ness of individual agency R&D in achieving national goals. She recommends that material within each functional area be integrated into larger federal programs of that discipline, instead of being separated according to each agency. Moreover, she says that trends in R&D, describing both base program and initiatives, should be included in addition to the summary of present R&D status. Trends in federal R&D programs, in terms of dollars, have gone from a concentration in the areas of defense and space in the 1960's to civilian-oriented programs in the 1970's, Ancker-Johnson, Long, and Russell Drew told the subcommittee. (Dr. Drew is director of the National Science Foundation's science and technology policy office.) Long points out that in current dollars, federal spending for military R&D (excluding space) rose 2.4% per year from 1969 to 1973, whereas nonmilitary spending rose 9.1% per year in the same period. However, he cautions against concluding that a major shift of R&D money into civilian-oriented R&D is under way. All three witnesses recited the usual statistics for U.S. expenditures in R&D, noting that spending actually has declined as a percentage of gross national
Council coordinates federal effort in science, technology The Federal Council for Science & Technology is the one group in the federal government, other than the Office of Management & Budget, with a White House charter to coordinate the total federal effort in science and technology. The council was created by executive order of President Eisenhower in 1959, and traditionally the President's science adviser has been its chairman. Committee members include assistant secretaries (or higher) concerned with R&D at the various federal departments and agencies. Currently, there are 11 interdepartmental committees to coordinate research efforts at the federal level: • Interdepartmental Committee for Atmospheric Sciences. • Interagency Arctic Coordinating Committee. • Ad Hoc Committee on Domestic Technology Transfer. • Interagency Committee on Excavation Technology. • Committee on Federal Laboratories. • Ad Hoc Committee on International Geodynamic Project. • Committee on Water Resources Research. • Committee on Government Patent Policy. • Committee on Materials. • Interagency Committee on Marine Science and Engineering. • Ad Hoc Interagency Coordinating Committee for Astronomy.
product. In mid-1960, R&D spending was more than 3% of GNP and today it is only about 2.3% of GNP, they point out. More than half of all R&D financing comes from the federal government— about $15 billion in fiscal year 1965 and about $21 billion in fiscal 1976. According to Ancker-Johnson, a science adviser in the White House would be able to address the broad perspective of R&D needs, and help assure the proper distribution of available federal funds to the higher priority areas and to those that promised the most desired results. Even so, Ancker-Johnson believes that the subcommittee should immediately review and evaluate if existing or projected nonmilitary federal R&D is being responsive to the achievement of national goals. Among the issues the witnesses recommended that the subcommittee examine is how to promote the rapid transfer of technology to the civilian market place. According to Drew, there is a growing need for improved utilization of science and technology on the local scene. He attributes this to the increased decision-making responsibility given to state and local authorities, and the addition of sizable discretionary funds from revenue sharing and other federal sources. All three witnesses urged the subcommittee to consider policies and practices that could stimulate R&D, particularly R&D in small enterprises, in times of inflation, changing government procurement practices, and scarce capital. For instance, they say, the subcommittee could examine the effects of modifying tax structures, government standardsetting practices and regulations, and patent and licensing policies on increased R&D exports. It also could investigate how cooperative ventures can provide R&D, they said. However, Ancker-Johnson warns that before cooperative ventures are set up between companies or between an industry and the government, the subcommittee should study the legal and institutional constraints to such ventures. Further, the subcommittee should decide on how the government should handle new inventions, background rights, and proprietary data in cooperative R&D. The subcommittee expects to conduct a concluding phase of the hearings during which it will hear from agencies and departments where major R&D programs are under way. And it hopes to hear from Dr. H. Guyford Stever in his capacity as chairman of the Federal Council for Science & Technology at that time. Since the subcommittee's jurisdiction is one of examining how well federal R&D programs are working under existing legislation, it won't be drawing up any legislation. However, if the subcommittee feels so inclined, it can make recommendations to appropriate committees for legislation that can affect R&D in the federal government as a whole. Ling-yee Gibney, C&EN Washington
Senate group shapes new patent bill When the Senate Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks & Copyrights begins marking up comprehensive patent reform legislation next Monday, it will have to consider a sheaf of amendments, 32 to be exact, proposed by Sen. Hiram L. Fong (R.-Hawaii). Fong's views on patent legislation follow quite clearly those of the U.S. patent bar. The subcommittee has chosen as its vehicle for markup S. 22, a patent bill introduced by subcommittee chairman John L. McClellan (D.-Ark.), rather than Fong's own bill, S. 214. However, in his amendments Fong has not followed the usual procedure of deleting large segments of S. 22 and inserting provisions of his own bill. Instead he has given the subcommittee up to three choices on about half of his amendments. The first choice is usually to substitute the appropriate provision of the Fong bill. This is the case with his amendment to section 23 of S. 22, which gives the Patent & Trademark Office's board of examiners-in-chief the power to issue discovery orders and subpoenas. Fong's first choice would be to retain the wording of present patent law under which the patent commissioner establishes rules for taking affidavits and depositions for cases before the patent office. The second choice would allow the board the power to issue subpoenas, but a witness would only be compelled to appear in the judicial district in which he or she lives. Under the regional version of S. 22, witnesses could be required to appear before the board in Washington, D.C. The third choice would leave the powers granted in S. 22 pretty much intact, but would restrict the issuance of subpoenas to review and enforcement cases dealing with fraud and inequitable conduct. Sen. Fong has not altered his stance on a number of other issues, however. For instance, there are no multiple choice options in his amendments to provisions of S. 22 providing for the publication of patent applications before a patent is granted and for deferred examination of applications. His amendments simply delete provisions of S. 22 dealing with these matters. Other of Fong's amendments seem relatively minor, such as changing "shall" to "may" in many instances. But the thrust of the amendments appears to be to give the patent commissioner as much flexibility as possible. It probably will be several months before the patent subcommittee finishes its markup. In addition to Fong, Sen. Philip A. Hart (D.-Mich.) and Sen. Hugh Scott (R.-Pa.) are certain to push for inclusion of provisions of their patent bills in the final version of S. 22. Thus, it is highly unlikely that S. 22 will emerge unchanged. D June 16, 1975 C&EN
19
