a report of the National Academy of Sciences dealing with science and public policy.7 In attempting to lend the greatest possible scope to its hearings in the time available, the subcommittee sought the advice of both public and private institutions in selecting those witnesses who were intimately concerned with scientific research and development by virtue of their office or position and those who, at the same time, represented a large segment of opinion in their respective fields. In most cases, the witnesses were qualified to address themselves to both subjects under consideration by the subcommittee. Testimony was heard from representatives of all the Government agencies significantly involved with research and development, including the General Accounting Office and the Bureau of the Budget, and from representatives of industry, universities, and other nonprofit organizations. The hearings were held from May 5 to June 4, 1964. In order that the most complete and factual record could be obtained, other interested parties and organizations which did not have the opportunity to testify were requested to submit statements for the record. In addition, the subcommittee staff undertook a collateral study of private philanthropic foundations and the smaller colleges and universities involved with scientific research in order to insure that a broad spectrum of opinion could be properly presented. The record of hearings subsequently was published and, together with the staff study, formed the basis of the two reports described below. Report on Geographical Distribution Whereas the National Science Foundation survey merely provides the statistical data concerning geographical distribution, the subcommittee report relates this information to such matters as the population of the various States, the number of industrial employees, the amount of Federal taxes contributed, the number of scientists in the State, and the number of advanced degrees conferred by the State's universities. More important, however, the subcommittee report attempts to discover the rationale for this distribution pattern, and to recommend corrective action. That there is an uneven distribution among the various States is unquestioned. In the year covered by the report, one State received 38.4 percent of the total Federal research and development work while its nearest competitor received less than one-fourth that amount, or 9.2 percent of the total. Furthermore, 28 States each received less than 1 percent of the total funds, including 12 States that each received less than one-tenth of 1 percent. After studying the testimony, the subcommittee concluded that the imbalance does not consciously reflect fault or discredit upon the action of any particular agency. Rather, for the most part, the distribution pattern has developed during the past several decades and appears to be the result of natural forces, the control or coordination of which has not heretofore been attempted nor necessarily thought desirable. An 7" Federal Support of Basic Research in Institutions of Higher Learning," National Academy of Sciences, March 1964. "Government and Science, Distribution of Federal Research Funds-Indirect Costs re Federal Grants," hearings before the Subcommittee on Science, Research, and Development of the Committee on Science and Astronautics, 88th Cong., second sess. (1964). "Government and Science, No. 4-Geographic Distribution of Federal Research and Development Funds," report of the Subcommittee on Science, Research, and Development of the Committee on Science and Astronautics, 88th Cong., second sess., (committee print, 1964). Updated and republished as H. Rept. No. 106, 89th Cong., first sess. (1965). important aspect of this is the simple fact that the mission-oriented agencies-the Department of Defense, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Atomic Energy Commission, and othersmust purchase excellence wherever they can find it, and a more equitable geographical distribution cannot be achieved without some danger of degrading the results of the research desired and, more importantly, the applications and end items required. Accordingly, the subcommittee concluded that there was no immediate or short-term solution. To obtain a more uniform geographic distribution of Federal research and development funds must to a large extent be directed toward increased utilization of the scientific and technical competence of institutions with good facilities and talent which are not now participating to a sufficient degree in Federal research programs. In other words, the country should work to raise the level of all our colleges and universities without lessening the support of those strong schools which are recognized as being centers of academic excellence. Since the report was published in October 1964, there has been an increasing awareness of this problem and a conscious effort has been made to achieve a more equitable distribution. On September 14, 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson made a statement to the Cabinet and sent a memorandum to the heads of departments and agencies relative to strengthening the academic capability for science. In the memorandum President Johnson put forth a new policy, stating in part: "Research supported to further agency missions should be administered not only with a view to producing specific results, but also with a view to strengthening academic institutions and increasing the number of institutions capable of performing research of high quality." 10 From the legislative standpoint, the Committee on Science and Astronautics has been instrumental in placing a "sense-of-the-Congress" provision in all NASA Authorization Acts beginning with fiscal year 1966, stating that "*** it is in the national interest that consideration be given to geographical distribution of Federal research funds whenever feasible ***". Similarly, the subcommittee sponsored amendments to the National Science Foundation Act of 1950 (see p. 17 of this report) which requires the Foundation to undertake a program for the determination of the total amount of Federal grant and contract money recieved for the conduct of scientific research by each educational institution and nonprofit organization in the United States. It is expected that as the Foundation gains experience gathering this type of information, it may be advisable to place an additional requirement upon the Foundation to gather this data as it pertains to development funds as well. With this type of information, the Congress and the executive branch of the Government will be able to see at a glance what organizations are receiving Federal support, and how much. Report on Indirect Costs About one-half of all basic research being performed in the United States is carried out in universities and other nonprofit institutions, and by far the major portion of this research is funded by the Federal 10 "Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents," Monday, Sept. 20, 1965, p. 269. Government through grants and contracts. In the case of research grants, Government agencies had been requested to follow the principles and related policy guides of the Bureau of the Budget Circular A-21. This circular provides for full reimbursement to educational institutions of all costs attributable to the research grant under generally accepted cost accounting principles. It further breaks these costs down into (1) direct costs (those directly attributable to the research grants such as salaries and materials) and (2) indirect costs (those not directly attributable, such as general administrative expenses and library expenses). The subcommittee report" points out that although there were some problems involved in the way the various agencies interpreted and implemented circular A-21, the major dissatisfaction revolved around the fact that a statutory limitation had been placed in the appropriation acts of certain Government agencies limiting the amount of indirect cost as a ratio of direct cost that may be reimbursed to universities. Although this was done primarily for the purpose of effecting forced cost sharing, the method proved to be inequitable and otherwise unsatisfactory for a number of reasons. Furthermore, since the indirect cost limitation applied only to research grants and did not apply to research contracts, some agencies were using the contract method to avoid the limitation even though a research contract may have been a more difficult instrument to administer. Consequently, the subcommittee recommended that the Congress omit the flat percentage limitation in future appropriations acts, and that the Bureau of the Budget promulgate a revised regulation with appropriate guidelines for cost sharing that would be compatible with the interests of the Federal Government and the universities. Since the report was first published in December 1964, a number of changes have taken place to mitigate or remove many of the problems discussed in the report. First, the Bureau of the Budget promulgated a revised circular A-21 on March 3, 1965. This circular was given a trial period of operation at a number of universities, and subsequently, the Bureau issued memorandums on August 15, 1967 and June 1, 1968 amending the original circular to clarify certain other provisions. Second, on December 13, 1965, the Bureau of the Budget issued circular A-74 entitled "Participation in the Costs of Research Supported by Federal Grants" for immediate implementation by all agencies. The cost-sharing guidelines are quite general in nature and follow the recommendation of the subcommittee that the guidelines should be flexible and the amount of cost sharing in any particular grants should vary in accordance with benefit of the grant to the interest of the university and to the Federal Government. Third, beginning in the fiscal year 1966 appropriation acts for the Department of Defense, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the National Science Foundation, the percentage limitation 11" Government and Science, No. 5-Indirect Costs Under Federal Research Grants," report of the Subcommittee on Science, Research, and Development of the Committee on Science and Astronautics, 88th Cong., second sess. (committee print 1964). Updated and republished as H. R. Rep. No. 144, 89th Cong., first sess. (1965). on the amount of reimbursable indirect costs in research grants had been removed and in its stead was a provision that the recipient could not receive the full cost of the project. In other words, the acts provided that there must be cost sharing by the university in each research grant, but the amount of the cost sharing was left up to the individual agency. This seemed a practical and workable solution to the indirect cost problem, and, in connection with circular A-74, had the support of all responsible parties. Much credit for putting this system into effect belongs to the late Representative John E. Fogarty of Rhode Island, whose leadership in appropriations policies was significant. AERONAUTICS During the briefings for the subcommittee held by the Research Management Advisory Panel in 1964, the subject of supersonic transports was investigated in some detail and it became evident to the subcommittee that many remarkable changes were rapidly taking place in the field of aeronautics. Subsequently, the subcommittee decided that this subject was of such significance that it should be made the topic of the committee's sixth annual meeting with its Panel on Science and Technology, held on January 26 and 27, 1965.13 The selection of this broad subject was premised on the rapid advances being made in the supersonic and hypersonic regimes of the flight spectrum, and the many complexities facing the aviation world. Some of the more critical areas of question and controversy were: the challenges facing the preeminence of the United States in world aviation; the uncertainties and problems inherent in the supersonic transport program; the urgent requirement for an economically feasible vertical/short takeoff and landing aircraft; the question of the role of aviation as part of an integrated transportation system; the prevalent question of future direction of aeronautical effort in the United States; and the management of future aeronautical effort by the Federal Government as well as the role that industry is to play. Speaker of the House John W. McCormack made the keynote address opening the Panel meeting and in addition to the Committee and Panel members in attendance, over 150 prominent scientists and engineers were present as special guests, representing Government, industry, and the scientific and academic communities. Guests were encouraged to participate in the discussions with rewarding results. Using the Panel as a base, augmented with participation by a select audience, it has been possible to arrive at a reasonably well rounded, overall view of this important subject. 12 The members of the Panel on Science and Technology were: Dr. Harrison S. Brown, California Institute of Technology (geology). Dr. W. Albert Noyes, Jr., University of Texas (chemistry). Dr. Clarence P. Oliver, University of Texas (zoology). Dr. Roger Revelle, Harvard University (geophysics). Dr. Richard J. Russell, Louisiana Coastal Studies Institute (physical geography). Dr. H. Guyford Stever, president, Carnegie Institute of Technology (aeronautical engineering). Dr. James A. Van Allen, State University of Iowa (physics). Dr. Fred L. Whipple, Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory (astronomy). Dr. Maurice J. Zucrow, Purdue University (jet propulsion). 13"Panel on Science and Technology-6th Meeting," Proceedings before Committee on Science and Astronautics, 89th Cong., first sess. (1965). Four papers were presented during the meeting which were entitled: "European Progress in Aeronautics" by Prof. Luigi Broglio, president, Italian Space Commission; "A Survey of V/STOL Transportation Technology" by Martin Goland, president, Southwest Research Institute; "The Status of the U.S. Supersonic Transport Program" by Najeeb E. Halaby, then Administrator of the Federal Aviation Agency; and "The Future of Aeronautics in the United States" by H. Guyford Stever, president, Carnegie Institute of Technology. On April 8, 1965, the committee issued a report 14 on the Panel meeting which represents a comprehensive summary of the many views presented during the meeting. The report points out that in view of the breadth of the subject, it was possible to touch upon only the major problems and areas of conjecture and controversy. Nevertheless, the findings, while not conclusive in all respects, do identify areas representing obstacles to progress, weaknesses in national effort, and subjects for further inquiry by cognizant committees and agencies within the legislative and executive branches of the Government. SCIENCE AND PUBLIC POLICY Basic Research and National Goals As was mentioned earlier in the report, the committee has entered into a formal contractual relationship with the National Academy of Sciences the first of its kind ever entered into between the Congress and the Academy-to conduct a series of comprehensive studies designed to throw light on some of the more serious phases of policy which the Government must consider in its decisions to support or otherwise foster research in the United States. Specifically, in regard to the first report, the committee sought answers to the following two questions: I. What level of Federal support is needed to maintain for the United States a position of leadership through basic research in the advancement of science and technology and their economic, cultural, and military applications? II. What judgment can be reached on the balance of support now being given by the Federal Government to various fields of scientific endeavor, and on adjustments that should be considered, either within existing levels of overall support or under conditions of increased or decreased overall support? The Academy appointed an ad hoc Panel on Basic Research and National Goals consisting of 15 members under the chairmanship of Dr. George B. Kistiakowsky from Harvard University and then chairman of the Academy's Committee on Science and Public Policy. 15 The report was submitted to the committee in March 1965 and published by the committee. The report points out that whereas it has been traditional for groups of this kind to develop a consensus as a basis for unanimity in the public statement of their findings addressed to the executive branch of the Government, in this case because of the complexity of the issues rasised by the questions, a response on the level of a common denominator of individual opinions "Panel on Science and Technology-6th Meeting Aeronautics," report of the Committee on Science and Astronautics, H. Rept. 227, 89th Cong., first sess. (1965). 15 "Basic Research and National Goals", report by the National Academy of Sciences to the Committee on Science and Astronautics, 89th Cong., first sess. (committee print, |