CHAPTER I RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AND NATIONAL GOALS As it sets goals for the Federal Government, the Congress frequently faces proposals and requests for support of scientific research and development as an essential means to reaching the goal being considered. Whether the subject is crime, the world food problem, postal modernization, transportation or urban development, the measures that are proposed provide for the marshaling of scientists, engineers, and technicians to extend our knowledge of nature and to adapt it to a particular set of human desires and needs. This first chapter identifies new goals that have come before the Congress as legislation, or through studies and reports, or executive action. The adoptions of such new goals are vital acts of public policy for science and technology. What follows is focused upon the setting of new goals and does not extend to the administration and progress of on-going programs to meet previously specified goals for the Federal Government. Aside from supplemental funds that were requested to finance defense research related to Vietnam, research and development for national defense is not discussed, nor are the on-going programs of the Atomic Energy Commission, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the National Institutes of Health. The hearings and reports on authorizing legislation and appropriations for such on-going Federal programs are a rich and current source of detailed information. 1. AERONAUTICAL PROGRESS The years 1964 to 1966 saw the aeronautical industries increase their contribution to the gross national product from $23.7 billion to $30.8 billion, a rise of more than 30 percent. The aeronautical industries in 1966 employed almost 3 million people. Because the future of aviation greatly depends upon research and development, the Senate Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences on January 25, 1967, held 3 days of hearings to review the adequacy of policy planning for aeronautical research and development. Theme questions for the hearings included: What is the organization and mechanism in the Federal Government that provides for planning, programing, funding, and managing aeronautical research and development? Are current efforts in aeronautical research and development sufficient to meet the national need? Is the Nation's policy planning machinery adequate to establish a national policy for aeronautical R. & D. that properly relates the Government and private sector? What can the Congress, the executive branch, and the private sector do to more clearly assess the national needs in aeronautical research and development and thereafter to implement programs to meet those needs?1 2. COMMUNICATIONS The complex world of today is bound by numerous links of communication. In some instances the traffic traveling these links is near capacity, and demand continues to grow. Communications came to the national policy fore on two occasions in 1967. First was the President's call for a national communications policy and his subsequent appointment of a Task Force on Communication Policy. Second was an inquiry by the House Committee on Government Operations into Government use of satellite communications. (a) National Communications Policy Technological advances in communications, especially by satellite, together with the increasing demand for communications services led to a Presidential message on August 14, 1967 on communications policy. Emphasizing the Nation's commitment to the concept of a global system for commercial communications, the President supported development of a global system of communications satellites which would be available to all nations on a nondiscriminatory basis. To this end, the United States would consider both technical assistance to smaller nations to assist in their planning for ground stations and financial assistance for such facilities. In his message, the President announced appointment of a Task Force on Communication Policy. Chaired by Eugene V. Rostow, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, the 15-member task force is to examine four major questions: Are we making the best use of the electromagnetic frequency spectrum? How soon will a domestic satellite system be economically feasible? Should a domestic satellite system be general purpose or specialized, and should there be more than one system? How will these and other developments affect Comsat and the international communications carriers? 1 "Aeronautical Research and Development Policy." Hearings before the Senate Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences, 90th Cong., first sess., 1967, 79 pages. 2 "Communications Policy." Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents, vol. 3, No. 33. Aug. 21, 1967, pp. 1146-54. 3 Membership of the task force included: Eugene V. Rostow, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, Chairman. James D. O Connell, Director of Telecommunications Management, Vice Chairman. Charles Schultze, Director, Bureau of the Budget. Gardner Ackley, Chairman, Council of Economic Advisers. Leonard Marks, Director, U.S. Information Agency. James E. Webb, Administrator,, National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Anthony M. Solomon, Assistant Secretary of State for Economic Affairs. Solis Horwitz, Assistant Secretary of Defense. Donald F. Turner, Assistant Attorney General, Antitrust Division. Donald Agger, Assistant Secretary of Transportation. J. Herbert Holloman, Under Secretary of Commerce (Acting). Dean W. Coston, Deputy Under Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare. Edward C. Welsh, Executive Secretary, National Aeronautics and Space Council. Ex officio: Rosel Hyde, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission. The task force is to examine the Nation's entire international communications posture. It is to investigate whether the present division of ownership in our international communications facilities best serves our needs, as well as which technology can meet new communication requirements in the most effective and efficient manner. The report of the task force is due within 1 year. (b) Satellite communications On July 24 and 25, 1967, the Military Operations Subcommittee of the House Committee on Government Operations, chaired by Representative Holifield, inquired into Federal agency actions in response to the committee's report of October 1966. The report made 16 recommendations for the military initial defense communications satellite program, the use of applications technology satellites and other matters. The record of the 1967 hearings includes testimony by the Federal Communications Commission, the Executive Office of the President, the Defense Communications Agency, the DOD Office of Defense Research and Engineering, and also comments on the committee's 1966 report.5 On August 28, 1967, the committee issued its seventh report in which it directed attention principally to three areas: (1) the military program for satellite communications; (2) Department of Defense procurement of satellite communications services from commercial sources; and (3) the general area of telecommunications management in the Federal Government. 3. LAW ENFORCEMENT AND JUSTICE The possibility that applications of science and technology could aid in crime control was the subject, in part, of a Presidential commission and message, legislation and hearings during 1967. (a) The President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice On July 23, 1965, by Executive Order 11236, the President established his Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice. He instructed it to inquire into the cause of crime and delinquency and to report to him with recommendations early in 1967. Chaired by United States Attorney General Katzenbach, the Crime Commission early in 1966 organized a task force on science and technology. The task force was a collaborative undertaking by the Commission, the Office of Law Enforcement Assistance of the Department of Justice, and, with direct responsibility for the work, the Institute for Defense Analyses. The task force studied possible applications of science and technology. The Commission's report was published in February 1967, making "Government use of Satellite Communications." House Committee on Government Operations, 89th Congress, 2d session, 1966, H. Rept. 2318. "Government use of Satellite Communications-1967." Hearings before a Subcommittee of the House Committee on Government Operations, 90th Congress, 1st session, 1967, 157 pp. "Government use of Satellite Communications-1967." House Committee on Government Operations, 90th Cong., 1st sess., 1967, H. Rept. 613. 7 President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice. The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1967. 14 recommendations to apply presently available technology to the administration of criminal justice. The recommendations pointed to computer technology, information systems, communications, and systems analysis as offering the greatest unrealized potentials for improvement. Further, the Commission recommended that the Federal Government initiate major research and development relating to all areas of criminal justice.8 In addition the Commission called for research into the nature of crime, pointing out that expenditure for the kinds of descriptive, operational, and evaluative research that are prerequisites for a rational program of crime control is negligible. Such research commanded only a small fraction of 1 percent of all expenditures for crime control. The Commission's recommendations would foster widespread research by public and private agencies including both State and Federal Government, and by a National Foundation for Criminal Research. (b) The President's message on Crime in America 10 On February 6, 1967, President Johnson recommended legislation for crime control and law enforcement. The President recommended Federal grants of up to 60 percent to support approved programs to encourage innovative efforts against street crime, juvenile delinquency, and organized crime. He also recommended Federal grants of up to 50 percent for construction of crime laboratories. In addition, he proposed to supersede the present Law Enforcement Assistance Act of 1965 with a broader program of research, development, and special pilot project grants. I recommend that the Safe Streets and Crime Control Act authorize the Attorney General to make research grants or contracts, of up to 100 percent, with public agencies, institutions of higher education, or other organizations. These grants could be to: Support research and education projects of regional or national importance. Establish national or regional institutes for research and education in law enforcement and criminal justice." (c) Legislation and Hearings Hearings on the administration's Safe Streets and Crime Control Act (S. 917 and H.R. 5037) were held in the spring of 1967. In the 8 Ibid., p. 269. The Commission's specific recommendations were that: The Federal Government should sponsor a science and technology RDT&E program with three primary components: systems analysis, field experimentation, and equipment-system development. A Federal agency should be assigned to coordinate the establishment of standards for equipment to be used by criminal justice agencies, and to provide those agencies technical assistance. The Federal Government should encourage and support the establishment of operations research staffs in large criminal justice agencies. A major scientific and technological research program within a research institute shoulds be created and supported by the Federal Government. Ibid., p. 273. 10 The four specific recommendations for planning and organizing research were the following: Criminal justice agencies such as State court and correctional systems and large police departments should develop their own research units, staffed by specialists and drawing on the advice and assistance of leading scholars and experts in relevant fields. (Ibid., p. 275.) Substantial public and private funds should be provided for a number of criminal research institutes in various parts of the country. (Ibid., p. 276.) Universities, foundations, and other private groups should expand their efforts in the field of criminal research. Federal, State, and local governments should make increased funds available for the benefit of individuals or groups with promising research programs and the ability to execute them. (Ibid., p. 277.) A National Foundation for Criminal Research should be established as an independent agency. (Ibid., p. 277.) 11 Ibid., p. 188. |