Page images
[ocr errors]


[ocr errors]

As I the thing that impressed me when I became involved with

the National Institutes of Health budgets was their size. I, like yourand self and every other group which first looks at these programs, thought

they were enormous until I began to examine individual components.

As you know, probably, I have spent the last 15 or 20 years deeply involved in research and development, primarily related to military and atomic energy matters. I have seen research and development budget breakdowns of this kind through the years for aircraft or radar or atomic weapons. I am used to seeing items of $200 or $300 or $400 million for very critical hardware; such as, a missile or an aircraft, and even a total of $10 or $20 or $30 million for a vital vacuum tube area is not at all unusual. So when you find a sum of money much smaller than that for research of a critical component in the human body, you get a different perspective than when you see the total summed up a single item.

I was so impressed with this fact, and with the wide range of things
that they do, that I thought it was worth calling this particular per-
spective on the National Institutes of Health budget to your attention.
While I don't want to try to defend the individual items, whether
they are appropriate or too big or too small, I thought this view of it
would be helpful to your group.

Mr. ROGERS of Florida. Yes.
Thank you, sir.

Without objection, it will be included in the record along with your

(The information referred to follows:)
National Cancer Institute, regular research projects and intramural research,

by category, fiscal year 1963
Regular research project category :

In thousanda
Cancer causation.

$9, 827
Tumor growth.-

7, 469 Host-tumor relationship

2, 436 Epidemiology-

990 Therapy--

15, 469 Basic research and all other including grants covering multiple fields. 11, 656 Program chemotherapy grants -

4, 362 Review and approval..

1, 423 Reserves


[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Harris, the chairman of the full committee, raised a question at the beginning of the hearings as to whether it would not be advisable to place dollar ceilings and time limits on the authorizations for the appropriations for NIH just as the Congress has placed these limitations on other programs administered by the Public Health Service.

Do you have any comments on the effects which such limitations apple have and can you suggest any realistic ceilings in this respect?

Mr. Staats. This thought has been suggested by various people.

We feel that the time and dollar limitations which have been placed on the construction programs of the Public Health Service have been deals very useful. It has served the purpose of causing a review and reappraisal of those programs periodically.

We have been less certain about the value of such a limitation in connection with the basic research programs of NIH; that is the mould grants made by NIH.

We do think that there would be merit in a periodic appraisal through hearings and through the development of reports

ent of reports from the 1947 agency to be sure that in this important area that periodically, say every 3 years or whatever the time period might be feasible

, that there would be a careful reappraisal of the legislation which underlies the program as well as the direction of the program itself.

This kind of reappraisal, we think, could be very useful.

Mr. SUTTON. I think that is the general position that the Bureau Nige has taken in many reports on legislative proposals

. We suggest, often, dollar limitations on construction programs but we think that in the operating area or in the research area, the intangibles with shad respect to the universities, for example, are so great that there needs to be greater flexibility than the legislative process can always permit

. Evaluation and review, particularly of new programs that have recently been authorized, though, is exceedingly valuable and I think we would particularly endorse the review on the 3- to 5-year basis of the newer programs. The committee should assure that the programs are carrying out the objectives that were originally intended.

Mr. Roberts. I have been wondering, particularly in programs that are authorized by this subcommittee, if at the beginning of each new Congress it would not be well to let the departments know perhaps a month or so ahead that we would like to have a kind of a review, not detailed but at least get a good look at what has transpired in a 2-year period prior to the beginning of a new session.

I think that could very well be done without too much trouble and without too much expense.

I think it would give us a lot of information, too, that we need in looking at administration bills and at various proposals that come before our subcommittee.

Finally, I have a question which relates to another subject in which the parent committee is interested, and that is the ratings of radio and TV programs.

Since your Bureau is heavily involved in statistics, do you use any sampling techniques for securing your data?

Mr. Staats. We do not directly collect data, as you know, Mr. Chairman. It would be an unusual case where the Bureau of the Budget would directly go to the public for data itself. This would


be obtained through the appropriate program agency. Sampling is a well established procedure. It is used in our census. It is used in many other governmental programs.

The Bureau of the Budget has had for many years an individual who has been expert in the field of sampling working with the agencies in terms of how best to devise procedures, the appropriate kind of sample, and so on. Properly used, sampling can be equally as accurate and can be much more economical than a complete survey. Mr. ROBERTS. Who is this individual? Mr. STAATS. He would be in our Office of Statistical Standards, which deals with one of the four functions I mentioned earlier.

Now, in the field of public opinion polls, this has been a highly controversial area, as you know. This is one which I do not know that we have ever taken a position on, as such, but I believe that our view would be that again, if properly developed, a sampling procedure in this area is perfectly appropriate. Mr. ROBERTS. Who is the individual whom you have in mind?

Mr. STAATS, Mr. Raymond T. Bowman is the head of our Office of Statistical Standards. Mr. Raymond Nassimbene is the individual. I would be glad to have him discuss this matter informally with any of vour staff. Mr. ROBERTS. I will have the staff get in touch with him. Thank you again, gentlemen, for a very wonderful presentation. I just regret that we did not have more members of the subcommittee present to appreciate it, but I think it has been very beneficial certainly to us and will add considerably to the record of the hearings we have had. Mr. STAATS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. ROBERTs. Thank you, all you gentlemen, for participating. The subcommittee will be in recess subject to the call of the Chair. (Whereupon, at 12 noon, the subcommittee recessed, subject to the call of the Chair.)


MONDAY, JUNE 10, 1963


Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 1334, Longworth Building, Hon. Paul G. Rogers of Florida presiding:

Mr. ROGERS of Florida. The Subcommittee on Public Health and Safety will come to order, please.

We are very pleased to have as our witness today Dr. Jerome Wiesner, Director of the Office of Science and Technology and special assistant to the President.

Dr. Wiesner, we are delighted to have you and are very anxious to hear your testimony.



Dr. WVIESNER. Thank you very much. There is little disagreement on the high priority which we, as a nation, accord to the goal of a healthy citizenry. There have been, and will continue to be, differences of opinion on how that goal can best be achieved.

I am very pleased to accept the committee's invitation to discuss with you the role which the Office of Science and Technology can play in aiding and coordinating the Government's participation in health research and training.

I would like to tell you a little bit about the Office since it is quite The Office of Science and Technology was established June 8, 1962, by Reorganization plan No. 2 of 1962. Its primary purpose is to proride the President with permanent staff resources capable of advising and assisting him on matters of national policy affected by or pertaining to science and technology.

More particularly, the Director of the Office of Science and Technology advises and assists the President as the President may request with respect to

1. Major policies, plans, and programs of science and technology of the various agencies of the Federal Government, giving appropriate emphasis to the relationship of science and technology to national security and foreign policy, and measures for further. ing science and technology in the Nation.

« PreviousContinue »