all too often whatever we touch. We take advantage of what we touch, and we destroy the long-range development of the globe on which we live.

I congratulate you and all of your colleagues, for drawing up this bill. You had the initiative and enterprise, imagination, and creativity to realize the only way we can get at the viscera, shall I say, of this problem is to get at our young people who will be the decisionmakers of the future. They will be not only voters, but decisionmakers and civic leaders, and will determine the nature of the envorinment as the years

go on.

I would hope that, as funds become available for research, there be funds available also for the training of people who are going to carry on programs-those who are going to teach others, to teach teachers to teach youngsters. Again using the medical analogy, I would hope also, that you would think of internships so that more and more people would be exposed right out in the field to the problems that are being confronted so that we can get a combination of practice along with theory, because taken alone neither is sufficient. I think that, if this bill is enacted its success will be a measure— a real base line-of what can be done in this country and in other countries.

We have limitations, but one of the ways our Nation can be helpful to others is to show how we clean ourselves up through control of ecological activities.

The most affluent societies are always the most destructive societies in terms of their environment. If we have the ways and means, the technology and the money, we exploit our resources at a much more rapid rate than other less developed countries around the world.

I come down to the final point I would like to make. We have reached the point where there is a concern over the pathology of the environmental situation, and a recognition of the absolute necessity of bringing about a system of communication that has never been developed in this country before.

I think every citizen, no matter what his background, his economic or social level, if given the opportunity, can use his role as a responsible citizen of America and of the world to work individually and collectively to reverse the direction of this threat.

I believe your bill, if it is enacted, would be an important factor in bringing about this change.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Thank you very much, Mr. Harrar. I think it is a most enlightening statement and I would like to ask that we follow the procedure with your statement in the hearings.

(The prepared statement of J. G. Harrar follows:)

STATEMENT OF J. G. HARRAR, PRESIDENT, ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION

My name is J. George Harrar and I am president of The Rockefeller Foundation. My professional education and experience have been principally in the area of science-in particular, in biology.

The legislation-bill H.R. 14753-being deliberated here today would in my opinion contribute significantly toward a better understanding of our ecological crisis and toward educating the public as to the importance of environmental responsibility..

Environmental damage has been going on for years, but it is only recently that its rate has become so accelerated and its effects so widespread as to create a general concern and growing awareness that we are face to face with an eco

logical crisis. More and more people now recognize the need for immediate measures to arrest the palpable threat to the quality of life and realize that there is no single-formula soution to the problem. Numerous individuals and groups in both public and private life are currently attempting, each in their own way and in their own specialized fields, to cope with, or at least to push back to some degree, the impending crisis. Municipal authorities, scientists, doctors, technicians, state and federal legislators, city planners, university faculties and students, philanthropists, and corporations are increasingly involved in finding ways to prevent the further impairment of our environment, to slow down its rate of deterioration, or to repair the damage done thus far.

I, and I am sure many others are particularly gratified by those sections of the proposed "Environmental Quality Education Act" that seek to establish and encourage education and information programs that will lead to a better understanding on the part of everyone-teachers, students, and other citizens-of man's place and responsibility within that totally interrelated scheme of things that we call nature. We have come to realize all too slowly that man despite his extraordinary technological triumphs is and always will be dependent upon his physical environment-the earth, air, and water that is his home.

At this critical juncture, when we are finally coming to realize the hazards and dangers of our situation, it would be well for man to question the validity of his attitudes towards nature and to consider seriously the desirability and wisdom of formulating a new ethic for dealing with his natural environment which would transcend most of the values we have traditionally held concerning our world.

The Bible tells us that God gave man dominion over all the earth and over every living creature on it. Man has misinterpreted this injunction as a license to exploit rather than a conferral of responsibility. In the last analysis, man does indeed have dominion over all the earth, but this puts him under grave obligations. Morally, no society has the right to over-utilize the world's resources for its own contemporary and selfish interests. Man must understand biological systems and conduct his affairs in such ways as to improve the quality of life rather than degrade it through wanton exploitation.

It is admirable and public-spirited to be deeply committed to the well-being of the present generation of human beings who here and now inhabit the earth, and hopefully this attitude will grow and continue. It is even more commendable for men living today to become increasingly concerned about the future of their children and their children's children in the face of a worsening environment. But the new ethic of ecological responsibility must extend far beyond even this highly humanitarian concern. It must embody the highest responsibility of allthe ultimate responsibility for the total natural environment, the biosphere, and life itself-not human life only, but all life, in its varied and diverse forms. The first principle of the new ethic would be that man must control his own fertility. Whether we are concerned primarily with the present population of the world, with future generations, with man's survival as a species, or with preserving the stability of the entire biosphere, it is absolutely imperative that the human birth rate be curtailed. Man's superior intelligence and his belief in the intrinsic worth of each human being do not entitle him to assume that the natural environment should be given over to the production and maintenance of his own kind. Instead, it would be incumbent upon him, as the only species capable of making moral decisions, to live up to his total responsibilites and move toward a goal of zero rate of population increase.

The new ethic would also reject the premise that technology alone can provide answers to all or most of our environmental problems. It is true that technology has been a major and constructive force in the development of our society, and is using its inventiveness today to provide new methods of cleaning up after itself, of controlling pollution at its source, and of re-using the residuals being produced by our present industrial system. But technology does have its limitations. Advanced technology has a tendency to create the need for even more technology and often merely substitutes one kind of pollution for another.

It is easy to blame technology for many of our environmental ills, but it must be remembered that technological advances are often in direct response to public demand. The entire society has the responsiblity of recognizing what we are doing to our environment and of making individual and collective efforts to reverse the negative effects of certain forms of technology. We are prone to overvalue the production of nonessential material goods which rapidly become obsolescent and are eventually consigned to the already tremendous body of

accumulated waste that is piling up around us. We must, of necessity, adopt self-imposed restraints by which the individual voluntarily refrains from contributing further to our ecological imbalance and is ever conscious of the need to conserve and not to destroy. Only when increasing numbers of individuals, groups, and communities recognize and accept their responsibilities and take organized action can improvement occur. Today, in this country, we have more than 200 million people, all contributing in some measure to the degradation of their environment. When these individuals can be persuaded to embrace the new ethic, to become "conservers" in the best sense of the word, a major victory will have been won.

The third principle of the ethic of responsibility for the environment is that we, in the more advanced nations at least, should put considerably less emphasis on that form of economic growth that simply multiplies production and consumption of material goods. We dwell in a finite world where many changes and processes are irreversible. Our resources are not limitless, and when those that are nonrenewable are consumed or transformed, they can never be replenished. Our present resources should be carefully husbanded and conserved. With stabilized populations, more attention and resources could and should be devoted to services and to those areas of life that enrich the quality of human existence: cultural activities, the arts, literature, intellectual and scientific pursuits, aesthetic improvements, and human relationships.

A final basic principle is that man should consider the equilibrium of the natural environment before initiating any actions that would disturb existing ecosystems. Modern technology, urban expansion, and rapid industrialization have drastically altered the ecological balance in many localities, extinguishing certain plant life and animal species. Complex genetic material, once destroyed, cannot be recreated in a laboratory. Not only will the natural environment be altered and impoverished; it will become a much less varied, interesting, and desirable place for man to live.

The proposed legislation, if enacted, could, in my opinion, be of great value in bringing Americans of all ages and all educational levels to a recognition of the urgancy of the problem and to an understanding of their responsibilities in maintaining and enhancing environmental quality.

Mr. BRADEMAS. I was particularly impressed by your recitation in the prepared statement of the several principles of what you call the ethic responsibility for the environment, and I take it it would be your hope that at least one of the principal values of the kind of bill we are considering would be to help teach young people in particular these principles of an ethic of responsibility for the environment.

Mr. HARRAR. I do indeed, sir. I think this would be perhaps the greatest single benefit that your bill, if it is enacted, can bring to our nation.

Mr. BRADEMAS. What can you tell us, Mr. Harrar, about what the Rockefeller Foundation is now doing and indeed other foundations, if you wish, in the field of environmental studies?

Mr. HARRAR. Well, we have now for a number of years been working in a wide variety of activities in this field.

Concerning the matter of DDT which was mentioned this morning: It was known when it was first introduced that DDT was a broad spectrum insecticide. And when you look back at what DDT has done in terms of control of typhus-particularly in war-ravaged areas and of pests and pathogens of our crops and animals, you realize that it has had an enormous beneficial effect.

In the early days, it was also economically advantageous, since it was cheap, easy to apply, and very effective. But we now realize much to our sorrow, its degree of persistence in the environment. This is one of the problems we face.

We have been working for some time to try to find analogs or other forms of pesticides because, if we should suddenly stop using

all forms of pesticide, we would immediately begin to have food shortages the same year.

We will have to find pesticides which will be more narrowly focused against single pests, which do not enter the soils and which are biodegradable.

We are also working on biological ways of controlling insect pests some of the tricky ones where you sterilize the males and turn them loose on the unsuspecting females in the population. In addition, we are working on the pheromones, which are the sex-attracting hormones.

Mr. REID. Did you say pheromone?

Mr. HARRAR. Pheromone, p-h-e-r-o-m-o-n-e. Those are the sex attractants. Used in very, very minute quantities they attract the opposite sex, sort of entice them to their destruction, without utilizing poisonous substances.

Mr. REID. Thank you.

Mr. HARRAR. We are also very much involved in the training of people in the field of environmental science.

We have supported work at many of our leading universities, the University of Michigan being one of the outstanding, and recently at Michigan State University as well. These and other universities will be after you very hard if your bill goes through, because this is the kind of money they need to develop programs in graduate training in the fields of ecological environment training. These are the kinds of facilities which I assume, with the financial resources to back up your bill, could be very well utilized in getting across an ecological understanding to the Nation.

Mr. BRADEMAS. I should state, Mr. Harrar, it is not the principal purpose of the bill to support studies at the undergraduate or graduate level in universities. But there are clearly roles for institutions of higher education in the bill in helping to develop teacher materials and conducting assessments of projects of teaching environmental studies.

But I think it is fair to say that the principal focus of the bill would be on supporting environmental studies at the elementary and secondary school level and in adult education and community conference type education.

I am sure you are aware of the report prepared by Dr. John Steinhart and a White House summer fellow, published a few months ago, aimed at the particular problem to which you just addressed your self, namely providing encouragement for graduate and undergradu ate studies in environmental education.

I think I read the other day-and this is my final question-that the Rockefeller Foundation had embarked on some new enterprise in environmental education or in the environmental field.

Am I mistaken in that?

Mr. HARRAR. I would say we should not use the word "new." It is a somewhat different orientation which has been introduced into a program we built up over the years.

For example, one of the most recent ones is working on a report of the studies of residuals and the recycling and reconstitution of the materials which must be taken care of, as Mr. DeLury said, in the years ahead.

This perhaps forms the new thrust you are speaking of.

I think I read into your bill support of research because I wanted to. I think we have to have some support of research to produce the information to do this.

Mr. SCHEUER. We wanted you to.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Thank you.

Mr. SCHEUER. I want to thank you very much for your testimony. It was very generous of you to come here on a Saturday.

I don't want to repeat the questions Congressman Brademas asked. I want to ask just one question.

You mentioned pollution in the Ruhr District and in Milan. Congressman Reid mentioned pollution in Israel. All of these have international implications. They cross boundaries.

The Israelis have done a lot about the air pollution of the oil refinery in Haifa, because, when the wind blows right, which occurs most of the time, it blows 3 miles away to the Lebanese, and air pollution becomes a Lebanese problem.

Water pollution, I don't have to tell you, crosses many international boundaries.

What do you think ought to be done in terms of education, maybe education of Congressmen and Cabinet Ministers, to get some kind of international pollution action in terms of controls and programs that will restrict international polluters, the large industrial polluters of both air and water that cross national boundaries?

Mr. HARRAR. I have written and spoken on this subject without any visible effect up to now, I think.

I have just participated in a meeting at which I stated, among other things, that I would hope the United Nations might consider it vitally important to have one of its components, such as the World Health Organization or a new agency, deal with this problem. Is there not a place in the U.N. for an entity devoted to world environmental problems, supported by all the nations, and with international leadership and personnel?

Secondly, I think we should have an international consortium, joined by all the nations that are concerned with environmental problems, which would find ways to increase control and correct abuses. Mr. SCHEUER. Thank you.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Congressman Reid?

Mr. REID. Thank you very much, Doctor, for your prepared statement which I read very carefully and for your eloquent discussion of these problems.

One of the things that intrigued me is, if you are talking about thermal pollution, you are dealing with the AEC, you have their interest in it because they sometimes promote reactors.

They tend in their analysis and approach to say, "Everything we are doing is all right," and more than that to downgrade the scientific credentials of someone else who may have a somewhat different view.

For example, they do not seem to me to take cognizance as much as they might of the genetic or indeed the environmental effects, whether you are talking about change in temperature of water by a few degrees or what may happen genetically through the use of tridium.

It is very clear to me there is a certain defensive tendency among those who have been responsible for certain of these programs, whether