Facts Needed on Scientific Manpower Report by National Academy of Sciences points to "massive influence" of Government on utilization of manpower The major theme of the just released "Killian" manpower report is the "massive influence of the Federal Government on the deployment and utilization of scientists and engineers." After two years of study by a National Academy of Sciences committee, the report was released last week by the White House. It is titled "Toward Better Utilization of Scientific and Engineering Talent—A Program for Action." Guidelines. Before plunging into the 28 recommendations it makes, the report lays some guidelines as to just where the nation stands today in terms of its technical and scientific manpower. These guidelines amount to a compact breakdown of how many scientists and engineers exist, where and how they are employed. Altogether, the report states, about 1.7 million persons in the U.S. work at scientific or engineering tasks (including teaching) that require a college degree or its equivalent. Of this total about 950,000 are engineers, 500,000 are scientists, and 250,000 are teachers of science or mathematics at the secondary school level. Of the 1.7 million 40% are engaged in commercial and industrial work. Between 20 and 30% are engaged in national security tasks (such as defense, space, and atomic energy). And 20% are engaged in education; 10% in all other tasks. The report does not predict demands for scientists and engineers beyond saying that: "In the years ahead, the nation's needs for scientists and engineers unquestionably will increase, and probably at a faster rate than they have in the past." The report concludes, "Difficult choices will have to be made among the many alternatives to which our limited supply of skilled manpower might devote its efforts." With this groundwork laid, the report leads into its recommendations on how the scientific and technical manpower can best be used. Recommendations to the Federal Government are tackled first. Emphasis. The greatest emphasis in the report's recommendations is on
"the pressing national need." The need is to develop information on scientific and engineering manpower resources that will enable the Government to assess carefully the impact of the decision of the deployment and utlization of scientists and engineers. In the past, the report states, such major decisions have not been preceded by adequate study of their impact. The report concedes that ". . . meaningful studies probably could not have been made, partly because the information on which to base them was not available." The report goes on to say that "Common sense suggests that there should be a careful calculation of the requirements for scientific and engineering manpower that will flow from each major decision of the Federal Government." The report further urges that the duty of gathering such information be assigned to a unit within the Executive Office. While not specifically recommending that the job go to the Office of Science and Technology, it does note the feasibility of placing it there. The report recommends that agencies involved in scientific or engineering activities should assign one of their top officials to the job of improving the utilization of civilian scientists and engineers—both those employed by the agency and those whose work it finances. Agencies with major technological programs ". . . should place great emphasis on improving the management of major projects . . . ." Also agencies responsible for development programs are urged to ". . . continue to place great emphasis on accurate estimates of their cost and feasibility, and on the use of multi-phase contracts." Federal contracting agencies were commended in the report for early curtailment or cancellation of major programs that did not appear to be worth their costs. They were urged to continue to be alert to such possibilities. In the event of such cancellations or curtailments, the report suggests that agencies involved work with industry to develop plans ". . . for minimizing the dislocation and consequent
malutilization of scientists and engineers . . . " Government. The report then turns to the Government as an employer of scientists and engineers. Here the report recommends that Congress enact the Administration proposals for higher salaries at the upper levels of government service. The committee points to the higher industry salaries for comparable government positions as a negative effect on government scientific and engineering talent. The report says that the Civil Service Commission should improve the working environment of scientists and engineers employed by the Government. As for industry, the report urges corporate managers to pick out promising scientists and engineers and aid them in developing their full capabilities. Some companies do this, the report declares, while others ". . . tend to treat their scientists and engineers as a more or less homogeneous pool Turning to scientists and engineers as managers, the report proposes that industry, as well as the Government and universities, train and develop more managers and project engineers. Needed are more managers who combine thorough understanding of the technology they manage with mastery of the art of leadership. Industry is urged also to help scientists and engineers augment and replenish their professional capabilities. This can be done by providing free time for basic research, leaves of absence for broadening and updating knowledge, and subsidization of retraining in universities. In making recommendations to colleges and universities, the report plunges right into the problem of teaching vs. research. "We need better ways to recognize and reward distinguished teachers of science and engineering (who are not always distinguished in research)." The report suggests that colleges and universities as well as other organizations come up with "more effective ways of recognizing great teachers and creative contributions to the teaching process." The report endorses the National JULY
13, 1964
C&EN
47
Science Foundation's Centers of Excellence Program. The program is designed to develop new centers of educational excellence in science. However, the committee does not feel that the funds available for this program are adequate. The committee also endorses more funds for programs of curriculum development and reform. Turning to the education of engineers, the committee urges that graduate study in engineering be strengthened and expanded. It also urges that the reform of engineering undergraduate education be continued to reduce its rigidity and enrich its scientific content. Also, the laboratory facilities of engineering schools should be modernized, the report says. The committee urges universities to attack the problem of updating scientific and engineering manpower. Although universities offer a number of first rate programs designed to afford mature engineers, teachers, and others an opportunity to enhance their professional competence, the report says, more such programs are needed. Also, universities are directed by the report to take the lead in expanding research on the educational process. The report states that while education represents a national expenditure of about $30 billion a year, the amount of research done to make education better is miniscule. In its final recommendation the committee urges government, industry, and universities to expand or initiate research efforts aimed at improving the utilization of scientific and engineering manpower. The committee points out that its efforts are only a beginning in making better use of scientists and engineers. To follow up on these efforts, more research in this area is needed, it says. The report originally grew out of a recommendation to President Kennedy in 1961 by his science adviser, Dr. Jerome Wiesner, that a study be made on manpower utilization. The study was turned over to the NAS, which appointed a committee, chaired by Dr. James R. Killian, Jr., to make the study. Dr. Killian is chairman of the Corporation of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The report is now in President Johnson's hands. He has asked his science adviser, Dr. Donald F. Hornig, and Secretary of Labor Willard Wirtz to report to him on steps which the Government should take in light of the NAS report. 48
C&EN
JULY
13,
1964
Firms Want States to Untangle Tax Laws But some chemical companies operating in interstate commerce favor federal intervention State income tax laws present a tangled mess for chemical companies operating in interstate commerce. Officials in many of these companies say they would rather see the states than the Federal Government clear up this problem. But a few companies favor federal intervention. C&EN surveyed chemical industry tax experts in connection with a Congressional study of state income tax laws (C&EN, June 22, page 24). The study, made by a special subcommittee of the House Committee on the Judiciary, found that state income tax laws present a formidable problem to corporate tax men. The report concludes that "the time has come for Congress to seek a solution to the problems posed by state taxation of interstate business/' Such a solution might consist of federal legislation designed to make the various state laws more uniform. Rep. Edwin E. Willis (D.-La.), chairman of the subcommittee, has said such legislation will likely be introduced into the 89th Congress. Chemical companies in general oppose such legislation. One official from a midwestern chemical firm says, ". . . we do not favor federal legislation in this area. We don't like to see states passing off everything to the Federal Government." A Monsanto spokesman says, "We do not favor federal legislation to make state income tax laws uniform, because each state has its own particular problems that must be taken into account in each state tax program." However, the official of the midwestern chemical company does admit that the various state income tax laws "are a mess and we think possibly they should be changed." Others generally agree with this statement in varying degrees. A Dow official does concede that "some basic federal rules on uniformity may be required." And perhaps the most realistic comment comes from a Heyden-Newport official: " . . . federal legislation is the only way to simplify this [lack of uniformity]." Desirable. While officials of most chemical companies agree that it is desirable to make the various state tax
laws more uniform, they want the states to act on their own without federal law. However, such state action has met with little success and federal legislation seems inevitable. State efforts to straighten out the income tax system have been brought about mainly by the Council of State Governments—a joint governmental agency of the 50 states. In 1957, under the leadership of the Council, the Uniform Division of Income for Tax Purposes Act was drafted. The act was aimed at bringing the various state income tax systems under some uniform guidelines. To date three states—Alaska, Arkansas, and Kansas, according to the House report—have adopted the act. The council hopes that other states will also adopt the act but there is little evidence that this will happen. The report of the House subcommittee traces the history of other state efforts to make the tax laws more uniform. The report says that these efforts have been going on for almost 50 years. "One proposal after another has been formulated, discussed, revised, and in spite of the expenditure of enormous efforts, discarded." The report concludes that, "The history of 50 years of state income taxation leaves no room for optimism that the states, if left to their own devices, will be any more successful in the future than they have been in the past." Difference. While the method (state vs. federal) of making state income tax laws more uniform can be argued, the idea that such uniformity is needed finds little opposition. Thirty-seven states and the District of Columbia impose corporate income taxes. Differences in the 38 laws begin with definitions of income. According to the House report, nine states use the current Federal Internal Revenue Code, with adjustments; other states use their own provisions. The report dramatically points out the complexity of the state tax laws by saying that a complete set of the laws plus regulations and supplementary material takes up 80 large volumes and makes a pile about 22 feet high. This adds up to 22 feet of problems for tax men. A Dow official says that
