SCIENCE POLICY:
One-Day Roasting Seldom has U.S. science policy been given a more thorough roasting before a Congressional committee in just one day. Witnesses testifying before Rep. Emilio Q. Daddario's (D.-Conn.) Sub committee on Science, Research, and Development at the opening of hear ings on science policy last week gave a stinging indictment of the Nixon Ad ministration's treatment of science, pointed to a swiftly growing rift be tween the universities and the Gov ernment on science and to the disarray in federal funding of science. Don Price, dean of Harvard Univer sity's John Fitzgerald Kennedy School
sity, hit hard at the Nixon Adminis tration, charging that "science has ap parently dropped out of the high councils of the Nixon Administration. . . . the whole [science] structure in the White House and executive office of the President has dropped right off the organizational charts," he added. At press time, the highest ranking member of the science community in the Administration, Presidential sci ence adviser Lee A. DuBridge, was to testify before the subcommittee. In a prepared statement Dr. DuBridge said that he is keenly aware of the need for new federal science policy. A zero or negative rate of growth in federal funds for science, according to Dr. Du Bridge, is "unacceptable in the long term." Dr. DuBridge said it has frequently been suggested that the Office of Sci ence and Technology be incorporated into a more comprehensive office un der the direction of a Council of Sci ence and Technology parallel in struc ture to the Council of Economic Advisers. This proposal is now under careful scrutiny, he said.
APPLIED RESEARCH:
"Top-Down" Approach
Harvard's Don Price Tinkering not needed
of Government, told the subcommittee that some incidental tinkering with or ganization here and there is not what is needed because the general science policy that has evolved is no longer tenable. The Mansfield Amendment, he said, expressed "belated Congressional dis taste for it," and idealistic students and professors now denounce military funds as tainted and unfit for scholarly consumptions. But the old system had its strong points. For instance, it pro vided money, and just now, he doesn't see where the money is going to come from. Research support should continue to come from agencies concerned with particular operating missions. It may be helpful to invent some formula to determine how much money should go for research, but he has not yet seen the magic formula. Dr. A. Hunter Dupree, professor of science history at Brown Univer 12
C & E N J U L Y 13, 1970
Two years ago Congress authorized the National Science Foundation to sup port applied research—which accounts for 3 % of NSF's research project funds now and may reach 7% this year—but the lawmakers left unclear what con stitutes such research and who would perform it. In two reports made avail able to C&EN last week, however, the National Academy of Engineering draws a line between NSF support of basic and applied research, recom mends a new "top-down" management approach at NSF for the latter, and suggests that 20 to 30% of an "aug mented" agency budget go to such re search. One report ranks support priorities for applied research into five areas from 700 suggestions after polling ΝΑΕ members. But "Priorities in Ap plied Research: An Initial Appraisal" urges NSF to choose at most two areas—structure and dynamics of the biosphere and the interface between social and physical systems—to start with so as not to "scatter its shot too broadly." Both reports caution NSF against assuming the burdens of other federal agencies. Applied research is defined as fun damental research related to needs and goals the sponsor identifies; it excludes feasibility and development work in "Federal Support of Applied Re search." Supporting such research re quires a new, high-level unit in NSF to provide "top-down" direction be-
THE CHEMICAL WORLD THIS WEEK
sides the "bottom-up" approach cus tomary at NSF where the scientist sub mits a proposal that the agency may decide to fund. Larry Moss, executive secretary to NAE's committee on public engineer ing policy ( C O P E P ) , which prepared the reports, puts the "augmented" budget at $800 million a year with more funds for both basic and applied research. (For fiscal 1971, the NSF budget is likely to be at, or slightly above, $500 million.) It would take NSF at least four years, starting in fis cal 1972, to scale up to this level, the report suggests. And in any case, NSF's slice of the total applied re search pie would be only a few per cent, although the amount would cover gaps left by mission-oriented agencies. For the most part, the reports steer clear of the controversial question of NSF funds to industry. But while COPEP says that NSF's new mandate is to increase applied research support at academic and nonprofit institu tions, it recommends that this not pre clude NSF from creating and operating research teams with university and in dustry members. Contact between researchers and users is important to technology transfer and Congress and others examining such programs may well demand more identifiable per formance in applied research than in basic research.
DRUG ADDICTION:
Problem for Business The New York Chamber of Commerce has pieced together a mosaic of ex perience on drug abuse in 80 busines ses in the New York City area. The survey can only be called direful. Calling for business to take a "good look at its bottom line" at this time, the survey concludes that an increase in drug addiction in business was noted in 1968, incidence skyrocketed
Number of addicts increasing in New York City-based CPI Size of company (No. of employees)
No. hard abusers (mostly heroin) First quarter All 1969 1970
1000 to 5000 (chemical
10,000+ (chemical
1
2
1
companies)
20,000+ (chemical
12 companies)
NA
32
12
8
companies)
20,000+ (plastic producers)
