Senator HARRIS. You mean a planning mechanism or what?

Mr. WRIGHT. Yes-not planning in the rigid sense, but mechanisms to develop the range of choices that would be available to the planner. We in the academic world do make a distinction between policy studies and policy-oriented studies-between specific plans and between studies which will be or should be taken into account by planners.

Senator HARRIS. Well, I will not get very far recommending to the Senate that we establish new mechanisms unless I can tell them a little more in detail about what sort of mechanisms I mean. That is my difficulty.

You say, for example, "I must emphasize the need for new concepts and knowledge.

Mr. WRIGHT. Right.

Senator HARRIS. Now, "concepts and knowledge" are very much like the word "mechanisms." They have to be explained.

In the next paragraph you say: "This requires the development and spread of new concepts and attitudes." Now you have thrown in another word, "attitudes." What sort of concepts and knowledge and attitudes? That is what my difficulty is.

Mr. WRIGHT. You will have to forgive me. Those who are associated with academic institutions do tend to talk in rather abstract terms. The basic concept I am proposing is science affairs as a legitimate and important area of studies, of which biomedical affairs is an important part. I do not believe this concept is as yet adequately recognized; while there exists concern for the overall development of the biomedical sciences it does not follow that there are people who monitor it and try to influence it in any systematic way. We need to develop an awareness of the legitimacy of asking questions about where we are going in relation to our means for getting there. One can demonstrate in terms of institutions, public and private, that this awareness does not now exist. We have science administrators who administer laboratories and we have directors of agencies who are concerned with day-to-day affairs and with long-range objectives. But it is not clear to me that we make a legitimate place for the kinds of activities, studies, and personnel which would backstop these responsibilities of agency heads or leaders in our intellectual community.

Senator HARRIS. Senator Hansen?

Senator HANSEN. Well, I think the chairman has pinpointed the concerns that I feel at the present time. It is difficult for me, not having any training in this field at all, to follow as closely as I am sure I should to the thread of your thought. I would suggest, as the chairman already has, that if specific propsals and precise suggestions might be made in terms, perhaps less abstract and more comprehensible to the average person, I think this is the sort of thing that would be helpful. Because it is easy for someone with no background in this area to miss the point.

I agree with you that in a broad sense, we would like to do all of those things which might bring about a better state of health generally throughout this country. I think you are concerned with ways in which this could be accomplished.

Mr. WRIGHT. If I may, I would make one practical suggestion. I would suggest that agencies and legislators who are concerned with appropriations for biomedical research can and should expect that

a certain rationale be given for the proposed activities and that perhaps a certain percentage, very small percentage, to be sure, of almost any major activity be devoted to inquiries as to what the long-range side effects, of these activities might be. I do not believe this is done or that it is very easy for outside people to understand and review critically, if you will, what the long-range implications are likely to be of investment in any research area. It seems to me it would be perfectly legitimate to expect that any proposals and any funds related to those proposals include recognition of the long-range policy implication of what is being undertaken.

Senator HARRIS. Well, of course, if you are just trying to advance knowledge that would not be very feasible, would it? You would not even be sure what it is you are trying to find out?

Mr. WRIGHT. This is true, in the sense that you may not know what the specific results will be if you undertake a research program in one area. But you do know that you are more likely to come up with new knowledge in that area than in quite another field. If you are studying in the biological sciences, you obviously are not likely to come up with many insights into high-energy physics. You can also say that putting money into one area of biomedical sciences is going to exclude some energy for research in other areas.

Within the university community, one might ask questions now about the nature of the research commitments of the medical faculties as contrasted with the basic biological science faculties. It is not evident to me that there are any adequate statements of the rationale for universities allocating the research energies the way they are.

Senator HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, if I might make a comment at this point, let me say that I think all of us appreciate some of the tremendous breakthroughs that have followed the inquiries that typify basic research. Many of our scientists are intrigued with the problem that just grips them and they start out knowing not where they may go and, yet, along the way they make some very important discoveries that have wide-ranging effects on all of us. The implications are certainly beyond the comprehension of the researcher, at least, while he is involved in the actual research.

Because of that, I have a very warm regard and great respect for institutions and scientists who are involved in basic research, because I think that it is difficult to say when you start out where you are going to wind up and what will be discovered and what its relevance may be to the overall general health or happiness of the people in this country. But referring once more to the point that the chairman made, you say here, if I may be permitted to read it one more time, "I must emphasize the need for new concepts and knowledge on the part of persons involved in the decisionmaking processes.

Now, I am not sure if I understand what you mean by the decisionmaking processes.

Mr. WRIGHT. I mean by that the participants in the biomedical science affairs community; this community includes scientists who have a tremendous influence over the directions research takes and the training of younger researchers and practitioners, politicians, university administrators, and others. One can identify those who contribute in one way or another to the directions of policy in this area.

When I say that I think there is a need for new concepts, I would pick up the point you made about basic research and point out that that is just a pair of words and that the meaning of research has probably changed a great deal in the last decade. It includes many subdivisions which we do not fully understand. The very prestige associated with basic research has made it very advantageous, if you will, for many people to say that what they are doing is research. I think we need to look carefully at what the meaning of this is. There are many different things that go on under the guise of basic research. We have to know more about what these things are and one should realize that the people who come forward with credentials as researchers are the product of a complex system of selection and direction. They are not just born that way, so to speak, and therefore, although you may wish to support them as in terms of their own interest and on the assumption that whatever they come up with may be of fundamental and lasting value, you should at least realize that the people who come forward and who are identified as researchers are the product of a social process.

Senator HANSEN. I had a very stimulating experience in being privileged to go through the Bell Labs earlier this year and I saw an indepth dimensional picture, projected, as I recall, with a laser ray which permits a person to move around in front of it, while there on a glass screen, you can see and hear a man who is not there. You see a person back of it and yet when you look behind the glass, no one is there. But as you look at it, to all intents and purposes, you are certainly positive that you are seeing something in its three-dimensional aspect. I mention this simply to illustrate how I feel, generally, that most true researchers and scientists seem perfectly willing to explore the unknown and prefer to remain uninhibited by any direction or guidance or restrictions on the part of anyone trying to say what we should be seeking to discover or how widely applicable our discoveries should be. I gather from what I was shown up there and told up there, the laser ray may not only be a means of communicating almost endless numbers of messages but has other applicabilities as well.

I agree with you that there is need for additional knowledge. I would like to know how we might better go about trying to get that than under the present system.

Mr. WRIGHT. Let me use, if I may, your example to illustrate my point. I am not arguing for new knowledge in general, but I am arguing for new knowledge about choices we make. What you just described is the new advance in heliography. It just so happens that about 7 years ago I was talking about the directions of basic research with an eminent physicist Nobel Prize winner who was chairman of a physics department. I asked him about the priorities within physics research, including the place of optics. This was before laser beams and holography heliography became of great interest. He thought this was an unimportant area of physics from the point of view of his department.

Now, my plea is for more self-awareness and knowledge of what is being excluded by any set of choices in research as well as what is being included. My impression is that up until now decisions have been made on a very impressionistic basis or, as in the case of an industrial laboratory such as Bell Lab, with some awareness of the eco

nomic potential. And of course, that gives a direction to the kind of a laboratory which you would not get in university research.

But that does not mean universities do not in fact have sets of priorities or that the set of priorities within an industrial laboratory are the right ones. In either case, it is not clear that we have much knowledge of the considerations which should be taken into account in setting these priorities.

Senator HANSEN. If I could speak to that point, Mr. Wright, for just a moment, let me say that certainly no one is better aware of the truism that research costs money. Some of these major laboratories may have 10 to 20 people backing up every scientist because they realize if they are going to make the best use of his brains and talent and genius, others must do the housekeeping chores. They must see that the heat is turned on under a test tube at a certain time, and turned off, and do all of these things.

So that I do not doubt at all that any true scientist could suggest any number of areas, any number of paths that we might go down if we had enough money to follow them.

Now, one of the contributions that it seems to me the National Science Foundation has made is to give some valuation to the different proposals that are submitted to it from time to time. Certainly, I would be the first to admit that their judgment is not infallible, but I do think that in the absence of a better way this has been useful in at least letting a very able board review different projects that are submitted to it. What we might expect from this process is that the selection would at least reflect the opinions of those on the Board as to the merit of the different proposals that have been made.

Now, do you have a suggestion for a better system than this, just to illustrate my point?

Mr. WRIGHT. It is my impression that the primary task of the review committees is to ascertain the likely quality of the work that will emerge, and that they examine the proposals from this point of view.

This says nothing about the relevance of the proposed work to any other area of science or to the potential place of this whole area of science in human affairs. I do not believe the review committees are asked to appraise proposals in those terms. If they were to do so, I do not believe they would feel competent to do so or that anybody at the present time would feel competent to make more than an offhand judgment about these matters.

But I also believe we can develop more competence in this area. This is what I am pleading for.

Senator HANSEN. Well now, I gather from your last statement you feel this would advance rather than hinder gathering knowledge and probing into areas that might be more fruitfully explored than those that we are presently undertaking?

Mr. WRIGHT. In the long run, yes, because I believe the rationale for basic research now is not too well founded. We are in danger, therefore, of ending up with a certain disillusionment. Historically, one can demonstrate that we have been going for a long time on the capital, if you will, of the close connection between pure physics research and nuclear energy development and of similar developments where we have dramatized the relation between basic research and

society. But this does not mean we properly understand the relationships between them.

Senator HANSEN. I must admit as a layman, with no background at all in this respect, that I would find rather frightening an additional layer of authority or review on top of basic research.

I think that it might hinder rather than help, but I admit that I have a great lack of knowledge in that area.

Mr. WRIGHT. I would like to clarify my point on that. I am not pleading for another layer of authority. I am pleading for another layer of knowledge. I believe that if this knowledge is developed and disseminated it will carry its own authority, without any administrative authority.

This is, I believe, a very important point that has not been adequately recognized.

Senator HANSEN. I have no further questions.

Senator HARRIS. Thank you, Senator Hansen.

What is the Institute for the Study of Science in Human Affairs at Columbia?

Mr. WRIGHT. Within the last year, Columbia University has created a permanent institute for the study of science in human affairs. This is a response on the part of one major university to a growing awareness of the need to look at the ways in which modern science is affecting human affairs, and the ways in which human interests affect the course of scientific development. It is a university-wide enterprise. It is designed to permit greater interaction between the natural and the social scientists and the humanists and to engage them in studies of the sort that I have been describing here, among others. Such studies require the knowledge and experience of people from many backgrounds, in and out of the university.

The institute's objectives are to develop a better understanding of these matters and to develop individuals who will then be able to carry on and use this knowledge in various ways, both in teaching and in public service.

Senator HARRIS. How is it funded, Mr. Wright?

Mr. WRIGHT. Private grants. Our major founding grant was a $1 million grant from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, and we have had other grants, including a major significant grant from the Commonwealth Fund specifically for studies of medicine and the biomedical sciences in human affairs.

Senator HARRIS. And the concept you bring us is the institute's concept of biomedical affairs, would that be a fair statement?

Mr. WRIGHT. Yes, as a part of science affairs. This is a concept of an area of study and of practice. We are practicing in this areathere are individuals who are part of the community of persons involved in biomedical affairs, but it has not been adequately studied. Senator HARRIS. Do you think that it would be a good innovation in our universities to require medical and engineering students to take more courses in the social sciences and humanities?

Mr. WRIGHT. Not indiscriminately. I believe that in the course of time we will develop specific knowledge in the areas that I have been discussing and that this should be an important part of the curriculum for some but perhaps not for all students. But all medical students, for instance, should be aware of the complexity of biomedical affairs.