House-Senate conference. Considering how some of that restored money was spent in fiscal year 1980 those of my colleagues who supported the restoration of funds might have second thoughts. In a few weeks the House will once again have a chance to consider the NSF budget. Once again I will provide a suitable vehicle to stimulate discussion of current NSF funding levels. I can assure you that the amendments I offer to the NSF authorization are based upon what I consider a need for open discussion on the floor of the House and is not a reflection of any inadequacy by this committee or its chairman to conduct necessary oversight reviews. However, I do feel that when taxpayer's funds are involved in assisting dubious programs a record must be established at each level of consideration.

For the benefit of the Committee and the witnesses who have testified I would like to enumerate the concerns I have about the BBSS functions of the NSF grants. For each of my concerns I will cite examples from the 1979 grants announcements as well as refer to some of the grants I have cited in the past. I think the record will show that if anything the cuts I have proposed over the years are rather moderate in light of the wealth of evidence concerning wasteful spending by the NSF.

DUPLICATION OF ACADEMIC WORK

A common defense used to justify NSF funding is that the level of academic research in America would greviously suffer if funding were cutback or eliminated. The assumption is that while the growth of knowledge is vital to a nation and a society, there is insufficient incentive or available funds in the private sector to meet the demands of contemporary research. My first observation would be that if the Federal Government did not take as much money as it does from the private sector to fund its own programs there might be more disposable income available to have citizens contribute to foundations or institutions of higher learning. However, barring a major awakening of the Congress and the bureauc racy, the assumption must be that the current level of robbery by taxation and

government borrowing will continue at near the present rates. Under these conditions can research find funding if the NSF does not expand its grants?

In the summer of 1979 I took a random listing of NSF grants to the Library of Congress to see if any research had been conducted in the areas the NSF was funding. I wanted to see if, aside from popular literature and textbooks, these was academic activity going on outside of that funded by the NSF. In all six cases I found knowledge had been expanded without NSF help. In some cases a virtual avalanche of work had been conducted on the very same topics or topics that were closely related. On March 27, 1979 the NSF had spent $30,759 for a book on women scientists in the U.S. from 1830-1980. The Library of Congress found no less than 82 books and articles on this subject dating back to 1970. While any new work will provide additional insights and updates on a given subject, the average of over eight new works a year proves that there is sufficient interest in women scientists to end the need for taxpayer funding of a particular researcher.

Another example I found in the summer study was a $47,766 grant to the Center for Research on Women to study "how employed wives' high role demands in the family and paid work combined may negatively affect the adjustment of employed wives and their husbands". My first reaction to this grant was that it was an unwarranted initiative into the American home. I will discuss this aspect under another issue area. The Library found 90 works on this subject in just the last three years. Further, a House Committee was concerned enough about the general issue of working wives that it compiled a 181 page annotated bibliography on the issue. Within those many pages were countless references to the issue funded by NSF. This surprised me as the grant justification stated that this subject had been given "too little objective, basic social science research attention". Aside from wondering how objective anything called the "Center for Research on Women" could be on this subject I fail to see how 90 academic works and a 181 page bibliography proves lack of interest in the subject.

Since the bibliographic searches of the summer I have found a number of other possible duplications of NSF grants with existing work. These include a $45,253 grant on the "Impact of State Public Campaign Finance Policies" which was granted only a month before the American Enterprise Institute published a 384 page compendium of papers on "Parties, Interest Groups, and Campaign Finance Laws". The book covers all aspects of federal and state campaign finance policies and is the product of a two day conference on this issue which involved over 27 major participants. Another example is a $24,759 grant to study the "Changing Structure of Agriculture" issued on January 30, 1980 within a week of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's publication of a major work on the changing structure of American agriculture. These cases, and others, show that the NSF is funding areas where I find an intellectual vitality sufficient to fuel adequate expansion of knowledge without government assistance, or where other government agencies may already be involved.

In my recent research I have found another aspect of NSF duplication that is particularly disturbing. This is the phenomenon of seeing the NSF fund similar projects that are also similar to privately funded projects. So the NSF is not only duplicating the private sector, it is duplicating itself. One example of this was a series of three grants issued in August of 1979. The three grants all deal with aspects of committee decision-making, an area well covered in management science, psychology, and political science. Yet, in one month, there was a $97,878 grant to study “Decision Making in Legislative Committees", then a $95,117 grant to study "Decision Making Under Majority Rule-Game Theoretic and Laboratory Studies of Committees", and then $70,299 to study "Group Decision Making and Problem Solving." I recognize that these studies each approach the topic differently, and probably use different pools of empirical evidence upon which to draw conclusions. However, does the American taxpayer really need to spend $263,294 for three similar studies in the same month on an issue already covered in several academic disciplines? This is an expensive luxury most taxpayers are willing to forego.

THE SERIOUSNESS OF ABSURDITY

The fantastic range of NSF grants in the name of searching for knowledge is legend in America. Through the Golden Fleece Awards of Senator Proxmire and the "goofy grants" featured in such diverse publications as National Equirer and National Review the NSF has had its share of public ridicule for its many bizarre expenditures of funds. The important point that is sometimes missed amid the chuckles and guffaws is that the NSF does fund a number of projects that are dubious at best. These projects may sometimes have funny sounding tongue

twisters for titles, but even many of the ones in plain English are clearly questionable. There is a fine line between what is "nice" to know and what is vital to know when you begin assessing basic knowledge. The NSF has made its policy one of erring on the side of "nice". My concern is that by funding many projects with weak rationales we may be diverting funds from other vital areas of concern among them being the pockets of the American taxpayer. I have heard many cases cited showing how seemingly trivial research can find a circuitous way into an area of extreme relevance. Under this assumption a case could be made that any item of research from anybody could have applications vital to the country if only that researcher had adequate funds to pursue the project and publish the findings. In an extreme case we could end up giving each and every citizen a research voucher under the assumption that everyone might eventually come upon a breakthrough in a given area of academia in their lifetime. The point of this scenario is that everyone in America is thinking and expanding knowledge daily. Whether it is a college student completing an independent study or an office worker completing a policy analysis there are countless numbers of people committing thoughts to paper on an ongoing basis. Some of these people focus their energies more than others and therefore form a smaller group of researchers who break new intellectual grounds in sophisticated ways. Whether at the Brookings Institute, the Heritage Foundation, or a small Midwestern University, these professional thinkers are moving knowledge in the humanities forward with and without federal subsidy.

The bizarre grants issued by the NSF that catch the flak from Congress and the media do show the wide range of intellectual activities going on in America. I have nothing against someone devoting their life to the study of Dutch labor markets in the 1580's. However, I do object to the federal government making a policy decision that such a project is worthy of federal funds. Any Federal action that involves either sudsidy or cost is a transfer of resources from one person or persons to another person or persons. I do not agree that it is the role of government to control such a flow where basic knowledge is concerned within the humanities. The millions of dollars spent by NSF on humanities grants may seem like a pittance in relation to the entire federal budget, but it is still part of the larger effort of government to control resource allocation in this nation far beyond where most citizens would want it.

The grants I have cited in previous speeches have been carefully chosen to show the questionable nature of many of the BBSS grants of the NSF. Last year two prominent grants which I emphasized border on the ludicrous. One was the $83,839 granted to the American Bar Association to study itself. I might understand why the ABA would want to analize the structure of the legal profession, but I fail to see why a group as financially solvent as the ABA should receive $83.839 of taxpayers' money. The results of such a finding will aid only lawyers who belong to the ABA and legal scholars many of whom are also ABA members. This was a clear case of public funds being used for the benefit of a narrow group. The other example from last year was the $88,830 for the study of homosexual couple formation. The study was going to take three years because of the "sensitivity of the topic." I find it outrageous that anyone would find it good public policy to allocate funds to "illuminate principles of human behavior that have so far escaped social scientists" in regards to homosexuals. Most people in this country still consider homosexuality a perversion or a disease and would object to any research that might aid in legimitizing such a thing. I consider such an expenditure of public money unwise at best. The scientific community might consider such research imaginative and innovative, but the public, whose money the NSF uses, considers it just plain stupid. In the end this is what is important. The NSF is a public institution and is accountable to the public. It is intellectual arrogance to place any other mandate above those of the taxpayers of the nation the NSF is supposed to serve. It is no wonder that the NSF recently gave $350,000 to the National Academy of Sciences to study "the value, significance and social utility of basic research in the social sciences" since many people are now questioning the use of public funds for the ABA, and to study homosexuals.

THE QUESTION OF INFLUENCE

One of the main defenses used for the NSF grants is that the money expended is vital to the expansion of our basic store of knowledge. A crucial question to ask about this assertion is whether this expansion is balanced or whether it may be skewed to one set of philosophical principles over another. By this I mean that no matter how many reviews a given grant is subjected to or how

detailed the criteria is for awarding a grant it is inevitable that at some point grantsmanship might provide one side of an issue access to more funds than another side of the issue. There does not need to be any intentional policy to create such a situation. It could be that only one philosophical school is interested in the study of a given issue at a given time. It could be that one school of thought is better at grantsmanship than another, or that there is not an opposing school of thought capable of competing for funds. In any case there exists the possibiilty that chance could play into the hands of one set of beliefs over another. If most of the research projects conducted by academicians were destined to gather dust in college bookshelves such a possibility would be trivial in nature. However, we have seen how scholarly works have been used to launch major new government policies or programs over recent years. It was a study on the learning abilities of schoolchildren that launched the nightmare of busing. It was a series of computer runs that helped launch an effort to eliminate the electoral college. If the academic deck is unbiased then all sides of an issue can compete in the electorate for a mandate. What happens if luck or some other factor stacks this deck? What happens if the NSF ends up funding a series of projects that build momentum for one set of public policy views over another?

This is a vital question for the future of government sponsored research in America. If the NSF doles out money without concern for ideological balance it will be objective but may stack the research deck. On the other hand, if the NSF consciously tries to balance research it could end up with a worse situation. What if there are two well known researchers who want funds to study the desirability of federal land use planning and are known to favor this approach from previous studies they have published. Assume further that no antifederal land use researchers are applying for NSF funds. Does the NSF grant funds to one of the researchers since their project has merit? Does the NSF wait until a comparable anti-land use study surfaces? Does the NSF go out and seek a suitable counter study? In all cases there is a disturbing vision of government controlling elements of thought in the nation. Anytime public funds are involved it is an act of public policy to disperse those funds. Objective handling of funds regardless of the possibility of skewing the academic debate is a public policy. Seeking a balance on a given issue is a public policy. Given the unpredictable nature of the course of human inquiry it is impossible or at least very difficult to anticipate where skewing might take place. To avoid the risk of the government inadvertently aiding one side of an argument many people, myself included, consider the best policy is for the government to not involve itself at all.

The BBSS grants of the NSF have moved increasingly into areas of controversial public policy. The grant to study couple formation among heterosexual and homosexual groups moves $88,830 of government money into the homosexual debate. No matter how objective this study might be there is still $88,830 of taxpayers money involved in the study of an issue where public policy, and public morality, is deeply involved. Other grants fall into this category. The University of Illinois-Urbana has received $91,198 to study "Changes in Family Structure in Western Nations" and Wellesley College has received $150,262 to study "Families and Communities: Helping Networks." In both cases federal funds are moving into the area of family issues that are some of the most controversial matters being discussed today. As we have seen with the White House Conference on the Family there is even violent disagreement over what is the definition of a family. To have $239,092 of taxpayers funds going into family research is to disregard the impact of those funds on the ongoing emotional debate. This is not esoteric research with funny names, this is material that might be part of Congressional hearings or floor debates a year or so from now. To provide such funds is a public policy act that should not be left to unelected review panels. Instead of opening the door for Congressionally mandated research grants we should avoid having funds going into such areas by phasing out social science funding all together. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my remarks on the subject of NSF social science grants. The issues of duplication and competition with privately initiated research, of possible waste of funds for unnecessary projects, and the crucial issue of subsidies for particular philosophical views are all sufficient evidence that there are deep problems with the government getting involved in this area of research in the first place. No matter how well-intentioned the NSF might be in providing grants I maintain that there are severe problems that will probably never be adequately addressed. I therefore will continue to oppose efforts to expand this troublesome program area.