involved, but nevertheless make it difficult for them to see things on a basis which will allow for

Dr. STARR. In answer to your question we are trying on our campus to set up a joint program and joint effort which will give the engineers and the applied scientists this kind of recognition in the medical school itself.

Senator HARRIS. How did you come personally to make such an inventory of needs in biomedical engineering? How did you come to be interested in such a study?

Dr. STARR. We had started this study before your committee request came to me. I had felt that this was important in the discussions that I have been privy to in the National Academy of Engineering.

This area has been brought up by many thoughtful people as an area where an engineer should play a national role. So when your committee request came in, it gave me an opportunity to focus the information I had. In that sense, it was very helpful and very constructive to me.

Senator HARRIS. We, of course, had known of your general background and interest, and that is why we wanted to hear what you had to say. I can say that it is very helpful to us to have such concrete recommendations upon which to base our work in this subcommittee. Dr. STARR. Thank you.

Senator HARRIS. Thank you very much.

The subcommittee will stand in recess until 10 a.m. tomorrow. (Whereupon, at 4:35 p.m., the subcommittee recessed to reconvene at 10 a.m., Friday, March 2, 1967.)

RESEARCH IN THE SERVICE OF MAN: BIOMEDICAL DEVELOPMENT, EVALUATION OF EXISTING FED

ERAL INSTITUTIONS

FRIDAY, MARCH 3, 1967

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT RESEARCH,

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10:05 a.m., in room 3302, New Senate Office Building, Senator Fred R. Harris (chairman) presiding.

Present: Senators Harris and Hansen.

Also present: Dr. Steven Ebbin, staff director.

Senator HARRIS. The subcommittee will be in order.

We are resuming today our hearings on "Research in the Service of Man: Biomedical Development, Evaluation of Existing Federal Institutions." Our first witness today is Dr. Eric Walker. We are honored to have Dr. Walker, who is president of the Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pa.

Without objection we will place in the record a biographical sketch concerning Dr. Walker.

Biographical Sketch: Dr. Eric A. Walker

President, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania. Doctor of Science 1935.

Background Data: Instructor, Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, Head, Department of Electrical Engineering, Tufts College; Head, Department of Electrical Engineering, University of Connecticut; Associate Director, Harvard Underwriter Sound Laboratory; Head, Department of Electrical Engineering, Director, Ordnance Research Laboratory, Dean, College of Engineering and Architecture, Vice President and President, The Pennsylvania State University. Member and past chairman of the Naval Research Advisory Committee. Past member and chairman of the National Science Foundation Board. Past president of the Engineers' Joint Council and American Society for Engineering Education. Awards: Horatio Alger Award, the Navy's Distinguished Civilian Service Medal, the Golden Omeah of the Electrical Insulation Industry, the Lamme Award of the American Society for Engineering Education.

President, the National Academy of Engineering.

Senator HARRIS. Dr. Walker is also president of the National Academy of Engineering.

Dr. Walker we are very pleased you are here. I believe you have a prepared statement, and you may proceed with it or however you desire.

TESTIMONY OF DR. ERIC A. WALKER, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING, WASHINGTON, D.C.; AND PRESIDENT, PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY, UNIVERSITY PARK, PA.

Dr. WALKER. Thank you, Mr. Harris.

Mr. Harris and gentlemen, I am Eric A. Walker, president of the Pennsylvania State University and president of the National Academy of Engineering. I have been asked to express my opinion on the adequacy of current Federal programs in the general area of biomedical development and application. I believe that there are a number of opportunities for improvement in this area, and I would like to suggest one that in my opinion deserves more attention than it seems to be getting. I am referring to the relationship which exists, or should exist, between medical and biological science on the one hand and engineering and technology on the other.

I think there is plenty of evidence of the general good that can come from cooperative effort between these two areas. In recent years we have seen the effects of such cooperation in the form of new and ingenious equipment for medical treatment, improved tools for surgery, the use of computer techniques for diagnosis of illness, and the development of such remarkable devices as the mechanical heart. And there is every indication that further advances in health and human welfare could result from increased application of engineering skill to our growing biological and medical needs. Yet when one considers the potentialities, remarkably little is being done in this area.

One of the reasons for the slowness of our progress is, I believe, the general lack of communication between these two groups within the scientific community. Traditionally, engineers and biologists have had very little professional contact, and neither the needs nor the possibilities in one discipline are understood by members of the other. There is a language barrier between the two groups, a significant difference in the approach, in each case, to the solution of specific problems. For one thing, engineers are used to thinking in very precise terms, whereas biologists must accept wide variations in their measurements and in the application of their principles. An engineer likes to design his devices on the basis of exact specifications, but the biologist can never be exact about many of the things with which he must deal the size of the heart, for example, or the diameter of the aorta, or the length of the femur. Thus, even when there is some degree of contact between the two, the engineer finds it difficult to understand biological needs because he cannot give expression, with his customary precision, to the specific requirements involved.

More than this, the engineer has very little incentive to apply his skills to biological and medical needs. Very few large companies have accepted the fact that there is a profit to be made in the manufacture of biomedical devices, and thus very few engineers have been called upon to learn enough about the subject to be of any real help. Although there are many engineers who are aware of the possibilities, and who would be interested in having the opportunity of applying their skills to the design of biomedical equipment, circumstances in general have not been conducive to the kind of cooperation that is necessary.

Thus the extensive resources that exist in both areas have been largely unused for any joint effort of this type, and the traditional lines that exist between the two disciplines have, in general, not been crossed. In the colleges and universities throughout the country, there are some 1,100 departments of biology. And there are about 240 departments of mechanical engineering and an equal number of electrical engineering departments. Yet where biology and engineering come together in departments of biomedical engineering, we find only six in the whole United States.

What it comes down to is that, with very few exceptions, we are operating under the principle that if we support enough basic research in biology on the one hand and enough research in the hard sciences. on the other, the knowledge that is gained through this research will somehow find its way into the production of the devices that are needed by our physicians and surgeons and medical scientists.

Now I submit that this is not the way the process works best-in this area, or indeed in any other. There is no doubt that in many instances the research we have been conducting in this country on such a massive scale has provided us with the basic knowledge we need to design and manufacture a great variety of useful goods and products. And I believe that we must continue to support our research efforts to the fullest extent possible. But research is not engineering, and I cannot help reflecting that our belief in basic research as a necessary preliminary to useful application has, particularly in the area of biomedical science, tended to blind us to the converse method of achieving the ends we seek.

It seems to me that the old principle that necessity is the mother of invention applies with particular appropriateness here. Instead of taking the basic knowledge that has been uncovered for its own sake and trying to find useful applications for it, we should be starting at the other end of the operation. We should be specifying the needs, outlining the requirements, and when we have a clear-cut understanding of just what it is we want, we should seek out the knowledge necessary to accomplish our ends. Of course the two processes work hand in hand, and both are needed, but I cannot help feeling that all too often, in our large-scale plans and programs, we have tended to neglect the latter.

I think that in the area of biomedical engineering, we might well follow the example of the Department of Defense in this respect. As you know, many of our sophisticated weapons of war are developed in Government laboratories that were set up for the specific purpose of developing them. These laboratories are assigned the task of producing devices that can be produced by making use of the knowledge we already have. They are essentially engineering laboratories. And their job is to apply the knowledge that exists in the various disciplines to the specific problem at hand. The need is specified first, and the process proceeds from there.

It seems to me that such a system of in-house laboratories might be very useful in our health sciences as well. Such labs would serve as ideal places to bring together the knowledge and skills of the biologist on the one hand and of the engineer on the other. Needs could be specified, limitations and possibilities thrashed out, and a genuinely cooperative effort established.