The CHAIRMAN. Do you have anything further, Senator Schweiker? Senator SCHWEIKER. Just one point, Mr. Chairman. In heading up Carnegie-Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Dr. Stever not only fulfilled his academic and scientific role very well, but also I should point out that in Pennsylvania he has been active in community service and community participation. He has demonstrated a very well-rounded approach to his job in Pittsburgh, and I am sure he will bring to the directorship of the National Science Foundation that same concept of his work.

I think it is very important to this committee to have in this position a man who can take the overall view as well as the scientific view of his duties. Dr. Stever has demonstrated that through the work that he has done in the Pittsburgh community. So I would just like to make that point to the committee. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Stever, I have had the pleasure of meeting with you this morning, and one of the matters that we discussed was your investment posture. As you know, it is necessary for us to be sure that there is no conflict here of public endeavor with private investment position. You, of course, have supplied us with your portfolio of investments which is quite a long list of individual holdings, none of which is of significant size. You have also advised us of the position of your wife's holdings and that she is the beneficiary of an irrevocable trust, I understand, an inheritance from her father. In our discussion, you mentioned that you thought there were certain areas that, while small in terms of monetary investment, might have an appearance of conflict in your decisions on the directing of scientific funds. I wonder if you would state your attitude about your holdings and what you intend to do, and also more fully explain your family position.

Dr. STEVER. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. The National Science Foundation, of course, grants only a very small percentage of its funds to profitmaking organizations, although, of course, some of the funds which the grantees use do go to profitmaking organizations. When I looked over my holdings, I felt that there were possibly three areas where I should sell because of the impact of the National Science Foundation programs. One of these was in the scientific equipment area where corporations are often relatively small, and National Science Foundation grants may represent something quite big to them. As a consequence, I proposed to sell one of my stocks in that area. The CHAIRMAN. You say, one of your stocks is in that area?

Dr. STEVER. The one that seems to be in conflict there. We also in our conference this morning came upon one that I was not sure of, and I would be quite willing if that appears to be in that area to sell that, too. That is in the scientific equipment field.

There is a second area in which I think I would like to sell something, and that is in the oceanographic. As you note from the list, I have an investment in a mutual fund called the "Oceanographic Fund,” and while I don't have any individual selection on the individual stocks, I feel the oceanographic area is sufficiently small, and the NSF work in the universities is a substantial part of this work. I feel that I should divest myself of that, again, not because I could influence things, but there might be an appearance there.

In the third area, in the area of computers, an appreciable amount of scientific work that is supported by the National Science Founda

tion requires the use of computers. In fact. I guess there must be $30 million of direct National Science Foundation support in that area. As you notice. I do have some IBM stock, and, while I don't think the National Science Foundation is going to have a heavy impact on IBM, I do think that I would rather not have the appearance of having that computer stock in my portfolio either.

The other stock holdings I have or that my wife has are in very broadly based companies, most of which have no contact with NSF; and if they did, it would be quite minimal. So I believe this would be a fair treatment of my holdings.

The CHAIRMAN. I have a list of your holdings. and I see their value as of today. If you offer these shares in those four areas for sale, I can be sure that this will not depress the market.

Before we turn to Senator Pell, there is one other part of your economic life that is rather unique. I think we might clarify it now. There is a contractual relationship that has been fixed with CarnegieMellon that will take effect on your retirement from regular economic activity. Could you explain that?

Dr. STEVER. Yes. I think it was 4 or 5 years ago that the trustees established a fund to which they have contributed in the last 4 years, but to which they will contribute no more, with the College Retirement Equities Fund, and the conditions on this are that I cannot influence that, they cannot influence it, but it will be paid to me over a 10-year period of consulting after I am through with my gainful employment full time. Now, when that was set up, I think it was intended to be something that, after I served a very long time at Carnegie-Mellon, would be a larger sum, and I would, of course, be consulting on educational matters. But I don't think this is a conflict, because I can't influence it.

Senator JAVITS. What is the aggregate amount?

Dr. STEVER. $40,000. I am sorry, it is $30,000. But at the end of the year, it would go to $40,000.

Senator JAVITS. So it would average $4,000 a year?

Dr. STEVER. $4,000 a year.

Senator JAVITS. I would certainly call that so minimal that it should not be considered a factor.

The CHAIRMAN. Just to wind this up, I, for myself, see no appearance of any conflict here, and from what I see of your life, it has been wholly focused on science and research. It has not been business or investment oriented, but has been a most distinguished life in the area of science beginning with your assignment to London, I believe it was, for the Office of Scientific Development on Radar, back in

1942.

So I am completely satisfied that there is no personal thrust that need worry anybody about any conflict of public purpose here in this job and your private investments.

Senator Pell?

Senator PELL. I notice that your interests have mainly been in outer space. Dr. McElroy's interests were more toward inner space and ocean space. What are your views with regard to the NSF engaging in some applied research functions, and is it your intent to keep the same emphasis on inner space and perhaps the more profitable activities in the field of oceanography?

Dr. STEVER. First, with respect to applied research, I think this is one of the very important activities of the National Science Foundation, and it is important, not only for the research results, but to build the bridge between the purist and scientists and the people in our society who are applying knowledge to everyday needs. So I am very strongly of that.

I have often said that science has two faces, or put another way. it stands on two feet and it can't really survive without both. One is the basic research and the other is the applied research.

Of course the National Science Foundation has as its primary mission basic research and it is very important in that field; it carries immense weight there. In applied research there are many other agencies involved but I think the National Science Foundation should be involved so it can make contact, deal with them and help them, and

so on.

On the business of oceanography, I am intensely interested in it. I think part of my interest in outer space-and this is personal and not financial-is simply because I am interested in all forms of exploration. I have confidence that exploration will eventually lead to things of value to society.

But I am also, I have to say, captured by the excitement of exploration and that is one of the good things for me in the space venture.

Oceanography has some of the same points and probably even closer applications because in any area of application one looks, from the growing of food to commerce and transport, to provide an environment for our leisure time and so on, it has tremendous possibilities. NSF is deeply involved and will stay that way.

Senator PELL. This committee was responsible for the national sea grant bill, which was initially placed within the NSF and then transferred to the National Ocean Atmospheric Agency. But as a result of their experience with the sea grant college program, the NSF developed a certain know-how and continued interest in oceanography. Dr. McElrov, with his tremendous experience in the field of oceanography. carried that on. Is it your intent as director to keep the same emphasis, or at least an emphasis on oceanographic problems?

Dr. STEVER. I certainly will try, sir. I think oceanography is one of the interesting and important fields along with the atmosphericenvironmental things that is of tremendous importance.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Dr. Stever.

It is our hope that the committee will be able to consider and I personally hope favorably report the nomination.

Senator JAVITS. Dr. Stever, will you do us a favor? As I thought your views on this subject of the scientist as a humanist were so important, would you be kind enough to put that in a little memorandum. so it could be included in the record? Just write me a letter or write the chairman, as you will.

Dr. STEVER. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. The committee will now proceed with other business.

(Whereupon the committee proceeded with other business.)

O