At Issue; 5; Science Goes to Washington

National Educational Television presents At Issue, a commentary on events and people in the news. At Issue this week, science goes to Washington. Howard Simons is science writer for the Washington Post. American science is facing a crisis. Science and scientists are being subjected to increasing attack and increasing scrutiny, especially by the Congress. One congressional committee investigation now underway is holding hearings this week. Another congressional committee is about to begin hearing soon. The major complaint seems to be that science is getting too big for its bridges. A skeptical and economy-minded Congress is admittedly baffled by science. 25 years ago, the American scientist could feel a measure of security in obscurity. The concept of science and public policy hadn't really been invented yet,

nor had science advisors. World War II and the Cold War changed all this. Big bombs led to big science. American science and scientists have not been the same since. In 1957, Sputnik put science in the White House. James R. Killian, then president of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, was named Science Advisor to President Eisenhower. As never before, science began to impinge upon public policy, and public policy in turn began to intrude upon science. The American psyche was badly jarred by Sputnik. Suddenly, damaged pride and a national anxiety demanded more of science and scientists without fully understanding either. If big bombs had led to big science, big boosters led to bigger science. From the dawn of the atomic age and through the 1950s, the government's largest to science knew few constraints. 14 years ago, Congress appropriated for research and development

2.5 percent or $900 million of the federal budget. This year, it appropriated 15 percent or roughly $15 billion. Congress does not want to short-change dollars for defense, but nonetheless, it is worried that science dollars are being spent too rapidly. Congress is concerned too that it lacks proper scientific advice. The White House is also concerned. Despite the rapid rise in science spending, it is now clear that available government funds for science are limited. The administration has already said that the next billion science dollars will be far harder to come by than where the last billion dollars. After a giddy climb to unsurpassed heights is American science about to be disinherited? If it is, why? And what might the consequences be? These are the questions that Congress is asking itself, and asking Dr. Jerome B. Weasner, President Kennedy's Science Advisor. Here with me is Dr. Weasner, Congress Emilio Diderio,

a Democrat from Connecticut, who is chairman of a subcommittee of the House Committee on Science and Astronautics, which is now exploring a relationship between science and government. Congressman Abner Seibel, a Republican from Connecticut, who has introduced legislation into the Congress, asking it the Congress to establish science advisory committees. Dr. Weasner, you recently told a gathering of distinguished American scientists that for a long time science was the subject of uncritical praise, but now the situation has changed. That persons in and out of the government in particular in the Congress are asking some serious questions about the character and the aims of American science. Why has the situation changed? I won't like to talk for the Congress before these gentlemen, but I think in general the country has become acutely aware of the size and impact of research and development programs on the nation's security and future, and while it's been true that for a long time these have been important problems, it hasn't been appreciated, I think,

just how significant the directions of these activities are for the welfare of our country. In particular, I think there's been a growing realization that research and development activities are vital to the economic well-being of a section of the country or a community, and this has stimulated a great deal of additional interest. Also, I believe that in the past, when we were making most of our expenditures for military reasons, one did not have to defend them and understand them to the extent one does the expenditures we make for general social welfare because many of the things are much more controversial. But insofar as the question of the Congress is concerned, I think I should defer to my two colleagues here. Well, I think that we ought to add to that the fact that the expenditures being as large as they are has focused the attention of the entire Congress on this point, but that certain of the committees have had a great interest in the subject for some time, even though not focusing it under the heading of just one committee

as they are now doing. I think that's an important point. You pointed out that the research and development budget now amounted to 15% of the federal budget, but there are much larger fraction of the expendable budget because there are a number of fixed charges which the country has, for example, tax interest payments, base maintenance and so on, so that probably amounts to something more like 30% or 40% of the flexible or expendable, adjustable funds of the federal government. So it has a much greater impact than the 15% would imply. Well, one of the things that has brought this subject up to this point, I think, is the interest that the committees of the Congress have shown. In our committee, for example, we have, over the course of the last five years, since the space program began, looked into this question of an increase point where each year we analyze the scientific research budgets and there has been not only a close examination, but a constant cutback trying to bring some order into it.

And this, I think, is what we're trying to do in the whole section of bringing order to it. You've only done it in the space budgets, and I certainly have to go on to the chairman of your committee, Congressman Miller, and suggested that it would be healthy if he examined the full research and development budgets rather than just the space budgets, because I think it is. I think this is a good point, because as Congress examines this large expenditure of approximately $15 billion, I think we should keep in mind that we're not thinking only in terms of possible cuts or more efficient management of some of the programs, it may well be that within the framework of fiscal responsibility we ought to be spending more money on some things, and less money on others. It isn't only cutting. It may be increasing, in some cases, to be responsible. And the problem is that Congress is now becoming aware of the fact that it has this basic responsibility not to simply rubber stamp or oppose, as the case may be, suggestions of the executive, but to make some judgments of its own in terms of where the emphasis should be.

There's an interesting problem in the Congress, which really existed to a certain extent, and the executive, too, before the office that I am now head of was created. And that is that there is no mechanism for examining these things broadly. For example, we now ascend to create an executive branch of the government, a national program in oceanography, and in several other fields, in which we integrate the activities of various departments. We made the decision that we should not create a single big new agency that had to handle oceanography, but rather we would try to bring together the various agencies and assign varying responsibilities to each of them. But when we go to the Congress of this budget, it goes to a great many separate committees, the committees that have the individual agencies, and there is no way in which the Congress can examine that particular program as a single national effort. So some pieces of evidence are well supported, and it receives enthusiastically, other than not.

And one one gets true of it, that we don't really have quite as effective a national program as we began with. But what do we mean by research? Congressman Diderio has pointed out in his committee, and you two have pointed out Dr. Wiesner, that often we just lump everything together and call it science. Isn't this a problem for the Congress and for the administration? I think it is. In fact, maybe Congressman Diderio has been hearing a lot about this, like say something about it. Well, I think that this is an extremely important point. Although we talk about 15 billions of dollars, for example, the fact is that the monies are broken down. And we are trying, through these examinations, to bring some order to this, to determine what is basic research. And how does this affect the knowledge from which we go to apply, and then into the development areas? Take some of these testings of these space vehicles. Is this rightfully science, or is it really a development that goes beyond research in itself?

How do these costs fit into it, and how do they affect the whole problem? I think this is the point that one can't emphasize too much. Many people, both inside the government and outside, say that this is so complicated. Science is so complicated that no one can understand it, and therefore, how can you judge it? Well, I think this comes from a misunderstanding of what we're doing. We've come, as you say, to call everything science, whereas we have a spectrum of things which range from basic research, which is searching for new knowledge, to development of very specific pieces of equipment or apparatus that one needs for a specific purpose. And if one looks at the budget that's $14 or $15 billion, we find that something of the order of $1 billion of it is spent for basic research. And the remainder, almost $14 billion, is for very specific things. Boosters, aircraft, submarines, water decolonization plants, water purification activities, medicine. And each of these can be judged quite simply by an average citizen or by a member of Congress

because the thing that you're concerned about here is not the details of how you do it, but precisely whether or not the need for which the expenditure is being made is a real need and one that the federal government ought to be involved in. So the question is not so much understanding the details as understanding whether or not this is a national problem of significance that deserves the sums of money that are being spent on. Well, you point up something and those remarks, Dr. Wiesner, which has been bothering me and I know other members of Congress. Unless we have some competent scientific advice within the framework of the Congress itself, not simply reaching out into the executive branch and asking for advice. What I'm afraid of is that the natural tendency of congressional committees and individual congressmen, who are, of course, concerned with the spending of money, which they have to get from the people, is that unless we can get an absolute justification of a particular program, a scientist coming before us and saying, now, if you give us this money,

this is what we will accomplish. That going by the wayside may be some very basic important scientific work in the area of the unknown, where no scientist or no other person can tell us with certain what the results will be. I mean, I think in terms of Einstein, what could he have said 25 or 30 years ago what he was doing? He could have hardly justified what he was doing in terms of expenditures. I'm saying that this problem, well, I don't disagree with you that Congress needs more scientific advice. I'm saying that you're in a better situation than you appreciate, because I think the decisions of precisely what to spend money for on basic research should be left to the scientist, the National Science Foundation and the other agencies that have the decision. I think the executive branch of the government in the Congress should decide on what level basic research expenditures should be. And as I say, that represents even less than 10 percent of the total national expenditure in the thing we call research and development. In the case of the very specific things that you do to meet national needs,

I think you're in a much better position to make judgments about them than you realize, because the question of precisely how to do something is secondary, in my opinion, to the question of whether or not you need to do it. And that I think you should judge and not the scientist. The scientist can come in and tell you are the engineers, and we shouldn't keep mixing up science and technology. We're talking mostly about technology now. If we decide that we want to do something, we want to have a supersonic transport, or we want to do something else, the engineers can come in and tell you that we think we can do it for roughly this sum of money, and here's roughly the characteristics of it. Now you will find that one engineer will think it will cost a little more, another little less, be a little better, a little worse. But they shouldn't tell you whether or not the nation should build a supersonic transport. I think the Congress should make that decision. And I'm saying that most of this very large expenditure is of that nature, and you don't need a great deal of scientific understanding to decide whether or not the need is there. But the Congress at the moment doesn't have the competency to know whether or not the allegation that they can do it is true.

They have no basis to questions. I think that you have more confidence than you think you have, because I think if you viewed the problem in the light that I'm stressing, that namely your first question is to ask about the national need, then the second question, which I think is much less important, is the question of precisely what mechanism to follow to get there. There I think you can use some additional scientific advice. But I think the Congress has a great deal of more ability to deal with these problems than it believes it does. And I can think only of the joint committee on atomic energy, which has been a very great influence in atomic energy matters, and where the members, whose members understand these matters in considerable detail, even though they're not scientists. The fact is that the Congress has developed a tremendous amount of capability in this field of science, even to the point of making some determinations at the basic level. I know that in the whole field of space research, one of the most important things is,

how do we keep man alive in these new and strange environments in which he lives? As a result of this, we have got to do more in medical research than we've done before, and because of this, the Air Force, over a period of time, to keep man alive and high atmospheres have had to have a strong medical program. The question here is, not how much we should do, but how do we prevent NASA and the Department of Defense from building up separate facilities, going their own ways, developing basic research talents all over the lot. And we have been able, over the course of the last few years, to bring them together and to bring this talent closely together so that they will not be waste, and so that they will be going in the same direction. So there is a capability in Congress to recognize programs of this kind and to bring auto to it. Incidentally, I think that most of what you're talking about, when you talk about this problem, is what I would call applied research. You have a very specific series of questions that you're concerned about, a series of problems living in a space environment. And you have to build rather substantial facilities, as you point out,

to study these problems, and both the Air Force and NASA have created such facilities. You all have some fundamental biological understanding, and this should best be done, I think, in the context of an academic research, an academic research environment, universities, medical schools, associated with universities, and I think you can stand a great deal of proliferation and overlap of that basic activity. Well, there's no question about that, Dr. Wiesner, but I think one of the points that is important here is that there must be, in this area, a very wide base of knowledge developed. And yet, as we give contracts to some of the universities, to do some of these things you are talking about, there is an overlapping of this nature, where Department of Defense and NASA will have the same contract at the same university on the different labels. This is unnecessary duplication. It's not the proliferation of the kind that you mean. Mr. Dodario, is that one of the concerns that Congress had,

or specifically, the House of Representatives, when they've almost had the budget of the National Science Foundation, which traditionally in this country has been the patron saint of basic research? Well, when you say that we almost have the National Science Foundation budget, I think that what we ought to put in its proper perspective, what we didn't, in fact, was keep it at the level that it was last year. It is about half of what the National Science Foundation wanted this year. I'm not too happy about this, and the fact is that many of the members of Congress are not, because we believe in the enlargement of our educational effort, and we did hit here, unfortunately, at the graduate level through studies and scholarships and grants. But this is one of the problems that we must examine, and this is one of the places, perhaps, where the concern of Congress is showing itself in a way that it ought not to. I think that's a very important point. There's a, I think, a lack of a full grasp, among some members of the Congress, of a distinction between the basic research

and the applied research activities, and the importance of a growing basic research activity to support the future applied research activities, which are going to continue to grow. But this point, I tried to make before, that the members of Congress, as they listen to the testimony of the scientists, and engineers, and technicians, who essentially are wedded to a program, they come in as proponents of a position which has been formulated in the policy of the executive. And so, unless the Congress has some scientific competency to support those portions of the program which should be supported and cut discriminatively, inevitably, when they cut in terms of the total budget, I think the cuts are going to be with a butcher knife, which shouldn't be the way it should be. I think there's a much more simple answer to this question of the NSF budget than that. And it is that this is one of the few committees, which goes directly to the appropriations subcommittee without having any authorization hearings at all.

And as a result, the one committee that is the expert in this particular agency is the subcommittee on appropriations, and there's no other committee which has the opportunity to develop the capability to argue these precise subjects. But this does not mean that there is not knowledge about what they're doing. I think there's another point. I think you both say it's right. But I still believe I'm not arguing against it at your point. But I'm just saying that I'm giving you credit for greater ability to understand the basic issues and then you are willing to give yourself credit for. For example, in the National Science Foundation budget this year, one of the things which has most seriously heard is our proposals to improve the quality of graduate education in around the country. And to do another thing, which is to build up some of the institutions and sections of the country that don't have very large and first-rate graduate science programs, we think both of these things are important. Because as science gets more and more complicated and technology requires more sophistication, we need more better educated people.

If not, we will be wasting a great deal of money. We will be spending a lot of money. But the money will be being handled by engineers and scientists who aren't quite as confident as if they had gone on to further on in their education. Now, I think what we are seeing here is the frustrations of the Congress and their inability to deal with this ever-growing budget. And here is a long-term investment, which doesn't seem as urgent in terms of applied things, and therefore it can be deferred until next year or the year after. Gentlemen, can I raise another question because this business of building up centers in other areas of the country where they might not be strong now raises a very serious question. The one if I can use it, a colloquial term applicable here in Washington is the pork barrel. And that is that with the limited amount of science dollars available, it's quite possible that scientists begin to get in touch with their congressmen and say, our region needs something we're lacking,

where we can't keep up with another region. This has happened already. Hasn't it, Dr. Wiesner? Yes, you can see several examples of it at the moment. One of them would like to say that the term pork barrel is not colloquial just to wash it. No. And, as a matter of fact, I don't think it should have a bad connotation either because I think the balancing of interest and problems of the various sectors of the country is a very important thing. For example, you were alluding, I believe, to the problem of a so-called Mura high-energy accelerator, which has essentially become an issue between regions of the country. And yet, this machine, I think, is a very great value to the Midwest. And so I think it's only appropriate that both the scientists of that area and their congressional representatives do everything they can to assure the possible existence of the machine. I think you've already given the answer, Dr. Wiesner, to this particular point in your remarks about spreading educational capabilities throughout the country through these scholarships at the graduate level

because it is through this, through the development of an extremely high quality of education throughout the country, from which you can then develop the economic capability to go with industrial growth. You cannot have one without the other. And if we're talking about pork barreling, it seems to me that if we can help out the institutions at these levels, the educational institutions, we can then come to the point where they will deserve to participate in government contracts. And this will take it far away from the idea that you're doing it only to spread the money around, which would not be right. Well, I think that in both defense contracts and in research grants, we should normally persist and insist on excellence as the only criteria. But this does bring and generate just the problem we're talking about, the areas that have the strongest institutions will inevitably get more and more activity and get stronger and stronger.

And this will tend to draw people away from the areas that you would like to strengthen. And therefore, I think you have to take some temporary measures to help build up these institutions. On the other hand, I think one should be very careful not to get the entire research and development activity based on criteria other than getting the country and the government its best value for the dollar expended. Doesn't the pork barrel concept imply or hint that there is special pleading both from groups of scientists in different disciplines and from different regions? And I wonder if the Congress, how does it treat the scientists? Does it treat them with the preferences of becoming disenchanted with the science? Can I say just one word because I think you're leaving an inference and maybe we added to it, which isn't true. I think that this aspect of the problem at the moment is the exception rather than a rule. There are some cases, and I've mentioned one. But I think by and large, this factor is not an important one in the allocation of research and development resources today. I think, too, we've got under our system of government.

It's important that people plead for what they believe in and what they want. That puts the responsibility on us and on the colleagues in the Congress and the people who have the responsibility for making decisions in the executive to make the decision. But we can make the decision much in a much better way and with a much better feeling that we're making the right decision. If we hear the special pleas of everybody rather than arbitrarily us picking a spot or an institution and saying, this is where it's going to be. We're much better qualified to make that decision. If we have heard the case, you might put it from all the people. One of the problems here, of course, as we discussed this whole question, is that the Congress is going through the process of adapting itself to a new age, the new science and technological age in which we live. And part of this is how do you shift gears so that you can take a look at this new and changing world? This is a capability which I think we have.

We are flexible enough to do this job. And as we adjust ourselves to this, by building up a stronger staff, for example, in our own committee, so that we will have more and better people ready to examine this, we will be able to formulate a better capability around which the Congress can help to establish policy. What will happen to science in this interview? Well, I don't feel that the scientist is going to be affected. This growth, in my opinion, will keep going up to, keep going up in some degree, probably not as steep as it has been. And the fact is that if we take it and put it into gross national product, it has not risen as steeply as it seems to have been in dollar amounts. And I think Dr. Wiesner could touch on that. As a matter of fact, we had a chart printed up for our testimony before your committee, which showed this, that during the recent years there has been some percentage of the gross national product that both private industry and the federal government was putting in basic research. And the federal finance part, as you can see from this chart,

went from something under one percent to something slightly under two percent. But the interesting, from 1954 or 53 to 1962, what's not shown on this chart is the most important point of all. And that is that it held constant from 1962 to 1963, in the period in which the absolute value of the expenditures went up. And this is because the gross national product went in that period. Dr. Wiesner, sorry, but time is running out. And I'd like to thank you, gentlemen, for a most stimulating discussion. Dr. Wiesner, Congressman DiDario, Congressman Simon. We have heard today, essentially, is that the Congress's rediscovering science and science is discovering politics. The adage tells us that it takes money to make money. Well, it takes money to make discoveries, too. Until now, science money has been readily available. But it appears that the strings on the government's science purse will be tightened at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, from the Congress to the White House.

And this could mean trouble for American science. One foreseeable consequence is that the scientific community might fragment into groups, bitterly vying with one another for limited science dollars. Indeed, whether or not this happens will depend in some measure upon the wisdom of the Congress. There is little doubt that the Congress is in a mood to prune the science tree, along with all the other money trees that things are growing too fast. But not at all clear, is whether the Congress will use an axe or the tender loving care of an expert gardener where scientific research is concerned. If the DiDario subcommittee investigation now underway as a proper indicator, it will be done with tender loving care. Maybe science doesn't fully understand the Congress, and maybe Congress doesn't fully understand science. Nonetheless, both are trying to understand one another. The mutual concerns are honest and serious, and this is a healthy thing. For whether we like it or not, science and technology are and will continue to be major forces in foreign and domestic affairs here and everywhere.

This is NET. The National Educational Television. This week, the Great Society has examined the role of Congress,

and is engineered into democratic, and enriched country by power.