through legislative strategy or legislative formula in any detail, because when you get into details they move too fast and get too complicated.

So again I would say that the legislative process cannot itself carry out the function of administration in the area of science support. That is all I meant there.

As far as the role of the Congress is concerned in the development of the basic policy guidelines, I think the entire university and scientific community is very appreciative of not only the special relationship this committee has had in drawing on the resources of the National Academy but in general the advantage which we have all enjoyed of not only testifying but reading each other's testimony. I think this is a quite different question than the one that I was addressing myself

to.

On the other problem of indirect costs, you are quite correct. I do think that it is inevitable that inadequate reimbursements for indirect costs will come at the expense of education as against research and nonscientific activitiy as against scientific activity and that this would be an unfortunate distortion of academic self-determination on the part of liberal arts and sciences universities.

Mr. DADDARIO. You have touched, too, President Brewster, on the importance of the personnel competitive market. I think this is a very important part of your statement, and as we see these scientific programs develop, it becomes more and more important. The question, for example, of the opportunity of the free enterprise system to function sometimes seems to become a problem. For example, in the field of patents, we find that the results of this work will sometimes belong to the Government. I was pleased, therefore, without going into that in great detail, that you brought this into your statement. I think it is extremely important that we recognize that it must fit into the free enterprise system as we understand it and that on occasion, in the haste to get things done, we put limitations on ourselves. We might, in the final analysis, break down this impersonal competitive market which you have referred to. I am pleased that you have made such a point of that. I think it is something that this committee will be able to work around and develop some thoughts on.

Mr. Davis?

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, along that same point, for some moments now, I have been trying to fit the concept of the open competitive market into the other facts of this situation that we are faced with, particularly when it comes to raising the tax money and devoting it to a particular basic research project. You point out, and I think quite accurately, that basic research is always the exercise of human curiosity, and one does not know whether the results of this research will prove to be useful or not. It then follows that when you allocate money so that someone can give free play to their curiosity, you are in effect gambling on the outcome because this person may push back the frontier of knowledge or he may not. Furthermore, if he does, that which he discovers may be useful or it may not. As I say, at best, you are betting with the money that you put up for those projects. When you try to apply the concept of the free market to that sort of gain, it becomes a little hard to do and there are many ways of looking at it. Your idea is, and I don't mean to quarrel with it, that when you decide who shall have this money, whose curiosity is it that we are

going to let come to play upon a particular problem, you would not open the bidding to the entire public. You would confine it to those people whom someone has decided has a great degree of competence. It appears that your judgment is that the best person to make that decision is not a Congressman who is, after all, a layman, or not just any member of the public, but rather some panel of experts who have a high degree of competence in a certain field or maybe in many fields. Now, by the time you restrict the number of people to whom you would consider giving a grant or a contract for basic research, and by the time you define the area in which you want research to be done, have you not progressed so far from the whole concept of the open market that it almost loses its relevance?

Mr. BREWSTER. Yes; I think so. The place I think it is most relevant, and the place I would like to see an extension of what I think has been an extremely good policy, both at the doctoral and postdoctoral levels, is to let the students decide where the areas of creativity are. The cost of the support, which comes from fellowships and follows the student, whether he is a postdoctoral fellow or doctoral student, provides the way to have the allocation done. It is genuinely selected by the customers who are the potential scientists of the future. That would be a real case of using something like a market type of allocation where the student brings his dowry with him.

I agree as you move back to the preselection of either the institutions, or, realistically, the investigator, worthy of the support, you depart further and further from anything that can be analogized to a free market. To this extent I would move from my first preference to my second. If you can't have it on the terms which you would most like it, on terms of free market allocation, at least have it handled by experts and by objective standards. This is an imperfect substitute for a free market, but I think the best we can do.

I am intrigued, but I don't want to take up your time with my halfbaked thoughts on the matter. I am intrigued by the notion the riskier the decision, the less desirable the market. You could argue the other way around; the more subjective the decision, the more important not to entrust any administrator.

Mr. DAVIS. I agree.

I have one other comment concerning indirect costs and the burden it places on universities. I would simply like to point out that while what we have heard is true, it undoubtedly is also true that the strong arm of national policy has had a great deal to do with the location. of the present centers of excellence. I would simply take note of the fact that Dr. Kistriakowsky has mentioned in his statement the effect of the Oak Ridge Laboratory on the University of Tennessee. We know that is fine. There is a very great effort going on there, but it is completely beyond the imagination to think that any degree of competence would have spontaneously developed at the University of Tennessee if the Oak Ridge Laboratory was not located there. It was the Government that put the Laboratory there, and I trust that is now one of our very best centers of excellence in the field of nuclear physics. That, again, shows that centers of excellence do not just occur spontaneously. Many times there has been national policy involved. Mr. BREWSTER. I agree entirely, and I was perhaps not clear in saying that is the way I think it ought to happen. That growth of cen

ters of excellence should be the byproduct of an effort to achieve a scientific objective. Let the geographical distribution be the byproduct, rather than the objective. Then we won't get into as much trouble. For instance, the level of excitement of the Yale Physics Department depends upon the availability of the facilities of Brookhaven National Laboratories across Long Island Sound. On the other hand, I wouldn't say it would have justified putting Brookhaven there just for the purpose of filling a geographical gap. It was justified in being put there because a consortium of universities in the neighborhood, among them, had the talent to make it work. I think the Tennessee case is a very good case in point. If it made sense for the purpose of Manhattan project to locate it where it was located, that is fine, as long as geography wasn't the only reason.

Mr. DAVIS. In conclusion, I would like to congratulate Mr. Brewster and Dr. Kistiakowsky for two very stimulating statements this morning.

Mr. DADDARIO. Thank you, Mr. Davis.

Mr. Brewster, do you have any thoughts on this question of researchers participating in teaching? Do you think that there is a tendency for them to put their attention more to research and less to teaching? Mr. BREWSTER. Well, I think that there is some distortion in the legislative or regulatory requirements, particularly, I am thinking of the National Institutes of Health, which will support research facilities, but not teaching facilities; likewise, I think there are some other kinds of explicit exclusion of the support for the educational function which undoubtedly has had the effect of undersupporting the educational side at the same time giving full support to the research side. As far as education at universities is concerned, it is terribly important not to let the availability of Government funds put a premium on turning your back on students. I think some institutions have in fact responded to the very great competition for talent by bidding for people in terms of exempting them from all educational responsibilities and I think this is very bad.

I also like to think it is self-defeating. Because we don't do it at Yale I have to hope it doesn't work in the long run and I think in fact it doesn't work. I agree with Dr. Kistiakowsky that in a first-rate university, your best science faculty members are actively engaged in dealing with undergraduates. I don't think the question is graduate students versus undergraduate students. It is elementary versus advanced. Your juniors and seniors are just as bright as your graduate students. The real question is, who teaches freshman chemistry? I think there is a real conscience spreading in scientific academia. I think mathematicians, chemists, and physicists are aware of the fact that they have a missionary function and they enjoy it; nevertheless, I think it is a real problem, so that I would say not only is it important to keep reseach and teaching closely coupled, but it is important also to encourage research scientists to teach at the elementary level and, most important, as I said in the latter part of my statement, in the liberal arts colleges and the more vocational urban colleges to allow the science teachers to engage in such research.

Mr. DADDARIO. Do you have any questions, Mr. Yaeger?

Mr. YEAGER. I have one question, President Brewster. The report of National Academy of Sciences to which Dr. Kistiakowsky referred

earlier recommended the limited use of institutional and developmental grants for the purpose of building up the capability in certain institutions where potential appears to exist, but which potential could be increased. My question is whether you do not construe your testimony as being adverse to this type of thing.

Mr. BREWSTER. Yes, I think it is adverse to this type of thing. I am not too sure that I want it to be that adverse. All my testimony says about that indirectly or by implication is that I don't myself yet see the objective criteria by which this program could be administered. I would hope it could be. The need is real. Great private foundations have been doing this quite constructively in many areas. It is not just a question of institutions, it is a question of parts of institutions. You can be sure if there is a national institutional development program, and I think I have a weak department which is capable of becoming strong, the fact that it is within a strong institution shouldn't bar me from getting in line for this kind of support. This in fact is what happens with the great private foundations who through one grant program or another are always looking around for centers of intermediate strength that might be turned into centers of great strength with a slight additional boost, so that I recognized the objective, I see the importance of accomplishing it, and I see that it has been accomplished in the private foundation world. My misgivings are all in that part of my statement which is very skeptical of having a politically based Federal agency engaged in allocating funds when there are no objective criteria for that allocation. I have great respect for the NSF and even more respect for the wisdom of Congress to use the foundation device to try to insulate the foundation from the normal pressures which the agency or institute form of administration lends itself. I think it has been remarkably successful. All I would say is that the crucial problem is to develop a sufficiently objective standard.

Mr. YEAGER. Thank you.

Mr. DADDARIO. Thank you very much, President Brewster. We have gone beyond our allotted time because we have been interested in hearing more from you. However, we do have some other questions which I hope we might forward to you.

Mr. BREWSTER. I would be delighted to try to answer them.

Mr. DADDARIO. We are happy to have had you. It has been a helpful day for us.

Mr. BREWSTER. Thank you.

(The material referred to when received from Mr. Brewster will be found in the committee files.)

Mr. DADDARIO. This committee will adjourn until tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock in the same place.

(Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned to reconvene at 10 a.m., Wednesday, May 27, 1964.)

DISTRIBUTION OF FEDERAL RESEARCH FUNDS

INDIRECT COSTS RE FEDERAL GRANTS

WEDNESDAY, MAY 27, 1964

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND ASTRONAUTICS,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, RESEARCH, and Development,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met at 10:15 a.m., room 214B, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, D.C., Hon. Emilio Q. Daddario (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Mr. DADDARIO. The meeting will come to order.

Our first witness this morning is Dr. Logan Wilson. Will you please come forward, Dr. Wilson?

Dr. Wilson is the president of the American Council on Education. He is accompanied by Mr. John F. Morse, director of the Commission on Federal Relations, and Dr. Lindveit, who has been an old friend of mine and other members of this committee for many, many years, and was on the staff of the Senate committee.

We are pleased to have Dr. Wilson here because, as the president of the American Council on Education, he in fact represents a cross section of thinking of the entire country. In addition, he is an educator of national esteem in his own right and one who is highly thought of by the academic community and by the Congress.

Dr. Wilson, we are pleased to have you here this morning and we are looking forward to your statement.

STATEMENT OF DR. LOGAN WILSON, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN COUNCIL ON EDUCATION; ACCOMPANIED BY JOHN F. MORSE, DIRECTOR OF THE COMMISSION ON FEDERAL RELATIONS; AND DR. EARL W. LINDVEIT, STAFF ASSOCIATE AND SECRETARY, COMMITTEE ON SPONSORED RESEARCH

Dr. WILSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee.

I am Logan Wilson, president of the American Council on Education. I appear before you today for the council, an organization composed of more than 225 national and regional education associations and more than 1,000 educational institutions.

I was pleased to be asked to testify on the issues of geographical distribution of research funds and on indirect costs of research and hope that my comments may be useful to you.