The CHAIRMAN. Senator Schweiker? Senator SCHWEIKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am very pleased to be here on behalf of Senator Scott, who had hoped to be here but had a previous commitment and can't. And I ask unanimous consent that Senator Scott's statement be inserted in the record at this point. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, it will be. PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. HUGH SCOTT, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, PRESENTING DR. H. GUYFORD STEVER, NOMINEE FOR DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Senator SCOTT. Dr. H. Guyford Stever, president of Carnegie-Mellon University in Pittsburgh is an excellent choice by President Nixon to be Director of the National Science Foundation. Dr. Stever is an outstanding scientist. He has a long record of professional achievements in the academic field and in the area of public service. His broad experience in both these areas qualifies him for the highest leadership post with the National Science Foundation. Dr. Stever brings high professional marks to the Foundation that provides the guidance for continued research in science and science education. Dr. Stever has broad knowledge of what must be done in the sciences. He has gained broad experience as an educator, as the chief scientist of the Air Force and as a trustee of the Sarah Mellon Scaife Foundation. I am particularly proud of the National Science Foundation since I was a strong supporter of this legislation more than 20 years ago while a Member of the House of Representatives. Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge approval of Dr. Stever to be Administrator of the National Science Foundation. STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD S. SCHWEIKER, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA Senator SCHWEIKER. Mr. Chairman, it gives me great pleasure to welcome to our committee hearing and introduce to the committee Dr. Guyford Stever, whom the President has nominated to be the Director of the National Science Foundation. We in Pennsylvania are proud that Dr. Stever has been appointed to this distinguished Government post. Since 1965 he has headed one of our major university and scientific complexes, the Carnegie-Mellon University in Pittsburgh. He is a well-respected member not only of the Pittsburgh academic community but of the total community, for he has combined a host of Pittsburgh civic and philanthropic activities with his university presidency. At the same time he is no stranger to Washington and the Federal science policy field, since he presently sits on the National Science Board, a position for which he received Senate confirmation, through this committee, in 1970. I would like to indicate my strong support for Dr. Stever. From 1941-65, until he came to Carnegie-Mellon University, he was associated with MIT. He rose there from instructor to head three departments: Mechanical engineering, naval architecture, and marine engineering. He did serve a tour of wartime duty from 1942 to 1945 for the Office of Scientific Research and Development in its London mission. He has 47 published articles and papers. I think all in all Dr. Stever is qualified, by his intellect and his accomplishments, to serve at the head of this important Federal agency devoted to the development of science, and scientific education. I am pleased to present him for committee consideration today and I look forward to his prompt confirmation. I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator Schweiker. Senator Kennedy is the chairman of our Subcommittee on the National Science Foundation, so I will now turn to Senator Kennedy. Senator KENNEDY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to extend a warm welcome to you, Doctor. STATEMENT OF GUYFORD STEVER, NOMINEE TO BE DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Dr. STEVER. Thank you, Senator. Senator KENNEDY. You certainly come very highly recommended and I notice that you have spent a number of years up in my own State of Massachusetts. I hope that you had good times up there. Dr. STEVER. Very happy, sir. Senator KENNEDY. I want to extend congratulations to you and your family on your nomination for this position. All of us Americans take great pride in the Nation's extraordinary scientific accomplishments in recent times. The Foundation, of course, has been instrumental, I feel, in providing scientific guidance and direction for us as a nation. I think particularly at this time when there are considerable threats to our whole economy relative to our leadership in science and technology you are faced with a great challenge. I think at a time when there is increasing concern about social problems and when NSF has the potential to play a constructive and positive role in helping guide the way in such areas, there is once again an extraordinary opportunity for leadership. So, I think you are at an enormously challenging time in terms of our country and in terms of the Foundation, and I want to extend a warm word of welcome to you. As the chairman of the National Science Foundation Subcommittee, I can say we are terribly interested in being able to work with you and try to provide a congressional input to the scientific community. So, I want to congratulate you. An important new effort at NSF is the RANN program-which I am sure you are very much aware of which is designed to make better use of scientific knowledge in resolving many of our social problems. I would be interested in your own comments about the significance of this program, what you think are its possibilities, what you think are some of its limitations. To the extent you might give us some reactions to that. I would appreciate it. Dr. STEVER. Mr. Chairman and Senator Kennedy, I am only too pleased to answer this question. I think the RANN program is terribly important to science in its broadest terms and the country at this time. I think there is one feature of RANN that should be pointed out more often. Young scientists and engineers, whatever their field is, when they are in college and when they are in the university and graduate school, shape their lives often around the subject of their thesis, the project on which they work, the professors, the subject matter that the professors with whom they work specialize in. I feel that at this time in our society we must turn out a lot more young people who are interested in applying science for the society we are shaping and the RANN program helps a lot of them get started. That is in addition to the specific results of science that come through the RANN program to apply to some of these goals. I have been particularly interested in the RANN program, observing around the country the kinds of scientists who are responding to it who want to become part of it in the sense of converting from an older field of science to these new fields. I think this is very important because science must move with the broad sweep of our society. I think also that there are a number of the new goals of society in which we all have a common purpose, we all know what we would like. We may get to these purposes from different points of view but there is a lot of agreement on many of these new goals but we are lacking some of the information we need to solve the problems involved. I think RANN can contribute immensely there, I think RANN is a very important program. Senator KENNEDY. In applying science to the problems of society. the social sciences are, of course, extremely important. A number of critics have asserted that when NSF does social science research, it emphasizes the quantitative problems and ignores those which are not amenable to specific quantitative analysis, yet many of the important problems we are facing can't be handled in a quantitative way. I would be interested in your thoughts on the role of the social sciences, with emphasis on the proper role of non-quantitative research. Dr. STEVER. Senator Kennedy, let me remind you first that I am not educated as a social scientist but I have been around a lot of them both at MIT and Carnegie-Mellon and also in the Science Foundation. where I served on the Commission on the Social Sciences of the National Science Board. I think it is true that the National Science Foundation and most organizations which are supporting science step into the support of social sciences, I would guess I would call it, a little gingerly. It seems in the physical sciences and in the biological sciences it is a little easier to judge results, to know when one can put a number on things. In the social sciences, because they spread out so broadly in all the activities of our people, it is a little harder. Nevertheless, I think that it is an important field for us to continue to try to do our best in. I have a feeling that from time to time we will make errors but hopefully we can correct any such errors and move forward. You spoke of quantifying. There are some sciences which in the past were non-quantifiable but with modern techniques are getting much more so. At Carnegie-Mellon, for example, and you will excuse me for taking the examples which are closest to home, our social scientists in phychology, for example, are very heavy users of the computer and systems analyses and the techniques which come out of the physical sciences. I think there social science is moving toward a much more quantifiable basis. But I do think the social sciences will always have one face directly on the human, and in that sense there are bridges between quantifiable sciences and the human dimension. Senator KENNEDY. Turning to another important area, there appears to be a widespread trend away from institutional funding programs on the part of the administration. And about one quarter of all NSF's education funds has been frozen by OMB. As someone who is coming right from the university world-a distinguished university at that I would be interested in hearing how you view the importance of institutional programs for science education and development? Dr. STEVER. Yes, sir. Of course, a university president, I guess, can't help but be very strongly moved toward institutional funding because that is what a great deal of his life is, trying to get institutional funding. Senator KENNEDY. I hear you are very successful at it. Dr. STEVER. Thank you very much, but I had some setbacks, too. There is an argument in this. Some institutional funding can be used to expand the facilities and the plant for the production of scientists and engineers and for research. There have been some questions recently as to whether we haven't gone a little too far in expanding our capability to produce them and thereby possibly contribute a little bit to unemployment, at least in certain fields. I think of nuclear physics, for example, where a drop-off in atomic energy research has resulted in some trouble with respect to jobs. There are really two ways in which science can be supported. One is by support of the scientist who is the core of the operation and the mover of the idea, and the other is the support of the institution in which he works. I think they are both important. I think we have to be very careful with respect to institutional funds which expand our plants. We do not want to waste resources and expand beyond our needs. May I say one other thing about this? Having been at a university, I know that the people who can spend the money most wisely at the university are the people closest to the firing line. For example, when we get institutional support, not necessarily governmental, we invariably bring our scientists and department heads in to make sure this is spent wisely, and institutional grants which are aimed at that area, department, and so on, I think are very valuable. Senator KENNEDY. Just a final couple of areas I'd like to cover. Mr. Stever. We are considering in Congress economic conversion legislation. There have been a number of proposals introduced in the Congress. Some of those see an important role for the National Science Foundation. I can understand some reluctance on the part of the National Science Foundation to undertake new departures. But nonetheless, an economic conversion role does seem to be consistent with the purposes of RANN, the kinds of social science studies that you mentioned, and the country's need to utilize the extraordinary skills of our technical community, in addressing our social problems-whether it is in law enforcement, or pollution, or housing, or education, or vari ous health matters. I don't know whether you have given this much thought, as to what NSF's role should be in terms of helping us in the Congress move more effectively in this area. But I would appreciate it if you would give this some thought and hopefully be able to work with us on this. I represent a State, as do a number of other members of this committee, that has a very sizable level of technical unemployment. The technical people frequently compare the situation now with what it was a few years ago when they could always go down to the Defense Department or NASA in terms of finding out where they ought to devote their energies and skills and where their corporations and industries should move in these areas. Now the situation has changed, and it is extremely difficult to make the transition into nondefense or space markets. There have been a number of economic conversion proposals put forward. And I am hopeful that in this effort we may be able to get some help from you in terms of how we can better respond to this particular problem. I have introduced these economic conversion proposals, and others have put in related bills. But rather than ask you specifically about these measures today, I would express our hope that we could get your guidance on these matters over the coming weeks. Mr. STEVER. Thank you; I would be glad to discuss it with you. Senator KENNEDY. Finally, I have written to the NSF about the development of nonlethal weapons to help reduce bloodshed in our society. This is an area in which I am interested, and I hope you will give it your personal attention when you are at NSF. There is no reason that we can't have a good deal of research in this area and find out what can be done. I think all of us, particularly on this committee, as we hear about the riots and other kinds of violence that are taking place in our society, we can't help but believe there must be some other ways of helping reduce the bloodshed. I hope that with NSF's enormous research potential, you will be able to help us with this problem. I want to thank you very much for appearing here. It will certainly be a pleasure to vote for your confirmation. Mr. STEVER. Thank you very much. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Javits? Senator JAVITS. Dr. Stever, you have been in to see me, and I am very well satisfied with your qualifications for this position. I think you will handle it nobly. I believe in response to our inquiries you have made it clear that you have an understanding that the scientist cannot be an automaton, and at the same time he cannot run the world. The scientist must make his contribution in science according to his best lights, and then participate as a citizen and how it can best be used, rather than as a dictator because he controls a particular skill. I would like to compliment you very much on this balance of philosophy. Now, the chairman and I have had the privilege of going over your personal financial statement which you were kind enough to give us. We have conferred about it, and the chairman will deal with it in the questioning. Thank you very much. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Cranston? |