Dr. LOGSDON. That is what I had hoped to do. We have a longer statement for the record. I will highlight only a few points, perhaps offering Dr. Skipper, who is with me, the executive secretary of our association, an opportunity to pick up on any point or points that I may miss.

Ours is an association of some 74 libraries. Sixty-one are universities, and I think of particular importance to this legislation, 47 of those universities operate, finance, and sustain major programs of medical research and medical education. As these are the larger and more comprehensive of the medical research and education centers of the country, our members represent a very substantial part of the total universe of activity in this field.

For that reason our members are in a particularly good position to bring to this committee and to the Congress firsthand evidence of the real need for substantially larger support of medical library activities. At the institution I know best, the Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center, you will find the firsthand evidence of the influence of figures that have been presented by other witnesses today. In my testimony I refer to an increase of roughly fiftyfold in Federal Government support of bio-medical research since 1947. Other figures have been given suggesting a twelvefold increase since 1951. During this period of enormously increased activity in research it has been extremely difficult to improve library resources and services to keep pace.

This has caused arreages of need to develop in every phase of activity to be supported by this bill; in physical facilities, personnel, and training. Not only do we have this shortage in numbers of medical librarians but there is also the fact that many individuals coming into the library profession have backgrounds in humanistic studies. To prepare them adequately for high-level services in medical libraries requires additional training which this bill will help provide.

Very importantly, it offers the opportunity for substantially increased research and development expenditures in medical library and information services. While this section of the bill relates specifically to medical libraries, it is certain that any research of this kind relating to one field will have benefits for other fields of library service.

The ultimate objective of this and related legislation is improved patient care. I am sure that through the idea of developing a network of medical libraries and medical information service we will find the larger institutions working more effectively with the smaller institutions bringing to them and to individual physicians the benefits of first-class, high-level information service.

It is a pleasure to endorse this legislation and to ask that Mr. Skipper be given an opportunity to supplement my statement.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well. We will be glad to hear from you, Mr. Skipper.

Mr. SKIPPER. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am James Skipper, executive secretary of the Association of Research Libraries. I would like to take a moment to suggest that in addition to helping medical libraries rectify the imbalance between support for medical research and library service, I believe that the bill under consideration has great significance for the entire library community, not just libraries concerned with medicine. The National Library of Medicine has established its preeminence as the pioneer in developing

new techniques to successfully exploit the increase in published medical information.

These innovations have great potential in being applied to the nonmedical sector in our research libraries. Thus it is my conviction that the support and encouragement given to medical libraries will be multiplied many times by the application of these new techniques and service concept to general information needs.

Thank you, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, gentlemen. We are very glad to have your statements.

Are there any questions?

Mr. MACDONALD. I want to compliment both of you on the restrained and educational statement. One question does come to my mind: How will this do what you say it will do, on page 3? I think one of the problems that the Federal Government is faced with is the increasing instances of needless duplication of research. It has always been a problem. NIH could not use the amount of money we gave it one year. It set a record in sending some money back.

Dr. LOGSDON. The thing we are faced with is the acceleration in the amount of research and publishing ahead of our being able to keep track of all the information that is reported. We do not always know what has already been done. It is precisely that kind of objective that these new levels and new concepts of information handling are designed to achieve. We will be more certain once we have a really thorough system of analysis of published literature, a proper subject heading systems, and improved machine handling of this subject. and bibliographical information. We will be more certain of what has already been done so that current research can really be on the frontier and nonduplicating.

There is a frequently quoted story in research circles that it is often cheaper to repeat the research than to search the literature. This may be true in some cases but all too often large sums may be wasted or important data overlooked.

Mr. MACDONALD. My question is this: Would it not be more economical, instead of having 6,000 or whatever was suggested as the figure for construction, to have just one center in which this research would be put together and have the center send it out to the various hospitals and schools and the other places where it is needed instead of having regional centers all over the country?

Dr. LOGSDON. I think the basic work of analyzing the literature, being sure of what is in it, should be done in one place, and that is precisely what is developing with the medlar's program and the medlar's related program. But in order to bring this information quickly to the individual user at these various centers throughout the country we must have a local staff, the equipment to handle requests, and of course books and journals containing it. You have to provide the article or articles for the user locally.

The basic intellectual work of indexing, cataloging, and so on. can be done more efficiently at a central point. That is the wonderful contribution through the years of such publications as "Index Medicus," and now through the medlar's program. Does that answer your question?

Mr. MACDONALD. In some measure, thank you.

Dr. LOGSDON. We must get this hard work centrally and we are moving very fast in that direction.

Mr. MACDONALD. You don't think it will be more economical to do it in place and have it distributed from that one place?

Dr. LOGSDON. Yes, I agree it is more economical to do some things centrally; but I think that is what we are working toward in present programs and in programs projected by this legislation. But doing these things centrally will not be a substitute for competent reference librarians at the local level. You need both.

Mr. MACDONALD. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there further questions?

Thank you very much, gentlemen. We are pleased to have your statement.

(Dr. Logsdon's statement follows:)

STATEMENT BY RICHARD H. LOGSDON, DIRECTOR OF LIBRARIES, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTING THE ASSOCIATION OF RESEARCH LIBRARIES

I am Richard H. Logsdon, director of libraries of Columbia University and former chairman of the Association of Research Libraries, the organization which I am representing today. Appearing with me is James E. Skipper, executive secretary of the association.

The Association of Research Libraries, established in 1932, comprises 74 institutional members, the larger academic, public, and special libraries which collect comperhensively in support of research. Sixty-one of the members are American university libraries, 47 of which operate medical schools and medical research centers. Our member institutions accordingly are carrying a substantial part of the total responsibility for nurturing biomedical research and medical education. They are similarly in a good position to assess present shortcomings of the whole information complex and in turn to assess also the opportunity offered to the Congress in this bill to strengthen medical library resources and services. This testimony is based not only on 17 years of direct experience in the administration and financing of library services to one of these medical research centers (the Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center including the College of Physicians and Surgeons) but also on knowledge of the pressures which are being felt by medical libraries generally.

The case for this bill can be stated briefly under four headings:

(1) Programs of education and research in medicine and the healthrelated fields will be effective only if supported by adequate library and information services.

(2) Medical library resources and services are not now adequate to the needs of the research community.

(3) The gap between present levels of support and adequacy is too large to be closed quickly if at all from nongovernmental sources.

(4) The program set forth in H.R. 3142 and H.R. 6001 is soundly conceived and would achieve a dramatic and balanced development of medical library resources.

One of the best guarantees that funds available for research will be spent effectively is through the provision of adequate library resources. Medical libraries form a vital link in the chain of communication of ideas and information in the health sciences. They serve as custodians of recorded knowledge; the recipients of a virtual torrent of publications reporting the results of current research; and as the principal means through which medical school teaching is kept up to date and research guided to new frontiers of discovery and understanding. Only through well-organized, comprehensive and readily available collections is it possible for the researcher to know what has been done in his field of specialization, the direction of current research and the areas needing further study. The findings of research must be reported and put to use if the original objectives of research grants are to be achieved.

The ultimate objective is, of course, better patient care and here, too, the library plays an important role by bridging the distance between the findings of research and the practicing physician.

That funds available for biomedical research have increased much faster than appropriations for medical libraries is, I believe, well established. Funds

from the Federal Government alone have risen from some $27 million in 1947 to an estimated $1.3 billion. This emphasis on the part of Government coupled with funds from nongovernmental sources has, in a real sense, created the library problem by generating the so-called explosion both in publication output and the number of users to be served. Similarly increasing specialization in research has brought demands for library and other information services of a much more sophisticated nature calling for subject analysis in depth and machine handling of bibliographical records. Taken together these influences call for a higher proportion of total funds for information services at a time when library support is almost certainly falling behind on a percentage basis.

The logic of Federal support for strengthening medical library services is, I believe, uncontestable. Not only is the gap so large as to preclude early correction from private sources but the Federal Government itself is likely to be the principal beneficiary. Improved information services will, as stressed earlier, increase the effectiveness of Federal funds for research and in addition, decrease the incidence of needless duplication of research. Time is, of course, important in that each year of delay risks the losses which can be generated by a poor communications network.

Those responsible for the drafting of this bill are to be commended for the care and appropriateness with which the several key aspects of a good medical library program are considered. I should now like to comment briefly on those separate provisions which deal particularly with medical library services.

CONSTRUCTION OF FACILITIES (SEC. 393)

It seems to be especially difficult to secure construction funds for library buildings. At Columbia, as is true of other privately supported institutions, the money must be sought from individual donors or foundations. A medical library area planned years ago for a relatively small collection and before the dramatic expansion in biomedical research is simply not meeting current needs for collections, staff activities, and services. While some funds are in hand for a new building, it may be several years before construction could begin from private funds alone. A matching grant, on the other hand, would make it possible to begin immediate construction. I am sure that this situation could be duplicated in dozens of other universities and medical libraries.

TRAINING IN THE MEDICAL LIBRARY SCIENCES (SEC. 394)

The shortage of library personnel generally and of persons qualified in specializations like medical librarianship has been a critical handicap in the maintenance of good library service. The investment in training provided for in section 394, including the program for information specialists, would be extremely helpful in recruiting the staff necessary for achieving high standards of service.

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT IN MEDICAL LIBRARY SCIENCE (SEC. 396)

It is gratifying to see the emphasis given in this bill to research and development. Libraries have been so hard pressed through the years to provide the essentials in acquisitions, organization of collections and reference services that there has been all too little attention given to research in the nature of the library operation itself. The program here proposed would go a long way toward correcting this lack of emphasis in the past and would contribute to the improvement and efficiency of library operations not only in medical libraries but libraries generally.

IMPROVING AND EXPANDING THE BASIC RESOURCES (SEC. 397)

This section offers the promise of the kind of direct strengthening of resources and services at the local level which could bring immediate benefits to research programs. It should help to correct the present imbalance between the levels of local support for research and for medical libraries.

REGIONAL MEDICAL LIBRARIES (SEC. 398)

There is growing evidence and conviction that the total information needs of the society will finally be met only through the creation of a network of libraries each providing a level and quality of service appropriate to the geographical

area and clientele served. The program here envisaged would establish just that kind of pattern of interrelation between a local service, a more comprehensive backstop collection for a larger area and, of course, the capstone of the National Library of Medicine. Achieving this kind of network for biomedical literature would be a big step toward the ultimate goal.

REGIONAL BRANCHES OF THE NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE (SEC. 378)

The proposal to amend the Public Health Service Act to enable the National Library of Medicine to establish regional branches similarly supports the idea of a network of medical library service mentioned above. The concept is consistent with emerging ideas of good library planning and deserves support.

CONCLUSION

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appreciate this opportunity to appear before you in support of such a vital legislative proposal.

I wish to reemphasize the importance of this bill in correcting the imbalance which has been created by extensive Federal assistance to medical research without corresponding support for medical information. This imbalance threatens to become even greater under the recently enacted medicare program.

The purpose of the bill under consideration is to assure that doctors and medical scientists are provided with the essential knowledge which they require in doing their work. Information is an essential ingredient in medical progress and H.R. 3142 and H.R. 6001 will provide the support required.

Dr. LOGSDON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Pearlman. Doctor, I believe you are here representing the American Dental Association and the American Association of Dental Schools.

STATEMENT OF DR. SHOLOM PEARLMAN, REPRESENTING THE AMERICAN DENTAL ASSOCIATION AND THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF DENTAL SCHOOLS

Dr. PEARLMAN. That is correct, sir. For the record, to qualify myself, I am the secretary of the Council on Dental Research of the American Dental Association. I am also a member of the National Research Council and of the Advisory Committee on Scientific Publications of the National Library of Medicine.

It is my privilege to appear before you on behalf of the American Dental Association and the American Association of Dental Schools, to testify in support of this bill H.R. 3142. In addition to my oral comments I should like to file for the record a prepared statement which indicates the position of both organizations.

The CHAIRMAN. It may be included in the record.
Dr. PEARLMAN. Thank you sir.

(The statement follows:)

STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN DENTAL ASSOCIATION

ASSOCIATION OF DENTAL SCHOOLS

INTRODUCTION

AND THE AMERICAN

The American Dental Association, which represents 105,000 dentists, and the American Association of Dental Schools, which represents the 50 dental schools in the United States, are pleased to have this opportunity to record their support for H.R. 3142, a bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for a program of grants to assist in meeting the need for adequate medical library services and facilities. In recording this support, the associations make a basic assumption that the intent of this legislation is to provide, within each of the programs authorized in the bill, assistance to all biomedical library and com