GOVERN
MENT
Congress Lacks Science Advisers But proposals to provide technical advice on a formal basis meet with little enthusiasm Congress is showing growing uneasiness over the huge sums it must appropriate for federal support of research and development. Fifteen years ago Congress appropriated $900 million for R&D; 10 years ago $3.4 billion; current budgets call for about $15 billion. And chances are in the years ahead there will be much greater increases. So far, Congressional concern has been focused mainly on operating problems of government research and development programs: waste, inefficiency, duplication of effort. Two investigations of these problems have been launched. One, conducted by the House Select Committee on Government Research, is aimed at rooting out waste in R&D programs. The other, conducted by the Subcommittee on Science, Research, and Development of the House Committee on Science and Astronautics, is exploring government-science relationships with a view to determining how best to coordinate science spending with othei national needs. However, some Congressmen are worried about the almost total absence of independent scientific advice available to Congress to help it make intelligent decisions on the course of federally supported science programs. They point out that the President has available to him the full advice and counsel of the scientific community as presented to him by his science advisers. Congress has no such help. As a result, they say, for expert advice Congressional committees too often rely on the same scientists who have conceived a program and who will spend the money if the program is approved. And if outside scientific advice is sought at all, it is often obtained on a catch-as-catch-can basis. Two bills have been introduced in the House and one in the Senate which would give Congress a panel of full-time science advisers, but they have stirred little or no interest among members of Congress. Outside of the 24
C&EN
DEC. 30, 1963
bills' sponsors, there seems to be no drive to push for action on the bills and move them through the legislative process. The Subcommittee on Accounts of the Committee on House Administration has held preliminary hearings on H.R. 6866 and H.R. 8066 (C&EN, Dec. 16, page 3 5 ) , but the hearings were rather perfunctory. The almost complete lack of questioning by subcommittee members plus the meager witness list seemed to indicate that the committee was merely going through the motions rather than conducting a serious investigation of the problems involved. On the Senate side, the Committee on Rules and Administration has not yet scheduled any hearings on S. 2038. With the committee tied up in an investigation of the tangled affairs of former Senate Democratic secretary Robert Baker, action on S. 2038 at an early date seems unlikely. As it stands now, unless there is a strong upsurge of Congressional interest, bills to give Congress qualified science advisers seem destined for the limbo of committee pigeonholes.
Present Situation.
There are no
scientists in Congress. Two Senators hold degrees in engineering but neither would qualify today as a practicing professional. Three members of the House of Representatives hold degrees in civil engineering but are no longer actively engaged professionally. The staffs of Congressional committees which deal with scientific problems are almost devoid of people with technical training. The Public Works Committees have several civil engineers on their staffs. The House Committee on Science and Astronautics has an aeronautical engineer and an electrical engineer on its staff plus two scientific specialists on loan from the Library of Congress. The Joint Committee on Atomic Energy has three staff members with degrees in engineering and in physics. Other than this, the committees are staffed
with lawyers and people experienced in handling administrative problems. How do committee members get advice on scientific problems? In some cases panels of scientists are assembled to give advice on a specific problem, but this device is rarely used. The House Committee on Science and Astronautics has a Panel on Science and Technology composed of leading specialists in various fields of science. This group meets once or twice a year with the committee members to bring them up to date on advances in general fields of science; specific problems before the committee are seldom discussed. Most of the time Congressmen get background experience to help them make decisions on scientific problems by what Sen. Clinton Anderson (D.-N.M.) calls "osmosis." Over a period of time, members of Congress, through their committee assignments and an awareness of the world around them, absorb some familiarity with the language and problems of the scientists and technicians," he says. Or, as staff members of the House Appropriations Committee put it, Congressmen develop "lay expertise" in science and its problems. Many members of the Appropriations Committee's subcommittees have held the same assignments for a number of years. Thus, through annual exposure to an agency's scientific effort, they gain insight into the relation and relative importance of one program to another. From this experience they are able to make judgments on government spending for science based on their background as informed laymen. Proposals. Three bills to give Congress formal scientific advice are awaiting action. H.R. 6866, introduced by Rep. Abner W. Sibal (R.-Conn.) would provide three science advisers for the House and three for the Senate. Each staff would consist of a chemist, a physicist, and a biologist. The staff could assemble
Rep. Abner W. Sibal Wants three science advisers for House and three for the Senate
Sen. E. L. Bartlett Introduced bill to create Congressional Office of Science and Technology
Sen. Clinton Anderson Congress does not need a formal staff of science advisers
temporary panels of scientific specialists to work on particular projects. Under this bill, the science advisers would not only furnish advice on science problems to members of Congress on request but would also try to ferret out waste and duplication in science programs proposed by the Executive Branch, evaluate these programs, and suggest new or different avenues of research. S. 2038, sponsored by Sen. E. L. Bartlett (D.-Alaska) and an identical bill (H.R. 8066), introduced by Rep. William B. Widnall (R.-N.J.), would create a Congressional Office of Science and Technology (COST). This organization would be patterned after the Office of Science and Technology now operating in the President's office. COST would have an over-all director and a branch for the House and a branch for the Senate. Each branch would have a small staff of scientific generalists and could assemble panels of experts to study specialized problems. COST would have no legislative or jurisdictional functions but would furnish advice on scientific problems as requested by individual members of Congress or by Congressional committees. A number of other proposals have been made to give Congress advice on science problems. One suggestion is to create a joint committee on science. This committee, composed of chairmen of committees dealing with science activities, would have a small staff of technical people and would function in a purely advisory capacity. Another proposal is to add scientific personnel to the staffs of the principal legislative committees. It
has also been suggested that the National Academy of Sciences or a similar body might prepare an annual report to Congress on the state of science and technology. This report would discuss the major problems in science and technology and would point out problem areas where future Congressional action might be required. Advice Needed. Congress in its operations must make the right choice between alternatives, Rep. Widnall says, but in evaluating scientific proposals Congress often has no idea of what the alternatives, if any, might be. Congressmen feel a sense of helplessness in asking Executive Branch experts questions which will illuminate the problem. "What we need in this tug-of-war between bureaucratic expertise and the representatives of the people is a sort of devil's advocate to help test out the possible self-serving statements of those testifying before us," he says. In his opinion, COST would fill this role and give Congress a strong basis of independent judgment. Congress has no objective standard by which to measure whether it is acting wisely in deciding scientific problems, Rep. Sibal says. In reaching these decisions, Congress relies almost exclusively on scientists from the Executive Branch for advice and guidance. Rep. Sibal views this dependence as a major threat to the Constitutional system of checks and balances. "If we are to carry out our mandate to defend and nurture the public welfare, we must recapture our capacity to evaluate scientific programs wisely/' he says. Scientific
staffs, such as those proposed in H.R. 6866, would enable Congress to gain an eagle-eye view of science and Government, Rep. Sibal adds. Sen. Bartlett advocates COST as the best way to provide Congress with independent advice because he believes other suggestions have serious flaws. For example, he says that a single committee on science would, as time goes on, take over more and more of the functions of the legislative committees and would not provide a readily accessible source of knowledge for Congressmen who were not members of the committee. He also points out that it would be very difficult to obtain distinguished science advisers on a full-time basis for the staffs of the major committees. People of the proper caliber would not be content with what would be a job of a sporadic nature, he says. Opposition. Congress does not need a formal staff of science advisers as proposed in COST, Sen. Anderson says. A Congressional staff in a position to answer all the inquiries of Congressmen or Congressional committees would require duplication of the staffs of the executive agencies. It would also require people with detailed knowledge of the missions and programs of all of the executive agencies. "This is impractical, is too costly, and has never been the intent of Congress," Sen. Anderson says. As he sees it, there may be times when Congress needs the advice of a group of the most prominent scientists available to discuss the pros and cons of a particular question or an approach to a problem, especially where the major factor is technical in nature. DEC.
30,
1963
C&EN
25
Some Proposals for Giving Congress Scientific Advice • Create a Congressional Office of Science and Technology to advise Congressmen and committees (S. 2038, H.R. 8066). • Create a small staff of science advisers for House and Senate to fur nish advice to Congressmen and ride herd on federal spending for R&D (H.R. 6866). ^ Create a joint committee on science and technology to function as an advisory group. ί Add technically trained personnel to the staffs of committees which handle science problems. • Require the National Academy of Sciences to give Congress an annual report on the state of science and technology.
And there may be times when a scien tific panel could help in reviewing a segment of an agency's scientific pro gram. However, he doubts that Con gress could justify the full-time use of eminent scientists to review and analyze a particular agency's proposed research and development program. Sen. Anderson points out that many problems involving science or tech nology are not decided on technical factors alone. Congressional decisions on the issues of public policy raised by such problems as the atomic test ban treaty, water pollution by syn thetic detergents, or the authoriza tion for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration involve many other factors—administrative, eco nomic, political, social—as well. Based on experience, Congress is capable of making these decisions in the na tional interest, he says. Sen. Anderson believes that Con gress would get much useful advice on scientific problems if agency wit nesses would discuss these problems more fully and adequately before Con gressional committees. "The separa tion of legislative and executive powers in this regard can be carried to an ex tent that does damage to programs in which both branches are mutually in· terested," he says. The House Appropriations Commit tee, which holds the purse strings on all science programs, sees no need for a staff of science advisers. The com mittee staff believes that the detailed explanations of agency representatives and questioning by Congressmen with many years' service on specialized sub committees give ample information in the appropriations hearings to permit intelligent judgments to b e made. They fear that the necessity of con 26 C&EN
DEC. 30, 1963
sulting advisers on scientific problems would make the appropriations process even slower than it is now. Some Action. The House Commit tee on Science and Astronautics is moving in two directions to improve its scientific competence. In one di rection, it is trying to find a way to make better use of its Panel on Sci ence and Technology. In the other, it is trying to add more people with technical training to the committee staff. Up to now, the committee has seldom sought advice from the panel on specific problems. Individual members have occasionally been ques tioned about problems connected with their specialties, but most panel meet ings have been seminars on recent ad vances in broad areas of science. Now the committee is trying to re organize the panel so it will be in a position to give advice on specific problems. Details have not yet been worked out, but it is probable that in dividual members of the panel will be asked to head up ad hoc working groups to make surveys, studies, and recommendations on problems as signed by the committee. These studies would probably serve as back ground information for committee members on subjects that seem likely to come up for committee action. The committee is not having much luck in finding the kind of technically trained people it wants for additions to its staff. People with technical training and experience in government operations and administration are in short supply and those whose qualifica tions have fit in with committee re quirements have not been interested in joining the staff. However, when the committee has found the two or
three staff members it is looking for, it plans to use its small technical staff as a nucleus and augment its work with outside consultants. Fragmentation. Even if Congress had an adequate staff of science ad visers to help clarify issues for Con gressional decision, coordinated inter agency science programs would still face a stiff hurdle: Congress has no mechanism for handling these pro grams on a unified basis. Government science program pro posals are being coordinated to an ex tent never before possible through the President's Office of Science and Tech nology. Here, total spending for an area of science is decided and in dividual agencies are assigned sections of the program as part of their opera tions. This type of multiagency plan ning is expected to grow in an effort to use federal funds for science in the most economic way and avoid unneces sary duplication. However, under the Congressional committee system individual agency budgets are examined by separate committees for authorization and by special subcommittees of the Appro priations Committees for appropria tions. Nowhere is the over-all program proposed by the Executive Branch considered by Congress. As a result, appropriations can diverge sharply from the original coordinated proposal; major parts of the program may be cut back and relatively minor portions may be boosted out of proportion. Federal programs in oceanography are a good example of this problem. Some 18 agencies take part in a co ordinated program developed by the Office of Science and Technology and the Interagency Committee on Ocea nography. Yet the individual agency budgets are scrutinized for authoriza tion by such diverse committees as Interior, Armed Services, Atomic En ergy, Education and Labor,,and Com merce and, after authorization, a num ber of subcommittees of Appropria tions decide how much money shall be allotted to the individual agencies. There seems to be no solution to this problem short of a complete re organization of the Congressional com mittee system, an event which is un likely to take place. However, it is possible that a formal group of Con gressional science advisers might serve as a coordinating mechanism to alert various committees to the significance of the over-all plans developed by the Executive Branch.
ROLYVIÏSJYLPVRROLIDOrsIE film former · protective colloid · dye-receptive resin · adhesive · binder · stabilizer · available in four molecular·weight grades · soluble in aqueous and organic solvent systems This flexible polymer is well known in the cosmetic, pharmaceutical, and synthetic fiber industries.
have you tried it yet in...
EMULSION AND SUSPENSION POLYMERIZATIONS-as a protective colloid and dispersant, viscosity modifier, and particle size regulator; to improve adhesion and color receptivity of polymers; for products with greater clarity and stability.
COATING AND ADHESIVE S Y S T E M S - t o raise cold flow and improve strength; reduce blocking; to improve grease resistance and adhesion.
PAPER MANUFACTURE-to improve strength and as a binding agent in specialty papers.
LATEX PAINTS — as a dispersant, stabilizer, and protective colloid for pigments and polymers.
STYRENE/ACRYLIC FLOOR F I N I S H E S - a s a leveling agent
INKS — to solubilize dyes and control viscosity.
DETERGENTS — to disperse carbon black and prevent soil redeposition with extremely good compatibility and stability in liquid detergents.
GENERAL ANILINE & FILM CORPORATION DYESTUFF & CHEMICAL DIVISION 435 HUDSON STREET, NEW YORK, N.Y. 10014
Name Title
Please send literature and a sample of PVP (polyvinylpyrrolidone).
Com pa ny
Our field of interest is
Address City
.
State
For the complete line of GAF chemicals, see 1964 Chemical Materials Catalog, Section G-l.
2iρ
C&EN CHARTS While the wholesale price index stood at 100.7 (1957-59 = 100) in Novem ber (the same level as in November 1962), the price index for some cate gories of materials was showing an upward swing. Chemicals and allied products, with a wholesale price index of 96.3 in November, climbed from 96.0 in September through 96.2 in October. Thus prices of chemicals and allied products, which had under gone some considerable weakness earlier in the year, were again rising. Prices of industrial chemicals, ac
cording to the U.S. Department of Labor's price report, were, however, still at a low index of 94.2. This is the same as the index for October, and that month's index had dropped from an index of 94.5 in September. The price index for industrial chemicals in November 1962 stood at 95.9. The price index for drugs and phar maceuticals, however, regained some ground in November. The September and October index of 94.9 rose to 95.0. The price index of fertilizer ma terials made a jump of 1.7 points to
EMPLOYMENT Number of Employees
Chemicals and Allied Products
Thousands 900
— - 1963
All Employees _ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ " ^ M " " ^ ^ ^ " ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
Quality you can sec
—
1962
^^^^^^"^^
800
—
550 500 Production Workers 450, D
I
|
1
1
1
j
1
1
[
1
]
I
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
Ο
Χ
D
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
The picture shows SODIUM GLU CONATE crystals, magnified 50 times. They have to be from Cowles. Nobody else makes them this uni form, this pure, this white, this soluble, this stable. Cowles synthesis process provides GLUCONIC ACIDwhich is clear, low in impurities, odorless, withstands long storage without degradation.
Average Weekly Hours
Average Hourly Earnings
Production Workers
Production Workers
43
Chemicals and Allied P - ™ J » / » » e ^ ^
Chemicals and Allied Products
Write for literature describing these excellent séquestrants and how to get the most from them. Might as well buy some, too. The price is the same.
2.60 ^ ^ ^
' ι
——
2.50
^
All Manufacturing
Cow&éC l e v e l a n d 2iO, Ohio
28
C&EN
DEC. 3 0, 196 3
φ
^
· Ι I I I I I I I M
I I I
All Manufacturing 38
CHEMICAL COM PANY
2.40
39
I I I M DJ
I I I I I I II
F M A M J
J AS
OND
2 30
DJ
F M A M J
J A S
OND
This Week In Business 98.4 from 97.2 in October. Paint ma terials were also showing a steady up ward swing in prices in the Septem ber-November period. In November, nonfarm employ ment reflected the usual seasonal de velopments. The number of workers on nonfarm payrolls dropped by 100,000 over November to 58.3 mil lion. This, however, was 1.5 million higher than in November 1962. The largest job reductions over the month of November were in construc tion and in manufacturing, both about
DECEMBER
in line with seasonal expectations. These cutbacks were partially offset by the pre-Christmas pickup in trade employment and a relatively large job increase in state and local govern ments. Factory employment dropped by 120,000 to 17.2 million in November. Total manufacturing employment was 200,000 higher in November than a year earlier, but, on a seasonally ad justed basis, it has remained virtually unchanged for the last six months. The factory workweek, at 40.6 hours
3 0,
1963
in November, was 0.2 hour above a year ago. After seasonal adjustment, average weekly hours of production workers in manufacturing have re mained at a very high level for the September-November period. Factory overtime hours, at 3.0 in November, were unchanged over the month. Average hourly earnings of factory production workers increased by 2 cents over the month to $2.49 in November, a record high and 8 cents above the rate for November 1962. Weekly earnings rose to $101.09.
PRICES Industrial Chemicals
All Wholesale Commodities vs. Chemicals 1957-1959 = 100 106
— - 1963
— ι 1962 •
106
All Wholesale Commodities 102 l l
—
,tiMM**M^l',',
,
, 1
, l (
i
«
, ,
1957-1959 = 100
'«tiiiiiii,,»
M M
,
i M | r r # r r
rriMiiiiMM»
, | | f , , , ,
· 'ii
M M M
iiiii,
l | | |
102
9*
94
Chemicals and Allied Products 9-1
90
1
Γ—Ί
1
1
D J F M A M Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
1
1 J
1 J
1 A
1 S
1
1 O
N
1
90
D
1 ιιιιιιιιιιι ι D J F M A M J J A S O N D
Rubber Products
Petroleum Products
Drugs
1957-1959 = 100
1957-1959 = 100 106
1957-1959 = 100 106
102
102
106
102
98< \ / ^ V ^ >
98——————
98 94
^l I I I I I I I I I I I I D J FM A M J J A S Ο ND
90
1 ιιιι ιι ιιι ιι ι D J F MA M J J A S Ο ND
w
l I I I I I I I I I I I I DJ
FMAMJ
DEC.
J AS
OND
30, 1963 C&EN
29
