Page images
PDF
EPUB

SCIENCE AND EDUCATION FOR NATIONAL DEFENSE

MONDAY, MARCH 10, 1958

UNITED STATES SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE,

Washington, D. C.

The committee met at 10: 10 a. m., pursuant to recess, in the Old Supreme Court Chamber of the Capitol, Senator Lister Hill (chairman) presiding.

Present: Senators Hill (presiding), Yarborough, and Allott.

Committee staff members present: Stewart E. McClure, chief clerk; Roy E. James, assistant chief clerk; and John S. Forsythe, generaĺ

counsel.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will kindly come to order.

We are very happy to have with us this morning a representative of the Scientific Manpower Commission, Dr. Howard A. Meyerhoff.

Will you come around, sir. Doctor, we welcome you here. We appreciate your being here and we would be delighted to now have you proceed in your own way, sir.

Mr. MEYERHOFF. If I may, Mr. Chairman, I shall read from my statement but will be prepared to answer any questions that this committee wishes to place before me.

STATEMENT OF DR. HOWARD A. MEYERHOFF, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SCIENTIFIC MANPOWER COMMISSION

Mr. MEYERHOFF. My name is Howard A. Meyerhoff. I am a geologist and still practice my profession, but for the past 5 years I have also served as executive director of the Scientific Manpower Commission.

This statement is being made on behalf of the commission, which is a private organization, founded in 1953 by the major scientific groups of the Nation. These groups embrace virtually all agricultural scientists, astronomers, biologists, chemists, earth scientists, mathematicians, physicists, and psychologists practicing in the clinical and experimental fields.

Each of the 10 sponsoring scientific organizations nominates 2 of its members to represent it, thus giving the Scientific Manpower Commission a total membership of 20. The roster of members is appended to this statement.

In behalf of my fellow commissioners, may I express our appreciation of the opportunity that has been given us to appear before this committee and to present our views on the critical educational and scientific problems that confront our Nation at this time.

As a group, we were neither alarmed nor distressed by the launching of Sputniks I and II, for these events did not subtract from—or add to the brilliant record of American scientific and technological achievement. They have, however focused public attention upon the urgent need for a continuing supply of brainpower and upon the dire necessity of using effectively and efficiently the excellent brainpower we already have.

PROPER UTILIZATION OF AVAILABLE PERSONNEL

Although the primary purpose of these hearings is to center attention upon ways and means of identifying and training future leaders in critical professional fields, it is pertinent to offer a few observations on the proper utilization of the highly trained personnel already available to us.

Several events have conspired to bring the current supply of scientists and engineers more nearly into balance with the demand than at any time since June 1, 1950. There has been a pause in the steady rise in our economy.

Last year a public demand for economy prompted cutbacks in defense spending for research and development. At the same time, the number of engineering graduates increased nearly 5,000 between 1956 and 1957, and almost 9,000 from the postwar low in 1954. Comparable increases took place in the number of bachelors graduated in the physical sciences, although it should be noted with some concern that there has been virtually no change in the number of doctor of philosophy degrees awarded either in engineering or in science. It is at this highest level of training that we find most of our leadership.

CHANGES AFFECTING MANPOWER AVAILABILITY

Last year, also, drastic changes in military requirements for manpower added substantially to the numbers of scientists and engineers available for professional work. There were fewer draft calls, and a considerable number of men fulfilled their military obligation by means of the critical skills reserve program, which required only 6 months of service in uniform. Thanks to all these factors, there were approximately as many professional people in the employment market in 1957 as there were in the first 6 months of 1950-roughly 50,000.

Every competent man among them was employed, and in several fields there are still shortages, specifically in mathematics, physics, metallurgy, ceramics, electronics, and electrical engineering and chemical engineering.

In the other professional fields there is an approximate balance. between supply and demand, and in 1 or 2 of them there is the threat of a temporary oversupply when degrees are awarded in May and June of this year.

SUPPLY OF SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING PH. D.'S

There is, however, no prospect of an oversupply of doctors of philosophy in science and in engineering, and it is to be hoped that, with a soft employment market, a larger than normal percentage of bachelors will be encouraged to continue with graduate study.

The near balance between supply and demand that exists on March 10, 1958, is at best precarious. It can be upset, almost overnight, by an upswing in the economy, by increased Government expenditures for research and development, by international tension that will increase the number of draft calls, or even by such a simple thing as the termination of the critical skills reserve program by the Department of Defense. Advantage should be taken of the present lull-the first in nearly 8 years to formulate a manpower policy for the national welfare and security.

OUTFLANKING MILITARY POWER

The vital role that science and technology play in weaponry is well known. No less critical is the part they are now playing in the international offensive to win men's minds. Unless the United States takes appropriate and immediate steps to regain leadership in this new offensive, our military power will soon find itself outflanked and neutralized.

Should we not, then, consider at this time the wisdom of training scientists and engineers specifically for service to the Nation in their fields of competence and to accept this service in lieu of 2 years-or even as little as 3 to 6 months-in uniform, especially if the military departments are either unable or unwilling to use these highly trained men professionally? Skills acquired in science and technology must be actively and continuously used or they become atrophied.

MILITARY WASTE OF SCIENTISTS IN UNIFORM

At this moment there are at least 15,000 scientists and engineers in uniform whose specialized training is not being used to advance either the national welfare or military technology.

Senator ALLOTT. Could I interrupt you there?

Mr. MEYERHOFF. Yes, sir.

Senator ALLOTT. This is a pretty challenging statement. I would like to inquire, first, if this figure is the result of your inquiry.

Mr. MEYERHOFF. Yes, sir; with the Engineering Manpower Commission, our companion organization in the engineering field, we keep very careful track of the number of ROTC students and a fairer track, but not so nearly accurate, of the members who are drafted and who go in as privates and either serve or do not serve in special skills in the scientific and professional personnel program.

Senator ALLOTT. This is your own survey?

Mr. MEYERHOFF. Yes, sir.

DEFINITION OF "ENGINEER" OR "SCIENTIST"

Senator ALLOTT. Second, I have been accused of being technical, but I want to ask you this question. You say there are 15,000 scientists and engineers. I would assume that a man who graduates with a bachelor of science degree in chemistry, mechanical engineering, simple engineering, electrical engineering, would be considered an engineer. Would you consider a man who graduated as a physicist or chemist with a bachelor of science degree, a scientist? In other words, we have had all of these statements about how many scientists

we do or do not have, but I have not yet been able to get anybody to tell me exactly what they are talking about when they say a "scientist" or "engineer." Do you feel that you can do that?

Mr. MEYERHOFF. I feel that I can.

Senator ALLOTT. Within your concept of the meaning?

Mr. MEYERHOFF. Yes, sir. If you will accept a qualified statement, I know I can. In our professions, we consider only the person who has a graduate degree to be a true professional.

Senator ALLOTT. That would be a master's.

A PROFESSIONAL: MASTER'S DEGREE OR BETTER

Mr. MEYERHOFF. A master's degree or better, unless he has acquired the equivalent through experience.

So that, in general, a person who graduates with a bachelor's degree in geology or chemistry or physics is merely a good potential scientific aide until he acquires experience. Mr. Emery will speak on that point if he wishes.

Senator ALLOTT. I appreciate that very much. We have been trying to get at this, and this is the first real answer we have got in our attempt to categorize what people like yourself really consider are scientists or are mathematicians.

Mr. MEYERHOFF. As you can see, the engineering course is quite different. There the man starts in the freshman year to acquire training in engineering, whereas in the usual liberal arts college, he does not have to choose his major until the end of the sophomore year. He has to have some preliminary courses for it. As a result, he has only 2 years of a high degree of concentration in the field.

Senator ALLOTT. Thank you, Doctor. Pardon me for interrupting. Mr. MEYERHOFF. Anytime. That is what I am here for.

MEANING OF SELECTIVE SERVICE

The CHAIRMAN. I am interested in your statement that 15,000 scientists are now in uniform whose specialized training is not being used to advance either the national welfare or military technology.

I think the thought embodied in your statement falls entirely within the spirit and intent of the Selective Service Act. You will recall that when selective service was first proposed during the time of World War I, there was bitter opposition to it. Woodrow Wilson who strongly advocated it said that what selective service meant was really this: that each and every citizen stepped up to the line and said to our Government, "Here I am, take me and use me as I will best serve the country." Then the Government selected the different ones that it felt should serve the country.

That was the old horse-drawn, mule-drawn warfare, as we know, and science and technology did not play the part that they do today in the matter of defense. But certainly the intent and spirit of that selective service is that these men should be used where they render the greatest service to the country. That might not necessarily be in uniform. These men being trained as scientists and engineers, as you suggest here, will render a greater and much more needed service in their particular field, in their profession, than as just soldiers in uniform.

PROBLEM GREATEST IN ROTC

Mr. MEYERHOFF. The problem is greatest in the Reserve Officers' Training Corps, sir, and there we find that a great many engineers and scientists have entered the ROTC because they needed the money to get through college. The result is, they incur an obligation which, in my judgment, they should and must fulfill. Only twice in my capacity as director of the commission have I ever asked to have a man excused from that service because his engineering skill or his scientific skill was such that he was urgently needed elsewhere. Those men have been allowed, through the good will of the Army, to continue to defer their service until they have acquired doctor of philosophy degrees. I must say I think that was a mistake. The Army was too good to them, and of course, they became too important in their profession to let their training lapse while they served 2 years and continued with the Reserve officers service for another several years.

It is there, chiefly, where most of these 15,000 men are. There are perhaps three or four thousand of them as draftees, not assigned to the scientific and professional personnel program.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Doctor.

LOSS OF FACILITY DURING MILITARY SERVICE

Mr. MEYERHOFF. The question of military service and professional utilization of highly skilled personnel urgently needed in the scientific and technological progress of the Nation is by no means alien to the objectives of this committee. Are we to expend large sums from the National Treasury to train young men, and then deprive the Nation of their services for 2 years or even as little as 3 to 6 months-while they lose the facility they acquired in the classroom? Our commission is unanimous in the belief that young people, so trained, owe a service to their country, but it is our conviction that this service can be as effectively rendered in the fields of science and engineering as it can be in the military.

In an international technological offensive the full utilization of technological manpower is not less important than the maintenance of a well-trained, fully manned Army, Navy, and Air Force. Indeed, it is in the fields of science and technology that we are in a hot war. Militarily, we are merely in a cold war.

Senator ALLOTT. May I interrupt you again there, Doctor?
Mr. MEYERHOFF. Yes, sir.

Senator ALLOTT. Are you really saying there that you are pleading for draftee deferments?

USE IN SCIENCE IN LIEU OF MILITARY SERVICE

Mr. MEYERHOFF. No, sir. What I am saying is that I think that we can use these men in science and technology if we pay for their schooling by assigning them to important national projects in the field of science and technology. We might accept that in lieu of military service, so long as they do serve the Nation. That, I believe, is the obligation of every one of us.

Senator ALLOTT. I am inclined to agree with you. We get into this ideological tug of war, the duty to serve your Nation and the

22201-58-64

« PreviousContinue »