In the course of scientific research, whether basic or geared towards solving a particular problem, it is not unusual that an investigator explores the fringes of his own specialty and even researches in a field not immediately pertinent be of direct value to other researchers.

(b) There should be similar exchange of personnel, ideas and technology among the several levels of Government and private concerns.

The Federal Laboratory Consortium currently provides for such exchanges. The list of examples of how the Consortium has assisted State and local governments is impressive; including such notable ones as protective body armour for our civilian police forces and decompression chambers that have already saved the lives of many diving accident victims.

To simply transfer a piece of equipment or a technical report, however, is often insufficient and leads to frustration and dissatisfaction of local officials who must cope with an unfamiliar topic. Technology transfer works best when the scientists are actively reaching out into the community, identifying those areas where technology can play a role, and consulting with administrators to gain a firmer grasp of the nontechnical aspects of the problems.

(c) There should be a concerted effort on the part of Congress to remove institutional barriers to the types of exchanges which I have mentioned.

It is likely that the Congress and the administration would have to relax constraints on agency budgets and operations and provide for and encourage pass through funding and subcontracting. Scientists and engineers could then more freely move to where their expertise can be best used. Perhaps these practices would be more easily performed (and the problems of joint research mentioned earlier reduced) if our laboratories and research centers were considered not as agency but as national facilities. They would be temporarily assigned to solve specific tasks. This concept of national labs needs to be considered as a possible solution to our crosscutting problems.

There are other problems in using Federal laboratories for non-Federal purposes that deserve the attention of Congress and the administration before our laboratory structure can be more broadly used. These potential problems include the relationship of regulatory agencies to the entities they regulate; military secrecy; public-private competition and others.

INNOVATION

My third question is: What should be the role of NBS in encouraging innovation in American industry?

This question should be addressed as part of an approach to the broader question of how the Federal government can encourage innovation in American industry.

I understand, Senator Stevenson, that you have been interested in the broader question. I agree with you that this issue is emerging as one of the most important matters with which the nation will have to deal in the near future. My own reasons for coming to this conclusion include several factors. First, the percentage of U.S. patents issued yearly to foreign inventors has been increasing steadily while the U.S. percentage has been decreasing. Second, in other countries governments are beginning to cooperate with industry in fostering innovation; Germany has a national program in automated parts manufacture, for example, and Japan is investing in large-scale integrated circuits. It is not clear that U.S. industry can compete wtih entire governments without the assistance of its own government. Third, the United States balance of trade is heavily dependent on exports of high-technology equipment. Fourth, in certain industries-steel, for example-foreign countries clearly lead the United States in innovation. The long-range fate of these industries may depend upon policies which rekindle innovative spirit. Fifth, there are indications that U.S. industrial research is turning toward immediate needs for minor products changes and toward environmental and health research for mitigating harmful effects of industry. Such research is essential but generally does not lead to the invention of new or improved products. Sixth, although the rate of innovation per unit of investment is highest in small R&D firms, the United States effort to encourage such firms is weak. Public financing of new small technical companies declined from about $350 million in 1969 to almost nothing in 1975.

A number of threads of Federal activity exist. The patent system is an effective spur to innovation. The Small Business Administration could be contributing, but seems not to be. The National Science Foundation has an Office of

Small Business Research and Development, a small business set-aside in the Applied Research directorate, and a special small business innovation program. At the National Bureau of Standards there are the Office of Energy Related Inventions, the Experimental Technology Incentives Program, and, just beginning, the National Centers for Cooperative Technology. The actual effectiveness of all these programs combined in encouraging innovation may well be dwarfed by the effectiveness of tax policy. I have not tried to evaluate these programs, but whatever their individual effectiveness, there is obviously great fragmentation of effort and lack of coordination.

The Bureau's role in the overall national effort needs to be more clearly analyzed and defined. I hope our committees will be able to contribute to the analysis and definition. Your committee has the advantage of jurisdiction over both commerce and science which we do not enjoy.

RESOURCES

My fourth question is: Are the resources assigned to NBS proper for the execution of the Bureau's mission?

During the NBS oversight hearings held by the House Subcommittee on Science, Research and Technology last October we focused on this question and discussed it at length. A strong case was made that NBS funding had been inadequate to carry out fully all the Bureau's missions, especially those assigned by recent legislation. In the President's budget for fiscal year 1979 the request for NBS was significantly higher than the 1978 appropriation, as I am sure you are aware. Increases are slated both for NBS for responses to legislation and for supporting basic competence at the Bureau. I am heartened by these increases, but I would suggest that our committees continue to monitor NBS funding.

Just as the definition of the Bureau's missions must be viewed in relation to the missions of other Federal laboratories, so must the funding of those missions be considered in relation to the funding of other agencies. This is true both in the small-for example in fire research and environmental monitoring—and in large meaning that NBS must be viewed as part of the overall national research effort.

STAFF

My fifth question is: What needs and characteristics of the Bureau's staff are important, and are they now adequately considered?

Does the Bureau maintain a "critical mass" of talent in its mission areas? That is to ask, are the working groups of the right size and do they contain enough first-rate researchers to maintain high intellectual power output? The competency funding requested by the President should allow the Bureau to deal with this question. Because the intellectual life of the Bureau is essential to its success and because the competency funding program is new, our committees should follow its progress with care to determine its effectiveness.

Associated with the "critical mass" question is the problem of aging of the Bureau's staff. The average age of the staff has increased every year since 1961 and is still increasing at the rate of half a year older each year. The average age of Bureau employees is now about 44 years old. New blood is needed at the Bureau at a reasonable rate. NBS is working to attract younger scientists and visiting scientists to the Bureau for permanent or temporary positions. These efforts should be encouraged.

For the post of Director and for other high-level positions NBS needs to find and keep the best talent available. The last two Directors of the Bureau were drawn away after short terms by jobs they considered better; both received pay increases. Clearly one major factor in the quality of a job is its salary level. In the last Congress Representative James Symington recognized that salaries may be a problem at NBS and introduced a bill that would have raised the pay level of the NBS Director. Perhaps a similar bill should be introduced now. Serious consideration should be given to raising the pay of the principal Bureau administrators.

REORGANIZATION

My sixth and final question is: Is the current reorganization of the Bureau conceptually and practically sound?

I understand you investigated this question in some detail in your hearings earlier this year, Mr. Chairman, so I will not labor the point. My brevity is not

meant to downplay the importance of the issue. Two particulars with which I am concerned are: first, will the reorganization in fact add another layer of bureaucracy to the Bureau. In terms of funtioning the question may be rephrased: Will papers have to cross one more desk for additional approval and will chains of command and reporting get longer? The second particular is the apparent concentration of other agency funding in the National Engineering Laboratory of the reorganized structure.

I have been told that the units which will be made part of the National Engineering Laboratory obtain eighty percent of their funding from other agencies. If this is indeed the case, the ability of that Laboratory to maintain a stable program must be questioned.

That completes my prepared remarks, Mr. Chairman. Let me offer my compliments to you again for the performance of your Subcommittee. These hearings on the National Bureau of Standards are very much needed. I hope the questions I have suggested will be helpful to you.

Senator STEVENSON. Now we will turn to S. 2615, the authorization bill for the Standard Reference Data Act. Our final witness this morning is Dr. Ambler, the Director of the Bureau.

You might start by identifying the persons that you brought with you, Dr. Ambler.

STATEMENTS OF ERNEST AMBLER, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS, AND DONALD R. JOHNSON, DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR PROGRAMS (DESIGNATE), NATIONAL MEASUREMENT LABORATORY; ACCOMPANIED BY DAVID R. LIDE, JR.

Dr. AMBLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am accompanied today by Dr. Donald Johnson, immediately on my right, who will provide details of the standard reference data program after I conclude my statement. I am also accompanied by Dr. David Linde, who is chief of the standard reference data program.

As I have testified previously before this committee, NBS conducts a broad variety of scientific, technical, and engineering investigations. The product of much of our work, and the work of scientists in laboratories around the world, is new information. A great deal of this information involves data, data that often is published in the open literature so that others may use them.

So many papers are published each year that it is practically impossible for scientists to keep abreast of the new data in their field of interest. The mere publication of data is no guarantee that it is accurate, and in most cases individual readers are unable to make a sound judgment concerning the reliability of published data.

In 1968 Congress provided NBS with a specific mandate through passage of the Standard Reference Data Act. That act calls for the "collection, compilation, critical evaluation, publication, and dissemination of standard reference data." That is a charge that we take most seriously, Mr. Chairman, for we are convinced that standard reference data are of great value to American scientists, engineers, and decisionmakers.

Such important activities as basic scientific research, industrial quality control, development of new and improved processes, development of new materials, and measurement and correction of environmental pollution depend on standard reference data of the highest quality. At this point, let me cite one example of the importance of standard reference data.

The chemical known as ethylene represents a $3 billion industry in the United States; many companies produce it and many more companies, both large and small, buy it as a raw material. It is used in the manufacture of plastics, automotive antifreeze, and many other products. Despite the usefulness of ethylene, its properties were not well known over a broad range of temperature and pressure. This lack of data led to problems in custody transfer through pipelines, in underground bulk storage, and in design for a multitude of processes in which ethylene is used.

At the request of industry, we undertook a two-step response to the data problem. First, we analyzed the world literature and for interim use selected the best available data. Then, we initiated measurement projects to produce data needed in selected areas. This program, in which seven ethylene producers are sharing the costs with us, will result in a data base that should satisfy industrial needs for many years.

Our total standard reference data program serves an extremely broad and diverse community. For example, engineers in chemical plants, technicians in hospitals, and research students in universities use the data that we produce. In carrying out this program, we work closely with other Federal agencies, scientific and engineering societies, industrial trade associations, and international organizations. In passing the Standard Reference Data Act, Congress intended that NBS become the national focus for all of these institutions which are concerned with physical property data. I feel that we do provide such a focus, and I personally support the continuation of a strong program. The Secretary has transmitted to the President of the Senate, and to the Speaker of the House, a draft bill together with a statement of purpose and need to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 1979, 1980, and 1981 for the standard reference data program. This bill authorizes appropriations of $3.152 million for fiscal year 1979. I support this bill and urge its favorable consideration by the committee. The House Committee on Science and Technology has amended the bill, adding specific authorizations of $3.75 million for fiscal year 1980, and $4.5 million for fiscal year 1981.

Dr. Donald Johnson will now review for you the operation of our program, the progress made since our last hearing, and our plans for the future.

Senator STEVENSON. Fine. Thank you.
Please proceed, Dr. Johnson.

Dr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I welcome the opportunity to testify before you today. I have been personally very close to the standard reference data program for many years and with the new NBS organizational structure I now have management oversight for this program.

Mr. Chairman, I would like, with your permission, to make a brief oral statement and submit a more extensive statement for the record. Senator STEVENSON. The statement will be entered in the record. Dr. JOHNSON. Thank you, sir.

Let me begin by clarifying the term "data" for you. Data in the context of the Standard Reference Data Act of 1968 refers to numerical values for physical or chemical properties of well-characterized materials. The measurements which generate this kind of information are made as part of the normal scientific research and development work

performed daily by scientists and engineers around the world. The data are reported along with other research results in thousands of journals and technical papers each year.

Unfortunately, data in the form available in the primary scientific literature varies widely in quality and often does not cover the range needed for a given application. Potential users of data are hard pressed to find the specific numbers they seek or, having found them, to assess their applicability.

Our job starts with the retrieval of data in a specified subject area from the primary scientific literature. We evaluate these data for accuracy and consistency, supplement the data to cover the full range which users require and finally prepare and distribute tabulations for general use.

This kind of analysis requires considerable experience and it is an expensive time-consuming process. It goes far beyond the mechanical operation of collecting the data. It involves detailed comparison of experimental values with theory in order to develop techniques for prediction or extrapolation into new regions. Occasionally a limited number of measurements must be made to test the theory or the quality of the predictions.

The final product of such an effort is a complete set of data, well documented and of known accuracy, which can be used for a wide variety of applications in research, engineering, and industry. Typical users will include industrial engineers, quality control engineers, and researchers in chemistry, physics, engineering, and biology. Applications are as esoteric as plasma diagnostics in energy production and as commonplace as the design of street lights.

In passing the Standard Reference Data Act, Congress recognized the traditional role of NBS as the Nation's foremost measurement laboratory, where responsibility for the quality and reliability of technical data could best be placed. It was also recognized that NBS could help consolidate the results of the Federal Government investment investment in research and make those results more useful to science and technology. In accomplishing that end, the SRD program has been very successful and we feel we can be justifiably proud of our achievements over the past 10 years.

Our own Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data is now in its sixth year of publication and has evolved into a major outlet for SRD compilations. The journal currently has 1,200 subscribers, including subscriptions in 44 foreign countries, and has sold over 19,000 individual offprints of articles in the past 6 years.

It is interesting to note that the journal has gained wide acceptance in libraries in the academic community; 54 of the 55 leading physics departments in the United States currently subscribe to the journal and at least one State university in each of the 50 States is now a subscriber. On the industrial side, 9 out of the 10 top corporations of the Fortune 500 list subscribe to the journal; 18 of the 20 chemical companies whose sales exceeded $1 billion in 1976 also subscribe. And I think most importantly, the librarians tell us that the Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data is one of the most frequently used journals on their shelves.

During the last 10 years a unique management style has evolved for the SRD programs. We have found that critical evaluations are

1