cern that the Board is uncertain of the adequacy of our national resources—in competent scientists and necessary facilities-as these relate to IBP planning. For these reasons the Board concurred with the OST view that the status of IBP funding for fiscal 1970 will depend upon:

Progress made by the U.S. National Committee for the IBP and its constituent groups in developing sound, finished program proposals.

The relative standing of IBP proposals in the overall programs of the agencies having interest in the work that is proposed for IBP; that is, the extent to which IBP activities can be included in ongoing agency programs and supported intramurally and/or extramurally.

The relative standing of IBP proposals for funding by the NSF. We (OST) feel, however, that IBP work should be supported to the maximum extent possible by all agencies, including NSF, as part of their ongoing activities rather than placing major reliance upon separate special funding for IBP in NSF or other agencies.

The overall fiscal situation for fiscal year 1970.66

Further exploration by the Subcommittee of agency commitment and involvement in the IBP revealed widespread ostensible interest in IBP activities. The Departments of Agriculture, Interior, Commerce, Health, Education, and Welfare, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, all outlined specific IBP programs which are of special interest to and clearly related to their missions. Agencies consistently reported, however, that although IBP research related very closely and in many cases coincided with agency programs, limited resources precluded actual financial support of IBP. Budget Bureau Interest

To assure that IBP will be adequately considered in fiscal 1970 and that appropriate funding levels may be established, the Bureau of the Budget has asked the National Science Foundation for a program memorandum on the IBP. The program memorandum, which the subcommittee understands was prepared with the assistance of the United States National Committee (USNC/IBP) for the IBP and the agency members of the ICC, has been submitted to the Bureau for study. The memorandum deals with the goals and objectives of the program, the progress of USNC/IBP in developing program proposals, the organization, management arrangements for carrying out proposed studies, scientific and other benefits that can be expected at alternative levels in funding for the program, the ability of the 10 or more agencies that have an interest in parts of the IBP to participate in and support the program, and the necessity for any special funding that NSF or other agencies feel is warranted for the program.

The subcommittee believes that the responses to these questions will be significant for placing in proper perspective the current state of the areas of concern previously highlighted in "The International Biological Program-Its Meaning and Needs." The subcommittee

67

6 International Biological Program, hearings, p. 16-17, before the Subcommittee on Science, Research, and Development, Co nittes on Scie ice and Astroautics, 99th Cong., secpad sess. (1985). 67 Op. cit. 51.

also anticipates that the IBP will be considered to some extent in next year's National Science Foundation's authorization hearings which will be conducted by the Committee on Science and Astronautics.

The difficulties which IBP has encountered in both internal organization, and in gaining of Government-wide support, are perhaps indicative of deeper Federal Government complexities which mitigate successful mounting of such broad-range programs. Restrictive budgetary regulations and the necessity of following mission-oriented programs are specific stumbling blocks to an energetic and fruitful U.S. participation in the International Biological Program.

Funding Problems

The means of implementing the IBP is a matter of prime concern to the subcommittee.

Undoubtedly, the cleanest and most desirable method of funding would be through a single line item in the budget of a single lead agency. If, however, this proves impractical in the near future, assured and increased funding through a number of agencies will have to be sought.

Here again there are problems.

The objectives of the International Biological Program are of interest to many agencies and departments of the Federal Government. While it is quite possible to define the mission of many of the cabinet-level departments in a very broad sense, most individual agencies, especially in the old line departments, tend to view their missions in a narrow fashion.

The narrow view held by the agencies is often reinforced in the budget process within the executive branch and perhaps more so in the appropriation process in the Congress. Justifications become extremely explicit and expenditures necessarily follow these detailed justifications.

Current budgetary practice requires that expenditure of funds be confined narrowly to the justifications that have been defended. Any departure such as is involved in a reprograming of funds normally requires the agency to obtain approval from the Bureau of the Budget and as a matter of courtesy (and political reality) from the concerned appropriations subcommittees. Such reprograming of necessity shows not only what is proposed to be done but also what will not be done as a result of the reprograming. This, obviously, makes reprograming difficult.

There are at least three distinguishable groups of executive agencies that are, or ought to be, supporting the objectives of the IBP: 1. Agencies whose mission is to support basic research.

2. Agencies which have objectives coinciding with parts of the IBP and which customarily accomplish their research by extramural funding.

3. Agencies which have objectives coinciding with parts of the IBP and which customarily conduct most of their research intramurally. For agencies in category 1, there are no fiscal problems in supporting the IBP except availability of funds. In category 2, problems are relatively slight, though for large expenditures, reprograming might become an issue. For agencies in category 3, financial support of the IBP may be virtually impossible unless a particular part of their program has been specifically justified as IBP in the appropriation

process. The Department of Agriculture and the Department of the Interior, in particular, stand to gain a great deal from successful programs of research on ecosystems. Both Departments, consequently, should be funding these studies. Subunits of both Departments, however, see the priorities of research for the solution of their immediate problems as more pressing than what they tend to consider the "academic" programs of IBP. They naturally feel they are already doing or funding the most important projects. Both Departments, however, might provide substantial support from unobligated year-end funds or from pooling relatively small contributions from each of the several interested agencies within the Departments.

If the Congress were to recognize the difficulty faced by these Departments in budgeting for, or otherwise supporting, IBP by acknowledging U.S. interest and support of the program and urging agencies to support it within available funds, substantial support from the mission-oriented, in-house research agencies could be forthcoming. A joint resolution purporting to effect the IBP through such joint funding may well be worth serious and early consideration.

UTILIZATION OF FEDERAL LABORATORIES

The subcommittee's hearings on utilization of Federal laboratories had two principal aims, both related. First was the increasingly important question of interagency use of laboratories of the Federal Government. Second was the role of these laboratories in providing the research, development and other scientific and technical services needed for improved law enforcement and crime control. Now that the hearings have been completed, the subcommittee believes this second aspect, the use of Government laboratories to help improve law enforcement, holds a potential promise that we must work to realize.

In planning and holding the hearings, the subcommittee had very much in mind the potentially important role and responsibilities of existing Federal laboratories in further applying science and technology to present day requirements for law enforcement and crime control.68 The subcommittee must express its disappointment at the absence of strong interest in exploiting the potentialities of existing capabilities of Federal laboratories.69 The idea that law enforcement and crime control can benefit from applications of science and technology, and that agencies should be alert for possible applications of the outputs of their laboratories is slow in percolating through those departments and agencies that may have much to offer. Some examples of positive thinking were found. NASA's Office of Technology Utilization has turned its attention to this question.70 The Atomic Energy Commission's Division of Isotope Development and the AEC's Argonne National Laboratory and Oak Ridge National Laboratory have sought to develop and demonstrate the utility of neutron activa

68 Dr. Alfred Blumstein, who was Director of the Science and Technology Task Force of the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice gave a detailed description of current law enforcement needs for research and development. See his testimony in "Utilization of Federal laboratories." Hearings before the Subcommittee on Science, Research, and Development of the Committee on Science and Astronautics, 90th Cong., second sess., 1968, hereafter referred to as "hearings," pp. 288-289. 69 On this point, Mr. Joseph M. English, director of the Forensic Sciences laboratory at Georgetown University observed that it would not surprise him to find that not one of the directors of the federally runresearch and development operations really knows of the needs of the forensic sciences. Ibid., p. 330.

70 Details about NASA's technology utilization approach appear in the hearings in NASA's testimony at p. 113, in Dr. Pickering's statement at p. 124, and in detail in Mr. Quinn Tamm's statement at p. 326.

tion as a practical tool of forensic science. Other examples were so few that the subcommittee must conclude the potentialities of Federal laboratories are not yet open to the agencies responsible for improving law enforcement.

In the subcommittee's opinion, the Department of Justice has yet to take the lead in determining how present capabilities of Federal laboratories can productively be matched to the needs of late 20th century law enforcement." The large, interdisciplinary Federal laboratories offer existing, going organizations that are experienced in the combining of science and engineering to attain specified goals. And some of these laboratories, such as the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, are gaining experience with introducing an input from social scientists."

72

The apparent mismatch between what Federal laboratories can do on one hand, and what they are doing, on the other, respecting research, development, testing, demonstration, and technical services for better law enforcement is too great to be passed over lightly.73 74 A better coupling is needed for the immediate future between Federal laboratories and law enforcement, especially during the formative days of the newly authorized National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice.75 Two relevant functions of the institute are to support research, demonstrations or special projects relating to new or improved approaches, techniques, systems, equipment, and devices to improve and strengthen law enforcement; and to establish a research center to carry out such activities. Each of these functions can be accomplished with a significant savings in time and perhaps in costs by turning to presently available expertise of Federal laboratories rather than attempting to create new expertise in new laboratories.76 Another function referred to in the hearings which is not as dramatic as research and development, but which could well be more productive in the short term, is the furnishing of technical services and assistance to law enforcement agencies. Testimony emphasized the need for some organization to help draft the technical standards for systems and equipment for law enforcement, to test commercially available systems and equipment, to instruct and train law enforcement personnel in the use of new systems and equipment. Many

"For example, the Attorney General declined an invitation to testify on the grounds that the Department of Justice does not perform research and development and that its only laboratory is the FBI Laboratory. See the subcommittee's report, "Utilization of Federal Laboratories." Report of the Subcommittee on Science, Research, and Development of the Committee on Science and Astronautics, Oct. 16, 1968 (committee print), hereafter referred to as the "subcommittee report." p. 66.

72 Dr. Weinberg, Director of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory of the Atomic Energy Commission, described his experience with including social scientists in research project teams at his laboratory. See hearings, op. cit., pp. 34-35.

73 Dr. Blumstein identifies as the three most needed technological inventions: (1) The introduction of computers for handling information for police operations; (2) improvements of police command and control systems and equipment; (3) development of a light-weight, low-cost portable police radio for individual police officers. Hearings, pp. 307–308.

4 Mr. English provided a detailed list of examples of work in Government research laboratories of potential promise for the forensic sciences and law enforcement. Hearings, pp. 333-334.

75 Mr. Quinn Tamm, executive director of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, described the situation in these graphic terms: As any number of authorities and reports have pointed out, we can with radio signals order an automaton to dig a small trench on the moon. At the same time, however, we cannot alter the actions or direction of a flesh and blood policeman through radio contact who may be only 2 miles from his radio dispatcher unless, of course, the patrolman is still in his vehicle. We can photograph a 6-inch rock on the moon under the most adverse conditions, but we cannot photographically detect a nighttime intruder in one of our stores. There must be some means and some funds available for the safeguarding of our citizen's lives and properties when we can perform such awesomely magnificent feats in outer space. Hearings, p. 320.

76 But there is lacking the means and incentives to exploit possibilities of the Federal laboratories. As Mr. English testified, discussion does not produce hardware, nor does it educate and train police laboratory experts in its use. Hearings, p. 331.

Federal laboratories should be able to provide such technical assistance with a minimum of interference to their regular operations.7

For these reasons the subcommittee has recommended that the Department of Justice in implementing the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 should give immediate attention to the use of existing Federal laboratories as sources for requisite research, development, and technical services. To do so can save critical time and can expedite establishing the Crime Institute. The Department also should inventory the research and development sponsored and conducted by Federal departments and agencies which is relevant and applicable to law enforcement, and should foster the assimilation of the results of that work into practical application. Looking ahead, the subcommittee recommends that the Justice Department give attention to the behavioral and social sciences for longer term solutions of pressing problems of law enforcement and crime control. The subcommittee recommends also that the Federal Bureau of Investigation expand its program of research and training in the forensic sciences, and arrange for training and work experience opportunities for scientist and technicians in this field of science.78

Turning now to the broader question of interagency use of Government laboratories, What was learned from these hearings?

Most important was an attitude of polite but unenthusiastic interest in the idea that an agency which is about to undertake some new scientific or technical venture should seriously consider obtaining the help it needs from existing laboratories of other agencies as a realistic alternative to asking Congress for authority and funds to build a new laboratory. Probing questions of the witnesses uncovered no absolute. barriers to interagency use of existing laboratories, nor did they uncover any sustained effort and attention to this end. This subcommittee made it clear throughout the hearings that it did not categorically insist that all new research and development be done in existing Government laboratories in all cases. On the other hand, the subcommittee does wish to make interagency use of existing laboratories a viable and feasible alternative for agency heads and their program managers and project directors.

Some obstacles to interagency use of Government laboratories do exist. These should be reduced or removed. Potentially more important is the absence at the top levels of the executive branch of a strong champion of laboratory utilization, someone whose presence, position, and interests can cause administrators who have to obtain research and development to seriously think about and to be aware of the possible savings in time, money, trained manpower and capital investment in new facilities that could be had from interagency use of existing Federal laboratories.

The four laboratory directors who testified 79 brought new insight to the subcommittee. It was among them that we found real interest in and enthusiasm for the idea of more interagency use of existing laboratories. It seems that the laboratory directors may better realize that their laboratories are national resources which, when feasible,

77 The subcommittee in its report explores the possible role of Federal laboratories in preparing standards for law enforcement equipment and evaluating such equipment. See the subcommittee's report, pp. 60-62. 78 Reasons why the subcommittee believes the FBI Crime Laboratory should take the lead in sponsoring and conducting basic research in the forensic sciences appear in its report, at p. 64.

78 The four laboratory directors who testified were Dr. Allen V. Astin of the National Bureau of Standards, Dr. William McLean of the Navy Undersea Warfare Center, Dr. William H. Pickering of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and Dr. Alvin M. Weinberg of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory.