« PreviousContinue »
advisory group introduced, would provide for college level programs of at least 2 years of full-time attendance, including rigorous courses in mathematics and the physical sciences.
SUPPORT FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION
I think you will be interested to know that the list of nongovernmental organizations which_testified in support of our bill last year was a very impressive one. It includes:
The American Council on Education, the Association of LandGrant Colleges and State Universities, the National Society of Professional Engineers, the American Association of Junior Colleges, and the American Personnel and Guidance Association.
Now, it happens that we held some very brief hearings on the technical education bill last year which, for a variety of reasons, have not yet been published but I think will be published very shortly.
So in my prepared testimony, I have undertaken, in order to get this important testimony into the record, to quote some of the evidence set forth by the then Under Secretary of Labor and now Secretary of Labor, the Honorable W. Willard Wirtz, in support of Federal action to product more semiprofessional technicians.
I refer to my prepared statement, in which Mr. Wirtz makes it very clear that the requirements, to quote him
of this Nation's accelerated space program alone will substantially increase the demand for scientists, engineers, and semiprofessionals supporting personnel.
Mr. Wirtz notes that an increase of $4.7 billion could mean in our space program an increase of nearly 100,000 engineers and scientists and possibly 70,000 semiprofessional supporting personnel between now and 1970 for this program alone.
Another extremely valuable statement on the need for such legislation, which I also quote in my prepared testimony, was made by Mr. Paul H. Robbins, director of the National Society of Professional Engineers.
More recently, President Kennedy's Science Advisory Committee has undertaken to encourage Federal legislation to produce more scientists and
Senator YARBOROUGH. Would you yield a moment to Senator Javits? He is forced to leave.
Senator JAVITS. I have to go over to the floor. Senator Kuchel is making a speech that I have to participate in. I just want to express my pleasure in having Congressman Brademas here. He was a member of the party sent from here to the inauguration of President Bosch of the Dominican Republic. I heard him speak there and was greatly impressed. I am very happy we are getting his testimony which I feel can be very helpful to us in our work and congratulate him upon his participation in this.
Mr. BRADEMAS. Thank you very much.
Senator YARBOROUGH. We are sorry Senator Javits is forced to leave, because he has been a very active member of this subcommittee, the full committee, and on the floor of the Senate and in the Conference Committee last year on behalf of improved educational opportunities for the youth of America.
Mr. BRADEMAS. Senator Javits is one of the reasons I am sure we are going to pass a college aid bill this year.
98-466 0-68-vol. 8—20
Mr. Chairman, I was referring to the first report of the President's Science Advisory Committee, published in December of last year, addressed specifically to the problem of graduate training in engineering, mathematics, and physical sciences.
This report called for an increase in the number of qualified technicians and semiprofessional technicians in all fields of science and technology.
I think that members of this subcommittee as well as the House Education and Labor Committee can shortly expect to see a report of a special panel of the President's Science Advisory Committee, which panel is specifically addressed to this problem of semiprofessional technicians.
In my testimony, I quote at some length from relevant passages from an unpublished interim report of the President's Science Advisory Committee, which makes the preliminary case for Federal action to support the education of more semiprofessional technicians. Just a few days ago, I was reading an article in, if the chairman of the subcommittee will forgive me, the New York Herald-Tribune, dated May 19, 1963, and entitled, "U.S. Lags in Training Technicians." On reading this article, I thought how Major Gordon Cooper's superb flight into space dramatizes the importance of maintaining American superiority in science and technology. If we are going to keep advancing in space and other fields essential to our national security, we must have highly trained manpower.
The article, by Joseph Michalak, describes the shortage of technicians as "potentially the greatest headache of all for this country" and goes on to report:
Based on a recent survey of technical institutes, total full-time enrollments in 1961-62 were about 40,000 and graduates totaled 16,000-no better than in 1957 when the enrollments were 27 percent smaller.
SHORTAGE OF TECHNICIANS AND ENGINEERS
I think one of the important points to get across, Mr. Chairman, in understanding the case for the training of more semiprofessional technicians to help our engineers and scientists is, particularly with respect to engineers, that we have now a very serious shortage of professional engineers. One of the reasons that we have a serious shortage of engineers is that far too many of them have to waste precious time doing what could be done by the 2-year college level, semiprofessional engineering technician.
I make reference also in my statement to the excellent report, the Manpower Report of the President, which was published earlier this year by the Department of Labor. May I say I think that is one of the first efforts on the part of our Government to come forth with a detailed picture of what the present manpower resources of our country are and what the manpower resources of the country in the future can be expected to be.
We had known through the recent book published by Prof. Nicholas DeWitt, then of Harvard, now of Indiana University, on employment and education in the U.S.S.R., somewhat more about what the Russians were up to so far as manpower requirements and resources, than we did in our own country. I want to thank Secretary of Labor Wirtz for this report.
The manpower report states that in 1960, the number of technicians working with engineers and scientists was about 775,000.
The report estimates that during the next 10 to 15 years, demand will increase at least as fast in these occupations as in engineering and the sciences, leading possibly to a doubling in requirements by
Now, Mr. Chairman, if I may, I would like to summarize somewhat more specifically some of the reasons we need to educate far more semiprofessional technicians than we are today producing.
First, research and development. The greatly enhanced role of research and development in the American economy has caused increased demands not only for scientists and engineers but for technicians as well. Earlier this month the National Science Foundation publication entitled, "Federal Funds for Science XI," notes that— the fiscal year 1963 Federal estimates for research and development and R. & D. plant represent the largest outlays for any 1 year of the Nation's history. These expenditures were expected to more than triple the R. & D. outlays made by the Government during the entire 5 years of World War II.
I think I am right in saying, from having read the transcript of the panel of distinguished experts in the Federal Government who appeared before members of your subcommittee, Mr. Chairman, a short while ago, Dr. Jerome Wiesner and others, that Dr. Alan T. Waterman, Director of the National Science Foundation, in an unprepared and spontaneous statement, himself called for the education of more technicians. Technicians are, to quote him, "really are badly needed."
Just a few minutes ago, I was sitting in a newly appointed ad hoc subcommittee of the House Education and Labor Committee, which is concerning itself with the question of whether or not we need to establish a National Center for Data Processing and Information Retrieval at the Federal level.
We had, before our committee, Dr. Sam Alexander, who is the Chief of Data Processing at the Bureau of Standards. I asked him if we were in the immediate future going to need more trained manpower to meet our needs in the field of data processing.
He said "Yes, we are going to need more scientists and engineers and more technicians as well for computing machines."
A second justification for more technicians is, of course, defense. I think we need no great argument or a lot of statistics to prove that we need more scientific and technical skills in this field.
Space, the third justification for this legislation, is, I suppose, perhaps the most obvious instance of why we need to educate more scientists and engineers and more semiprofessional technicians.
SPACE PROGRAM NEEDS
I think far too often, we in Congress, like the country at large, are guilty of assuming that if we vote more money for space programs, for example, that this automatically means that we have the manpower on hand to carry out the tasks for which we have authorized and appropriated the funds. But I am sure the chairman would agree with me that we are going to have to start thinking in terms of man
power budgets as well as dollar budgets if we are going to meet these very ambitious objectives.
For instance, I confess it came as a great surprise to me to learn that NASA, in its own laboratories, right now employs over 5,000 engineering technicians; the significance of technicians in our space program may become still more obvious when I tell you that approximately 85 percent of NASA funds are allocated to contractors.
So if we are going to meet these great goals we have set for ourselves in space, we are going to need more technicians as well as more scientists and engineers.
Finally, I think we need to give greater attention to the role of trained manpower if we are going to increase the productivity of the civilian sector of our economy. As I said earlier, the Federal Government is today the main source of financial support for research and development in the United States. The Federal Government, through its defense, space, and atomic energy activities, now absorbs about two-thirds of the trained scientific and technical personnel that we have.
Now, this has clearly paid off handsomely in our space and defense efforts, but whenever we take scientific and technical personnel from the civilian sector of our economy to put them to work on defense and space, we are shorting ourselves in effect in our capacity to increase the gross national product of the country annually in the civilian economy which is where we really get the increase in our GNP.
If I may, I would ask unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, that following my testimony, there should be included in the hearings an excellent article by Lawrence Galton carried in New York Times magazine, of May 26, 1963, which makes the point that we have been too optimistic in estimating the "spin off" benefits to the civilian sector of our economy of the vast Federal research and development efforts in space and defense.
Senator YARBOROUGH. The article is ordered printed in the record when supplied.
(The article follows:)
WILL SPACE RESEARCH PAY OFF ON EARTH?
CONCERN IS EXPRESSED THAT THE SPACE-DEFENSE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM NOT ONLY IS NOT YIELDING THE "SPIN-OFF" BENEFITS EXPECTED BUT MAY JEOPARDIZE ECONOMIC GROWTH
(By Lawrence Galton 1)
For some time now, there has been a widespread and cheery assumption that the massive investment this country is making in military-space research could be expected to produce to "spin off" has become the conventional term— a rewarding array of down-to-earth, civilian byproducts. Quickly and virtually full blown, the more optimistic have opined, would come revolutionary new processes and remarkable new products to contribute to the better life and spark the general economy. It has been estimated that the space program could be exected to yield a $2 return for every $1 invested, a dime for every nickel, in "measurable, tangible benefits enriching human life in our own land and in our own times."
But recently, in his economic report to the Congress, President Kennedy had a sobering appraisal to make. "The defense, space, and atomic energy activities of the country," he added, "absorb about two-thirds of the trained
1 Lawrence Galton is a freelance writer who specializes in topics of scientific interest.
people available for exploring our scientific and technical frontiers. In the course of meeting specific challenges so brilliantly, we have paid a price by sharply limiting the scarce scientific and engineering resources available to the civilian sectors of the economy."
Reflecting a growing concern that our civilian technology is lagging and there is danger we will be outpaced by other countries, Mr. Kennedy called for a kind of point 4 program of aid to industry. It would seek to promote greater dissemination of technical information from Government and encourage more use of the results of military and space research for civilian purposes. It would, among other things, provide incentives to spur business research and make grants to universities for the same purpose.
All of which raises anew some pertinent questions about the Government research and development effort: just how big it is and what its nature is; what it has been yielding in the way of new information and techniques; how much of this could be and how much is actually becoming-of value in everyday life, and what lies ahead.
Partly because of size but also because of complexity, security measures and, not least of all, because it has mushroomed so rapidly-the Government-supported scientific effort today is almost unfathomable.
In its first 150 years as a nation, the United States-Government and industry combined-spent some $18 billion for R. & D. That total was matched in the 5-year period, 1950 to 1955, and almost matched again in the single fiscal year of 1962.
As late as 1940, Government R. & D. funds amounted only to $75 million annually; in 1962 they accounted for 75 percent of total R. & D. expenditures of $15 billion, or well over $11 billion. For fiscal 1964, the budget calls for an investment of almost $3 billion more (close to $15 billion by Government alone), with $7.6 billion earmarked for the Department of Defense, $4.2 billion for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, $1.5 billion for the Atomic Energy Commission, and the remainder for other agencies.
Not only an increasingly large proportion of all R. & D. funds but also of talent is going into the Government effort. In 1961, of 400,000 scientists and engineers in the United States doing research and development work, 250,000 were doing it for space and defense. Since 1954, the number of R. & D. scientists and engineers in industry has increased by 160,000, but all but 30,000 of these have been absorbed by projects for Government.
So great is the impact of the national program that it is producing marked changes in the pattern of distribution of industry. Once the traditional industrial heartland, the Midwest is no longer so. Much of the new research and development of space and military paraphernalia is centered on the Atlantic, Pacific, and gulf coasts.
That activity spreads across an extremely broad spectrum. An estimated 10 percent of every dollar goes for basic or pure research, scientific inquiry that is motivated by the desire to know, without consideration of immediate practical results. From such inquiry often come the great breakthroughs; for example, the fission of uranium in a German laboratory during the course of basic research. The remaining 90 percent goes for investigations to solve specific problems and into the development of hardware such as weapons, atomic reactors, and moon rockets.
One way to get some inkling of the scope of the work is to consider a few of the needs of the space program.
"We must learn more and more of the fundamental nature of atoms and molecules and combinations of elements that go to make up materials," Robert W. Crozier, Executive Director of the Materials Advisory Board of the National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council, pointed out recently. "We must improve the capability and reliability of these materials. * * * We must learn to fashion [them] into forms that can furnish the desired operational capability for the vehicle and protect and supply acceptable environmental conditions for the payload-human, mechanical, and electronic."
Specifically, there is need for new plastics that can maintain desirable properties at extreme temperatures; synthetic rubbers with resistance to light, ozone, radiation; textiles and fibers suitable for space suits and space stations. At one aircraft plant, there are even studies aimed at developing an artificial heart in case astronauts on long journeys in the future may have to be quick frozen from the neck down and kept alive in transit by artificial organs.