MIWMHiHMHWIM
NEWS
W A L T E R J . MURPHY. Editor-
Sctenet*
FoeswBdtitiosi
BP^Iuagwi by TTrumaffi
I RESIDENT Truman's action in vetoing the National Science Foundation Bill is disappointing to say the least. He has chosen to disregard the recommendations of the top science leaders of the country and in fact the opinions of the majority of the rank and file of the scientific professions. Thus, the extensive efforts and voluminous congressional hearings over the past few years have come to naught, at least for several months. In his memorandum of disapproval the President states t h a t he takes this action with deep regret, as he believes our national security and welfare require that we give direct support to basic scientific research and take steps to increase the number of trained scientists. It seems to us that in view of this belief he was poorly advised in letting his objections to the administrative setup outweigh the benefits of getting the foundation under way properly. The President says that the bill contains provisions which represent a marked departure from sound principles for the administration of public affairs. I t may be that the proposed setup is different from t h a t of the typical government agency, but that does not mean it is bad. I n fact, there are examples to prove that such an administrative organization can be very successful. For one, we have the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, which is organized almost exactly the same as the proposed foundation and has done an excellent job for a number of 3'ears. For another we can cite the experience of the British. They faced this same problem after World War I, and in order t o protect the independence of science and eliminate political dominance, they devised a system whereby the universities receive their grants direct from the treasury through a University Grants Committee of mainly academic personnel. Commenting on this plan recently, the Committee for Postwar Education in Great Britain said it was "a good example of the British genius for government and has worked admirably/' The President in his objections said that the bill "would, in effect, vest the determination of vital national policies, the expenditure of large public funds, and the administration of important governmental functions in a group of individuals who
Vvtn would be essentially private citizens." This, it appears to us, shows a lack of confidence in the integrity and ability of t h e leading scientists, educators, and public figures who would comprise the foundation. I t further overlooks the fact that the President and Congress have essential control over the program through appointments to the foundation and appropriation of its funds. Mr. Truman, however, mentions t h a t full governmental authority and responsibility would be placed in 24 part-time officers whom the Presidem could not effectively hold responsible for proper administration. He says, "neither could the director be held responsible b y the President, for he would be the appointee of the foundation and would be insulated from t h e President by two layers of part-time boards." To this we might add t h a t the director by the same token would be insulated from the pork-barreling activities and pressuring tactics so frequently existing in connection with agencies handling public funds. The protection of the director of the foundation from such a situation was one of the reasons for the organizational setup of the bill. The President, apparently on the advice of the director of the budget, feels that his responsibilities as chief executive require that one individual, appointed by him, be responsible directly to him for the program's operation, rather than t o a board of scientists and leading citizens with specialized training and knowledge of the problems involved. The latter view as provided in the rejected bill would, in our judgment, provide better results by safeguarding the freedom of science and attracting more competent personnel. It is the method which scientists have found most satisfactory in the handling of research funds in the past. We feel sure t h a t the President's veto will only postpone for a comparatively short time the establishment of a national science foundation. Congress clearly showed in its last session t h a t it wants such an agency. The last vote in the Senate was 79 for and 8 against. The House overwhelmingly passed the bill by a voice vote. Undoubtedly if Congress had been in session at the time of the veto, it would have been overridden. At the next session a similar bill probably will be enacted.
I\ : 3
