independent R. & D. which many contend is the best buck spent for our R. & D. dollar that we get in this country. So I see all kinds of problems, but I think that is the work of this committee, to try and gather all of the information. For instance, I can imagine 75 firms like yourself where all of a sudden we say the door is open, and we are going to give subsidies, we are going to try to get the development of solar energy to really get going, and then we have the bureaucrats deciding what we do over on the Senate-side with certificates of competency and I am troubled with that. It is amazing how incompetent some of the firms are in New Hampshire, not like the firms in Alabama, Senator. Dr. PLUNKETT. Yes, Senator, I agree with you. Furthermore, I would say because of your attitude, many individual innovators have come to us and asked us for help. And I must say that a number of these, a large faction of them, more than a third, are absolutely nuts. They have ideas which are not technically sound, and so I can understand the frustration of Government people trying to deal with someone who really does not make sense. And I think this is a problem. On the other hand, this is why I propose setting up a center outside of the Government which could deal with this. I think you have got to have a very special center, meeting ground between the individual innovators and the Government. I think the Government has to protect the taxpayer's money. I do not have any problem with that at all, and I think the constraints have to be real. At the same time, I think we have got to do it in such a way that we really do encourage innovation and reward it. Do not ever forget that the whole food canning business was developed because Napoleon had a problem. His troops went around Europe and they were eating up everything they came in contact with, and they were very unwelcome after about the first 2 weeks because all of the food was gone, and they had to keep moving on. And Napoleon recognized the problem, and he said that I will give 50,000 francs to any man that can supply food to my troops, and a man by the name of Apera responded to that, and he developed the whole food canning industry on the basis of that one request. So the Government can fund and support innovation. It is really a case of finding out how to do it, and I say let us get on with the job, and let us try, and I will guarantee you that a lot of these innovations will fail. But, the point is that enough of them will succeed that the effort will be worthwhile. Senator MCINTYRE. Thank you very much. Senator SPARKMAN. Mr. Chairman? Senator MCINTYRE. I yield to Senator Sparkman. Senator SPARKMAN. May I ask just a question or two. I have strongly supported the small business program throughout the years. As a matter of fact, I was the first chairman of this committee and served as chairman for a good many years. And we strongly supported— I think I can say that we originated-the set-aside programs for small business. Down in my home town we have the Redstone Arsenal and also the NASA installation. The Army has a full-time employee for small business in that installation, and he has done a remarkably fine job Talking about solar energy, are you familiar with the experimentation that has been carried on by NASA at its Huntsville installation? Dr. PLUNKETT. Yes. I have visited the installation on three occasions, and I have followed the work. And in many respects I think that it is better work than similar work sponsored by the National Science Foundation. It got onstream faster, and I think it has also been very promising, so this is what I am saying. I am not saying that there should not be other people such as Government agencies or large firms involved in solar energy, both research, development and demonstration. I am not opposed to that at all. I am just simply saying I think small business has a unique contribution to make. But, I do somewhat disagree with you about the role of the small business representative. I have gone to them and it has been difficult for me to interact effectively with them. Most of these people are not technologists, and they do not understand the ins and outs of what we are trying to say. Senator SPARKMAN. Are you referring to the small business representative in the Redstone Arsenal at Huntsville? Dr. PLUNKETT. No, not specifically. I have not met him. I have called up the small business man in Denver. Senator SPARKMAN. Well, I did not think you could be, because I happen to know something about his work. He is a friend of mine, and he lives right across the street from me. He is absolutely dedicated to the work, and he has done a tremendous job and has been lauded generally for it. By the way, I would like to mention, Mr. Chairman, that in our Banking Committee we wrote a solar energy provision in the law for HUD to observe, and then later when the energy bill came up, we made this division between the National Science Foundation, or rather the Space Committee handled that, and the installation of NASA at Huntsville, so that research work is going on steadily. And I do not know whether we have had a report from HUD at any time or not on what they have done. Senator MCINTYRE. HUD will be testifying tomorrow. Senator SPARKMAN. HUD will be testifying tomorrow, so we will go into that then. I just wanted to mention those things to let you know that we have not neglected this as we have gone along. Dr. PLUNKETT. Yes. I have taken those into account in preparing my recommendations. I feel that what has been done is still not adequate. I think in the area of solar energy that there is very much need for an affirmative action program that is much stronger and starts at the very early days of planning. This is why I am distressed at the documents that I have seen from ERDA, the first document on solar energy which makes no mention of small business. And I think that is the kind of concern that we are discussing. Senator SPARKMAN. I agree with you completely. Senator MCINTYRE. In addition to that, earlier this year the Armed Services Committee directed Dr. Curry, who is the D.D.R. & E. No. 3 man in Defense to take a sharp look at any place in the whole field of research and development where demonstrations could be done in the military too, to see if we could make it a little easier to do it there where they do not have to buck up against the zoning laws or something else in the city or town in which you happen to be in. Well, I want to thank you very much for your testimony. It is very encouraging and we are pleased that you came here today and told us your story. The questions that we submit to you I hope you will answer as fully as you have answered these questions we have given you today. [The questions and answers referred to follow:] 6. SENATOR MCINTYRE'S QUESTIONS TO JERRY D. PLUNKETT, PH. D., WITH DR. PLUNKETT'S ANSWERS INTERSPERSED In response to your letter of May 16, I should like to provide additional information via responses to your specific questions. #1 Answer The statement attributed to Dr. H. Guyford Stever, Chairman of the National Science Foundation by Tom Zeman seems to me to very clearly reflect the point of view and the attitudes of NSF. Over the years NSF policy has been a purposeful attempt to separate research from economics. This, I think, has been a wise policy for science, but it is a disastrous policy for development. While excellence in science responds to the needs of intellectual inquiry and precise experiments with almost no regard to economics, technological development must be based upon economics. New products or services that are too expensive are of no more value than products that are scientifically unsound, at least to the people who want to buy them for their own use. My understanding of Dr. Stever's statement is that he simply does not understand that in the case of solar energy the real barrier to the immediate adoption of solar energy is in fact "the economic issues surrounding it." Thus this statement clearly shows that the major thrust of a useful solar heating/cooling program was not in fact directed to the heart of the problem. The NSF tradition lead the leadership and the program managers to see solar heating and cooling as a research problem that could be worked on in essential isolation to the immediate and longer term economics because society was expected to solve those problems in another way and at a later time. Over the years I met NSF people on many occasions, and at no time did I ever get them to agree that solar was a valid, short range response to the national energy problem. Always their attitude was to go slow, and 2150 SOUTH JOSEPHINE STREET, DENVER, COLORADO 80210 | 303-722-8258 Senator Thomas J. McIntyre that a twenty year program was the shortest time scale that could be considered. Anyone who disagreed with this position was looked upon as either suspect or unsound. With regard to the relationship between cost of solar heating systems and the date of adoption, the NSF program was designed to be self-fulfilling. Expensive collector concepts were funded, then used as examples as to why solar heating and cooling were so far away. In summary, NSF simply established the wrong criteria, an inappropriate mind set, and funded essentially useless projects in the field of solar heating and cooling. Never did anyone at NSF say cost is the problem with solar equipment, now how do we get low cost collectors and make them available within the next few years. However, I do want to support NSF in its traditional role as the main patron of basic science in the United States. NSF has a superb record of funding excellent scientific activities, and that record speaks for itself. I must say that NSF approached development with the same attitudes, values, and procedures that were used for the evaluation of research, and thus the problem arose to which I have directed my testimony. Perhaps it is the Congress itself that is at fault in asking NSF to undertake new tasks for which it was not really prepared to effectively pursue. #2 Answer The cost/benefit relationships are not always easy to evaluate, but what is needed early in the solar heating-cooling program is many different concepts, ideas and projects. I can not agree that all projects from all firms, large or small, should be funded. Clearly, some evaluation is needed to weed out the useless projects. My disagreement is not with evaluation versus no evaluation, but rather that the evaluation be done on the basis of the major problem, which is cost and economics. Clearly, what has been done to date in the field has not been to fund low cost or economical solar systems, but to fund experienced proposal writers, large firms with recognized consumer products, and big names at universities in the field of solar energy. The present program up to now has been wildly and obviously not cost effective. I would recommend funding in 1975 and 1976 all proposals that would appear to lead to low cost, long life solar heating-cooling systems. Further, I believe this evaluation should be done in part by panels of innovators, as well as industrial engineers and college professors. With respect to small business set asides, I think that the most cost effective thing in the long run would be to have a 100% set aside for small firms. Such a plan would perhaps cost a bit more to start with, but in so doing we could assure a long term, free market with real competition. The suggestion of counseling for innovators and small firms is an excellent suggestion and would be an essential part of any affirmative action program |