Mr. THORNTON. Is the problem primarily that of inadequate funds to cover the new assignments, or is it that the new assignments are redirecting the efforts of the Bureau from what its charge should be, or both? Mr. PECK. I think it starts with the management problem of deciding what work you want to have done at the Bureau of Standards, what the mission will be. Clearly, in the case of NBS, the laying on of large amounts of additional work-15 new laws in the 12 years since 1965 with no increase in the funding in constant dollars, represents management redirection away from the basic research that the Bureau has been doing towards other efforts. Mr. THORNTON. Mr. Brown, do you have any questions? Mr. BROWN. No; I don't have any questions at this time, Mr. Chairman. Mr. THORNTON. Tom? Mr. KRAMER. I have no questions Mr. THORNTON. Gail? MS. PESYNA. I have no questions. Thank you. Mr. THORNTON. I want to continue with a couple of other questions. The testimony you've given us is a very important and serious alert to the need for action, either administratively or legislatively. As we approach that question it will be vital that we be kept abreast of what legislation might be helpful in meeting some of the problem areas. Will the Visiting Committee have any further role to play as this develops? Will you continue to look at the problem, and in a position to make recommendations with regard to actions that might be appropriate? Mr. PECK. While my own term is completed on the Visiting Committee, I know I speak for Dr. Gee, the new chairman, in saying that the Visiting Committee will be doing their statutory responsibility of overview of the Bureau with regard to the quality of the scientific work and the state of its equipment. In addition, the men on the committee have felt strongly that if they can be of service in the interim time to help the various forces come to grips with the proper resolution of the problems at the Bureau they would like to do so. So I'm sure they would respond to any direction or requests from your committee. Mr. THORNTON. On page 3 of your testimony you point out an either/or example: Either the Department and the Secretary should intervene to obtain more resources, or the Department should halt new assignments and advise Congress that the work simply can't be done with existing resources. Which of these resolutions do you think is more appropriate? Mr. PECK. I think the committee felt that the pressure on the basic research work, and I should hastily interpose that it is very hard to define which work is basic and which is not, becoming untenable. The committee we would generally feel that there are many needs in the technical area that the Bureau can fill, and that more funding would be the appropriate choice. On the other hand, the fundamental thing is to preserve the basic underlying work that the Bureau is doing now. Mr. THORNTON. How would you go about getting a moratorium on Mr. PECK. Sir, I'm out of my field. I'll leave that to you. Mr. WIRTH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm curious about the fascinating issue of basic research versus applied research. Did the oversight group have any comment on that overall, as your experience? Mr. PECK. Yes. I think what they would comment is that this is a very familiar issue in industrial research, and that is reolved first by having understanding at the highest level in the corporation as to what the direction should be, and, second, by having good, tough-minded administrative leadership of the research. I think the strongest feeling we have is that the Bureau has fallen into times when they have had no strong leadership from the Department of Commerce, problems working with the people at the Office of Management and Budget, confusing direction from Congress, and an acting head, who has only limited authority, resulting in a wallowing of the ship that is most bothersome. Mr. WIRTH. That's a problem that has also plagued science for some time, hasn't it? Mr. PECK. Oh, yes, and will plague any industrial or other research organization. Mr. WIRTH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. THORNTON. Thank you very much. Mr. PECK. Thank you, sir. [For additional material see appendix, p. 117:] Mr. THORNTON. Our next witness, Dr. William O. Baker, is Chairman of the National Bureau of Standards Evaluations Panels. Dr. Baker is president of the Bell Laboratories at Murray Hill, N.J., a very interesting witness, and we're pleased to have you with us today, Dr. Baker. We have received your prepared statement. We would like to ask you to outline it as you may choose. I will be glad to make it a part of the record in its entirety and let you summarize it, if you would choose to do so. Dr. BAKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee and members of the staff. I would be happy to submit the account for the record, as you made reference. Mr. THORNTON. Without objection, your statement will be made part of the record. [The prepared statement and biographical sketch of Dr. William O. Baker follows:] October 21, 1977 Prepared Statement by Dr. William O. Baker, President Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, New Jersey I am pleased to appear here today to discuss with your Committee the strengths and problems of the National Bureau of Standards. This is indeed an appropriate time to be holding these hearings, and I commend the Committee for its interest in and attention to an important national institution. In the six years since the Committee's last oversight hearings on NBS, we have seen many advances in science and technology such as the continued explosive growth in solid-state technology and new techniques in computer science and communications. We also have seen the recognition of several new national problems such as the energy crisis and controversial nuclear safeguards. To meet the demands of our fast-growing technology and to provide solutions to some of our pressing national problems, we depend on reliable scientific and engineering data acquired through accurate measurements; and there must be standards by which these measurements can be calibrated and coordinated throughout the nation. Researchers and engineers in industry, university, and government laboratories recognize the value of currently available standards and calibrations provided by the National Bureau of Standards. At the same time, it is the responsibility of the Bureau to provide improved measurement technology in anticipation of the future needs of industry, commerce, and research. Thus, as integrated circuits are packed more and more densely on a semiconductor chip, we must have improved standards of length for microscopic-sized products and improved measurement technology of unprecedented accuracy with which to apply these standards. At the other extreme there are similar needs for improved measurement of great distances and sizes. Accurate ranging over planetary distances with lasers and microwaves will enable us to measure, navigate, and survey better on earth as well as in space. Continual improvement in measurements is vitally important to industry, but at the same time, there are many challenges in new areas that NBS must tackle if our nation dynamic metrology, which could greatly enhance our ability to compete as a manufacturing nation. Already tremendous advances have been made in the manufacture of discrete parts through numerically controlled machine tools. The next step is to measure the work in progress dynamically without slowing down the machining process. This technique can result in a significant increase in manufacturing productivity. Even greater increases can be made by providing computer-controlled, continuous adjustment of the machining process based on those dynamic measurements. This is the kind of anticipatory research that NBS is doing and should be doing. The demand for many kinds of new or improved measurement technology increases steadily. For example, our understanding of pollutants in the environment depends on our ability to measure a great many potentially hazardous compounds at concentrations lower than ever before. This has required the development of new techniques as well as new Standard Reference Materials to meet these challenges, and the Bureau has been called on to tackle these problems. Whether NBS will continue to be successful under the pressure of new requirements from government, industry, and society is one of the factors that makes these hearings important. During the many years that I have been aware of its activities, the Bureau has been a forum for the exchange and dissemination of scientific and technical information, and it has been a major force in the encouragement of innovation. It not only has furnished the language for science and technology, but it also has become the scientific conscience of these communities. It has set high standards for research, and scientists have become accustomed to expect that they, can visit the Bureau to obtain new ideas and to confirm the validity of their work. My overall assessment is that, through the National Bureau of Standards, Congress has provided the science and technology of this nation with an invaluable support. Information about the status of NBS technical programs is gathered on an annual basis by several Evaluation Panels, of which I serve as the chairman of the Steering Committee. These Evaluation Panels, which are organized by the National Research Council at the request of the Department of Commerce and NBS, provide an independent, outside evaluation of NBS research and technical activities. Annual reports are delivered to the Director of NBS. There have been over 900 participants on the Panels since the program began in 1959. Each panelist usually serves for a three-year term. There are now 6 panels and 24 subpanels, but the number and makeup of the Panels are changed each year to suit the task. Individual Panels report detailed findings and recommendations on specific technical projects, and over the years the Bureau has been warmly receptive to the reports of the Panels. The primary responsibility of my Steering Committee is to identify general problems that need to be brought to the attention of the NBS statutory Visiting Committee and the Secretary of Commerce. A reorganization plan for NBS is under consideration, but it is so recent that the Evaluation Panels have not had time to consider the implications of the plan. I will briefly summarize the most recent general findings of the Panels in terms of the old organizational structure of the Bureau. The Institute for Basic Standards (IBS) includes work in acoustics, mathematics, mechanics, electricity, heat, optical physics, radiation, cryogenics, quantum physics, electromagnetics, and time and frequency. The Panels believe that IBS has done a thorough and effective job of determining new directions and phasing out less relevant work. However, there is great concern from the Panels about the inability of IBS to get additional funding and personnel slots for new initiatives that deal with urgent national problems. The necessary resources must then be obtained by reprogramming at the expense of other programs within NBS. The Bureau must be as responsive as possible to demands placed upon it by new legislation, but it is equally clear that the intent of the original legislation that created NBS has in no way been rescinded. The high priority given to work related to more recent legislation tends to cause NBS to drift in the direction of special interests that prevail at the moment, and these generally involve relatively short-range requirements for action. As a result, activities of NBS dealing with the intent of the Organic Act, which generally involve on-going, long-range needs within broad areas of society, are diluted. The forces that have led to cuts in long-range programs must be reversed if irreparable damage to essential resources is to be avoided. Indeed, the efforts to be responsive to the problems growing out of the recent legislation tend to reduce the capability to be responsive to anticipated future legislation. The Institute for Materials Research (IMR) has programs in analytical and physical chemistry, polymers, metallurgy, and inorganic materials. The critical problem in IMR is the increasing amount of short-term mission research. Some assignments are legislated, and some are on request from other agencies. NBS serves as a source of common research for all federal agencies, but it is becoming difficult to maintain the technical strengths required for the future. Some limit must be put on the number of new assignments given to IMR unless funds and personnel become available. The mission-oriented programs must include some support for basic skills that will meet the needs of the future. The Institute for Applied Technology (IAT) has programs in electronic technology, consumer product technology, building technology, and fire research. The Panels believe that IAT demonstrates a unique capability in developing applied research programs and coupling with many agencies and organizations. The Panels note that the Electronic Technology Division has made important contributions to the electronics |