this is a pretty carefully guarded secret in many countries. I was in the Chemical Corps in World War II, and we had a great medical division, which was headed by Dr. C. P. Rhodes, whom you know very well, and I suppose everyone here does, head of the Sloan-Kettering Institute. Would you wish to advance any point of view as to whether you would expect that such an international effort as this would not exclude that subject, or whether it should exclude it, or anything that represents the concept of the profession on a problem which in that way is related to international security?

Ďr. BRONK. It is, I think, fairly obvious that almost any development can be utilized for good or evil, depending upon what peoples objectives are. If, for instance, we learn more about the beneficial effects of chemical agents on man, we also thus learn more about how they could be used to the disadvantage of man. We build highways and thus enable people to go faster, and kill their fellows more rapidly. But on the other hand, highways also make it possible for people to get from one point to another for good, desirable ends and humanitarian purposes.

Airplanes can be employed for the destruction of property and peoples, but they also make it possible for people to travel rapidly on useful missions. I could go on endlessly and say that anything which is good can usually be used for an evil purpose if the objective of people is evil.

I have often used the phrase: "Science provides the building stones for a better world"; but the world will be as we choose to make it. And so I would merely say that anything we know about man will make it possible for us to create a better life and enable him to build a more satisfying existence.

Senator JAVITS. You see no problem there with security problems, then? We developed in World War II various types of salves and other things that deal with the possible use of gas. This had specific military application to a specific military invention. But you see no complications in respect to international cooperative research with respect to these considerations, based on your practical experience? Dr. BRONK. I know of no difficulties which cannot be handled under usual military precautions.

Senator JAVITS. Doctor, may I hasten to say that I thoroughly agree. I think the record ought to show our colloquy, because this may be a question that is raised.

I thoroughly agree with you that even if it can have a military application, the work of humanitarianism which is involved should not be impeded, or, indeed, there should be no implications in connection with carrying it on. I agree with that thoroughly.

I had just one other question. I understand the Russians have been far more cooperative since 1957 than they were before with the World Health Organization. And again I would like to ask you much the same thing I asked Dr. White. Do you think from your own experience that the auguries are auspicious, that there really may be an extensive and uninhibited cooperation in medical research between ourselves and various teams from behind the Iron Curtain?

Dr. BRONK. Senator Javits, I think I shall be able to answer that question better about a year from now. During October I went to Moscow to negotiate that part of the Lacy-Zarubin cultural exchange

program, which related to the cooperation between the National Academy of Sciences of the United States and the Russian Academy of Sciences. That program is still under discussion with special reference to the various areas of science in which we will send people to Russia and they will send people to this country. After this has been in action for a year, I will know better as to whether or not I have any optimistic hopes that we shall have a natural and cordial exchange

or not.

I am told by those who are more intimately familiar with the effect of East-West exchanges upon our political life that such an exchange is desirable. If it is desirable, I have hopes that we may be able to work it out in a natural way, or at least more natural than it has been in the past.

Senator JAVITS. When you say "those," you just identified people who thought that exchange was valuable in the medical field. I do not want to pry into anything you do not want to tell us about, but is there in that area any useful witness that we might call on this bill?

Dr. BRONK. Dr. White, who was there and saw something of what they are doing, and Dr. Rusk, who was there with him, are as adequately competent to speak on this as anyone. I could add, very briefly, for I was only there for 6 days, that it seems to me that the medical profession is very much more advanced than it was when I was last there, in 1945, for General Arnold. I thought the confidence of their physicians was higher and their facilities for medical care were greater. In my special field, which is the physiology of the nervous system, they have long been quite distinguished in their work, in no small degree because of the great influence of Pavlov, who was their greatest physiologist and was a worker in this area.

Senator JAVITS. Doctor, I am sure you will know my reason for my question is that at page 11 of this bill, in lines 13 through 17, we allow the calling from abroad of talented research people to work right here in our National Institutes of Health. And I am in thorough agreement with that; but again I think we ought to have a factual basis for it.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Senator CLARK. Dr. Bronk, as you know, this bill authorizes an appropriation of $50 million annually and directs that it should be apportioned by Congress through the Office of the Secretary, the Public Health Service, the Office of Vocational Rehabilitation, and other agencies than HEW. Could you give us any guidance as to how $50 million could be suitably spent in the next fiscal year?

Dr. BRONK. Senator Clark, I would have no way of knowing whether it should be $10 million or $70 million or $1 million. I have been concerned only with the general objectives. The finances are, as you know better than I, budgetary matters, which involve allocation for this or that. If we spend it for one thing, we do not spend it for another. Whether it should go here or somewhere else, I am not competent to say.

Senator CLARK. The thing that concerns me is that we will have some witnesses from HEW down here next week, and I do not want to anticipate what they will tell us, but we may very well be confronted with the story that you could not possibly spend this amount

of money usefully in fiscal 1960. They may oppose the program entirely. On the other hand, they may say, "Well, all we can spend usefully is $10, $15, or $25 million." And those who are promoting this legislation, from the private field, I would think have a mild responsibility to give the committee at least some evidence as to how much money could be usefully spent, rather than to leave it entirely to the witnesses from HEW.

Dr. BRONK. Well, I would agree, provide the witnesses from outside were thoroughly familiar with the implications of budgetary allocations and what the needs are in alternative fields.

Senator CLARK. But you do not even have an empirical view as to how $50 million could be spent in the next fiscal year?

Dr. BRONK. I am afraid I cannot honestly say that I do.
The CHAIRMAN. Senator Williams?

Senator WILLIAMS. I wonder if any of the private research institutes have budgets that are made public. For instance, your own, Doctor. Is your budget a matter of public knowledge, or is it a private fact?

Dr. BRONK. The Rockefeller Institute is now a graduate university. It is under the regents of the State of New York. All of our records are open for anybody to see and read.

The CHAIRMAN. Doctor, of course, on this matter of authorization, we realize that in all these programs you have two steps. First you have to get your authorization, and then the Congress has to make the appropriation. And when you come for your appropriation, of course, you get into the detailed question as to how much money should be appropriated for this part of the program and how much for some other part, and the overall picture. Is that not correct, sir?

Dr. BRONK. That is true.

The CHAIRMAN. Doctor, I said a little while ago that you had brought us another very fine statement. And I want to thank you on behalf of the committee for your presence here this morning and tell you how helpful you have been to us.

We are deeply grateful to you, Doctor, most grateful.

Dr. BRONK. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Our next witness will be Dr. Howard A. Rusk.
Will you come around, please, Doctor?

Dr. Rusk is former president of the International Society for the Welfare of Cripples. For many years he has been chairman of the Department of Rehabilitation and Physical Medicine at New York University's College of Medicine. He is also head of the New York University-Bellevue Rehabilitation Center.

I am sure there is not a finer rehabilitation center to be found anywhere in the world than your center in New York, Doctor. As you know, I have had the pleasure of visiting it and seeing the wonderful work that you are doing.

Dr. Rusk is also the associate editor of the New York Times, and he has rendered yeoman service to the Office of Defense Mobilization. We are very happy to have you here, Doctor, and would be happy to have you proceed in your own way, sir.

STATEMENT OF DR. HOWARD A. RUSK, PROFESSOR AND CHAIRMAN, DEPARTMENT OF PHYSICAL MEDICINE AND REHABILITATION, NEW YORK UNIVERSITY-BELLEVUE MEDICAL CENTER, AND ASSOCIATE EDITOR, NEW YORK TIMES

Dr. RUSK. Thank you, Senator. It is a privilege to be here.

I have a formal statement which I will file, but I would like to speak very briefly about some of the specifics.

The CHAIRMAN. We will have your statement appear in full in the record, then, Doctor, and you may proceed in anyway that you see fit. Dr. RUSK. Thank you.

Like Dr. White, I have had the privilege of traveling in the interest of the rehabilitation of handicapped people in almost every country in the world, and I have never been any place, regardless of race, creed, color, or politics, when you talk about the problems of the sick and the disabled in this world, that is so technologically precocious and so spiritually adolescent, that you could not speak a common language. I feel that this bill gives us two great opportunities-first, to uncover something that may help us to live longer, happier, more productive, and healthier lives. And second, I know of no other way that we can let the world know how we feel about sharing these things and about the dignity of the individual in our democratic way of life, than this, as the interest phase of the program.

I look on the first as the principal and the second as the interest, and sometimes I think the interest may be more important than the principal.

Medicine has never been anything but international. You can go back in history, and it is the most beautiful evidence of internationalism that exists in the world.

Microbiology came from Holland. Immunology with vaccination came from Great Britain. Bacteriology came from Pasteur in France. Sulfonamides came from Germany-but they waited 16 years, because an assistant missed one compound, and it was found 16 years later in a laboratory in another country. Penicillin came from Great Britain. Insulin came from Canada. Cortisone came from the United States. Anesthesia came from the United States. Rauwolfia lay dormant 400 years in India until some raw material came to a laboratory in Boston, to be tried with a series of other drugs on patients with high blood pressure. At the end of the fifth week, they were ready to abandon the drug, because nothing had happened, not realizing that it took six. They went on to the sixth week. And they gave us the greatest tool we have in our hands today for the management of high blood pressure and certain types of mental disease.

Every place in the world people are struggling in their fight against disease.

Dr. White told you about the monkey colony that we saw when we were in the Soviet Union in 1956. This has existed since 1929 and is the finest natural history of disease of monkeys that exists in the world today.

It is very important, because this is the No. 1 experimental animal. And here in this colony they have developed for the first time fixed hypertension and arteriosclerosis and coronary heart disease in monkeys without dietary change, by simply increasing the life tensions of these animals.

When we were there we heard the statement, not once but a hundred times, "We in the Soviet Union believe that in the fields of health, science, and music, the world has a common language. We welcome you here. We will show you anything that you want to see." And as far as we know, we saw everything that we knew how to ask to see. And I am sure that the scientists in Russia believed exactly what they said. I am sure, also, that the politicians in the Soviet Union realize that there is no better vehicle to carry ideology or knowledge of a way of life than young physicians who are going to underprivileged countries to give help to the people, help that they can translate and understand.

As you know, they are graduating 14,000 young doctors a year to our 7,000, and 13,000, in addition, who are trained like the welltrained corpsmen that operated in the Navy, who go to the far parts of their country to practice.

In my opinion, the practice of medicine in the Soviet Union is 5 to 10 years behind ours; but it is so much better than anything they have ever had that to them it is the millennium.

In the scientific laboratories-and I know that this was real-I went to the neurosurgical center unannounced one morning and saw five brain tumors being removed in five consecutive operating rooms with excellent techniques. In experimental surgery and heart surgery, they are very far advanced.

But Dr. White and I had an unusual privilege, in December of 1957, to have four Russian physicians visit us, the first that were allowed here or who came here without going on a guided tour. They spent a month, two of them in my own institution, living with our other fellows, working with our patients, avidly eager to learn. And when they left, I said to the senior physician, "What impressed you most about the United States?"

He said, "Two things. First, the warm friendliness with which you greeted us. We expected to see the scientific institutions and development. But your friendship, No. 1. And second, your family life." He said, "Your housing is wonderful, and the cars are wonderful, but there is one thing that we really envy you. We were invited into scores of homes and saw the way you lived. And the children were part of the family. We can't live that way in our country. In 90 percent of the instances the husband and wife work, and the children aren't a part of the family. But that is the one thing that we envy you more than anything else."

In the Soviet Union they have been propagandized so long that people do not believe what they read from abroad. A friend of mine recently came back, and I advised him when he went in to take all of the American magazines that he could under his arm. And he did. And he gave his interpreter, a bright young woman, a late copy of Life. She read it avidly from cover to cover. And he said, "What do you think of it?"

She said, "I think it is a wonderful magazine, but I don't believe "ord of it."