Dr. HOAGLAND. Yes, I think so, very much. And this is, of course, one way in which one could object to the idea of the research institute, per se, because many people feel that teaching and research should go together.

Well, I think it should, too, and we, of course, have many seminars at the Worcester Foundation. We teach each other and we encourage seminars with outsiders who come in.

I might say in addition to that, we have in the past, although I am not doing it right now, in the summer we have had students who come, 20 or 30 additional students who come to work in the summer with our scientists. This has been supported by the National Science Foundation in the past. But we are engaged in an active way with students, but we are not a degree-granting organization.

Senator HARRIS. Let me comment on the point you make about geographic distribution. I agree that research is important to and complements the teaching process, and perhaps the reverse of that is also true. The presence of student manpower may be helpful to the research activities. Therefore, it seems to me that it is not in line with what our national policy should be to have vast geographic areas of this country which are not keeping up with the quality of teaching that goes on in other geographic areas of the country. It is, it seems to me, an unfair national policy to say that the student who happens to be going to school where high quality research is not going on will not be able to receive the quality of education that others will. Our national policy must therefore look for ways to recognize this problem and then develop solutions. I think we are commencing to do this, to a large extent as a result of the hearings that this subcommittee had last year. I have talked with some of those who are involved in making national science policy about this very matter.

So if we recognize that, then it seems to me that we ought to develop some sort of national policy which will help toward building additional centers of excellence.

Dr. HOAGLAND. I agree. I think we ought to have an additional agency concerned with this that would facilitate and find people and encourage research in new areas.

Senator HARRIS. It seems to me that you could say that we already have a lot of that type of funds. For example, the Defense Department started a program this year which is called Project Themis. Dr. HOAGLAND. What is it?

Senator HARRIS. Themis-that is it. It is designed to build additional centers of excellence around the country in the fields of interest to the Defense Department, funded at around $20 million.

Dr. HOAGLAND. That is very good. I did not know about that. Senator HARRIS. Well, the Space Agency is spending about $40 million this year, and the Atomic Energy Commission a little over $40 million, for the primary purpose of building additional centers of excellence. Furthermore, the National Science Foundation, the Office of Education and other agencies are now spending some money for the purpose of building additional centers of excellence, although limited to their own particular fields of concern. We have thought that there might be some better way to coordinate those existing programs which require some kind of long-range and basic planning locally.

Perhaps this could be done on a regional basis in some areas where the resources are more limited, we might even get more centers of excellence out of the money we are now spending.

Dr. HOAGLAND. Yes.

Senator HARRIS. In other words, it might not be wise to employ a hit-or-miss approach, with each department making its own determination to fund programs. So that is of concern to our subcommittee. Since you brought that up, I thought I might explain generally the directions that we are headed in. And there is no intent on anybody's part, as far as I know, to attempt anything so ridiculous or so self-defeating for our country as to advocate dismantling existing centers of excellence.

Dr. HOAGLAND. Yes.

Senator HARRIS. Now, I like your idea about these interdisciplinary conferences that have been held, and the one you mentioned that is financed by the Macy Foundation, and the possibility that the Federal Government might be interested in such conferences. I think that is a good suggestion.

I also was interested in your reporting about changing somewhat from the horizontal to the vertical organization of teaching within medical schools. That is very interesting.

Dr. HOAGLAND. It seems so to me. This is something I really do not know very much about firsthand. But I imagine that tomorrow you will hear more about that from Dean Ebert, of the Harvard Medical School, who is very concerned with medical education.

Senator HARRIS. I think we might even wisely spend some money on both ideas, the interdisciplinary conference and vertically organized teaching. The Department of Labor does this, in vertical training projects, on an experimental demonstration basis, just to see how something like that may work. I am talking, too, of a broader definition of interdisciplinary work to include such things, as for example, engineering, and also, in another situation, or perhaps in the same, the social sciences. The latter might treat the social aspects of medical research and of medicine generally.

Dr. HOAGLAND. Right.

Senator HARRIS. You also emphasize very strongly the independent institute. I take it from your responses to my questions, that you feel the institutional grant system is a very wise one in helping to develop such institutes. I mean rather than the particular

Dr. HOAGLAND. Rather than the project grant or the dozens of project grants.

Well, it is a great help if one can get an institutional grant, because it saves so much redtape from the point of view of work on the part of the Government agencies and the work of the scientists-writing reports and grant applications. This is one of the reasons why this general research support grant is so important for an institution like ours, because it gives us some freedom of operation equivalent to hard money in a sense. It has to be spent on research. We cannot spend it on our administrative functions at all, but it does give us a possibility, if the grant does not come through, of taking care of somebody who may get the grant later on and so on.

And it is a cushion, which I think is terribly necessary in any research enterprise. A large institutional grant for say five years instead

of 100 smaller grants to individuals eliminates an awful lot of bookkeeping and waste of motion on the part of many people.

Senator HARRIS. That is a very good point, I think. I have noticed that sometimes, semi-autonomous institutions within the college or university, or even people within the college or university itself, will be led to apply for a grant which does not really fit exactly what they want to do, or maybe they include segments or components which are not exactly what they want to do, but which they feel will be funded. Dr. HOAGLAND. I think this is very true. There is no doubt of it. Grantsmanship has become a kind of disease in places.

Senator HARRIS. There is argument for a mix of some kind, I think, between project grants and institutional grants. But I think the point you have made

Dr. HOAGLAND. I think so. The more institutional grants the better, for those places. There is always a risk that a place will go downhill in quality of research, but if an institutional grant is not made on a permanent basis but for say 5 years, let us say, this is not a serious problem.

Senator HARRIS. What moral lesson is there in the very interesting comments you make here about the Soviet system? Or is there one?

Dr. HOAGLAND. I do not think there is anything there other than the fact that it is an interesting observation on how another group of people approaches these problems. I had not known about these institutes when I went over and I had not expected to see as good work as I saw in the Soviet Union in the medical sciences, because of reports I have had.

As a matter of fact, the equipment was somewhat unimpressive in many places. On the other hand, a lot of it was good stuff, and the enthusiasm and interest on the part of the investigators were very genuine, and I felt that here were examples of research institutes that are doing good work. They are small enough so that there is intimate exchange between the people and yet they are within a center of activity so that there is communication between basic and applied fields.

Now, medicine in the Soviet Union has not the status that it has here. It has not the status there because of the great importance that has been placed on mathematics, physics, and chemistry. Medicine itself is downgraded. The Russians were bragging, including the women, that there are now almost more men going into medicine than women. This is rather interesting because apparently the old male chauvinism is opening over there the way it is here. They were very pleased to say more men than women were going into medicine now. I felt these institutes are doing a good job, and I mentioned it because by and large there is not much thought here about independent research institutes.

I think some of our own institutes are very good, some are not. Some have been created, I think, almost with the idea of getting more grants in a way that would be more effective, without necessarily having as much to offer as they might have. This is true of some to a degree that might not be true of colleges or universities. But by and large, I think there are a number of good institutes. I have mentioned some of them. I mention also Jack's Memorial Institute up in Bar

Harbor. That is an old one that was in existence before World War II, and I think has done excellent work.

Senator HARRIS. I had been led to believe that, up until fairly recently, in the field of genetics, Soviet research was dominated by the Party line and that they therefore had not made as many advances as we had.

Dr. HOAGLAND. I am sure it is dominated by the Party line as far as the sociology goes. I think the life of a sociologist in the Soviet Union must be terrible from the point of view of doing any serious research.

Senator HARRIS. I was thinking about genetics.

Dr. HOAGLAND. Genetics is more or less reformed now. Lysenkoism is a dead issue now. They did excellent research up until Lysenkoism came up under Stalin and his purge of geneticists. I have talked with top geneticists when I was over there, and they seem to think that the study of genetics was excellent up until this Stalin purge of genetics. But they are accepting now our interpretation of the gene and its relation to DNA and RNA. It must have been frightfully embarrassing for their truly able geneticists to have been forced into a political mold as they were.

Senator HARRIS. Do you feel the research institutes you saw in the Soviet Union are as independent as the institutes you talked about, your own and others in the United States?

Dr. HOAGLAND. I did not see any evidence that the kinds of problems they were working on were any different from the kinds of problems we are studying. I did not see that there was any unusual pressure on them. The kinds of things they are doing are the kinds of things we are doing.

For example, the Psychiatric Institute in Moscow was interesting to me, because at the Worcester Foundation we have a program studying schizophrenia and psychosis from the point of view of biochemical factors that may be involved. The Russians are doing practically the same thing. They have sent one of their people over and met with us and we talked over our common problems.

We are generally confirming each other in some regards. They are not influenced by Freudianism or by the psychodynamic school as much as we are in this country. I found I could talk with them frankly more readily about what they are doing than I could with some of my colleagues in the American institutions who are so heavily oriented in the Freudian thinking.

Senator HARRIS. That's interesting, because I have found some of the same thing.

Did you sense any reluctance on the part of the Soviet investigators to share with you

Dr. HOAGLAND. No, we did not encounter any reluctance to talk about what they were doing. In fact, they were like most scientists; they like to talk shop. Sometimes it was rather hard with their English. The scientists wanted to talk English, and we had a marvelous interpreter, a woman, who could make things quite clear. But she would be brushed aside by the eager scientist. When we got through we often did not know very much of what he had said until we got an interpretation from our woman interpreter.

Of course, we saw nothing that could be considered secret. These were all biomedical things. For instance, we were taken into the Institute of Neurosurgery and immediately given coats to put on, and masks. We were rushed down the hall and into operating rooms, where they were doing brain operations. This was before they even gave us a talk. They wanted us to see their operating technique. There were four or five operations going on, and they distributed our group among their operating rooms. I was impressed by some of the women operators who had earrings dangling from their ears and had masks on, and they seemed to be doing the same sort of thing men did with their surgery.

The Soviets were very cordial about having us see everything that we were interested in. There seemed to be no withdrawal on the part of anybody.

We were told we could photograph anything we wanted, anything that was not of a military nature. We were assured we would not have a chance to photograph anything military. We were able to photograph things in museums, in the Hermitage, for instance. In the operating rooms and in the laboratories we could take pictures. We were encouraged to take pictures of everything, which I thought was quite surprising. I had expected quite the opposite.

Senator HARRIS. Doctor, thank you very much for your patience today and for a very informative statement and an enjoyable after

noon.

Dr. HOAGLAND. Thank you very much.

Senator HARRIS. Our last witness today is also very patient, Dr. Chauncey Starr.

Dr. Starr is the dean of engineering at the University of California at Los Angeles and chairman of the Committee on Public Engineering Policy of the National Academy of Engineering here in Washington. His Ph. D. was received in 1935 and is in the field of physics. He also received an honorary Ph. D. degree in 1964 in engineering.

Without objection, we will place in the record additional biographical data concerning Dr. Starr at this point.

(The biographical data referred to follows:)

Biographical Sketch: Dr. Chauncey Starr

Dean of Engineering, University of California at Los Angeles.

Chairman, "The Committee on Public Engineering Policy", National Academy of Engineering, Washington, D.C.

Ph. D. 1935 Field: Physics, Honorary Ph. D. 1964 in Engineering.

Background Data: Resident Physicist, P. R. Mallory Company; Resident Associate, Physical Chemist, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Physicist, D. W. Taylor Model Basin, Bureau of Ships, Navy Department; Senior Physicist, Tennessee Eastman Corporation; Physicist, Clinton Laboratory; Director, Atomic Energy Research Department, North American Aviation, Inc.; President and General Manager, Atomics International Division.

Consultant, Science Advisory Board, United States Department of the Air Force; Manager, Advisory Panel, Universal Research Reactions, National Science Foundation; AA Fellow and President, Physical Science Nuclear Society.

Senator HARRIS. Dr. Starr, we appreciate your being here and your waiting patiently.

You have a prepared statement, and you may proceed however you desire.