Mr. HANDLER. Yes, sir. Mr. MOSHER. Dr. Handler, you have just expressed your doubts concerning titles 3 and 4 of the H.R. 4461, those are the titles that deal with the proposed Department of R. & D. Operations and the proposed Corporation for Science and Technology Information and Utilization. You suggested that these needed further study and that implies that you consider the issues and problems which those departments would address as being very important. Mr. HANDLER. Yes, sir. Mr. MOSHER. Assuming that, what alternative methods for the con- Mr. HANDLER. Yes; almost certainly I did, if I can find it. Mr. HANDLER. On page 16, sir. Mr. MOSHER. In suggesting that these matters deserve further study, you are emphasizing the importance that we attached to them in the bill? Mr. HANDLER. Indeed, sir. Mr. MOSHER And I judge you are suggesting that this committee should take some initiatives in this further study, is that correct? Mr. HANDLER. Yes; I specifically stated earlier that I would hope that in the legislation you would some approach to how to get on with that study. Mr. MOSHER. On page 16, you say I don't see it there. Mr. HANDLER. At the top of the page. It says that I am not "prepared to advocate the specific nature of the most appropriate such study mechanism. Several options readily come to mind-a mixed Presidential/Congressional Commission, a Presidential Commission, or as proposed by S. 32, a study conducted by an appropriate nongovernmental body such as the National Research Council, which functions under the National Academies of Sciences and Engineering and the Institute of Medicine." If you will, sir, I was specifically avoiding being self-serving. Mr. MOSHER. I wanted to get clearly on the record, and it is clearly on the record now, the fact that you do attach great importance to these issues? Mr. HANDLER. Indeed, sir. Mr. MOSHER. And they do deserve some very active initiatives from this committee. Mr. FUQUA. Mr. Chairman, let me commend Dr. Handler for a very fine statement. I apologize for being late, but I have had a chance to read this statement, and I know the fine work that the National Academy has done in this area with the Killian report last year, and I was very happy to support that report and I certainly am pleased to continue to support it. I want to say, passing our regret that I am going to be unable to be with you this Saturday. You are making a very important speech at the Florida State University commencement. I wish you well and know they will treat you with the cordiality befitting you. Mr. HANDLER. Thank you. Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. Goldwater. Mr. GOLDWATER. Dr. Handler, thank you for your presentation and your comments. I wonder if you could comment in title 3, there is to be established a Department of Research and Technology Operations to provide centralized administrative resources to Federal agencies. Do you see this as another structure on top of already existing structures that exist today, such as NASA and ERDA, NOAA, and the possibility of this structure getting in the way or further removing or diminishing the importance or input of those existing agencies? Mr. HANDLER. If I understood the proposal, from the actual language, the thought not that this is to be an operating Department but rather it is a mechanism to create a forum, if you will, which would pull together the activities of those agencies which are specifically named, in the areas of research and development and technology policy. I suppose I really felt that, to some degree, it would duplicate some of the functions which are going to be performed by the White House Science and Technology Office which is to be brought into being at the same time. It would certainly not suffice to manage the problems which concern Congressman McCormack in presenting his proposal. I guess I am unpersuaded that, as described, the proposed Department would do that which is required, and that which the committee itself had in mind as the goals of such an action. Mr. GOLDWATER. Thank you. Mr. SYMINGTON. Thank you, Mr. Goldwater. Mr. HECHLER. Dr. Handler, I am deeply disturbed at the possible politicization and it seems to me that although I strongly support efforts to raise the level of science as we have in both administration proposals and H.R. 4461, how do you really avoid having the kind of shambles is the only way I can describe it, with such an issue as we voted on in the House of Representatives yesterday, where you had people saying opposite things about what ought to be a matter of scientific precision on strip mining, that for the National Academy of Sciences, we came out with such a brilliant study on the effects of strip mining in the West, and particularly in low-rainfall areas, as you are aware, now, if you are going to raise science to the level that it is, how do you avoid this kind of politicization that results from forcing these things down the throats of the scientists, all in the name of responsive government? Would you care to submit an answer for the record because we have a quorum call going on? Mr. HANDLER. That would make it easier for me as well, Mr. Hechler. [The answer requested follows:] Hon. KEN HECHLER, NATONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. HECHLER: During my testimony on June 11, 1975, before the Committee on Science and Technology on the National Science Policy and Organization Act of 1975, you raised a question concerning the possible "politicization" of scientific findings and how to avoid it (pages 63 and 64 of transcript). Although the question was raised in the context of the House debate on the veto message from the President on the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1975, I interpret the question to be generic in character. Since your question was interrupted by a quorum call, I am pleased to provide the following response, which you may wish to place in the hearing record. The burden of policymakers is to proceed as rationally as possible from the scientific interpretation of factual information. However, scientific and technical interpretation of the facts is in part a subjective process, and may change as new information emerges through additional research and analysis. There is also the possibility of substantial uncertainty and margin of error in scientific findings. Thus, there may sometimes be sound reason for lack of agreement among the experts concerning particular scientific and technical conclusions and for differences of view on their policy implications. In essence, even with the most authoritative scientific and technical judgments in hand and with the best intention of the political decision makers, there can be "politicization" of scientific findings. In few instances will the final decision be solely or even predominantly a matter of scientific and technical judgment. It is essential that the best scientific and technical analysis and judgment be obtained from the most qualified and authoritative sources and further, to the extent possible, that the technical differences and uncertainties be set forth or resolved so as to minimize the use of unsound or fallacious technical arguments to support preconceived points of view. There is no foolproof or easy way of assuring this, but systematic procedures to obtain disinterested scientific and technical views divorced from self-pleading or advocacy will help. Beyond that, one has to rely on the underlying rationality and integrity of the political processes. I trust you will find this responsive to your question. PHILIP HANDLER, President. Mr. SYMINGTON. Thank you, Mr. Hechler. Mr. THORNTON. In view of the quorum call, I will refrain asking some of the questions I wanted to ask, but to ask for the record, if there may not well be a distinction between the administrative function of implementing national policy as defined by the Congress and by the executive branch, as contrasted with the function of advising the Executive on the full breadth of scientific knowledge and information in order that he may have information needed for that President, whoever he may be, to develop policies. Mr. HANDLER. Yes, Mr. Thornton, the office you are creating in this bill is part of the White House Office. It is an arm of the President and is intended to enhance his ability to fulfill his functions and responsibilities quite specifically. In a sense, the Congress did something of the sort for itself when it created the Office of Technology Assessment. Mr. THORNTON. As a matter of fact, if I may interrupt, during the last session of Congress part of the reforms enunciated by the Select Committee on Committees, chaired by Mr. Bolling, was to develop the idea of special congressional oversight, over the scientific apparatus and this is a useful move, it seems to me, for Congress to develop its knowledge in this area. Mr. HANDLER. That, sir, is why I approve the notion that this office of a science adviser and his staff be brought into being by legislation rather than simply by having the President appoint them within the limits of the budget he has to run his shop. Mr. SYMINGTON. Thank you, Mr. Thornton. Thank you, Dr. Handler. The members may wish to submit further questions in writing. answer. [Answers to questions referred to Dr. Handler follow:] NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES 2101 CONSTITUTION AVENUE WASHINGTON DC 20418 1. Supplemental Questions and Answers re Science Policy Hearings Should this Committee merely follow through with the Administration's bill or something close to it and forget about taking up any other provisions until a later date? Since this Administration has sponsored legislation to establish a science and technology policy office in the Executive Office of the President, a goal with which the Academy is in full accord, I feel it important to move expeditiously to secure enactment of legislation which would achieve a significant number of goals that now appear feasible. To delay beyond this year in an attempt to add considerably more substance to the bill could further weaken the existing science advisory machinery and delay inordinately the time when adequate scientific and technological counsel can be made available to the President. Of the details of H.R. 4461, the principal matters which could be deferred are the establishment of a Department of Research and Technology Operations and of a Science and Technology Information and Utilization Corporation. I believe that the Administration's bill could be markedly strengthened without engendering extended debate or political conflict, e.g., by including a requirement for Senate confirmation of the Director and at least one but preferably two Deputies, and by a Congressional declaration of national science policy such as that now in H.R. 4461. If not included in the formal legislative language, I hope -2 the legislative report on the bill will include an expression of Congressional intent that the Science Adviser have a seat on the Domestic Council and the National Security Council and that he have an explicit role in providing to both the OMB and the President recommendations on proposed R and D budgets. Finally, the bill could make explicit provision for an extensive examination of the organization of the government with respect to the conduct of research and development activities. The need is apparant and it seems unlikely that such a provision would engender political opposition. 2. I believe that it would be appropriate and valuable to include a statement on national science policy along the lines of Sec. 101 and Sec. 102 of H.R. 4461 (Findings and Principles). This statement should be reviewed and, perhaps, modified in the light of comments by the several witnesses with a view to providing proper scope and balance, while preserving flexibility to respond to changing needs and situations. For example, I believe that the statement on national science policy should be modified to reflect the general importance of basic scientific research and to encourage all Federal departments and agencies engaged in research and development to support basic research appropriate to their missions. Other witnesses emphasized the importance of drawing on the R and D capabilities of the private sector, both in industry and the universities, and the need for policies to encourage beneficial technological innovation, and these thoughts might quite properly and usefully be incorporated into Title I. |