[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 117 (Wednesday, July 19, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10309-S10315]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                  FIFTY YEARS OF THE ENDLESS FRONTIER

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, 50 years ago today the Truman White 
House released ``Science--The Endless Frontier,'' the document that set 
the course for this country's postwar science and technology policy and 
that has continuing relevance today, five decades later.
  This seminal report was written by Vannevar Bush, Director of the 
Office of Scientific Research and Development, who had headed up the 
wartime mobilization of our Nation's scientific and technological 
resources to defeat our Axis foes. It was written in response to a 
series of four questions which had been posed to Dr. Bush by President 
Roosevelt in a letter dated November 17, 1944.
  As the Bush report was being released, President Truman was at the 
Potsdam conference with Churchill and Stalin. Three days earlier in the 
New Mexico desert, the United States had detonated the first atomic 
bomb--the Trinity test, although that would remain secret to all but a 
few leaders and the Potsdam principals until the Hiroshima bombing on 
August 6.
  The research effort which Dr. Bush, a Republican I might add, had 
headed during the war was the greatest scientific and technological 
mobilization the world had ever seen. It had included not just the 
Manhattan Project, but major efforts and great successes in weapons 
technologies, such as radars, fighter aircraft, bomber aircraft, and 
code breaking, and in what we call today dual-use technologies, such as 
the first electronic computer, aircraft engines, medical technologies, 
and communications technologies.
  President Roosevelt had asked Bush four questions:

       First: What can be done, consistent with military security, 
     and with the prior approval of military authorities, to make 
     known to the world as soon as possible the contributions 
     which have been made during our war effort to scientific 
     knowledge?
       The diffusion of such knowledge should help us stimulate 
     new enterprises, provide jobs for returning servicemen and 
     other workers, and make possible great strides for the 
     improvement of the national well-being.
       Second: With particular reference to the war of science 
     against disease, what can be done now to organize a program 
     for continuing in the future, the work which has been done in 
     medicine and related sciences?
       The fact that the annual deaths in this country from one or 
     two diseases alone are far in excess of the total number of 
     lives lost by us in battle during this war should make us 
     conscious of the duty we owe future generations.
       Third: What can the Government do now and in the future to 
     aid research activities by public and private organizations? 
     The proper roles of public and of private research, and their 
     interrelation, should be carefully considered.
       Fourth: Can an effective program be proposed for 
     discovering and developing scientific talent in American 
     youth so that the continuing future of scientific research in 
     this country may be assured on a level comparable to what has 
     been done during the war?

  President Roosevelt added:

       New frontiers of the mind are before us, and if they are 
     pioneered with the same vision, boldness, and drive with 
     which we have waged this war we can create a fuller and more 
     fruitful employment and a fuller and more fruitful life.

  Vannevar Bush worked with four advisory committees over the next 7 
months to respond to the President's 

[[Page S 10310]]
tasking. Unfortunately, Roosevelt had passed away before he could 
receive this far-seeing report, which fully endorsed his vision of a 
new and endless frontier of science in the national interest. Instead 
it was Truman who met with Bush on June 14, 1945, and approved the 
release of the report. And it was Truman who would oversee the 
establishment of the National Science Foundation 5 years later after a 
long congressional debate and the implementation of the report's other 
recommendations.
  What did the report say and why is it still relevant? Mr. President, 
until the Bush report, we had no national policy for science. Bush 
argued that this must end. ``In this war,'' he wrote, ``it has become 
clear beyond all doubt that scientific research is absolutely essential 
to national security.'' But he went beyond the national security 
justification for governmental support of research:

       More and better scientific research is essential to the 
     achievement of our goal of full employment . . . Progress in 
     combating disease depends upon an expanding body of 
     scientific knowledge.

  Bush saw the Government's role in supporting science and technology 
as filling needs where the public interest was great, but the private 
sector would not meet these needs adequately. He wrote:

       There are areas of science in which the public interest is 
     acute but which are likely to be cultivated inadequately if 
     left without more support than will come from private 
     sources. These areas--such as research on military problems, 
     agriculture, housing, public health, certain medical 
     research, and research involving expensive capital facilities 
     beyond the capacity of private institutions--should be 
     advanced by active Government support. To date, with the 
     exception of the intensive war research conducted by the 
     Office of Scientific Research and Development, such support 
     has been meager and intermittent. For reasons presented in 
     this report we are entering a period when science needs and 
     deserves increased support from public funds.

  It is striking to me in rereading ``Science--The Endless Frontier,'' 
how soundly Bush and his colleagues addressed almost every aspect of 
science and technology policy--from the Tax Code to patent policy to 
science education to the structure of the postwar science and 
technology infrastructure in Government. Bush's report put the United 
States on a course of sustaining preeminence in science and technology 
for the past 50 years, a course that enjoyed bipartisan support for 
most of those five decades.
  What have our scientists and engineers accomplished with the 
resources the taxpayers gave them over the past five decades? They won 
the cold war, put men on the moon, revolutionized medicine, invented 
computers, pioneered electronics and semiconductor devices, and 
invented a myriad of new materials that have fundamentally changed our 
lives.
  This is just as Bush predicted half a century ago. Bush had the 
wisdom to know that new scientific and technological fields would 
emerge that he could not yet imagine: semiconductor electronics, 
molecular biology, and materials science to name just three. Bush had 
the vision to see that Federal investments in science and technology 
could transform our lives and contribute to our health, standard of 
living and security.
  For the past half century, the Federal Government has acted on Bush's 
vision to foster a science and technology enterprise in this country 
second to none. It is not an accident that American industries from 
aerospace to agriculture to pharmaceuticals, in which the Federal 
Government has made substantial research investments, enjoy world 
leadership. It is a direct result of the vision of Vannevar Bush, who 
we remember today as one of the giants of the post-war generation. I 
ask unanimous consent that the first 12 pages of Bush's report, 
including Roosevelt's letter and Bush's response to Truman, be printed 
in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. Any Member who would 
like a copy of the complete report, which runs 196 pages with 
appendices, should contact my office.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit 1)
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Unfortunately, Mr. President, the bipartisan consensus 
on our science and technology policy is now fracturing as we seek to 
balance the Federal budget. The Republican budget resolution passed at 
the end of June proposes to slash the Federal research investment 
across government. By the year 2002, the Federal Government will be 
spending about $28.5 billion for civilian research and development, 
down a third from today's investment in real terms.
  These figures come from estimates made by the American Association 
for the Advancement of Science. I ask unanimous consent that an article 
from the July 3 issue of New Technology Week entitled ``GOP Balanced 
Budget Plan Seen Crippling R&D'' together with an accompanying table be 
printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit 2)
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Federal investments in civilian research as a 
percentage of our economy and as a percentage of overall Federal 
spending will be lower in 2002 than at any time in 40 years or more. 
Our national R&D investment, public and private, will be dipping below 
2 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) while almost every other 
industrialized nation seeks to match the Japanese and German R&D 
investment levels of almost 3 percent of GDP.
  Will this matter? In the short term, perhaps not, other than to the 
thousands of scientists and engineers who will be displaced. According 
to a recent White House report, our previous investments have given us 
a substantial lead in many critical technologies. In the longer term, 
undoubtedly it will matter. That same report concluded that both the 
Japanese and Europeans are catching up in many areas and new nations 
will challenge in the future.
  In 1899 Charles Duell, Director of the U.S. Patent Office, proposed 
to close up shop because ``everything that can be invented, has been 
invented.'' Luckily, we did not follow such Luddite advice as we 
prepared for the 20th century. Nor should we today as we prepare for 
the challenges of the 21st century and seek to maintain this Nation's 
place as the pioneer leading the family of nations in the exploration 
of the endless scientific frontier.
  The scientific and technological frontier really is still endless. 
Bush, not Duell, had it right. Scientific revolutions are still only 
beginning in molecular biology, materials science, and electronics and 
have not yet begun in areas yet to be discovered. For the past half 
century the Federal Government has been an excellent steward of the 
taxpayers' money in this area. Not every project has been a success, 
nor should they have been. But the payoff to our economy and our 
security and our well-being--the areas Roosevelt queried Bush about--
has been worth many times the investment.
  Some in Congress argue for more than decimating our Federal research 
enterprise on the grounds that civilian applied research spending 
constitutes ``corporate welfare'' or ``industrial policy.'' This is 
fundamentally wrong, for reasons that President Bush first outlined in 
his speech to the American Electronics Association in February 1990 and 
which he reiterated throughout the rest of his Presidency. I will not 
go into a long discussion of that today. But I will note that a 
Republican pollster has concluded that the American people do not agree 
with the priority assigned Federal research spending in the Republican 
budget.
  I refer to a report in the same July 3 issue of New Technology Week 
entitled ``Public Surprises Pollsters, Backs Federal R&D.'' I ask 
unanimous consent that it also be printed in the Record at the 
conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit 3)
  Mr. BINGAMAN. According to this article, Steve Wagner of Luntz 
Research & Strategic Service, said: ``We went looking for things that 
didn't pan out. We went looking for the degree to which government 
investment in R&D was seen as corporate welfare, and we didn't find it. 
We went looking for the degree to which concerns about the deficit cast 
such a pall over everything that R&D should take a disproportionate or 
even proportionate cut, and they told us ``no.'' It's fair to say that 
I was surprised by the extent of support.''
  Wagner went on to say: ``People are very pragmatic.'' He encapsulated 
the 

[[Page S 10311]]
public's message as: ``Jobs are a priority, finding a cure for AIDS is 
a priority, and if it takes the Government to do it, the Government 
should do it.'' And he adds: ``If they think government involvement 
will make the situation better, people will not hesitate to say that's 
a legitimate function of Government.''
  Wagner and his fellow pollster Neil Newhouse of Public Opinion 
Strategies conclude that there is a preference in the public mind for 
public-private R&D partnerships. Their advice for their House 
Republican clients reads: ``Neither the Government nor private industry 
is completely trusted to make these (research) investment decisions. 
The Government remains the agency of the common interest. Private 
business is seen as more efficient, more disciplined, but also self-
interested. These perceptions cannot be changed in the short run, but 
they can be used: Let the private sector say what is feasible, which 
technologies offer the promise of payoff, and let the Government say 
what is in the national interest to develop. A partnership of both 
entities looking over each other's shoulder will likely be most 
satisfying to the voters.''
  When I read this, I thought the pollsters were giving a pretty good 
description of SEMATECH, the Technology Reinvestment Project, the 
Advanced Technology Program, the Environmental Technology Initiative, 
and the many other partnerships which Presidents Reagan, Bush, and 
Clinton have fostered over the past decade.
  Vannevar Bush did not use focus groups and pollsters to figure out 
the direction of post-war science and technology policy. But without 
their benefit, he captured the public sentiment both then and today. He 
saw the need for partnership, for industry to do what it did well in 
the pursuit of profit and for Government to fill needs that industry 
would not in the public interest, needs in areas ranging from military 
research to medical research to applied research in housing, 
agriculture and other areas designed to generate jobs.
  I hope that my Republican colleagues will take the advice of their 
pollsters. Speaker Gingrich told the American people on David 
Brinkley's Sunday morning news broadcast on June 11 that he was worried 
about the degree to which research budgets were scheduled to be cut. He 
said: ``Yes, I am sufficiently worried that I met with Congressman 
Walker, the chairman of the House Science Committee, and with various 
subcommittee chairmen of the House Appropriations Committee who have 
science, and asked them to maximize the money that goes into research 
and development, because I am very concerned that we're going to cut 
too deeply into science.''
  Mr. President, recognition of a problem is perhaps the first step to 
a solution. I have yet to see research and development spared in the 
budget process in the House appropriations subcommittees, far from it. 
But perhaps with the help of rereading Science--The Endless Frontier, 
this generation of politicians will find the resources for Federal R&D 
investments which our grandchildren will need for their security, their 
prosperity, and their well-being.
  President Clinton and Vice President Gore stand in the long line of 
American leaders dating from Roosevelt, Truman, and Vannevar Bush who 
have supported an American science and technology enterprise second to 
none in the public interest. The Republican budget resolution stands 
outside that tradition. The sooner Speaker Gingrich and his Republican 
colleagues can return to bipartisanship on these vital investments in 
our Nation's future, the less the damage will be.
  Mr. President, I hope that will be soon. I yield the floor.
                     Science--The Endless Frontier


                         letter of transmittal

                                              Office of Scientific


                                     Research and Development,

                                     Washington, DC, July 5, 1945.
       Dear Mr. President: In a letter dated November 17, 1944, 
     President Roosevelt requested my recommendation on the 
     following points:
       (1) What can be done, consistent with military security, 
     and with the prior approval of the military authorities, to 
     make known to the world as soon as possible the contributions 
     which have been made during our war effort to scientific 
     knowledge?
       (2) With particular reference to the war of science against 
     disease, what can be done now to organize a program for 
     continuing in the future the work which has been done in 
     medicine and related sciences?
       (3) What can the Government do now and in the future to aid 
     research activities by public and private organizations?
       (4) Can an effective program be proposed for discovering 
     and developing scientific talent in American youth so that 
     the continuing future of scientific research in this country 
     may be assured on a level comparable to what has been done 
     during the war?
       It is clear from President Roosevelt's letter that in 
     speaking of science he had in mind the natural sciences, 
     including biology and medicine, and I have so interpreted his 
     questions. Progress in other fields, such as the social 
     sciences and the humanities, is likewise important; but the 
     program for science presented in my report warrants immediate 
     attention.
       In seeking answers to President Roosevelt's questions I 
     have had the assistance of distinguished committees specially 
     qualified to advise in respect to these subjects. The 
     committees have given these matters the serious attention 
     they deserve; indeed, they have regarded this as an 
     opportunity to participate in shaping the policy of the 
     country with reference to scientific research. They have had 
     many meetings and have submitted formal reports. I have been 
     in close touch with the work of the committees and with their 
     members throughout. I have examined all of the data they 
     assembled and the suggestions they submitted on the points 
     raised in President Roosevelt's letter.
       Although the report which I submit herewith is my own, the 
     facts, conclusions, and recommendations are based on the 
     findings of the committees which have studied these 
     questions. Since my report is necessarily brief, I am 
     including as appendices the full reports of the committees.
       A single mechanism for implementing the recommendations of 
     the several committees is essential. In proposing such a 
     mechanism I have departed somewhat from the specific 
     recommendations of the committees, but I have since been 
     assured that the plan I am proposing is fully acceptable to 
     the committee members.
       The pioneer spirit is still vigorous within this Nation. 
     Science offers a largely unexplored hinterland for the 
     pioneer who has the tools for his task. The rewards of such 
     exploration both for the Nation and the individual are great. 
     Scientific progress is one essential key to our security as a 
     nation, to our better health, to more jobs, to a higher 
     standard of living, and to our cultural progress.
           Respectfully yours,
                                                          V. Bush,
                                                         Director.
     The President of the United States,
     The White House,
     Washington, D.C.
                                                                    ____



                      president roosevelt's letter


                                              The White House,

                                Washington, DC, November 17, 1944.
       Dear Dr. Bush: The Office of Scientific Research and 
     Development, of which you are the Director, represents a 
     unique experiment of team-work and cooperation in 
     coordinating scientific research and in applying existing 
     scientific knowledge to the solution of the technical 
     problems paramount in war. Its work has been conducted in the 
     utmost secrecy and carried on without public recognition of 
     any kind; but its tangible results can be found in the 
     communiques coming in from the battlefronts all over the 
     world. Some day the full story of its achievements can be 
     told.
       There is, however, no reason why the lessons to be found in 
     this experiment cannot be profitably employed in times of 
     peace. The information, the techniques, and the research 
     experience developed by the Office of Scientific Research and 
     Development and by the thousands of scientists in the 
     universities and in private industry, should be used in the 
     days of peace ahead for the improvement of the national 
     health, the creation of new enterprises bringing new jobs, 
     and the betterment of the national standard of living.
       It is with that objective in mind that I would like to have 
     your recommendations on the following four major points:
       First: What can be done, consistent with military security, 
     and with the prior approval of the military authorities, to 
     make known to the world as soon as possible the contributions 
     which have been made during our war effort to scientific 
     knowledge?
       The diffusion of such knowledge should help us stimulate 
     new enterprises, provide jobs for our returning servicemen 
     and other workers, and make possible great strides for the 
     improvement of the national well-being.
       Second: With particular reference to the war of science 
     against disease, what can be done now to organize a program 
     for continuing in the future the work which has been done in 
     medicine and related science?
       The fact that the annual deaths in this country from one or 
     two diseases alone are far in excess of the total number of 
     lives lost by us in battle during this war should make us 
     conscious of the duty we owe future generations.
       Third: What can the Government do now and in the future to 
     aid research activities by public and private organizations? 
     The proper roles of public and of private research, and their 
     interrelation, should be carefully considered.
       Fourth: Can an effective program be proposed for 
     discovering and developing scientific talent in American 
     youth so that the 

[[Page S 10312]]
     continuing future of scientific research in this country may be assured 
     on a level comparable to what has been done during the war?
       New frontiers of the mind are before us, and if they are 
     pioneered with the same vision, boldness, and drive with 
     which we have waged this war we can create a fuller and more 
     fruitful employment and a fuller and more fruitful life.
       I hope that, after such consultation as you may deem 
     advisable with your associates and others, you can let me 
     have your considered judgment on these matters as soon as 
     convenient--reporting on each when you are ready, rather than 
     waiting for completion of your studies in all.
           Very sincerely yours,
                                            Franklin D. Roosevelt.
     Dr. Vannevar Bush,
     Office of Scientific Research and Development, Washington, 
     D.C.
                                                                    ____



                         summary of the report

                    Scientific progress is essential

       Progress in the war against disease depends upon a flow of 
     new scientific knowledge. New products, new industries, and 
     more jobs require continuous additions to knowledge of the 
     laws of nature, and the application of that knowledge to 
     practical purpose. Similarly, our defense against aggression 
     demands new knowledge so that we can develop new and improved 
     weapons. The essential, new knowledge can be obtained only 
     through basic scientific research.
       Science can be effective in the national welfare only as a 
     member of a team, whether the conditions be peace or war. But 
     without scientific progress no amount of achievement in other 
     directions can insure our health, prosperity, and security as 
     a nation in the modern world.

                      For the war against disease

       We have taken great strides in the war against disease. The 
     death rate for all diseases in the Army, including overseas 
     forces, has been reduced from 14.1 per thousand in the last 
     war to 0.6 per thousand in this war. In the last 40 years 
     life expectancy has increased from 49 to 65 years, largely as 
     a consequence of the reduction in the death rates of infants 
     and children. But we are far from the goal. The annual deaths 
     from one or two diseases far exceed the total number of 
     American lives lost in battle during this year. A large 
     fraction of these deaths in our civilian population cut short 
     the useful lives of our citizens. Approximately 7,000,000 
     persons in the United States are mentally ill and their care 
     costs the public over $175,000,000 a year. Clearly much 
     illness remains for which adequate means of prevention and 
     cure are not yet known.
       The responsibility for basic research in medicine and the 
     underlying sciences, so essential to progress in the war 
     against disease, falls primarily upon the medical schools and 
     universities. Yet we find that the traditional sources of 
     support for medical research in the medical schools and 
     universities, largely endowment income, foundation grants, 
     and private donations, are diminishing and there is no 
     immediate prospect of a change in this trend. Meanwhile, the 
     cost of medical research has been rising. If we are to 
     maintain
      the progress in medicine which has marked the last 25 years, 
     the Government should extend financial support to basic 
     medical research in the medical schools and in 
     universities.

                       For our national security

       The bitter and dangerous battle against the U-boat was a 
     battle of scientific techniques--and our margin of success 
     was dangerously small. The new eyes which radar has supplied 
     can sometime be blinded by new scientific developments. V-2 
     was countered only by capture of the launching sites.
       We cannot again rely on our allies to hold off the enemy 
     while we struggle to catch up. There must be more--and more 
     adequate--military research in peacetime. It is essential 
     that the civilian scientists continue in peacetime some 
     portion of those contributions to national security which 
     they have made so effectively during the war. This can best 
     be done through a civilian-controlled organization with close 
     liaison with the Army and Navy, but with funds direct from 
     Congress, and the clear power to initiate military research 
     which will supplement and strengthen that carried on directly 
     under the control of the Army and Navy.

                       And for the public welfare

       One of our hopes is that after the war there will be full 
     employment. To reach that goal the full creative and 
     productive energies of the American people must be released. 
     To create more jobs we must make new and better and cheaper 
     products. We want plenty of new, vigorous enterprises. But 
     new products and processes are not born full-grown. They are 
     founded on new principles and new conceptions which in turn 
     result from basic scientific research. Basic scientific 
     research is scientific capital. Moreover, we cannot any 
     longer depend upon Europe as a major source of this 
     scientific capital. Clearly, more and better scientific 
     research is one essential to the achievement of our goal of 
     full employment.
       How do we increase this scientific capital? First, we must 
     have plenty of men and women trained in science, for upon 
     them depends both the creation of new knowledge and its 
     application to practical purposes. Second, we must strengthen 
     the centers of basic research which are principally the 
     colleges, universities, and research institutes. These 
     institutions provide the environment which is most conducive 
     to the creation of new scientific knowledge and least under 
     pressure for immediate, tangible results. With some notable 
     exceptions, most research in industry and in Government 
     involves application of existing scientific knowledge to 
     practical problems. It is only the colleges, universities, 
     and a few research institutes that devote most of their 
     research efforts to expanding the frontiers of knowledge.
       Expenditures for scientific research by industry and 
     Government increased from $140,000,000 in 1930 to 
     $309,000,000 in 1940. Those for the colleges and universities 
     increased from $20,000,000 to $31,000,000, while those for 
     research institutes declined from $5,200,000 to $4,500,000 
     during the same period. If the colleges, universities, and 
     research institutes are to meet the rapidly increasing 
     demands of industry and Government for new scientific 
     knowledge, their basic research should be strengthened by use 
     of public funds.
       For science to serve as a powerful factor in our national 
     welfare, applied research both in Government and in industry 
     must be vigorous. To improve the quality of scientific 
     research within the Government, steps should be taken to 
     modify the procedures for recruiting, classifying, and 
     compensating scientific personnel in order to reduce the 
     present handicap of governmental scientific bureaus in 
     competing with industry and the universities for top-grade 
     scientific talent. To provide coordination of the common 
     scientific activities of these governmental agencies as to 
     policies and budgets, a permanent Science Advisory Board 
     should be created to advise the executive and legislative 
     branches of Government on these matters.
       The most important ways in which the Government can promote 
     industrial research are to increase the flow of new 
     scientific knowledge through support of basic research, and 
     to aid in the development of scientific talent. In addition, 
     the Government should provide suitable incentives to industry 
     to conduct research (a) by clarification of present 
     uncertainties in the Internal Revenue Code in regard to the 
     deductibility of research and development expenditures as 
     current charges against net income, and (b) by strengthening 
     the patent system so as to eliminate uncertainties which now 
     bear heavily on small industries and so as to prevent abuses 
     which reflect discredit upon a basically sound system. In 
     addition, ways should be found to cause the benefits of basic 
     research to reach industries which do not now utilize new 
     scientific knowledge.

                  We must renew our scientific talent

       The responsibility for the creation of new scientific 
     knowledge--and for most of its application--rests on that 
     small body of men and women who understand the fundamental 
     laws of nature and are skilled in the techniques of 
     scientific research. We shall have rapid or slow advance on 
     any scientific frontier depending on the number of highly 
     qualified and trained scientists exploring it.
       The deficit of science and technology students who, but for 
     the war, would have received bachelor's degrees is about 
     150,000. It is estimated that the deficit of those obtaining 
     advanced degrees in these fields will amount in 1955 to about 
     17,000--for it takes at least 6 years from college entry to 
     achieve a doctor's degree or its equivalent in science or 
     engineering. The real ceiling on our productivity of new 
     scientific knowledge and its application in the war against 
     disease, and the development of new products and new 
     industries, is the number of trained scientists available.
       The training of a scientist is a long and expensive 
     process. Studies clearly show that there are talented 
     individuals in every part of the population, but with few 
     exceptions, those without the means of buying higher 
     education
      go without it. If ability, and not the circumstance of 
     family fortune, determines who shall receive higher 
     education in science, then we shall be assured of 
     constantly improving quality at every level of scientific 
     activity. The Government should provide a reasonable 
     number of undergraduate scholarships and graduate 
     fellowships in order to develop scientific talent in 
     scholarships and graduate fellowships in order to develop 
     scientific talent in American youth. The plans should be 
     designed to attract into science only that proportion of 
     youthful talent appropriate to the needs of science in 
     relation to the other needs of the Nation for high 
     abilities.

                       Including those in uniform

       The most immediate prospect of making up the deficit in 
     scientific personnel is to develop the scientific talent in 
     the generation now in uniform. Even if we should start now to 
     train the current crop of high-school graduates none would 
     complete graduate studies before 1951. The Armed Services 
     should comb their records for men who, prior to or during the 
     war, have given evidence of talent for science, and make 
     prompt arrangements, consistent with current discharge plans, 
     for ordering those who remain in uniform, as soon as 
     militarily possible, to duty at institutions here and 
     overseas where they can continue their scientific education. 
     Moreover, the Services should see that those who study 
     overseas have the benefit of the latest scientific 
     information resulting from research during the war.

                         The lid must be lifted

       While most of the war research has involved the application 
     of existing scientific 

[[Page S 10313]]
     knowledge to the problems of war, rather than basic research, there has 
     been accumulated a vast amount of information relating to the 
     application of science to particular problems. Much of this 
     can be used by industry. It is also needed for teaching in 
     the colleges and universities here and in the Armed Forces 
     Institutes overseas. Some of this information must remain 
     secret, but most of it should be made public as soon as there 
     is ground for belief that the enemy will not be able to turn 
     it against us in this war. To select that portion which 
     should be made public, to coordinate its release, and 
     definitely to encourage its publication, a Board composed of 
     Army, Navy, and civilian scientific members should be 
     promptly established.

                          A program for action

       The Government should accept new responsibilities for 
     promoting the flow of new scientific knowledge and the 
     development of scientific talent in our youth. These 
     responsibilities are the proper concern of the Government, 
     for they vitally affect our health, our jobs, and our 
     national security. It is in keeping also with basic United 
     States policy that the Government should foster the opening 
     of new frontiers and this is the modern way to do it. For 
     many years the Government has wisely supported research in 
     the agricultural colleges and the benefits have been great. 
     The time has come when such support should be extended to 
     other fields.
       The effective discharge of these new responsibilities will 
     require the full attention of some over-all agency devoted to 
     that purpose. There is not now in the permanent governmental 
     structure receiving its funds from Congress an agency adapted 
     to supplementing the support of basic research in the 
     colleges, universities, and research institutes, both in 
     medicine and the natural sciences, adapted to supporting 
     research on new weapons for both Services, or adapted to 
     administering a program of science scholarships and 
     fellowships.
       Therefore I recommend that a new agency for these purposes 
     be established. Such an agency should be composed of persons 
     of broad interest and experience, having an understanding of 
     the peculiarities of scientific research and scientific 
     education. It should have stability of funds so that long-
     range programs may be undertaken. It should recognize that 
     freedom of inquiry must be preserved and should leave 
     internal control of policy, personnel, and the method and 
     scope of research to the institutions in which it is carried 
     on. It should be fully responsible to the President and 
     through him to the Congress for its program.
       Early action on these recommendations is imperative if this 
     Nation is to meet the challenge of science in the crucial 
     years ahead. On the wisdom with which we bring science to 
     bear in the war against disease, in the creation of new 
     industries, and in the strengthening of our Armed Forces 
     depends in large measure our future as a nation.
                                                                    ____

                              introduction

                    Scientific progress is essential

       We all know how much the new drug, penicillin, has meant to 
     our grievously wounded men on the grim battlefronts of this 
     war--the countless lives it has saved--the incalculable 
     suffering which its use has prevented. Science and the great 
     practical genius of this Nation made this achievement 
     possible.
       Some of us know the vital role which radar has played in 
     bringing the Allied Nations to victory over Nazi Germany and 
     in driving the Japanese steadily back from their island 
     bastions. Again it was painstaking scientific research over 
     many years that made radar possible.
       What we often forget are the millions of pay envelopes on a 
     peacetime Saturday night which are filled because new 
     products and new industries have provided jobs for countless 
     Americans. Science made that possible, too.
       In 1939 millions of people were employed in industries 
     which did not even exist at the close of the last war--radio, 
     air conditioning, rayon and other synthetic fibers, and 
     plastics are examples of the products of these industries. 
     But these things do not mark the end of progress--they are 
     but the beginning if we make full use of our scientific 
     resources. New manufacturing industries can be started and 
     many older industries greatly strengthened and expanded if we 
     continue to study nature's laws and apply new knowledge to 
     practical purposes.
       Great advances in agriculture are also based upon 
     scientific research. Plants which are more resistant to 
     disease and are adapted to short growing seasons, the 
     prevention and cure of livestock diseases, the control of our 
     insect enemies, better fertilizers, and improved agricultural 
     practices, all stem from painstaking scientific research.
       Advances in science when put to practical use mean more 
     jobs, higher wages, shorter hours, more abundant crops, more 
     leisure for recreation, for study, for learning how to live 
     without the deadening drudgery which has been the burden of 
     the common man for ages past. Advances in science will also 
     bring higher standards of living, will lead to the prevention 
     or cure of diseases, will promote conservation of our limited 
     national resources, and will assure means of defense against 
     aggression. But to achieve these objectives--to secure a high 
     level of employment, to maintain a position of world 
     leadership--the flow of new scientific knowledge must be both 
     continuous and substantial.
       Our population increased from 75 million to 130 million 
     between 1900 and 1940. In some countries comparable increases 
     have been accompanied by famine. In this country the increase 
     has been accompanied by more abundant food supply, better 
     living, more leisure, longer life, and better health. This 
     is, largely, the product of three factors--the free play of 
     initiative of a vigorous people under democracy, the heritage 
     of great natural wealth, and the advance of science and its 
     application.
       Science, by itself, provides no panacea for individual, 
     social, and economic ills. It can be effective in the 
     national welfare only as a member of a team, whether the 
     conditions be peace or war. But without scientific progress 
     no amount of achievement in other directions can ensure our 
     health, prosperity, and security as a nation in the modern 
     world.

               Science is a proper concern of government

       It has been basic United States policy that Government 
     should foster the opening of new frontiers. It opened the 
     seas to clipper ships and furnished land for pioneers. 
     Although these frontiers have more or less disappeared, the 
     frontier of science remains. It is in keeping with the 
     American tradition--one which has made the United States 
     great--that new frontiers shall be made accessible for 
     development by all American citizens.
       Moreover, since health, well-being, and security are proper 
     concerns of Government, scientific progress is, and must be, 
     of vital interest to Government. Without scientific progress 
     the national health would deteriorate; without scientific 
     progress we could not hope for improvement in our standard of 
     living or for an increased number of jobs for our citizens; 
     and without scientific progress we could not have maintained 
     our liberties against tyranny.

            Government relations to science--past and future

       From early days the Government has taken an active interest 
     in scientific matters. During the nineteenth century the 
     Coast And Geodetic Survey, the Naval Observatory, the 
     Department of Agriculture, and the Geological Survey were 
     established. Through the Land Grant College Acts the 
     Government has supported research in state institutions for 
     more than 80 years on a gradually increasing scale. Since 
     1900 a large number of scientific agencies have been 
     established within the Federal Government, until in 1939 they 
     numbered more than 40.
       Much of the scientific research done by Government agencies 
     is intermediate in character between the two types of work 
     commonly referred to as basic and applied research. Almost 
     all Government scientific work has ultimate practical 
     objectives but, in many fields of broad national concern, it 
     commonly involves long-term investigation of a fundamental 
     nature. Generally speaking, the scientific agencies of 
     Government are not so concerned with immediate practical 
     objectives as are the laboratories of industry nor, on the 
     other hand, are they as free to explore any natural phenomena 
     without regard to possible economic applications as are the 
     educational and private research institutions. Government 
     scientific agencies have splendid records of achievement, but 
     they are limited in function.
       We have no national policy for science. The Government has 
     only begun to utilize science in the Nation's welfare. There 
     is no body within the Government charged with formulating or 
     executing a national science policy. There are no standing 
     committees of the Congress devoted to this important subject. 
     Science has been in the wings. It should be brought to the 
     center of the stage--for in it lies much of our hope for the 
     future.
       There are areas of science in which the public interest is 
     acute but which are likely to be cultivated inadequately if 
     left without more support than will come from private 
     sources. These areas--such as research on military problems, 
     agriculture, housing, public health, certain medical 
     research, and research involving expensive capital facilities 
     beyond the capacity of private institutions--should be 
     advanced by active Government support. To date, with the 
     exception of the intensive war research conducted by the 
     Office of Scientific Research and Development, such support 
     has been meager and intermittent.
       For reasons presented in this report we are entering a 
     period when science needs and deserves increased support from 
     public funds.

                  Freedom of inquiry must be preserved

       The publicly and privately supported colleges, 
     universities, and research institutes are the centers of 
     basic research. They are the wellsprings of knowledge and 
     understanding. As long as they are vigorous and healthy and 
     their scientists are free to pursue the truth wherever it may 
     lead, there will be a flow of new scientific knowledge to 
     those who can apply it to practical problems in Government, 
     in industry, or elsewhere.
       Many of the lessons learned in the war-time application of 
     science under Government can be profitably applied in peace. 
     The Government is peculiarly fitted to perform certain 
     functions, such as the coordination and support of broad 
     programs on problems of great national importance. But we 
     must proceed with caution in carrying over the methods which 
     work in wartime to the very different conditions of peace. We 
     must remove the rigid controls which we have had to impose, 
     and recover freedom of inquiry and that healthy competitive 
     scientific spirit so necessary for expansion of the frontiers 
     of scientific knowledge.

[[Page S 10314]]

       Scientific progress on a broad front results from the free 
     play of free intellects, working on subjects of their own 
     choice, in the manner dictated by their curiosity for 
     exploration of the unknown. Freedom of inquiry must be 
     preserved under any plan for Government support of science in 
     accordance with the Five Fundamentals listed on page 32.
       The study of the momentous questions presented in President 
     Roosevelt's letter has been made by able committees working 
     diligently. This report presents conclusions and 
     recommendations based upon the studies of these committees 
     which appear in full as the appendices. Only in the creation 
     of one over-all mechanism rather than several does this 
     report depart from the specific recommendations of the 
     committees. The members of the committees have reviewed the 
     recommendations in regard to the single mechanism and have 
     found this plan thoroughly acceptable.
                               Exhibit 2

              GOP Balanced-Budget Plan Seen Crippling R&D

                            (By Anne Eisele)

       Federal non-defense research and development programs would 
     be cut by an average of one-third by fiscal year 2002 under a 
     Republican balanced-budget plan approved by both houses of 
     Congress late last week, according to an American Association 
     for the Advancement of Science estimate of the plan's 
     projected effects.
       Although the individual program assumptions under House 
     Continuing Resolution 67 are not binding on congressional 
     appropriators, the plan's overall spending targets are 
     obligatory. And they paint a dire scenario for R&D 
     initiatives at the departments of Commerce and Energy, the 
     National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and other 
     agencies.
       A total non-defense research and development cut of 33.1 
     percent would drop spending from the current-year level of 
     $34.3 billion to $22.9 billion by FY 2002, under a compromise 
     worked out between Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole (R-Kan.) 
     and House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.).
       Not surprising, R&D programs at DOC and DOE--entities that 
     many GOP lawmakers would like to see abolished altogether--
     take a beating under the GOP plan. Total Commerce Department 
     R&D funding would be halved by 2002, and Energy Department 
     non-defense R&D monies would drop 47.4 percent during the 
     same period.
       And while the National Institute of Standards and 
     Technology's Science and Technical Research Services take 
     their biggest beating from inflation, as they lose only one 
     percent over the seven-year period, funding for NIST's $400-
     million Advanced Technology Program is canceled in FY 1997.
       The Economic Development Administration and certain 
     National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration R&D programs 
     also are zeroed out under the Republican plan. DOE's clean 
     coal technology program would be wiped out, and fossil energy 
     R&D faces an 81.8 percent reduction.
       Meanwhile, the National Aeronautics and Space 
     Administration takes it on the chin, sustaining an agency-
     wide cut of 35.9 percent; its key research areas, aeronautics 
     and human space flight, plummet 43.9 percent and 35.1 
     percent, respectively. NASA's next-generation wind tunnel 
     development program would be terminated in the upcoming 
     fiscal year.

            AAAS Preliminary--Final Budget Resolution--Projected Effects of Concurrent Budget Resolution (H. Con. Res. 67) on Nondefense R&D            
                                                  [All figures in millions of dollars budget authority]                                                 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                               Constant 
                                            R&D** FY    R&D FY     R&D FY     R&D FY     R&D FY     R&D FY     R&D FY     R&D FY   R&D*** FY    dollar  
        Agency/Program             Key        1995       1996       1997       1998       1999       2000       2001       2002       2002    difference
                                           estimated  estimated  estimated  estimated  estimated  estimated  estimated  estimated   constant   1995-2002
                                                                                                                                    dollars    (percent)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NIH..........................       (13)      10,840     10,732     10,515     10,515     10,515     10,515     10,515     10,515      8,467       -21.9
Agency Health Care Polc......        (2)         277          0          0          0          0          0          0          0          0      -100.0
Other HHS R&D................        (3)         610        610        610        610        610        610        610        610        491       -19.5
                                          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total HHS R&D............  ..........     11,727     11,342     11,125     11,125     11,125     11,125     11,125     11,125      8,958       -23.6
                                          ==============================================================================================================
NASA Human Space Flt.........     (1,14)       1,902      1,883      1,816      1,697      1,649      1,533      1,533      1,533      1,234       -35.1
NASA SAT Space R&D...........     (1,14)       5,072      4,476      4,375      4,263      4,085      4,082      4,082      4,082      3,287       -35.2
NASA Mission Support.........     (1,14)       1,619      1,711      1,678      1,660      1,651      1,634      1,634      1,634      1,315       -18.8
NASA SAT Aeronautics.........     (1,14)         882        677        653        639        629        614        614        614        495       -43.9
NASA Wind Tunnels............        (2)         400          0          0          0          0          0          0          0          0      -100.0
                                          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total NASA R&D...........  ..........      9,875      8,747      8,523      8,258      8,015      7,863      7,863      7,863      6,331       -35.9
                                          ==============================================================================================================
General Science (Physics)....        (1)         974        989        940        890        890        890        890        890        717       -26.3
Energy Supply R&D............        (1)       2,210      1,790      1,620      1,560      1,486      1,431      1,431      1,431      1,152       -47.8
Fossil Energy R&D............        (1)         350        119        107         95         87         79         79         79         64       -81.8
Energy Conservation R&D......        (1)         396        213        206        198        193        188        188        188        152       -61.7
Clean Coal Technology........        (2)          37          0          0          0          0          0          0          0          0      -100.0
Uranium Enrichment...........        (1)           3          2          1          1          1          1          1          1          1       -61.7
                                          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total DOE nondef R&D.....  ..........      3,969      3,113      2,874      2,745      2,658      2,590      2,590      2,590      2,086       -47.4
                                          ==============================================================================================================
Research & Related Acts......     (4,14)       2,061      2,045      2,119      2,197      2,292      2,378      2,378      2,378      1,915        -7.1
Academic Research Infra......        (1)         250        100        100        100        100        100        100        100         81       -67.8
Major Res. Equipment.........        (1)         126         70         55         26          0          0          0          0          0      -100.0
Education and Hum. Res.......     (1,14)         107        106        107        107        109        110        110        110         88       -17.6
                                          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total NSF R&D............  ..........      2,544      2,320      2,381      2,430      2,501      2,588      2,588      2,588      2,084       -18.1
                                          ==============================================================================================================
Agri Research Serv. R&D......        (1)         709        640        640        640        640        640        640        640        515       -27.3
ARS R&D facilities...........       (13)          44         29         27         24         22         20         20         20         16       -63.4
Coop. State Res/Extension R&D        (1)         419        345        345        345        345        345        345        345        278       -33.6
Coop. State Res/Ext. R&D                                                                                                                                
 facil.......................       (13)          63          3          0          0          0          0          0          0          0      -100.0
Economics Research Serv......        (1)          54         34         27         27         27         27         27         27         22       -59.7
Natl Agric. Stats Service....        (1)           4          3          3          3          3          3          3          3          2       -35.4
Foreign Agricultural Serv....        (1)           1          1          1          1          1          1          1          1          1       -29.1
Forest Service...............        (6)         204        160        156        156        156        156        156        156        126       -38.4
Other USDA R&D...............        (3)          44         44         44         44         44         44         44         44         35       -19.5
                                          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total USDA R&D...........  ..........      1,540      1,259      1,242      1,239      1,237      1,235      1,235      1,235        995       -35.4
                                          ==============================================================================================================
US Geological Survey.........        (1)         368        295        295        295        295        295        295        295        237       -35.6
Nat'l Biological Service.....        (1)         167         99         96         94         92         90         90         90         72       -56.6
Bureau of Mines..............        (1)         103         90         78         66         53         41         41         41         33       -67.7
Nat'l Park Service...........       (13)          19         18         18         18         18         18         18         18         15       -23.5
Other Interior R&D...........        (3)          30         30         30         30         30         30         30         30         24       -19.5
                                          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Interior R&D.......  ..........        686        532        517        502        488        473        473        473        381       -44.4
                                          ==============================================================================================================
FHWA (Highway Admin).........        (7)         277        130        130        130        130        130        130        130        105       -62.1
Federal Transit Admin........        (1)          21          0          0          0          0          0          0          0          0      -100.0
Maritime Admin...............        (1)           3          0          0          0          0          0          0          0          0      -100.0
Federal Railroad Admin.......        (8)          28          8          8          8          8          8          8          8          6       -77.6
Other Transporation R&D......        (3)         360        360        360        360        360        360        360        360        290       -19.5
                                          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total DOT R&D............  ..........        687        497        497        497        497        497        497        497        400       -41.7
                                          ==============================================================================================================
NOAA R&D Facils..............        (1)          38         12         12         12         12         12         12         12         10       -75.1
NOAA Operations, Res & Facils                                                                                                                           
 R&D.........................        (1)         531        472        465        458        443        429        429        429        346       -34.8
Other NOAA R&D...............        (2)          19          0          0          0          0          0          0          0          0      -100.0
NIST Sci & Technical Res                                                                                                                                
 Service.....................        (4)         214        225        231        239        245        253        260        268        216        -1.0
NIST ATP.....................        (2)         409          0          0          0          0          0          0          0          0      -100.0
NIST Construction............        (4)          63         65         67         69         72         74         76         78         62        -0.9
Econ. Develop. Admin.........        (2)           1          0          0          0          0          0          0          0          0      -100.0
Other Commerce R&D...........        (3)          10         10         10         10         10         10         10         10          8       -19.5
                                          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page S 10315]]
                                                                                                                                                        
    Total Commerce R&D.......  ..........      1,284        783        784        787        782        777        787        797        642       -50.0
                                          ==============================================================================================================
    Total EPA R&D............        (9)         619        554        554        554        554        554        554        554        446       -27.9
    Total Education R&D......       (10)         175          5          5          5          5          5          5          5          4       -97.8
    Total AID R&D............       (10)         314          0          0          0          0          0          0          0          0      -100.0
    Total Veterans R&D.......        (3)         297        297        297        297        297        297        297        297        239       -19.5
    Total NRC R&D............        (3)          82         82         82         82         82         82         82         82         66       -19.5
    Total Smithsonian R&D....        (3)         135        135        135        135        135        135        135        135        109       -19.5
    Total TVA R&D............        (5)          89          0          0          0          0          0          0          0          0      -100.0
    Total Corps R&D..........        (3)          55         55         55         55         55         55         55         55         44       -19.5
    Total Labor R&D..........       (11)          62         26         26         26         26         26         26         26         21       -66.0
    Total Other R&D..........       (12)         164        164        164        164        164        164        164        164        132       -19.5
                                          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total nondefense R&D.  ..........     34,303     29,911     29,261     28,901     28,621     28,467     28,476     28,487     22,939       -33.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
House Budget Committee Policy Assumptions: Fiscal Year 1996 Budget Resolution prepared by the House Budget Committee, May 10, 1995 and Conference Report
  for Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 1996, June 26, 1995.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                                        
** Source: AAAS Report XX: Research and Development FY 1996.                                                                                            
*** Expressed in FY 1995 dollars. Adjusted for Inflation according to GDP deflators.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                                        
Key of assumptions:                                                                                                                                     
\1\ Based on specific program reduction in House resolution, assuming R&D as percent of appropriation remains constant.                                 
\2\ Elimination of account in House resolution.                                                                                                         
\3\ Not specifically mentioned in either House or conference resolution; assumes freeze at FY 1995 level.                                               
\4\ Based on specific program INCREASE in House resolution, assuming R&D as percent of appropriation remains constant.                                  
\5\ Planned privatization in House resolution; would no longer be federal R&D.                                                                          
\6\ Reductions in Forest Resources and Management Research and Ecosystems Research in House resolution.                                                 
\7\ Assumes $150 million reduction each year from elimination of Intelligent Vehicle Development R&D.                                                   
\8\ Elimination of $20 million in R&D High-Speed Rail in House resolution.                                                                              
\9\ Elimination of $85 million in R&D for ETI; all other R&D frozen at FY 1995 level.                                                                   
\10\ Assumes elimination of all programs containing R&D within agency based on House resolution detail; Howard University R&D added back in conference. 
\11\ Elimination of ETA R&D in the House resolution; all other R&D frozen at FY 1995 level.                                                             
\12\ HUD, Justice, and USPS R&D frozen at FY 1995 levels.                                                                                               
\13\ Based on specific program reduction in concurrent resolution, assuming R&D as percent of appropriations remains constant.                          
\14\ Conference added $2 billion over seven years to general science above House level; distributed over NASA and NSF research activities (excluding    
  facilities).                                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                                        
 Deflators: 1995--1.30; 1996--1.34; 1997--1.38; 1998--1.42; 1999--1.46; 2000--1.51; 2001 est.--1.56; 2002 est.--1.61; 1995-2002--1.24. Deflators from   
  OMB, Budget of the United States Government FY 1996 until FY 2000, then 3.5 percent inflation thereafter.                                             


                               Exhibit 3

             Public Surprises Pollsters, Backs Federal R&D

                           (By Ken Jacobson)

       Public opinion researchers went to the districts of some 
     leading House Republicans in April expecting to hear 
     condemnations of federal spending on R&D. Instead, recalls 
     Steve Wagner of Luntz Research & Strategic Service, 
     participants in focus groups they moderated tended to rate 
     R&D an ``above-average priority'' even though many stood 
     behind efforts to reduce the federal deficit.
       ``We went looking for things that didn't pan out,'' says 
     Wagner, whose groups were recruited in New Orleans, the 
     district of House Appropriations Committee Chairman Bob 
     Livingston, and Houston, home of House Majority Whip Tom 
     DeLay and Ways & Means Committee Chairman Bill Archer.
       ``We went looking for the degree to which government 
     investment in R&D was seen as corporate welfare, and we 
     didn't find it. We went looking for the degree to which 
     concerns about the deficit cast such a pall over everything 
     that R&D should take a disproportionate or even a 
     proportionate cut, and they told us `no.' It's fair to say,'' 
     Wagner admits, ``that I was surprised by the extent of 
     support'' for R&D that was in evidence.
       That's not to say that the 10- to 13-voter groups, which 
     met for two hours each, had a very detailed picture of how 
     the federal government spends its R&D dollars. And that's 
     true even though they were chosen to take part in the 
     research--commissioned by IBM, Hewlett-Packard, Kodak, and 
     Genentech--in part of their level of education and their 
     interest in current affairs.
       According to Public Opinion Strategies' Neil Newhouse, in 
     charge of groups in House Science Committee Chairman Bob 
     Walker's Lancaster, Pa., district and the Columbus, Ohio, 
     district of House Budget Committee Chairman John Kasich, 
     participants showed awareness that federal R&D encompasses 
     the fields of space, health, and defense, but had little 
     knowledge of specific programs.
       Nonetheless, they staunchly defended the federal R&D 
     function. ``We pushed people hard in terms of trying to get 
     them to move away from support from R&D. But their support 
     was broad and had a level intensity,'' Newhouse says, that 
     ``contradicted what we saw as the current political 
     environment.''
       Behind their attitudes may be the fact that, as Wagner puts 
     it, ``people are very pragmatic.'' Far from being greeted 
     with what he regards as ``ideological'' stances, Wagner says, 
     the researchers heard messages he encapsulates as: `` `Jobs 
     are a priority, finding a cure for AIDS is a priority, and if 
     it takes the government to do it, the government should do 
     it.' If they think government involvement will make the 
     situation better, people will not hesitate to say that that's 
     a legitimate function of government.''
       Still, that doesn't imply an absolute faith in government, 
     or even much faith at all. This mistrust, however, is also 
     directed toward the private sector, and what emerges, 
     according to the researchers, is a preference for public-
     private R&D partnerships.
       ``Neither the government nor private industry is completely 
     trusted to make these investment decisions,'' states a 
     summary of their findings that the two polling organizations 
     issued jointly. ``The government remains the agency of the 
     common interest. Private business is seen as more efficient, 
     more disciplined, but also self-interested.
       ``These perceptions cannot be changed in the short run, but 
     they can be used: Let the private sector say what is 
     feasible, which technologies offer the promise of payoff, and 
     [let] the government say what is in the national interest to 
     develop. A partnership of both entities looking over each 
     other's shoulder will likely be the most satisfying to the 
     voters.''
     

                          ____________________