patent law, and so forth, or push for changes in patent law, really understand how science and technology are interwoven in our daily life. And not that they would do anything malicious, but just by not being aware of how this whole thing works, they do things that sometimes are not beneficial, and that, I think, is one of the advantages that your committee has brought to the whole Nation. You've raised, hopefully, the level of awareness of a lot of people about the importance of science and technological considerations in almost everything they do.

So I'm sorry we didn't write it a little more clearly.

Mr. HAYES. I think it's a very useful discussion. It's not that it's not clear. It just seemed to me, when we talk about an incentive, maybe I don't understand what you mean by incentive. A couple of examples you used a minute ago, pointing out examples of things we tend to go off and do, go off and ban aerosols, go off as we maybe went off and banned certain kinds of phosphate detergents. Other governmental units did that, and cities did it, and States did it, because they saw a certain problem with water.

Do you think that's an unfair thing for government to do in essence, to evaluate available evidence and then go ahead and act and make an extension of policy based on all of the available evidence, and based on what they see as the trade-offs?

Dr. BUECHE. No; I don't think it's unfair. I think, in fact, that's one of the reasons we have government to start with, to do the things for the people that they can't do very well for themselves, or perhaps can't do at all.

So I hope you didn't read into anything I said that I felt this was unfair.

What I would like to see, though, is that before such actions are taken we have not only-well, that we have a balanced picture of how true are the facts that people are citing, and what will the consequences be if we do or don't, and very often in recent years I think we've gone off riding the white charger in the absence of the facts that we probably could have had.

Mr. HAYES. Do you think that the scientific base of industry is deteriorating because of some of the things you've pointed out here, and if so, can you tell us a little bit how?

Dr. BUECHE. I don't have firm numbers at my fingertips, but just from discussing with my colleagues around the country, and I might say, around the world, the current economic difficulty has led to quite a few engineering and scientific projects being slowed down and, in some cases, stopped, and employment of technical people has been decreasing.

From firsthand experience, it's very easy to make a case that one should stop a project if there's a large uncertainty that you can lay onto somebody else. For instance, if I can blame you for some regulation, and say, "That makes it such that I can't predict whether this is a good idea or not from a practical standpoint," and if things get bad, then it's quite easy to turn some of those projects off, and I think that's what I'm talking about here in these days, and I'm just afraid. that because it is now more costly and more difficult and there are more restrictions that one has to take into account when he moves ahead,

that even when the economy does pick up we won't have quite the vigorous, innovative attitude that we had before, and which I think is essential to the health of the Nation, both domestically and in international trade.

Perhaps that's enough on that.

Mr. HAYES. No. I think it's an interesting thing to pursue, and we have a little bit of time.

Are you talking about the fact that scientific innovation, or the development of new technologies, will tend to take a back seat when the economy is capital short, when a corporation is capital short, for one reason or another?

Dr. BUECHE. Yes.

Mr. HAYES. So that's the lack of incentive you see, basically?
Dr. BUECHE. That's one of them.

Mr. HAYES. But I take it that you see it also as being caused somewhat by, for example, safety regulations?

Dr. BUECHE. It could be, because it makes innovation more expensive.

Mr. HAYES. You're not suggesting by your conclusory paragraph, then, that somehow or other we strip away the safety considerations, or environmental considerations? You don't mean that?

Dr. BUECHE. No, sir. No; I don't mean that. And frankly, I don't have the answer, but I think perhaps that would be a worthy subject for this committee to address itself to, to ask: What is there that could be stripped away? Or perhaps: What else could be strengthened?

One of the programs that I'm a little bit familiar with has been the experimental technology incentive programs, the ETIP programs in the Bureau of Standards and the National Science Foundation. Just to put it in perspective, on a policy note here, some of these incentives. look like they're paying off. They're experimental at the moment. I suppose it's too soon to judge. But they're new ideas for fostering innovation, and by innovation I don't just mean the detailed science and engineering work. I mean the whole process: the entrepreneural process, getting the capital and bringing the product to market, and

so on.

Mr. HAYES. I see. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Lloyd.

Mr. LLOYD. I have nothing. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Blouin.

Mr. BLOUIN. No questions.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Fuqua.

Mr. Fuqua. No questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Doctor.

I'd like to ask one question. I would judge from your statement that you think the relationship between research in private industry and Government is going fairly well.

Dr. BUECHE. I would agree with that. I think it is going pretty well these days.

The CHAIRMAN. In the position that you're in, how do you know whether some other company is doing the same research project that you are? How do you know which ones have failed and which ones have succeeded?

Dr. BUECHE. We don't know, sir, and I gather if we made great efforts to find out we'd be breaking the law.

On the other hand, what we really know is what they're willing to tell us, and generally if they're willing to tell us they're willing to tell others, and that makes it all right. So we know pretty much the major areas in which they're focusing their efforts. We probably won't know about their commercially important new ideas until they've got the patent situation locked up pretty well, or well on their way to capitalizing on it, because the name of the game, of course, is to get a slight time jump at least on your competitor, and use those ideas first. The CHAIRMAN. That you very much, Doctor.

Dr. BUECHE. Thank you.

[Answers to questions referred to Dr. Bueche follow:]

Supplemental Questions re Science Policy Hearings

Q1.

A1.

Q2.

A2.

Q3.

A3.

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?

The answer to this question depends partly on what is attainable. The
most important objective clearly is to insure the creation of an office
to provide science and technology inputs to policy formulation. Nothing
should be permitted to delay this step. I would give next highest priority
to the creation of the administrative staff structure I discussed in my
testimony. I should think the likely position of the Administration to
such a proposal could be readily obtained by informal discussion. In
my view, the other features of H. R. 4461 require a more extended review
than is possible at present and I would not like to see the passage of a bill
enacting a science and technology policy mechanism delayed by this review
process.

Should Title I of the Committee bill(H. R. 4461) be included? Should it be modified and, if so, in what way?

You will recall that my testimony did not address Title I directly. The
reason for this was that I regarded Titles II and III as of much greater
concern. While I am generally in sympathy with the point of view expressed
in Title I, I do not regard its enactment as crucial to the functioning of
the science policy mechanisms being considered. The people chosen to
staff the office will probably play a more significant role in the actual
formulation of science and technology policy as it impinges on decision
making than a general statement of policy in a statute. If Title I is to be
included in the proposed bill, I would strongly urge that the Bill be extended
to recognize the concerns I expressed at the very end of my testimony.
The point of view reflected in the science policy statement in Title I
generally recognizes the contribution of science and technology to national
welfare in a variety of forms, but it does not explicitly recognize the vital
role of the private sector in both generating and applying new science and
technology for the purpose of creating technological innovation. As you
know, I am concerned about the imbalance in incentives versus risks for
technological innovation and I should like to see recognition of the vital
role of technological innovation in the private sector reflected specifically
in the science policy statement.

Is the Administration bill preferable to Title II of the Teague-Mosher bill? What do you conceive to be the best compromise between them?

I responded to this question in considerable depth in my letter of June 30 to Congressman Teague, a copy of which I am attaching. I have no additional comment to add at this time.

-2

Q4.

A4.

Q5.

A5.

Should there be a budget review function somewhere in the science policy or advisory apparatus? That function in the Committee bill is in the new Department; should it be placed instead within the new science office of the Council or whatever evolves within the Executive Office?

As I indicated in my testimony, I regard the budget review process as a
part of administrative staff work and I recommended that a separate
administrative staff function be established in the form of a new Office
of R&D Management. Obviously this budget review process and the people
responsible for it should work closely with the new science and technology
policy mechanism. However, I do not believe it is sound to burden the
science and technology policy officer with the detailed and extensive
workload involved in administrative staff work. The Office of Science
and Technology Policy, or whatever it is eventually designated, should
obviously make use of the knowledge and resources of the group respon-
sible for budget review and other administrative staff activities, and it
may well ask the administrative staff group to conduct special studies or
reviews in its behalf. The exact location of this administrative staff
group I would leave to others to determine. It might well function effec-
tively as an arm of the Office of Management and the Budget.

If a government-wide budget review function is placed within the Executive Office (which is where OMB already is), how can the problem of separating science advice from science advocacy be resolved? Is there indeed a need for a science advocate within the Federal structure; if so, where and at what level?

I believe there is a role for science advocacy within the Federal structure
and that it is best performed on a decentralized basis. As I indicated
in my testimony, I believe we are well along with the process of incor-
porating such science advocacy in many of the branches of the Government
by virtue of the fact that over the last quarter of a century great strides
have been made in improving science and technological capability through-
out the Government. The National Science Foundation, of course, has an
explicit responsibility for science advocacy as part of its charter. I
strongly concur in the judgment that it is desirable to separate science
advocacy from science policy advice. As I have indicated earlier, I
would go further and distinguish between science policy advice and coordina-
tion and oversight, which would include government-wide budget review.
I associate coordination and oversight with administrative staff work. I
believe both are appropriately associated with the Executive Office of the
President but they are separate functions. The science advocacy function
should be located in the operating components of the Federal Government.