GOVERNMENT
No chance for action on H.R. 875 this year Daddario subcommittee will redraft bill to reflect conflicting testimony given in month-long hearings As month-long hearings came to an end on H.R. 875—a bill to make general grants to schools to improve science education and research capability—these attitudes emerged: • A program of federal grants to institutions for discretionary use is highly desirable. • Such support should be in addition to, not a replacement for, the present system of project grants. • H.R. 875 is a poor bill. Now that hearings are over, the House Subcommittee on Science, Research, and Development, headed by Rep. Emilio Q. Daddario (D.-Conn.), will try to redraft H.R. 875 to reflect the committee's analysis of the conflicting testimony heard. There is no chance that Congress will be able to act on the grant proposal this year— time is too short. But a new bill should be ready for action some time after the 91st Congress convenes next January. H.R. 875 would authorize $150 million annually in institutional grants. The money would be divided according to a complex three-part formula. Purpose of the formula is to distribute the money fairly on a geographical basis, to prevent large, powerful schools from getting too much of the money, and to reward schools in proportion to their efforts in science education. All witnesses who applauded the idea of more aid for science education denounced the distribution formula in H.R. 875. Some thought the formula was too rigid and would remove the flexibility that the unfettered grant promises. Some thought that the formula was biased in such a way that, as one witness phrased it, "them that has, gits." And others thought that the formula would spread the limited amount of money over so many schools that nobody would get enough of it to accomplish anything very significant. 28 C&EN JULY 29, 1968
However, many witnesses opposed the idea of further aid for science education. They argued that science is getting far more than its fair share of federal support. General institutional grants—a new concept in government aid—should be applied to higher education in general, and specifically to teaching in the arts and the humanities. This argument points up a dilemma the committee faces. Most members agree that federal aid for the arts and humanities has been almost nonexistent in the past and is still very skimpy. And they believe that the scope of the bill should be broadened to include these fields and general education as well. But Rep. Daddario's subcommittee is part of the House Committee on Science and Astronautics. As a result, its jurisdiction and oversight are limited to science and scientific problems. During a colloquy with a witness Rep. Charles Mosher (R.-Ohio) put it this way: "If we rewrote the bill wouldn't we face our own jurisdictional problems? Wouldn't the Committee on Education and Labor claim the bill?" To which chairman Daddario replied, with a twinkle in his eye, "It depends on how cleverly we rewrite it." One of the witnesses in the final week of hearings was Dr. Jerome Wiesner, provost at MIT and science adviser to the late President Kennedy. He spoke out against the limitations in the bill. He could not see why the bill specifically excludes the use of institutional funds for humanities, arts, architecture, or urban studies. "It is precisely in these areas," he said, "that many universities may have the greatest needs in their endeavor to maintain or create a balanced program. As flattering to scientific research as is the widespread recognition of its importance for 'the security and welfare of the United States and its economic, social, and material progress/ the unfortunate truth is that science is not a panacea, and in itself does neither good nor harm. "Much harm can come," he continued, "from the unfettered, blind application of modern technology in altering our world, heedless of human consequences. Our goals, our standards, our ideals must not be formed without a good appreciation of man's many aspects, irrational as well as logical."
Dr. Jerome Wiesner Against bill's limitation
H.R. 875, while not pretending to cope with the whole problem, seems to represent an important building stone in the broader picture of federal support for higher education, Dr. Wiesner told the committee. He urged the Daddario committee, "or other knowledgeable groups in Congress," to study the broader question of support. "Universities should be challenged," he said, "to provide more direct participation in current social problems, urban affairs, the improvement of medical services, and the attack on pollution problems. Such a partnership between the Federal Government and the institutions of higher learning in America would work to the benefit of mankind." Rep. George Brown (D.-Calif.) complimented Dr. Wiesner on his views. "It is encouraging to hear your comments," the Representative said, "I hope more of the leading scientists come to this viewpoint." Pointing out that the committee will be under strong pressure to broaden the scope of the bill in the future, he asked, "Why not do it now?" H.R. 875 represents only a partial step in the direction that the Association of American Colleges believes the Federal Government must take for the general welfare of higher education, Dr. Calvert Ellis told the committee. In addition to representing the association, Dr. Ellis is president of Juniata College, Huntingdon, Pa.
Dr. Philip Handler Federal stake is different
Rep. Emilio Daddario Analysis of conflicting testimony
"We would rather have the limited institutional grants proposed in the bill than no institutional grants at all," he said. "But we believe that the bill could be improved by giving more support to undergraduate education. And we regret deeply the fact that the bill is limited to the scientific fields. We would prefer to see the support go to the entire institutional program at the undergraduate level." The most serious defect in the bill, aside from the overemphasis on graduate schools, is the requirement that grants would be limited to the various sciences. This may be justifiable at the graduate level, Dr. Ellis said, because graduate study by its very nature tends to be highly specialized; thus, it also tends to contribute to a kind of rigid categorization of subject fields. This is not true at the undergraduate level, he says. Here, the purpose of the liberal arts college is not to turn out specialists—chemists, physicists, engineers, psychologists—but to turn out broadly educated men and women with enough grounding in a special field of interest so that they can, if they wish, go into that field for graduate study. In his opinion, the dictum of John Stuart Mill still applies: "Men are men before they are lawyers, or physicians, or merchants, or manufacturers; and if you will make them capable and sensible men, they will make themselves capable
and sensible lawyers and physicians." Dr. Ellis told the committee, "We believe that it would be a cruel blow to all that the undergraduate liberal arts college stands for in our American society, and has stood for since the first American colleges were founded, for Congress to declare that, as a matter of public policy, the only areas of undergraduate education deserving of federal institutional grants are the sciences and related fields." Having delivered this bombshell, Dr. Ellis told the committee, "Perhaps I speak too harshly." However, the association believes that schools which aim to train students to be whole persons, not specialists, "are worthy of support through institutional grants, and that the entire educational program of such institutions should be supported, not just a part of it." Challenged by Rep. Daddario on his harsh criticism, Dr. Ellis replied, "I certainly did not mean to be more harsh than Dr. Wiesner, who preceded me. I was trying to speak on the same basis." However, Dr. Ellis said, the committee may have interpreted his remarks in a different way from that intended. "I meant to give the impression," he emphasized, "that liberal arts education is broader than science and I realize that you gentlemen recognize this. The bill, however, would seem to be directed toward one particular area of liberal arts education."
An entirely different point of view was expressed by Dr. Philip Handler, chairman of the National Science Foundation's governing body, the National Science Board. Dr. Handler is chairman of the department of biochemistry at Duke University medical school. The federal, as compared to the local, stake is different in the three classes of schools providing post-high school education, he said. Junior or community two-year colleges may be considered extensions of the public school system and usually draw students from the local area. Four-year colleges, including those which award master's degrees in a limited number of disciplines, derive from a much broader population base, occasionally a national base. "The universities, however, are a national resource and hence, may be presumed to have the highest claim on federal funds," he said. According to Dr. Handler, universities would receive the major share of support under H.R. 875; only they participate in all three of the programs in the bill. "Quite apart from the details of the formulae," he said, "I can only applaud the intent of this bill and its sponsors to provide financial assistance to the universities." His reasons are: • The national, hence federal, stake in the welfare of universities is greater and more immediate than the other classes of institutions. The graduate student body at most universities is drawn from almost the entire nation, and the trained scientists and engineers who emerge distribute themselves nationally. Since the Federal Government is the largest single employer of these scientists and engineers, it must show special concern that there be an ample supply of wellprepared teachers of science and engineering. • It is clearly in the national interest that universities remain solvent; that they have sufficient control over their own affairs to strengthen, alter, or delete old programs; and that they have sufficient stability to engage in rational planning for the future. "I view the passage of H.R. 875 as an emergency measure," Dr. Handler said, "but it is a most significant milestone because it would constitute the first clear acceptance by the Federal Government of a continuing obligation to underwrite the very existence of our institutions of higher learning." JULY 29, 1968 C&EN 29
