PARTICIPATION IN AN INTERNATIONAL SPACE PROGRAM Senator JOHNSON. In your opinion, is it safe at this time for our country to participate in international space programs? Dr. VAN ALLEN. Well, sir, as you of course know, we are already doing that in the IGY. We have a vast international network of stations, and it is an internationally cooperative undertaking at the present time. I think this can be developed and extended without hazard to the Nation. I think that international cooperation in this field will have a favorable effect on our national character and security. Senator JOHNSON. Do you think it is not only safe to do so, but essential? Dr. VAN ALLEN. I think it will be of very great value in easing international tensions if we can genuinely cooperate on something which is a natural field of cooperation. Senator JOHNSON. In your opinion, are there clear limitations to such international projects, as a result of military security requirements? Dr. VAN ALLEN. I think we must go at it gradually, and with considerable circumspection, as a start. Senator JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Doctor. Senator McClellan? Senator MCCLELLAN. No questions. Senator JOHNSON. Senator Symington? Senator SYMINGTON. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman. Our next witness is Dr. Bronk, president of the National Academy of Sciences. Dr. Bronk, will you please come to the microphone? Dr. Bronk, you have held some very high scientific positions in our Government, and we are grateful to you for coming to advise and consult with us today. As background for your testimony, I ask unanimous consent to place your biography in the record. (The biography referred to is as follows:) BIOGRAPHY OF DR. DETLEV W. BRONK, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, PRESIDENT, ROCKEFELLER INSTITUTE FOR MEDICAL RESEARCH, AND CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD Dr. Bronk was born in New York City on August 13, 1897. He was educated at Swarthmore College, B. A. 1920, and the University of Michigan, M. S. 1922 and Ph. D. 1926. He has received many honorary degrees. In 1926 he joined Swarthmore as assistant professor, became full professor in 1928 and served as dean of men 1927-29. He was director of the Eldridge Reeves Johnson Foundation at the University of Pennsylvania, 1929-49; director, Institute of Neurology, 1936-40 and 1942-49; and professor at Cornell University Medical College, 1940– 41. He was president of Johns Hopkins University 1948-53. He served during World War II as Coordinator of Research for the Surgeon General of the Army Air Force, as special consultant to the Secretary of War, and as Chief of the Division of Aviation Medicine of the Committee on Medical Research of the Office of Scientific Research and Development. Following the war he received the Exceptional Service Award of the Army Air Force. Dr. Bronk is currently serving the Government as Chairman of the National Science Board of the National Science Foundation; member of the Science Advisory Committee of the Office of Defense Mobilization; member of the statutory Visiting Committee of the National Bureau of Standards; member of the Science Advisory Board of the Air Force; Vice Chairman of the NACA; member of the Advisory Committee on Biology and Medicine, AEC; and member of the National Commission for UNESCO. Dr. Bronk has been president of the National Academy of Sciences since 1950, and president of the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research since 1953. In addition to the above affiliations, Dr. Bronk is a trustee of the Philadelphia Institute for Cancer Research, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Marine Biological Laboratory, the Johns Hopkins University, Rockefeller Foundation, Population Council, Protein Foundation, and Sloan-Kettering Institution. Senator JOHNSON. The committee is ready for you to make any statement you desire. Proceed in your own way. Excuse me; I must leave at this point. I have asked Senator Symington to preside. STATEMENT OF DR. DETLEV BRONK, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, WASHINGTON, D. C. Dr. BRONK. As President of the National Academy of Sciences, I welcome the opportunity to speak briefly in support of S. 3609. In doing so, I recognize that all I can say has been said on numerous occasions. With your permission, I would prefer to speak extemporaneously and prepare any report of testimony that may be desired subsequently, in the light of questions you may wish to ask me. I recognize that one of your important considerations has beer whether or not this program should be supported and conducted by a civilian agency. The reason why I feel that the provisions of the proposed bill are correct in this regard is because my experience as a member of the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics for 10 years has persuaded me that an agency under civilian auspices can make its contribution to science and the Nation in cordial and effective cooperation with the military services, on the one hand, and with civilian scientists and industries, on the other. I have been impressed during these 10 years of membership on the NACA by the devoted and cordial cooperation of all the individuals and agencies of the country which have been concerned with the development of aeronautics. I believe, also, that the proposed bill is correct in its general structure, because it recognizes that space research calls for wise international cooperation. This is a great adventure of the human mind, and certainly no one nation should or can control all such activity. Whatever agency is established will be best fitted to do so if it is best geared to the potentialities for international cooperation. I believe that the Agency proposed makes adequate provisions for relating military activities, on the one hand, and scientific activities carried on without any specific regard for military requirements, on the other, in a common undertaking with a common focus. This two-way flow of activity and information is of general importance. With the development of our technological civilization and with the development of our military activities along lines of scientific and technological progress, it is increasingly important that we recognize that the totality of our national effort has a broad unity. Except for difference in ultimate objectives there is no basic difference between military science and civilian science. With these few brief general remarks, I would enthusiastically support this bill. Senator SYMINGTON. Senator McClellan? COMMENTS ON LANGUAGE IN THE BILL Senator SYMINGTON. Dr. Bronk, is there any part of the bill that you think should be changed? Dr. BRONK. I might have introduced certain changes in emphasis. I would have made specific reference, as the President's message did, to the desirability, of close association between this Agency and the National Science Foundation and the National Academy of Sciences, in order to assure that there would be such cooperation between the Agency and the scientists of the country. Senator SYMINGTON. Do you see any objection to having a director reporting to the President in a normal administrative way? Dr. BRONK. No, I do not. Having served on the NACA, as I have said, for 10 years, I was well pleased with the relationship between the Director and the Committee. On the other hand, having been a university president for 10 years, I also recognize the desirability of having a more focused responsibility. POSSIBILITY OF LIFETIME JOB FOR DIRECTOR Senator SYMINGTON. One previous witness mentioned the possibility of it's being a lifetime job. I think that would largely depend on the way it was handled, don't you? Dr. BRONK. I do, sir. Senator SYMINGTON. I have never heard anybody raise any objection to Mr. Hoover being the Director of the FBI for 34 years. Dr. BRONK. And we all know university presidents who have served long and distinguished careers. NECESSITY FOR EARLY ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW AGENCY Senator SYMINGTON. Would you say this matter was of sufficient urgency that you think the Agency should be set up this year or do you think it could wait until next year? Dr. BRONK. I think it would be well to establish it this year because we are in a state of development. There is an urgency about carrying on many of our programs. As the International Geophycial Year ends, it is essential that we do not lose the momentum which has been gained under that program. If this agency is not created, I should think that other agencies would have to be utilized and this might make it difficult in the ultimate development of the Agency proposed. At the National Academy of Sciences we are establishing a Board on Space Research in order to carry forward the activities begun under the IGY, recognizing that it is important not to have a hiatus. We would welcome the prompt creation of the NASA. PAY SCALES IN THE NEW AGENCY Senator SYMINGTON. How about this part of the bill which provides authority to pay scientific personnel compensation in excess of that now permitted by Federal law? Dr. BRONK. I think this is very important, sir, because, as we all know, many of our Government agencies have suffered gravely because they have been unable to compete with nongovernmental agencies. I am one who believes that our Government deserves no less than the best. Senator SYMINGTON. Well, if we do that, sir, don't we make it difficult for the other agencies of Government that use scientific personnel in their programs? Dr. BRONK. It might be a very good way of encouraging them to try for the same. Senator SYMINGTON. I must say that is a pretty good answer. Senator MCCLELLAN. No. Senator SYMINGTON. Thank you very much, Doctor. Dr. BRONK. Thank you, sir. Senator SYMINGTON. Our next witness is Mr. Don K. Price, Jr., dean designate of the Harvard Graduate School of Public Administration? Mr. Price, will you come up? Mr. Price, I understand you are the author of a publication called Government and Science. And that you have done considerable work in the field of relations between the Government and science. We are looking forward to your testimony. I ask unanimous consent to insert in the record your biography covering your experience and qualifications. (The biography referred to is as follows:) BIOGRAPHY OF DON K. PRICE, JR., VICE PRESIDENT, FORD FOUNDATION, DEAN DESIGNATE, HARVARD GRADUATE SCHOOL OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Mr. Price was born in Middlesboro, Ky., on January 23, 1910. He received his bachelor of arts degree from Vanderbilt in 1931 and was a Rhodes scholar at Oxford University, receiving his bachelor of arts in 1934 and bachelor of literature in 1935. He was a reporter and editor of the Nashville Tennessean in 1930-32. From 1935 to 1937 he was a research assistant for the HOLC. He was a staff member of the Social Science Research Council from 1937 to 1939. He was assistant and associate director of the Public Administration Clearing House from 1939 to 1953. He served in the United States Coast Guard from 1943 to 1945. He was a staff member of the Bureau of the Budget from 1945 to 1946. From 1952 to 1953 he was Deputy Chairman of the Research and Development Board of the Department of Defense. He also lectured at the University of Chicago from 1946 to 1953. He was the associate director of the Ford Foundation from 1953 to 1954 and its vice president since 1954. Later in 1958 he will become the dean of the Harvard Graduate School of Public Administration. He has been a member of various committees on Government organization. He is also a member of Phi Beta Kappa and the author of Government and Science published in 1954, and other publications. Senator SYMINGTON. The committee is ready for any statement that you might wish to make. STATEMENT OF DON K. PRICE, JR., VICE PRESIDENT, FORD FOUNDATION, AND DEAN DESIGNATE, HARVARD GRADUATE SCHOOL OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Mr. PRICE. Thank you very much, Senator. I will be glad to start, if I may, by talking briefly from notes that I have made. I was on a trip abroad when I got a letter from Senator Johnson inviting me to appear, and I did not have time to prepare a completely written statement. But perhaps it will be more useful for me to try to answer questions. I think the problem, that makes S. 3609 a tremendously challenging piece of legislation is that we are caught up here by 2 trends that 30 years ago or even 20 years ago would have seemed inconceivable to us. At that time, we were getting used to the idea that technology and industrialization were causing us a lot of social problems. We weren't used to the idea that we were going to have to depend every month and every day for our security on a massive Military Establishment, a necessity which I think we all take for granted today. And, second, we weren't used to the idea that the strength of that Military Establishment was going to have to depend not on a traditional corps of professional soldiers and not on a reserve of militia, but on the state of our science and technology, which is multiplying the powers of destruction, as it has become quite commonplace to say, to such an extent that no one can quite see where this leads us in the long-range future. Now, it seems to me that these two general ideas underlie all of the important issues that are represented in this bill. And while this bill alone, of course, won't determine the future of the world, I think the kind of moves we make on it will have some effect on the way we work out the future of our relations between civilian and military power in this Government. We all hope those relations can be along the lines that are consonant with our fundamental and traditional principles. Then, too, we must consider the equally important but newer problems of the relation between responsible political authority on the one hand, and the rapidly developing influence of science on the other; this is an equally important, and I think equally difficult, problem. Both of these problems have a great potential impact, I think, on the future relations of private and public institutions in this country, because obviously if everything that is needed for military strength is to be drawn into the military system, even on a contractual basis, the possibility of truly independent private institutions becomes very difficult for us to maintain. I would like to discuss three general issues in this bill, and I am very glad to be able to say that I think the bill takes a sound approach to them. The first is the issue of the military-civilian relation. The second is the issue how an agency of this sort ought to be headed. And the third is the relation of this agency to the rest of the Government. First, as to the military-civilian relationship, I would not like to see any step taken which would even momentarily weaken the state of our weapons development. I served for some time as Deputy Chairman of the old Research and Development Board, and that experience gave me a very lively sense of the need for the continuous advancement of military technology. It made me think, too, that it would be very easy to exaggerate the difficulties of military people in getting along with scientists. I think military administrators are generally like civilians in their attitude to scientists; if they run a big bureaucratic show, they have to run it according to the rules of the game, which are not always welcome to the independent scientist. I do not argue for a civilian agency here because I think there is any |