THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 33 without recent precedent. By Public Law 87-297 of September 26, 1961, Congress in establishing the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency provided for a Deputy Director and as many as four Assistant Directors appointed by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. A similar provision appears in Public Law 88-452 of August 20, 1964, which established the Office of Economic Opportunity. It specifies a Deputy Director and three Assistant Directors appointed in this fashion. The Deputy Director of the U.S. Information Agency 10 and the Deputy Administrator of the Federal Aviation Agency" also are appointed by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. (2) The Director's salary.-While the Director's personal standing among top Federal executives depends upon his reputation as a leading scientist and administrator, it is also partly fixed by his grade in relation to other Federal executives, and may influence his effectiveness in interagency relations. At present the Director is at Level III of the five levels established by the Federal Executive Salary Act of 1964. The annual compensation for this level is $28,500.12 He shares this grade with under secretaries of the principal departments, the Administrator of General Services, the Administrator of the Small Business Administration, the Director of Defense Research and Engineering, Department of Defense, the Deputy Administrator of NASA, the Deputy Director of the Bureau of the Budget and members of the Atomic Energy Commission. At Level II, at $30,000 annually, are officials such as the Deputy Secretary of Defense, the Under Secretary of State, the Administrator of NASA, the Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, the Director of the Office of Science and Technology, the Director of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, and the Director of the United States Information Agency. It is the opinion of the subcommittee that the activities of the National Science Foundation are sufficiently important to warrant raising the Director to Level II. This would also accommodate a Deputy Director and possible Associate Directors at appropriate levels. (b) The National Science Board The National Science Board occupies a unique position among the many boards, commissions, committees, and other advisory groups of the Federal Government. Its uniqueness lies in its combination of a variety of policymaking, operation, and advisory functions. These it shares in a still evolving way with the Director of the Foundation, so that neither the Board nor the Director has undivided authority and responsibility for the Foundation. The change of the Board away from the original concept of a body of eminent scientists who collectively would make the grants, thereafter to be administered by the Director and his staff, toward a policymaking and overseeing function was the subject of many differing views among the witnesses. 10 Reorganization Plan No. 8 of 1953. 11 49 U.S.C. 1341-1342. 13 Public Law 88-426, 5 U.S.C. 2210-2213. 34 THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Dean Price highlighted this change, through his observation that— 13 As the workload of the Foundation has increased, its structure has been adjusted to let it get its job done, and deal with its policy issues, and less attention has been paid to the original conception that 24 eminent scientists on the Board should themselves make the grants, and that the Director and his administrative staff should be kept in the background. (1) Composition. The National Science Board is the policymaking body of the National Science Foundation. It consists of 24 members who are appointed by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. In addition, Reorganization Plan No. 2, made the Director "an additional member of the Board * * * coordinate with other members, with full voting privileges." The National Science Foundation Act provides that persons nominated for appointment to the Board (1) shall be eminent in the fields of the basic sciences, Recommendations for nominations of Board members may be submitted to the President by the National Academy of Sciences, the Association of Land Grant Colleges & Universities, the National Association of State Universities, the Association of American Colleges, or by other scientific or educational organizations. The term of office of each Board member is for 6 years, unless appointed to fill the unexpired portion of the term of a predecessor. The anniversary of a Board member's term is May 10, the date of the approval of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950. At that time, terms of the first members were staggered, one-third each to end in 2 years, 4 years, and 6 years, respectively, so that at the present time the terms of one-third of the Board members end on May 10 of every even-numbered year. Members may be reappointed for a second term; however, after a person has served for 12 consecutive years, he is ineligible for reappointment during the next 2 years. The Chairman of the Board is elected by the Board from among its members, and is not designated by the President. (i) Overlapping membership.-The subcommittee asked the opinion of many witnesses whether members of the Board should at the same time belong to other science advisory bodies such as the Committee on Science and Public Policy of the NAS, or the President's Science Advisory Committee. The reason was the close linkage observed between recommendations of such groups and subsequent changes in NSF programs. Dr. Waterman, based on his long experience, saw no serious problem, if membership on other bodies was part time and " Hearings, p. 243. THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 35 advisory only. In these circumstances, some overlapping of membership could be a real asset, providing broader background and minimizing duplication and possible differences caused by inadequate communication. He thought a limitation on membership in other bodies might restrict the availability of good future candidates.14 Dr. Brooks 15 saw no evidence of confusion due to overlapping membership. Dr. Seitz 16 thought it natural that most of the members of the Science Board and the President's Science Advisory Committee should also be members of the National Academy of Sciences, and said he was not aware of any significant tendency to bias in recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences advisory committees: on the contrary, persons serving in several different capacities can give valuable advice.17 (ii) Membership and size.-Although the Board is somewhat large to work as a body, testimony generally indicated no great need to reduce it in size. There was some thought that its present members were too heavily weighted in favor of physical scientists from the big universities. Scientific and engineering interests of small colleges, industry and nonprofit research institutes may not be adequately represented, and the balance of representation among scientific disciplines may need adjustment if the Board is to be adequately representative of national science interests in forming national policy for science resources. On the other hand, with a greater number of potentially divergent interests represented on the Board, common agreement on new ideas might be more difficult to achieve. Testimony indicated Board proceedings have been harmonious with no major unresolved differences. In the opinion of the subcommittee, the Board's present size is satisfactory. As for its future composition, the criteria of selection for nomination to membership on the Board should emphasize scientific stature and competence, field of science, institutional affiliation, and region of the country. The Board must continue to be a gathering of outstanding scientists. It should be representative of the leading fields of science, with members drawn from industry and other areas as well as the academic community. (iii) Compensation.-A marked difference presently exists in per diem compensation between members of the Board and members of NSF advisory panels. The former are limited to $50 per day, while the latter normally are paid $75 per day and some have received $100. The subcommittee sees no reason for this disparity to continue and believes the statutory limit on the Board members should be increased to $100 per day. (2) Functions and operations.-The National Science Foundation. Act specifies that the Foundation shall consist of the National Science Board and the Director. It does not divide the NSF functions, set out in section 3(a), between these two. While describing the general functions of the Board, Director Leland J. Haworth said: 18 In addition to establishing general policies for the Foundation the Board must either approve, or delegate authority 14 Hearings, vol. II, question 6 to Dr. Waterman. 15 Dr. Harvey Brooks, member of the National Science Board. 16 Dr. Frederick Seitz, President, National Academy of Science. 17 Hearings, vol. II, question 1 to Dr. Seitz. 18 "Government and Science." Hearings before the Subcommittee on Science, Research, and Development of the Committee on Science and Astronautics, 88th Cong., 2d sess., May-June 1964, 888 pages at p. 63. 36 THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION to the Director of Executive Committee to approve such The Executive Committee as established by Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1962. is composed of five members, consisting of the Director who serves as Chairman, and four other Board members, elected by the Board from its membership. The Board may assign to the Executive Committee such of its powers and duties as it deems appropriate; except that the Board may not assign to the Executive Committee the establishing of policies. The Executive Committee reports annually to the Board concerning its activities and may make such recommendations as it feels are appropriate; minority views and recommendations are to be included." Despite the importance of the Board's functions, it has issued no public reports concerning its operations or policy. While the Foundation's annual reports through 1959 included a statement by the Chairman of the Board, there has been none since then. The material and testimony received by the subcommittee did not illuminate the relationship of the statutory Executive Committee to the full National Science Board. It is not clear from the legislation and Reorganization Plan No. 2 what is the division of responsibility between the Board, its Executive Committee of which the Director is Chairman and the Director himself. One clarifying approach would be to authorize the National Science Board to delegate its functions, including its policymaking function, to the Executive Committee or to the Director as it sees fit. This would have the advantages of increasing flexibility in actions and speeding up the Board's business between its meetings, while still retaining to the Board the power to recall the delegations if necessary. (i) Contact with the scientific community.-A real, although nonstatutory, function of the Board was pointed out by its present Chairman, Dr. Eric Walker. This is to provide close and strong coupling between the Foundation and the scientific community, although "*** the Board has a great deal of difficulty making this coupling a useful one.' 20 On the other hand, both Dean Price and Dr. Brooks took the view that the Board itself could not really bridge all of the necessary paths to the scientific community, and that this function in reality is carried on by the many subordinate advisory panels which review applications for support of projects.21 22 Dean Price identified these panels as the great safeguard for independence of scientific institutions from political control. (ii) Greater responsibility for the National Science Board.-Increased use of the National Science Board as a distinguished policymaking body in the area of research was proposed by Dr. Waterman. Since the Board includes not only research experts, but academic presidents, A detailed description of the internal organization of the Board was given by its Chairman, Dr. Eric Walker, during the appropriations hearings for fiscal year 1966. See "Independent Offices Appropriations for 1966.' Hearings before a subcommittee of the House Committee on Appropriations, 89th Cong., 1st sess., pt. 2, at pp. 549–550. 20 Hearings, p. 566. 21 Hearings, p. 247. "Hearings, vol. II, question 12 to Dr. Brooks, p. 1236. 23 Hearings, p. 160. THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 37 leaders of industry and men of affairs, Dr. Waterman viewed it as a unique body capable of dealing with many policy matters in the councils of the Government. Dr. Eric Walker, as Chairman of the Board, observed that the Board had not seized its opportunities to deal with policy and that its guidances had been few and far between. Dr. Philip Handler, as Vice Chairman of the Board, thought the Board represented a wider cross-section of background and experience than does the President's Science Advisory Committee and was better able to recognize the "*** impact on, and contributions to, Federal policies for science on the part of industrial organizations, small liberal arts colleges, the great universities, and the scientific community generally.' He was satisfied with the present policy role of the Board and thought the Board was wise in adjuring a larger national science policy role. 925 Dr. William V. Houston, a member of the Board, thought the Board's authority should extend only to the Foundation's own activities, and that any influence outside the NSF should be accomplished only through the President.26 Dr. Robert S. Morison, also a Board member, supported Dr. Waterman's recommendation for a greater role, although he noted the Board had never been seriously consulted on scientific policy external to the Foundation. He suggested experimentation with the Board in shaping national science policy.27 It appears to the subcommittee that the National Science Board is a distinguished body representative of the scientific community and is capable of greater and more important contributions than thus far have been required of it. Because the formulation of national policies for science can have such far-reaching effects on the future of the country, the Board should be a valuable source of considered opinion and recommendations to the President and to the Congress. (c) Division of authority At the heart of the division of functions and responsibility between the Director and the Board is the question of who is really running the Foundation. Does the National Science Board occupy the same relative position to the Director as do members of the large private foundations to their directors, or is the Director of the Foundation the focal point of authority and responsibility with the Board acting as overseer or policymaker or adviser? Or is the relationship somewhere in between? At present the relationship is one of dual responsibility. The Director looks to the Board for policy and program guidance and approval, but nonetheless, it is he, rather than the Chairman of the Board, who answers to the President. It is the Director, not the Board Chairman, who represents the Foundation on the Federal Council for Science and Technology and in continuing dealings with the Office of Science and Technology. The Director and the Chairman and/or other Board members usually appear before the Appropriations Committees, but it is the Director who answers most of the questions. Just how the responsibility for the Foundation should be divided in the future between the Science Board and the Director is an important 34 Hearings, vol. II, question 1 to Dr. Walker, p. 1328. 24 Hearings, vol. II, question 1 in Dr. Handler's letter, pp. 1417-1418. 20 Ibid., question 1 in Dr. Houston's letter, p. 1416. Ibid., question 1 in Dr. Morison's letter, p. 1412. |