Dr. FISK. Yes, this is the shorthand way for a technical person to say just that.

Mr. PENDLETON. We are very limited in some of these terms and so you will have to help us to interpret.

I would like to read to you from the Wall Street Journal of Thursday, March 24, a comment from a very short editorial and then see what your reaction is to it. I am now quoting from this, that is, I will quote in part from this article:

"It is a gamble," Secretary Herter said of the May summit meeting. His attitude disturbed some of the members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee where he was testifying.

There seemed to be some question that he was going without purpose, without hope of success, to the summit meeting. Now I will return to the quote:

Mr. Herter, however, had not said quite that. The U.S. purpose in going to the summit is that the state of the world is too dangerous to refuse to sit down and talk with potential enemies at any level. The United States plans to talk about a number of outstanding East-West issues like Berlin, and disarmament, concerning which the United States has rather definite policies. As for hope of success, that is indeed another matter.

It would be remarkably foolish to enter this meeting in an aura of optimism. This is so not only because of the almost total intransigence the Soviet Union has exhibited in the 15 years since World War II. It is also because, as Mr. Herter noted, it would be unrealistic to suppose that the Messrs. Eisenhower, Macmillan, De Gaulle, and Khrushchev could solve the great international disputes in a few days' time. The world would be entitled to deep misgivings if they announced they had.

For one of the dangers in a summit conference is that hope of success-the West's desire to abate the nuclear nightmare-will bring hasty agreements in which freedom is the loser. That is always the gamble in talking with the Soviets, and in some previous encounters freedom has lost. The best guard against that now is to approach the meeting, as Mr. Herter is doing, with a justifiable degree of skepticism and pessimism.

Do you agree with the statement in this editorial?

Dr. Fisk. It would seem to me to contain quite a few statements. Mr. PENDLETON. I will make it more specific.

Do you believe that Secretary Herter went to the meeting at the summit without a plan?

Dr. FISK. No, I am quite sure that the Secretary has thought about this very hard, indeed. I hope nothing that I have said would imply that this was not so. What I have implied and tried to say fairly directly is that these are difficult problems and they range over a great variety of fields, and you just cannot be too well prepared.

Senator JACKSON. May I make clear for the record that this committee is not assuming that we do not have mechanisms to do this job, that is, for science to play an important role in the Government. What we are trying to do in the course of the hearings is to improve mechanisms, and I hope we will always be in that position in this country. I have tried to pay tribute to the President's Science Advisory Committee, and I think that they are doing a good job, and we want to help not only the President's Science Advisory Committee, but other mechanisms, to be improved so that this country's overall posture will always be at the best level.

I just wanted to say that.

Dr. FISK. I hope the remarks I have made, Senator Jackson, would be construed in the same way. We are looking for better mechanisms.

Senator JACKSON. And constructive suggestions.

Dr. FISK. Sometimes by way of example you will say something, perhaps about the Defense Department or the State Department, or whatever, to illustrate where it might be improved. This does not mean that it is entirely inadequate.

Senator JACKSON. Some of these problems have been with us for many, many years, and not only in this administration but in previous administrations.

Dr. FISK. Yes, sir.

Mr. PENDLETON. This is the sort of thing I did want to get into the record. Self-criticism is a great quality of Americans, and as long as we recognize that is part of our way of life, we will do all right.

Dr. Baxter, who was one of the earlier witnesses before this committee, made the following statement:

President Eisenhower has made repeated efforts to break through Russian intransigences and obtain a satisfactory solution in the disarmament field. They include some of the most imaginative moves the United States has ever made on the international chessboard-the "Atoms for Peace" proposal of 1953, the "Open Skies" offer of 1955, the offer to Bulganin of March 1956, the negotiations for the suspension of nuclear tests, a very important proposal for safeguards against surprise attacks.

Do you have any further comments to make on the efforts that are being made at this time to work out something with the Soviet Union? Dr. FISK. I do not believe I have any comments to be made here. Mr. PENDLETON. Now, in your testimony you referred to the problem of the Atomic Energy Commission and the Department of Defense both maximizing and simultaneously minimizing arms. I think for agencies perhaps that does present a problem. On the other hand, I think that we should not overlook the fact that there are individuals connected with such agencies or formerly connected with them who do not, by their very connection, become inured to one way of life, either war or peace.

I think that you recall General Marshall, whose perhaps greatest fame was as a general, but you are aware of his efforts in the field of peace. I think we should not pass the fact here that he was granted the Nobel Peace Prize because of his efforts in that field.

Turning to the other agencies that are also concerned with disarmament and peace, could you tell us what people there are and what they are doing in the White House and the Department of State in the field of disarmament? I think that your main reference was to Atomic Energy and the Department of Defense. I think these other agencies should be referred to.

Dr. FISK. I do not have, Mr. Pendleton, a comprehensive knowledge of all agencies or very many agencies, or precisely what they are doing. My information is pretty well restricted to the nuclear test discussions and negotiations to which, of course, the State Department and the Department of Defense and the Atomic Energy Commission have all contributed a great deal.

I hope you will not misunderstand my somewhat cryptic remark about both maximizing and simultaneously minimizing arms. Perhaps that might have been expanded into a paragraph for further clarity.

But it does seem to me that to expect the Department of Defense or the Atomic Energy Commission to take a leading role in understand

ing and working toward arms limitations is somewhat unreal. They obviously have great interest, and they have responsibilities, and they must always be a part of decisions, but you can hardly expect them to work with equal enthusiasm in both directions.

Mr. PENDLETON. But in the Department of State, which is also the department of peace, such as we have it, has not the Secretary there taken the leadership in this field by appointing a special assistant for disarmament and atomic energy?

Dr. FISK. Yes; and under his special assistant there is a small and able and very dedicated group.

Mr. PENDLETON. Thank you.

Senator JACKSON. I have just one point to cover. I think, Dr. Fisk, that we want to give serious consideration to probably some statutory underpinning to the President's Science Advisory Committee so that we can have the benefit of the fine work that they have been doing over the years.

Would you say that if that should be undertaken, the people who serve on the council or the Committee, many of them at least ought to be on a rotating basis, so that you would have the benefit of new faces and new ideas from time to time?

Dr. FISK. We have felt that this was a virtue. There has been, both on the present Committee and its predecessor, which has existed since 1952, a rotation. It takes off some very valuable members, but not permanently. It has real virtues.

Members have worked very hard and they have spent a good deal of time, and to ask one person to serve indefinitly perhaps has disadvantages. So I believe that rotation on some modest basis of 3 years, or whatever, is good.

Senator JACKSON. That is a director would come in for a period of 3 years, or whatever the case may be, and then rotate the members who will serve on it and have them come in for periods of time, to serve 2 or 3 years on it, on a call basis?

Dr. FISK. I think that the man who is Chairman-I might explain that the Chairman of the Committee has always been chosen by the members. Dr. Kistiakowsy, the Chairman, is the President's Special Assistant for Science and Technology, and this was the case with his predecessor, Dr. Killian.

Before that time the Chairman was whoever the Committee chose. Now, the Committee has chosen the President's Special Assistant who has been a member of the Committee in each case.

I think that this question should be examined. It has worked very well, but it would be quite dependent on the relationship between a special assistant and the man to whom he reported.

Senator JACKSON. That is very fine.

If there are no further questions, we will turn to our next witness, and before you leave, Dr. Fisk, I once again want to express the appreciation of this committee for your very fine and helpful and constructive and informative and last, but not least, candid presentation of your views.

I want to assure you that our objective is to try to bring about some constructive improvement in this all-important area, and to that end we are grateful to you, sir, for your help this morning. We will undoubtedly call on you again before we get through.

Dr. FISK. Thank you, Senator Jackson.

Senator JACKSON. Our second and next witness will be Dr. Pickering. I want to say that this afternoon we will reconvene to hear our third witness of the day, Dr. Mettler.

Dr. William H. Pickering is the director of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory at the California Institute of Technology.

Dr. Pickering has been associated with the laboratory for the past 16 years. He has been responsible for the direction of critically important programs in the missile field.

In addition to his work on Government scientific committees, he has served on a number of top advisory groups, and he is now a member of the Army Scientific Advisory Panel.

Dr. Pickering, we are honored to have you as a witness at our hearings this morning on the subject of science, technology and the policy process.

I believe that you have a prepared statement.

Dr. PICKERING. Yes, sir.

Senator JACKSON. You may proceed in your own way.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM H. PICKERING, DIRECTOR, JET PROPULSION LABORATORY, CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

Dr. PICKERING. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I feel honored to be asked to appear before your committee. I believe that I should candidly admit that when I was first invited by Senator Jackson to express my views on the profound questions which this committee is considering, I approached the matter with some degree of apprehension. I do not consider myself, in the least, to be an expert on Government organization and the remarks that I have to make today are based essentially on my experience in the field of scientific education, my associations with the military service, and in managing a research and development organization now committed to advancing the national interests in the peaceful exploration and exploitation of space.

My experiences have caused me to develop certain definite viewpoints and I believe that possibly I can best serve the interests of this committee by highlighting some of these and expressing my opinion on what needs to be done to improve the national position in the increasingly important area of science and technology.

I should like first, however, to express several personal convictions which I hold. I shall not elaborate on these since I am sure that other competent witnesses before this committee have treated most of these in considerable detail. I recount them here only to provide a frame of reference for my remarks that follow.

I am firmly convinced that this Nation is now involved in an allout struggle whose outcome will determine whether the democratic or the totalitarian concept of government will dominate in the future. We refer to this struggle as the cold war but in doing so, I believe that we are prone to occasionally forget that the real issues are ideas, basic principles and convictions, and fundamental doctrines. The more obvious conflicts that arise, for example, in debates over relative postures in economics or in science are, to me, merely the open manifestation of the basic struggle.

These manifestations are important in that they represent the milestones whereby the progress of the opposing forces in this struggle are measured-and I happen to believe that the fruits of science and technology will, in the future, be used as one of the major signposts to measure the success of these opposing ideologies. It is in this sense that the so-called "race in space" assumes major and lasting international significance.

Something over a year ago I was invited to express my views to the House Committee on Space Exploration as to what the next 10 years in space might hold. I recall that in the process of pondering this question, I could not help but explore the related question of how these predicted events might materialize, and it seemed to me that the controlling factor might well be one of will and motivation as much as that of technical competency or funding.

I believe that this same thought pertains to the situation existing today. In short, the point I am making is that we must be concerned with defining our goals and making them known, as well as being concerned with funding, manpower, and organizational mattersor in other words, we must define the ends before trying to develop the means of getting there.

Whether a definition of national goals which relate to the specifics of the struggle we are in can best be accomplished through highlevel committee action or by some other mechanism, I do not feel qualified to remark on; I am sure that there are others more skilled in organizational matters than myself who could evolve proposals in this area. I will only comment in passing that I feel much more needs to be done in the direction of developing dynamic national goals than the citizenry can comprehend and are willing to support.

I believe that in the remainder of my remarks it may be of more value to the committee if I address myself directly to certain questions which the committee has indicated interest in and with which I am more conversant.

On the question of whether the present situation requires Government support of scientific and technological projects not necessarily related to military weapons objectives, my answer is unequivocally "Yes."

The civilian space program is an obvious example, and there are others which could have an equally important impact on world opinion. For example, methods of weather control, the development of fusion power, and the development of low-cost, practical power generation sources which might derive their energy from the sun or from thermoelectric devices. Devices of this latter kind should find widespread application in the underdeveloped countries of Asia and Africa, even though there is little demand for them at the present time in this country.

These and many other technological developments which could exert an important influence on the rest of the world should be supported by the Government to the extent necessary to insure that weand not the Soviets-attain them first.

There are definitely areas where scientific and technological advances will not be made without strong Government support. Since World War II a large amount of our new technology, underlying