PAGENO="0001" UTILIZATION OF FEDERAL LABORATORIES H~ ~ - HEARINGS BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, RESEARCH, AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND ASTRONAUTICS U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES NINETIETH CONifRESS SECOND SESSION MARCH 26, .27, 28; APRIL 2, 3, 4, 1968 [No. 6] Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Astronautics U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 93-201 WASHINGTON : 1968 PAGENO="0002" COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND ASPRONAIJTICS GEORGE P. MILLER, California, Chairman OLIN E. TEAGUE, Texas JOSEPH B. KARTH, Minnesota KEN HECHLER, West Virginia EMILIO Q. DADDARIO, Connecticut J. EDWARD ROUSH, Indiana JOHN W. DAVIS, Georgia WILLIAM F. RYAN, New York THOMAS N. DOWNING, Virginia JOE D. WAGGONNER, JR., Louisiana DON FUQUA, Florida GEORGE B. BROWN, JR., California LESTER L. WOLFF, New York WILLIAM J. GREEN, Pennsylvania EARLE CABELL, Texas JACK BRINKLEY, Georgia BOB ECKHARDT, Texas ROBERTO. TIERNAN, Rhode Island CHARLES F. DUCANDER, Executive Director and Chief Counsel JOHN A. CARSTARPHEN, Jr., Chief Cldrk and Counsel PHILIP B. YEAGER, Counsel FRANK R. HAMMILL, Jr., Counsel W. H. BOONE, Chief Technical Consultant RICHARD P. HINEs, Staff Consultant PETER A. GERARDI, Technical Consultant JAMES B. WILSON, Technical Consultant HAROLD A. GOULD, Technical Consultant PHILIP P. DICKINSON, Technical Consultant JOSEPH M. FELTON, Counsel RICHARD E. BEEMAN, Minority Staff ELIZABETH S. KERNAN, Scientific Research Assistant FRANK J. GIEOUX, Clerk DENIS C. QUIGLEY, Publications Clerk SUBCOMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, RESEARCH, AND DEVELOPMENT EMILIO Q. DADDAItIO, Connecticut, Chairman J. EDWARD ROUSH, Indiana ALPHONZO BELL, California JOHN W. DAVIS, Georgia CHARLES A. MOSHER, Ohio JOE D. WAGGONNER, Ja., Louisiana DONALD RUMSFELD, Illinois GEORGE E. BROWN, JR., California D. B. (BUZ) LUKENS, Ohio WILLIAM F. RYAN, New York JA1~IES G. FULTON, Pennsylvania CHARLES A. MOSHER, Ohio RICHARD L. ROUDEBUSH, Indiana ALPHONZO BELL, California THOMAS M. PELLY, Washington DONALD RUMSFELD, Illinois EDWARD J. GURNEY, Florida JOHN W. WYDLER, New York GUY VANDER JAGT, Michigan LARRY WINN, JR., Kansas JERRY L. PETTIS, California D. B. (BUZ) LUKENS, Ohio JOHN E. HUNT, New Jersey (II) PAGENO="0003" CONTENTS STATEMENTS Tuesday, March 26, 1968: Paga Dr. Donald F. Hornig, Director, Office of Science and Teehnology 4 Dr. Alvin M. Weinberg, Director, Oak Ridge National Laboratory - 27 Wednesday, March 27, 1968: Dr. Allan V. Astin, Director, National Bureau of Standards 4 Dr. William McLean, Technical Director, Navy Undersea Warfare Center 71 Thursday, March 28, 1968: Harold B. Finger, Associate Administrator, Office of Organization and Management, NASA 88 Dr. William H. Pickering Director, Jet Propulsion Laboratory 115 Phillip S. Hughes, Deputy Director, Bureau of the Budget 126 April 2, 1968: Dr. Donald M. MacArthur, Deputy Director (Research and Tech- nology), Office of Defense Research and Engineering, Department of Defense; accompanied by: Edward Tv1. Glass, Assistant Director (Laboratory Management), Office of Defense Research and Engi- neering, Department of Defense 147 Dr. Leon Jacobs, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Science, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; accompanied by Dr. G. Bur- roughs Mider, Director of Laboratories and Clinics, National Institutes of Health 207 April 3, 1968: Dr. Gerald F. Tape, Commissioner, Atomic Energy Commission_ - - 228 Frank W. Lehan, Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology, Department of Transportation 254 Dr. Thomas F. Rogers, Director, Office Of Urban Technology and Research, Department of Housing and Urban Development 269 April 4, 1968: Dr. Alfred Blumstein, Institute for Defense Analysis 288 Quinn Tamm, Executive Director, International Association of Chiefs of Police 311 Joseph M. English, Director, Forensic Sciences Laboratory, Institute, of Criminal Law and Procedure, Georgetown University Law Centen 329 (III) PAGENO="0004" IV APPENDIXES Appendix A: Report to the President on Government Contracting for Research Page and Development (Bell report) 339 Appendix B: Executive Order No. 10521: Administration of scientific research by agencies of the Federal Government 368 Appendix C: Executive Order No. 10807: Federal council for science and technology_ 371 Appendix D: Circular No. A-64 (Revised): Position management systems and em- ployment ceilings 374 Appendix E: Circular No. A-76 (Revised): Policies for acquiring commercial or industrial products and services for Government use 379 Appendix F: AEC Pollution Research 389 Appendix G: The "Kilhian Committee" Report, National Academy of Sciences, 1964 392 Appendix H: Department of Defense In-House Laboratories 399 Appendix I: DOD Laboratories in the Future, by Edward M. Glass 424 Appendix J: Notes on the Economy Act of 1932 430 Appendix K: Scientists and Engineers in the Federal Personnel System, 196&. 431 Appendix L: The Library of Congress-Legislative Reference Service Principal Pub- lications Relating to the Future use of Government Laboratories_ - 456 PAGENO="0005" uTILIZATION OF FEDERAL LABORATORIES TUESDAY, MARCH 26, 1968 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, C0MMIrrEE ON SCIENCE AND ASTRONAUTICS, SU1~COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, RESEARCH, AND DEVELOPMENT, Wa8hingt&n, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10 a.m., in room 2325, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Emilio Q. Daddario (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Mr. DADDARIO. This meeting will come to order. This morning the subcommittee begins 6 days of hearings on the utilization of Federal laboratories. The subcommittee's interest in Federal laboratories, and by this I mean both Government owned and operated such as the National Bureau of Standards and those which are dovernment owned and contractor operated, such as Oak Ridge, stems from a number of rea- sons. First of all, the Federal Government has a tremendous investment in laboratory facilities and trained manpower, and in a time of budget constraint such as we are experiencing now, we must assure that our available resources are utilized most effectively. Much research and development is needed to restore the quality of our environment; to cope with crime; to solve the transportation crisis, and to supply food, water, and shelter to a growing population. But we are coming to realize that our resources assignable to science and technology are not infinite, and that they do have limits. Yet, within these limits, we must accommodate the continuing demands for new research and develop- ment. I am not inferring that every new agency or every new program find accommodation for all of its research and development within existing Federal laboratories, but I am saying we should look first to the expertise we already have developed. What the subcommittee is in- terested in is the policy guidelines that govern agency decisions in this area, and how existing competence can be applied to new areas of opportunity. These issues are not new, but they do warrant the continuing atten- tion of the Congress. In a 1960 Joint Committee report about the future of the Atomic Energy Commission's laboratories, the AEC describes its laboratories as vital national assets that should not be considered the exclusive resources of the atomic energy field. This view was endorsed by the Commission's General Advisory Committee which added the thought that: (1) PAGENO="0006" 2 The Commission's laboratories . . . should be doing what, at the time, best serves the National welfare and security. Two years later, the Bureau of the Budget issued its report to the President on Government contracting for research and development. This report, known as the Bell report, focused upon improving the quality and the utilization of Federal laboratories. The President en- dorsed the recommendations in the report; however, there has not been an overall review since that time that shows what was done to carry out these recommendations of 1962. In 1966 the Research and Technical Programs Subcommittee of the Committee on Government Operations published a case study on uti- lization of Federal laboratory resources which raised questions relevant to our present hearings. Most recently, this committee received a report from the Ndtional Academy of Sciences in 1967 entitled "Applied Science and Tech- nological Progress." One conclusion of this report was that the "ap- plied research establishments of the Federal Government should be examined for redeployment in the light of changing national needs." The Panel recommended, and this recommendation was endorsed by the Academy's Committee on Science and Public Policy, that pro- grams and organizational locations of Federal laboratories should be examined at intervals to determine whether the maturity of their original missions would justify some reassignment of effort to emerg- ing problems of challenging national interest. "Thus redefinition" the report states, "is essential for exploiting new developments in science and technology in a timely and effective way, and for realizing the maximum benefits from prior investments in science." I believe these actions indicate that we are moving into a new phase of the relationship between science, technology, and Government, and one iii which more attention will have to be given to the allocation of scarce resources among important, competing demands. This will in- volve hard and difficult decisions, and we expect that the testimony we will hear over the next few days should highlight the present Fed- eral policy for use of Government laboratories and a better under- standing of some of the opportunities and problems involved in such action. We are pleased to have as our opening witness Dr. Donald F. Elornig, Director of the Office of Science and Technology and sci- ence adviser to the President. Dr. Hornig always has been a great help to this subcommittee in the past, and we look forward to his testimony again today. Following Dr. Hornig, we will hear from Dr. Alvin M. Weinberg, Director of. the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Dr. Weinberg has been on the forefront of applying AEC-developed technology to new fields, and he has been an articulate spokesman of ideas that can shape and effect Federal policy for use of Government laboratories. We are pleased that we are starting these hearings, and believe that the subject is important. We feel that we have the foremost spokesmen available to us here today. We are particularly concerned about this problem because the use of national laboratories and the applied technology capability of our country has been discussed a number of times in our previous hearings and seminars~ The oppor- tlThiies availab'e fo make them more useful in accomplishing some of our national goals are enormous. PAGENO="0007" 3 Dr. Hornig, I am happy, of course, to see you, and we are anxious to hear from you. (Dr. Elornig's biography follows:) DR. DONALD F. Honuia Dr. Donald F. Hornig was born in Milwaukee on March 17, 1920, the son of C. Arthur Hornig and the former Emma Knuth. In 1943 he married Lull Schwenk and they have four children: Joanna, Ellen, Christopher and Leslie. Dr. Hornig became Special Assistant to President Johnson for Science and Technology on January 24, 1964. He was simultaneously named by the Presi- dent to be Chairman of the Federal Council for Science and Technology. On January 27, 1964, the Senate confirmed the President's nomination of Dr. Hornig as Director of the Office of Science and Technology in the Executive Office of the President. Dr. Hornig also serves as the Chairman of the President's Science Advisory Committee. A graduate of Harvard University, where he received his B.S. degree in 1940 and his Ph.D. in chemistry three years later, he was awarded a Guggenheim grant and a Fuibright scholarship for research at St. John's College, Oxford University, England in 1954-55, and in 1955 was appointed the first Bourke Overseas lecturer by the Faraday Society of London. After receiving his doctorate at Harvard, Dr. Hornig spent a year as a Re- search Associate at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts. From 1944 to 1946 he was a Group Leader at the Los Alamos Laboratory in New Mexico and in the latter year he joined the faculty at Brown University as assistant professor. Three years later he became an associate professor and Director of the Metcalf Research Laboratory. He was promoted to the rank of Professor in 1951 and the following year became Associate Dean of the Graduate School. Subsequently be was Acting Dean. In 1957 he joined the faculty of Princeton University and was appointed Chairman of the Department of Chem- istry in 1958. Dr. Hornig was the first incumbent of the Donner Chair of Science at Princeton, established in 1958 by the Donner Foundation, Inc. Dr. Hornig has been an associate editor of the Journal of Chemical Physics and a member of the Editorial Advisory Boards of Spectrochimica Acta and Molecular Physics. He was President, from 1945 to 1947, of Radiation Instru- ments Company, and served as Chairman of Project Metcalf of the Office of Naval Research in 1951-52. Before coming to Washington in 1964, he was a member of the Advisory Committee, Office of Scientific Research, U.S. Air Force. In 1959 be was appointed to the Space Science Board of the National Academy of Sciences, on which he served until February 1964. In 1960 President Eisen- hower appointed Dr. Hornig to his Science Advisory Comittee, and he was reap- pointed by President Kennedy in 1961. In late 1960 he served on the Kennedy Task Force on Space to help formulate policy in this field for the new adminis- tration. In 1962-63 Dr. Hornig served as a member of the U.S. Delegation headed by Dr. Hugh Dryden which negotiated the agreement with the U.S.S.R. for cooper- ation in certain space activities. Dr. Hornig was elected in 1954 to a three year term on the Executive Com- mittee, Division of Physical and Inorganic Chemistry, American Chemical So- ciety. He is also a Fellow of the American Physical Society (Member, Executive Committee, Division of Chemical Physics, and Chairman 1957-58); a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences; a Fellow of the Faraday Society, London, and was elected as member of the Washington Academy of Sciences in 1967. He was elected to the U.S. National Academy of Sciences in 1957,~ and in 1964 he was named a member of the Board of Overseers of Harvard University. He was elected an Honorary Member of the Rumanian Academy of Sciences in February 1965. Dr. Hornig is a member of the American Philosophical Society (1967); in February 1967 was awarded the Engineering Centennial Award by PMC Colleges, Chester, Pennsylvania; and was the recipient of the 1967 Charles Lathrop Parsons Award of the American Chemical Society on November 30, 1967. Dr~ Hornig has published about seventy papers in the Journal of Chemical Physics, Journal of the Optical Society of America, Journal of Physical Chem- istry, Review of Scientific Instruments, Physics of Fluids, Molecular Physics, Spectrochimica Acta, Discussion of the Faraday Society, etc. on molecular and crystal structure, infrared and Raman spectra, shock and detonation waves, relaxation phenomena and fast chemical reactions at high temperatures. PAGENO="0008" 4 Dr. Hornig has been awarded honorary degrees by: Temple University (LLD 1964); Yeshiva University of New York (Doctor of Humane Letters 1965) ; Uni- versity of Notre Dame (LLD 1965) ; Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (Doctor of Science 1965) ; University of Maryland (Doctor of Science 1965) ; Ripon College (Doctor of Science 1966) ; Boston College (Doctor of Laws 1966) ; PMC Colleges (Doctor of Science 1967) ; University of Wisconsin (Doctor of Science 1967) and Worcester Polytechnic Institute (Doctor of Engineering 1967). STATEMENT OP DR. DONALD P. HORNIG, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, EXECUTIVE OFFICE OP THE PRESIDENT Dr. H0RNIG. Mr. Chairman, it is always a pleasure to appear before this subcommittee. These hearings are addressed to the question of how to make the best use of existing Federal laboratories. It is a very important ques- tion, about which I have been much concerned, as has the Federal Council for Science and Technology and the President's Science Advisory Committee. There are well over 100 laboratories of substan- tial size in the Federal Establishment, and perhaps several times that number of installations where some research and development is per- formed. Around $3.5 billion is being spent annually in laboratories operated by the Federal Government and our cumulative investment in these facilities in the last decade exceeds $7 billion. Nevertheless, it would be a mistake to consider the utilization of existing laboratories in isolation from larger problems. The function of laboratories is to solve present problems and to lay the foundation for the future. Their productivity must be measured by their effect on current and future programs, public and private, of the entire Nation, usually involving expenditures many times greater than those directly involved in laboratory operations. Because of this "multiplier effect" it is important that the utilization of the Federal laboratories be viewed in the context of their overall contribution to national progress rather than a narrow problem of the administration of the laboratories themselves. The most critical questions are: (1) The choice of problems, their significance, and the feasibility of finding solutions through research and development; (2) the creation of capabilities in the laboratories which can, in fact, solve the most difficult problems; and (3) the trans- lation of the results of the laboratories' work into action in either the public or the private sectors. The variations in how these questions are answered may far outweigh such other questions as whether one agency uses the capabilities of another agency or whether all facilities are used to the maximum extent. These questions have received a great deal of consideration and thought from my office through the years. I must tell you frankly that I am not satisfied with our performance; I cannot give you a solution myself, but I know of no one else who thinks he has final answers, either. Of course, there are no final answers, but we can look for the best provisional answers in a constantly changing situation. There has been a Committee on the Federal Laboratories in the Federal Council for Science and Technology since 1959, chaired by Dr. Allen Astin, Director of the National Bureau of Standards. It has studied the salary and nonsalary factors that bear on the ability PAGENO="0009" 5 of laboratories to attract and retain superior scientific and engineering people, and thus maintain their competence and ability. Two reports were published in 1962 under the title, "The Competition for Qual- ity." More recently, the views of laboratory personnel were compre- hensively polled oii how they weigh the relative importance of various factors in sustaining laboratory excellence. The results were published in 1966 under the title "The Environment for Quality." What emerged was that the single most important factor in laboratory morale was a sense of purpose on the part of each scientist and a sense that the results mattered to someone. The broadest single study made to date of Federal R. & D. activi- ties, the "Report to the President on Government Contracting for Research and Development" was prepared by a committee of Federal department and agency heads, chaired by David Bell, then Director of the Bureau of the Budget, and including the Special Assistant for Science and Technology. The Bell report was chiefly concerned with questions related to the Government's use of private institutions and enterprises to obtain scientific and technical work needed for public purposes. It exploded the conditions under which contractor opera- tions are effective and the limitations which make Federal laboratory operations difficult. As regards Federal laboratories, it emphasized the importance of the relationship between the laboratory and the agency it serves, as follows: Director Federal operations, such as the governmental laboratory, enjoy a dose and continuing relationship to the agency they serve which permits maxi- mum responsiveness to the needs of that agency and a maximum sense of sharing the mission of the agency. Such operations accordingly have a natural advantage in conducting research, feasibility studies, developmental and ana- lytical work, user tests and evaluations which directly support the management functions of the agency. Furthermore, an agency-operated research and develop- ment installation may provide a useful source of technical management per- sonnel for its sponsor. Mr. DADDARIO. At that point, Dr. Hornig, I would like to quote again from the Bell report and ask you a question. The Bell report recommended, and I quote: It would seem, based on the results of this review, that it would be possible and desirable to make more use of existing government facilities and avoid the completion of duplicate facilities. This is not as easy as it might seem. Never- theless, in some cases, and to some extent, it is clearly possible to do this and a continuing scrutiny is necessary in order to make sure that the facilities which the government has are used to their fullest extent. No, the first question is, Who do you see is providing the continu- ing security factor ~ Dr. H0RNIG. Well, in a very general sense, I suppose this is to some extent my responsibility. These questions of mating facilities to agen- cies involve matters of considerable detail, both in the management and functions of the agency and the capabilities of the laboratory, and so the hard questions really relate, I think, to the technical managers in the individual agencies and to the laboratory directors. Mr. DADDARIO. I agree wholeheartedly with the idea that men do their best work and morale is highest when they relate their work to a specific mission of the agency. Yet, somewhere along the line, doesn't this begin to fall apart if the mission objectives of the agency have been pretty much completed? PAGENO="0010" 6 Dr. H0RNIG. Yes; but this can be done in a variety of ways. In many cases, the best may be simply to close down the laboratory and turn its physical properties over to another agency rather than to push a low morale, inefficient organization into another job which it might do just as poorly. What I am saying is that if one grades laboratories from zero to a hundred and puts our best laboratories at a scale of a hundred, there will be lots of laboratories which come down to 10 in their productivity. It isn't because everybody isn't busy, and it wouldn't necessarily be helped if you put somebody else's job in those labora- tories. They would produce at the level 10 no matter what you did to them. Mr. DADDARIO. There is no question but that the subcommittee feels that the closing down of laboratories is one of the possibilities, and we ought to be able to come to a judgment about how to do it sooner rather than later. On the other hand, it is more important to understand what the good laboratories are, in fact, doing and to develop within them the competence and the confidence that they may continue to do highest quality work and not feel that every Federal laboratory was under pressure of being closed down. Somewhere along the line a rating system, perhaps, seems to be in order. Dr. H0RNm. As I will indicate in my testimony, my own office, the Federal Council, and the Science Advisory Committee, have been try- ing to do precisely the things you said: to work with the system as a whole, to work with the individual agencies, and to look at specific laboratories and try to encourage better performance where we see it is necessary, and to close down where it is necessary, too. Mr. DADDARIO. Why don't we go on? We can come back to this when you are finished. Dr. HORNIG. All right. The Federal organization for the conduct of in-house research has also been periodically examined by the President's Science Advisory Committee. In 1961, a PSAC panel, under the chairmanship of Dr. George Harrar of the Rockefeller Foundation, studied the scientific programs of the Department of Agriculture. In 1964, PSAC asked Dr. E. R. Piore, vice president for research of IBM Corp., and formerly Chief Scientist of the Navy, to head a panel on Government labora- tories. The Panel was asked "to search for ways to increase the total effectiveness with which the resources of over 100 laboratories of widely differing size and purpose can contribute to the missions of the executive agencies." This is exactly the question you have asked me. At the same time, the PSAC set up a panel scientific and technical manpower for Government service, under the chairmanship of Dr. Albert G. Hill of MIT. The Panels ended up working very closely to- gether because they both concluded that the central problem was man- agement rather than administrative and personnel procedures, par- ticularly the validity of the laboratory missions and the way the lab- oratories report into the departmental structure. Both of these Panels focused their attention on the Department of Defense because DOD has a far larger and more complex technical organization than any other agency of the Federal Government. In the course of their studies, the Panels initiated a series of pro- ductive discussions with the Defense Department which are continuing. Mr. DADDARIO. Dr. Hornig, was the PSAC report ever published? PAGENO="0011" 7 Dr. HoRNIG. No, the Committee has worked closely with me, and with the agencies concerned, but they produced no published reports. Mr. DADDARIO. Its purpose was other than a published publication? Dr. H0RNIG. That is right. The purpose was to secure some action. Mr. DADDARIO. The Panels have been working together? Dr. H0RNIG. That is right. Mr. DADDARIO. And you feel it has produced action? Dr. H0RNm. Yes. There is lots more needed, but on many of these things one can achieve much more by working with the people who have to remedy the problem than by publishing documents about them. Mr. IDADDARTO. Could we sometimes say when we bring together a commission of this kind that it will not necessarily produce a report so when it does not, there will not be suspicion about it? Dr. H0RNm. The normal state of affairs for the President's Ad- visory Committee is that it does not publish reports. It is the case 95 percent of the time. Mr. DADDARTO. Notwithstanding that, when somebody heads a panel to perform a study and the study is not published, then there are sometimes dire statements made in the press about something of a cloudy nature being hidden. I know that is not the case, but it might be a good idea to spell it out in the first instance~ Dr. HORNIG. I think this is an excellent suggestion. During the past year the Department of Defense has been taking vigorous steps to realine and redefine the missions in the Army and Navy laboratories, and to some extent the Air Force laboratories. An analysis has been made to determine whether the administrative inhibi- tions found in those laboratories have their origin in congressional actions, in civil service rules, or have been self-generated within the individual departments and commands. Most commonly it is the latter~ What emerges in all these studies is that the laboratory is, and must be, closely related to the organization of the service of which it is a part. Thus, there is no single general prescription even for the Depart- ment of Defense. In 1964-65 a major study of the National Institutes of Health was conducted under the auspices of the Office of Science and Technology by a distinguished panel headed by Dr. Dean E. Wooldridge. Its report, entitled "Biomedical Science and Its Administration," was published in February 1965. The panel found that the national bio- medical program had been extraordinarily productive, but that there was much room for improvement in its management. Many of the suggestions have been taken into account. From the various studies which have been carried out, there emerge some guidelines for successful laboratory operation on which there seems to be a remarkable consensus among groups with diverse backgrounds. The Bell report states: It is generally recognized that having significant and challenging work to do is the most important element in establishing a successful research and development organization. I would add to this the need for the laboratory to have strong, capable leadership, able to relate the laboratory to the purposes of its sponsoring agency or agencies~ and able to motivate the laboratory personnel. PAGENO="0012" 8 In my view, the people in the laboratory should have the strong sense of purpose which is essential to success. A strong sense of pur- pose is not nearly so much a matter of havmg a carefully written statement of laboratory mission, useful as this may be, as it is of having genuinely significant things to do, strong leadership, and a continuing sense of accomplishment. The Bell report also recommends: Delegating to research laboratory directors more authority to make program :and personnel decisions, to control funds, and otherwise to command the resources ~which are necessary to carry out the mission of the installation. Providing the research laboratory director a discretionary allotment of funds, to be available for projects of his choosing, and for the results of which he is to be responsible; Eliminating, where possible, excess layers or echelons of supervisory manage- ment, and insuring that technical, administrative, and fiscal reviews be con- ducted concurrently and in coordinated fashion; and Making laboratory research assignments in the form of a few major items with a reasonable degree of continuity rather than a multiplicity of small nar- rowly specified tasks; this will put responsibility for detailed definition of the work to be done at the laboratory level where it belongs. I strongly believe that all of these points are still valid. So is the report's emphasis on the need for salary scales which will attract and hold highly competent men and women in the Federal laboratories. Salary reforms in the recent past have done much to improve the com- parability between Federal and private pay scales for technical and scientific personnel, but we repeatedly find situations where key per- sonnel receiving less than $20,000 are able to move easily to positions in the private sector paying two or three times that figure. There also remains a serious problem of compression of the~ top management salary levels, so that the highest echelons receive comparatively little more than the middle levels and are most likely to leave the Govern- ment service. Mr. DADDARIO. Would you go back to the first two recommendations and spell out for us a little more what you mean by saying that labora- tory directors should have more authority to control funds and should have a discretionary allotment of funds. What amount of money or what percentage are you talking about and how does this compare with a private laboratory such as Du Pont? Dr. HORNIG. It varies from laboratory to laboratory, but I would say that the laboratory director ought to have something like 10 per- cent of his funds which are internally allocable. I don't think that one can give a general prescription without looking at the detailed circumstance of any given laboratory. The more general purpose the laboratory is in some ways and the stronger its leadership the more discretionary funds I would like to trust to its director. Mr. DADDARIO. You have to relate the laboratory to the agency as you have said is one of a criteria of strength. If~the laboratory direc- tor has this discretionary authority to use funds as he sees fit, how do you protect him from the people back in the agency? They may think he is spinning his wheels in areas which are not related to mission purposes, and this is in a time when they are looking for every dollar possible to accomplish a mission objective? Dr. HORNIG. He still has to submit an annual budget and review of what he does, and if he goes off on tracks which don't contribute to his agency, you don't fund him. PAGENO="0013" 9 Mr. DADDARIO. Isn't that one of the problems that would arise? The reason I ask you that is to make a comparison with the private sector. If he does have to explain it and if he is not going to get support, he does not really have discretionary authority which you would like him to have. Dr. HORNIG. I don't have any hard figures for the private sector. Mr. DADDARIO. How it would work generally? Dr. H0RNIG. In general, `when research directors confer with us from the private sector we learn that there are more discretionary funds in a private business than we allow our directors in a Federal laboratory. The director is supposed to know what his job is; if he is in a com- pany he knows what the business is. If it is discretionary, it is still not within his discretion to go off and do something that the company is not involved in. When we give a laboratory director a discretionary authority, it is discretion essentially to explore what are the best technical opportu- nities to contribute to his job, not to go off on tangents. You catch up with him on the next year's budget if he goes off on tangents. Mr. DADDARIO. Let me ask you this question to see if I can satisfy some of the questions in my mind. Being fundamentally of the opinion that the laboratory director should have this authority, do we in fact enhance the capabilities of the laboratory. Are we able to make better use of the knowledge developed and do it more quickly? We just had hearings on pollution and unless we are able to rapidly use the knowl- edge in this particular area, the problem will get out of hand. We must apply our knowledge quicker rather than later. One of the objectives we would hope to achieve by giving the laboratory director this dis- cretionary authority would be to do this. Dr. H0RNIG. I think this is precisely right. In the first place, very little of what we are talking about is basic research. Secondly, the job of the laboratory is not to accumulate a pile of knowledge or to turn over the grains of sand in the Sahara Desert and examine them one at a time. Its hardest problem is to decide what the problems really are and how they can be tackled, and for this one needs keen technical insight. It is not usually true that desk- bound people like myself can sit at the top of the pyramid and say what the real technical problems are that are soluble next year. This takes ideas from the people who are hard at work and this is the importance of the role of the laboratory and its director. In many cases one can define the general outline of problems from the agency level, but the question of whether you make progress depends on picking the right detailed problems, those which are ripe for solving at a given time. That requires keen technical insight. This is why I emphasize the role of the laboratory director. As all the study panels have emphasized, the most critical thing is the technical talent. Mr. DADDARIO. The discretionary authority then would allow the director to pick the right problem because he has the best ability to do that, and then he would be able to pick the right people to accom- plish the job. Dr. H0RNIG. Ninety percent of a program is laid out between the laboratory director and his management. But when there are gooct ideas arising from the technical staff, subject to internal review, that look promising, he should be in a position to move rapidly. This is PAGENO="0014" 10 important both for the results it will give us and for what it does for the morale of his people when they can act on good ideas when they come up, rather than writing proposals for successive review which may result in permission 2 years later to go ahead with it. Mr. DADDARIO. How far would you allow this discretionary author- ity to go if during the course of his work a laboratory director saw an opportunity to be helpful in an area of great interest to the country? For example, if Dr. Weinberg sees that some of his people in accomplishing one thing developed an ability to handle certain of our problems relating to crime, would you allow him to use part of his discretionary funds to prove this out to the point where it could be used? Dr. HORNIG. Well, this, for instance, gets outside of the general mission of Dr. Weinberg's laboratory, so I would say that no, I would not include any real program in crime within his discretionary authority. On the other hand, if his people came up with a really good and promising idea that was on a relatively small scale, and as a prelude to discussion with, for instance, the Attorney General, if he wanted to do some exploratory work to test the validity of the concepts they were going to provide, I would say, yes, this made good sense. Mr. DADDARIO. This is one of the weaknesses I see in your argument about the agency relationship. On occasion, knowledge could develop to the point where it could be applied to other problems and people who are working on this, having a social conscience, being concerned about the problems of the country, should be allowed to pursue it. In fact, it may affect their work if they were not allowed to have this kind of flexibility. I recognize it is a difficult decision, and should not be allowed in every instance. Nor do I, at the moment, see any type of language that we as a committee could recommend as a guideline. Nonetheless, I think that there ought to be some provision whereby such work can be done even though it is not related to the particular agency. Shouldn't we in some instances allow the director to do a certain amount of whatever he wants, regardless of the mission objective? Dr. HORNIG. You ask a number of questions. Obviously, if the Oak Ridge National Laboratory has capabilities, for instance, in the crime or pollution area, we can and we do use its capabilities on behalf of other agencies. But this is a little different from a question of what should he do within his discretionary authority, because within his discretionary authority he is using AEC funds. I think Dr. Weinberg would have a pretty hard time explaining to the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy any extensive efforts in areas not related to atomic energy which he carried out with money appropriated for atomic energy. This is a management problem. Somebody else has got to pay for it. Mr. DADDARIO. That is what we are trying to find an answer to. Dr. H0RNm. ~\Te do it. Mr. DADDARIO. But how will he know this capability has other ap- plications in the first instance? He would have to compress his activity because it is not within the mission objective. Therefore, you would be stifling this growth before it has a chance to prove itself. PAGENO="0015" ~11 11r T~T~JG. I don't ~ how to answer this question generally. You can ask him about it. There are two routeS. One ~s general. If it is within his discretion, he can do it. It is important, of course, that we utilize the full capabilities of a laboratory, but I would simply say that within the discretionary funds the scale of what he undertal~e5 in a different direction is actually limited. I don't think it inhibits him very much. Dr. Weinberg, and I will mention this later in my testimony, does do work for the Office of Saline Water ; he has worked in collaboration with the National Institutes of Health. I believe, for instance, that other agencies put about $50 million a year into all the AEC labora- tories. The route you mention is surely one we want to go, but the problem that has to be answered in detail is when and what scale one should go off in new directions. I remember in the early days of missiles when just about every military organization and laboratory in the business wanted to go ot1~ and invent its missiles and this hadl to be brought back under control. Granted crime and pollution are very important problems, we don't want every agency in the country to go off on its own private pollution program, except where it has something special to contribute. Mr. DADDARIO. This committee has wrestled with this laboratory problem, and I can recall some years back we were, some of. us, against the development of a biomedical capability within NASA. Notwith- standing that, they did develop a capability which went along for years until the committee was able to put certain budgetary restraints on them. They are now getting together and working more with other agencies. The fact is that it is not always an easy thing to do. If the agency head recognizes that Congress does want the laboratory direc- tor to have such authority, it would be somewhat easier. The reason I am asking these questions is to see if somehow we can lay the base with this testimony on which we can develop some guide- lines which would protect the director. I would suspect he would need some protection, in fact. Dr. HORNIG. I think I would say that a reasonable fraction of his budget ought to be at his discretion in order to cope with the points you mention. I mention 10 percent, but I think that is a variable number. It de- pends on the nature of the organization, whether it is a highly focused organization or a general nature organization. Mr. DADDARIO. The point you raise in comparing this with the pri- vate laboratories is that a private company which is successful allows their research people to have some discretion because it is a profitable thing to do. Dr. H0RNIG. But the laboratory director knows what business his company is in when he is exercising this discretion. I have conferred with a number of big private industries on this matter. I find they make statements, for instance, that yes, they have given him authority to pursue any promising opportunity that appears. I then try to find out what did he do. He never strayed very far from the peņeral area in which the company might utilh~e his results, and the r~ason is very simple. The talent he had assembled in the laboratory was related to the business. His own interests were related to the company, and the promising ideas appear to be related. PAGENO="0016" In the case of ~ne big company, I k~ ~ ~ii~ ol tneir ~ men had a good idea that went off at completely right angles, and by mutual consent he went somewhere else. Mr. DADDAEIO. What you have said is extremely helpful. If we could establish the guidelines so that within that framework there would be that type ~of latitude, we would improve the situation from what it presentlyj is. Dr. HoRNm. Yes. In the best cases, that is the way it is, but it isn't widespread enough. I would agree with you. Almost all reports agree that there is generally excessive admini- strative control and not enough freedom given to the directors of the laboratories, due not only to civil service or other rules, but to practices and procedures which have evolved through the years in the various de- partments. For example, in the military departments there has been a difficult problem in the relationship between military and civilian personnel in the direction of laboratories, which has been accentuated by the policy of rotation of technically qualified officers. Everyone has observed that the average capability of the Govern- ment laboratories compares favorably to the average capability of in- dustrial laboratories and most university laboratories. Mr. DADDARIO. Has there developed a retraining program so that those employees who are not up to snuff because they have not been trained and whom you cannot get rid of because of civil service regu- lations could, in fact, be retrained in order to keep them up to the quality level you would like? Dr. H0RNIG. There is retraining authority. It is exercised in some laboratories and some organizations, but what is actually done is highly variable among the laboratories and agencies of the Government. Mr. DADDARIO. Should there be a procedure or control of this, or is this one of the things that ought to be left to the discretion of the laboratory director? Dr. HORNIG. Well, as a general principle there always ought to be some training and retraining activities. I think just how this is done, and the extent to which it is done, depends again on the nature of the laboratory, the nature of its personnel and the nature of its task, and I think considerable discretion should be left to the director. When there is lack of performance it can usually be associated with lack of mission, lack of urgency, and lack of a reward system for performance and recognition. I should like to underscore the importance of discretionary funds for the laboratory management. We just discussed that. The labora- tory director ought to be able to seize initiatives without waiting for the 24-month cycle of budget requests by the laboratory, budget ap- proval by the agency, budget requests by the agency to the Bureau of the Budget, approval by the President, appropriations re- quests to the Congress, and congressional appropriations action. But even if funds are available, there is a question of whether all ideas from a laboratory should be subjected to successive detailed reviews by deskbound administrators. A laboratory needs to be able to generate its own ideas abo~ ~yJi~ it should be doing. A significant number o~ major technical develop- PAGENO="0017" 13 ments coming out of our Federal laboratories, such as the Sidewinder missile which is still one of our best air-to-air weapons, were started or nurtured with funds that would not have been available if the laboratory director had taken the rules too literally. I will leave the details of this problem for laboratory directors such as Dr. Weinberg and Dr. McLean who will follow me. Let me now turn to the adaptation of Federal laboratories as they complete the tasks for which they were established, or the immediacy of tasks changes, or the nature of the problem is modified by subse- quent events. How to assign new tasks to existing laboratories, when to establish new laboratories, and when and how to disband existing organizations and abandon existing facilities are closely related questions. It is certainly true that the roles of some of the Federal laboratories have changed significantly or diminished with time, leaving a sub- stantial combination of talent and capital investment without a clearly defined job. At the same time, the changing needs of the Nation from time to time require inauguration of new research programs, whether in the effects of pollutants and the setting of standards, the abate- ment of pollution, improved transportation systems, or crime control. The question, of course, is how to manage the total collection of Fed- eral laboratories to take account of the changing mix of priorities. One of the suggestions which has been made is to establish a Fed- eral agency to operate laboratories and perform what is in effect con- tract research for the rest of the Federal establishment. This hypo- thetical agency has sometimes been termed a "GSA for Federal re- search." This is essentially what is done in the Soviet Union for every- thing but defense research, atomic energy research, and basic research. The feasibility of such an approach depends, I think, on how the agency is conceived and what kinds of work are assigned to it. As a housekeeping and general management device, it might be successful in the same way as the industrial contractors who operate the AEC laboratories. However, I have serious misgivings about this approach. An effective R. & D. program involves a dynamic give and take be- tween the laboratory and its parent agency. It must not only carry out assigned tasks, but spell out the tasks which need to be performed; it must be a source of ideas for its parent agency and help the agency to put the laboratory's output into practice. All of this requires a very close identification between a laboratory and its sponsoring agency. Nonetheless, under certain conditions, we have seen that one Federal agency can perform research effectively for another. The Office of Saline Water in the Department of the Interior, for example, is one of the best examples we have of a technically oriented Federal agency which has performed an important part of its research and develop- ment work through "contract" with other Federal agencies. Since part of this work is being done at AEC's Oak Ridge National Laboratory, you may want to go into some detail about it with Dr. Weinberg. OSW work has also been performed by other Federal agencies such as the National Bureau of Standards and the Bureau of Reclamation. In general, OSW experience suggests that work performed by other Federal agencies can be highly successful provided the performing laboratory shares fundamental objectives and research traditions with the sponsoring agency. The question really comes down to compati- 93-20i-68-----2 PAGENO="0018" 14 bility in how the two organizations do business. The problems of liai- son, of making sure that the sponsoring organization has effective means of input into the performing organization and vice versa, are distinctly more complicated when a direct line of management control is absent, but when conditions are right, this difficulty can be over- come. It is not unlike the problem of contracting for research outside the Government which is, after all, the way we carry out most fed- erally sponsored B. & D. Each case must be considered on its merits, but I would hope that we could encourage more of the kind of use OSW has made of capa- bilities in other agencies, so that we can obtain a broader base of ex- perience on which to make judgments in the future. It is probably no accident that the transfer of work has been niost effective when carried out in the large "general-purpose laboratories" such as the Bureau of Standards or the AEC's national laboratories. Such considerations lead me to the conclusion that it would be a mistake to establish general Federal policies at this time, either legis- latively or otherwise, regarding performance of Federal research and development work in Federal laboratories outside the sponsoring agency. I am not aware of any current policies or procedures which hinder one agency from using another's capabilities. As a practical matter, there may be a need to remove or modify personnel ceilings for laboratories which are going to perform research for nonparent agen- cies. It is also possible that in some cases, one might need to seek fur- ther interpretation by the Comptroller General of the Economy Act of 1932. If there are any real obstacles, I would want to work to re- solve them. The temptation to keep all existing laboratories busy and to make maximum use of capital facilities already in existence is strong. How- ever, the simple fact is that in many cases we would do better to start afresh on a new problem. The question of when to start new labora- tories, and what to do about those that are obsolescent or too small to be effective, should also receive careful attention on a case-by-case basis. Obsolescent laboratories are inefficient, because the best people leave first. Facilities and equipment established for one purpose often are very difficult and costly to adapt to wholly new missions. It is not at all clear that one gains financially by trying to refurbish old laboratories, and meanwhile one may be losing the dedication and enthusiasm which often go with a wholly fresh start. In restructuring the Federal laboratory system, it is important to recognize that laboratories need to be of a critical size to be really effective. There should not only be adequate strength in the principal areas of effort, but also enough scientific and technical disciplines represented among the laboratory personnel to yield useful interac- tion among them-as when the biologist needs the help of a physicist or an engineer to overcome a particular problem. A "critical mass" of people allows for internal redisposition of jobs and people and permits it to take on new assignments without undue strain or complete re- organization. A scattering of small laboratories, such as some in the Department of Agriculture, for example, dissipates this opportunity. One of the recommendations of the PSAC study of agricultural re- search which I mentioned earlier is that many of the USDA research field stations be either closed or transferred to the State experiment stations. PAGENO="0019" 15 In short, if we are really seeking efficiency, I believe the place to start is by shoring up our determination to close old or ineffective facilities down and walk away from them. It isn't easy. Agencies themselves often find it hard to contemplate the shutdown of a facility which may still be doing some useful residual work and with which it may have developedclose personal relations over the years. Labora- tories, like any other installations, become a part of the economic life of the communities in which they are located. The communities do not like to see them closed, and it is not uncommon for Members of the distinguished body you gentlemen represent to take a lively interest in plans to close facilities located in their disLricts. Secretary McNa- mara has proved that obsolete facilities can be closed by tough- minded Federal managers. Moreover, this can be done with the under- standing of a Congress which recognizes the need for efficiency and flexibility. The Bureau of Mines closed down 11 of its 30 laboratories during its 2 years under the direction of Dr. Walter Hibbard, who is resign- ing next week to take over an important industrial post. The Bureau also opened one new laboratory in this period, for the very good reason that it is hard to study permafrost anywhere in the United States except Alaska, where the new facility is located. The closed laboratories were judged by the Bureau to be too small or too weak to make an effective contribution to the Bureau's work. Their more important tasks have been transferred to other instal- lations. In Dr. Hibbard's judgment, there are additional laboratories which ought to be closed, but in at least one case he has been prevented from taking action by congressional direction. It is clear that we have continuing need for mutual understanding and accommodation be- tween firm and effective executive management, on the one hand, and ~the Congress and the political realities, on the other. Mr. DADDARIO. I am pleased you have made reference to Dr. Walter Hibbard and the work he has done. Dr. Hibbard was a classmate of mine and one of the most distinguished members of our class. I con- sider it a great honor that you have complimented him this morning. Dr. HORNIG. He has done a distinguished job at the Bureau of Mines. I would like to note in conclusion that the Federal laboratories are not there just to do research for its own sake. They are there to pro- duce the ideas on which the next generation of the parent agency's ac- tivity will be based. The laboratories need to operate as a system and not as loose collection of disconnected components. They need to have meaningful problems to work on, where the end results of what they do will be visible and on which they can be judged. We need more of the sort of thing the Navy is doing in reorganizing some of its labora- tories around problem areas such as antisubmarine warfare. While effective adaptation of the Federal laboratories to changing missions is an important consideration, it is not the only obstacle to the attainment of higher levels of effectiveness. Salary scales that are not competitive with either universities or industry, particularly in the upper brackets, are a central issue. Heavy layering of the power of decision above the level of laboratory directors is a particularly :acute problem. PAGENO="0020" 16 I not that most industrial laboratory directors report directly to the top management. Similarly, a wide array of administrative rules imposes a deadening effect upon the operation of laboratories in many agencies. Mr. DADDARIO. Do you have any recommendations about salary scales, how to overcome what is obviously an inhibiting factor here? Dr. H0RNm. The main recommendation is that in the first place we ought to keep comparability more current. One of the problems with comparability at present is it lags several years behind. Secondly, as compared to industrial salary scales, not only for the technical people, but generally in the Federal Government, our distri- bution is cut off at the top. Therefore, I would say more attention to the salary scale for the key people who guide the ventures is a particu- larly acute problem. These are the people who really determine whether this flexibility we want to give the laboratories and the laboratory directors can be wisely exercised. These are the people who guide the work. Mr. DADDARIO. Recognizing that this is a problem, and considering the opposition that you get regarding the supergrade level, which is really not so super, would an institute such as that mentioned in the Bell report be the answer? The Bell report recommended an institute which would have its own merit system, its own salary scales, and this type of thing. How do you justify your opposition to the creation of such an in- stitute? It seems to me you were going counter to the recommendation of the Bell report. Although I have not come to any conclusion about the need to establish such an institute, it seems to me that it does of- fer the capability, at least, of establishing control over this salary problem. Dr. HORNIG. If it is basically a housekeeping device, and if it gave one the handle to solve the salary problem, I think this might be a good argument for it. I would hope, however, that we could approach the salary problem more directly. Mr. DADDARIO. Do you consider it a serious enough problem so that if you are not able to do it considering civil service rules and regula- tions, congressional opposition, that this would be something we ought to consider? Is the salary situation that serious? Dr. HORNIG. No. We have taken enough steps to improve the salary situation that I think all of the groups that have looked at it agree that the salary situation is a serious problem, but not the most serious one. In the poll that Dr. Astin's committee took of Federal person- nel in Federal laboratories, this was not considered to be the most central question as regards their staying, their leaving, or their happi- ness in the job. The most central one to them was the question of whether they thought they were doing a useful job and their ability to get on with the things that they thought were important. The internal manage- ment of the laboratories is still a more critical problem than the prob- lem of salaries. Mr. DADDARIO. You think it would be a mistake for this committee to isolate it, but rather to take it into consideration with these other problems? PAGENO="0021" 17 Dr. HORNIG. I think all of the advice that I have had is that it is one of a complex of problems. Mr. Mosm~u. You just went back to a sentence on page 11 in Dr. Hornig's testimony that interested me. It says, Such considerations lead me to the conclusion that it would be a mistake to establish general Federal policies at this time. Are you emphasizing that phrase "at this time"? Are you implying the time may come when, for some reason of greater experience or something like that, the Congress might then attempt to establish general Federal policies? Dr. HORNIG. Yes. I was emphasizing two things. The word "gen- eral" because there is such a wide variety of institutions and tasks, and was emphasizing somewhat "at this time" because I think as we get more experience with the transfer of tasks from one laboratory to an- other that we might want to reconsider that. Mr. MOSHER. You aren't going to mention any specific time such as 2 years from now or 10 years from now? Dr. H0RNIG. I think it is extremely unlikely, considering our efforts over the last 4 years, that the time is anything like 2 years. Clearly there is work to be done. My Office and its associated mecha- nisms-the President's Science Advisory Committee and the Federal Council for Science and Technology-have played an active role throughout their existence in trying to improve the administration of Federal laboratories. I consider the most important job to encourage the departments to strengthen their own internal management structure for scientific and technical activities. This has resulted in the past in the establishment of positions such as the Director of IResearch and Enginering in the Defense Department, the Assistant Secretary for Science and Tech- nology in the Commerce Department, and recently, for example, a Director of Laboratories in the Navy. Fundamentally, I see the problems I have discussed as questions of effective management and effective mana.gers. This emphatically in- cludes the whole complex of questions relating to effective use of exist- ing laboratories, including how to cope with obsolescent missions, use by one agency of the laboratories of another, and when to start new facilities to meet newly emphasized problems such as transportation, pollution, housing, and crime. The problem for the Federal Government is that it has no models. The successful management of B. & P. is one of the most elusive prob- lems of industrial management. But the range of problems and the size of the B. & P. establishment in several agencies is greater than in the largest industrial corporations. Therefore, for the present I see the best room for progress in encour- aging effective management within the Federal agencies. Beyond this, my Office and all its associated mechanisms will continue to advise and assist the President and work with the Bureau of the Budget and the executive agencies to continually seek improvements in the system as~ a whole. Thank you. Mr. ROUSH. Mr. Chairman. Mr. DADDARIO. Mr. Roush. PAGENO="0022" 18 Mr. Rousn. Dr. Hornig, I have before me an article written by Dr. Harvey Brooks entitled "Needed-More Freedom in our National Labs." It occurred to me during the discussion you had with the~ chairman on this matter of discretion that the managers of the labs perhaps do need more freedom. On the other hand, I wonder if they are capable of identifying the real problems relating to the needs and wants of the people. I am afraid they are liable to decide to stress the sex life of a frog instead of the population explosion and its effect~ on the economy and the social life of the country. Dr. H0RNm. I would answer it this way. There is a range of decision' which ought to be allowed at each level of management, and we are trying to say, How do we make a whole dynamic system work? Obviously, the general guidelines as to what topics need to be tackled in the public interest have to come from the political structure of the Government, but the translation of those into what is technically feasible, and where the technical opportunities lie is the job of the technical people. When you ask how much responsibility is appropriate, this depends' entirely on the qualification of the laboratory and the laboratory director. I could make two general observations. It turns out to be~ precisely the best and busiest laboratories that have also the best ideas as to what else they might be doing. In those laboratories which have run out of missions, the standard thing to do is turn to basic' research, and one finds this building up in these laboratories. In some ways, laboratories which have the most capacity to absorb more are~ the ones that have the fewest ideas as to what they should most effec- tively do. I don't know how to make a general prescription, except to' have a good management. Mr. RousH. I think these hearings are going to be very fruitful and very good. lit seems to me that you put your finger on it in your testimony when you said that one of the most critical questions was the choice of problems. Now, the chairman in his preliminary statement identified several problems which confront the Nation and are going to confront the Nation. He pointed out such things as crime, transportation, housing,. food, and water. Now, one of the difficulties is that~ these are very general. We would like for a lab which may be dealing with atomic energy t.o be able to know that one of the problems is, for example, the storage of food, and that in the course of their work they should be alerted to the fact that perhaps through the use of radiation they can store foods for longer periods of time. Another lab which may. be working on communications should know that one of the problems in crime detection is the need for rapid, prompt, accurate communications, or in the storage of knowledge, the use of the computer. I think that our problem is to tell. these people on this leveT that this is what we are seeking, not that they are to solve at that laboratory all of t.he problems of crime. Dr. HORNIG. I think that this is precisely ri~rh~. If we c~u encr~1rage ideas to come up from anywhere, so they will all know that they can contribute, then it becomes a management problem to do it at the best places. PAGENO="0023" 19 Another topic we haven't touched upon is the problem of duplica- tion. That is the other half of this problem. Mr. Rousii. Is there any program or is there any plan to get these problems to the various Government laboratories? Is there any way at this time that we are alerting them to these various problems or do we just put them on their own initiative? Dr. H0RNIG. It is very hard to talk in general. I think I can say, though, as we begin to put together a program in housing research and development there has been a quite careful look at the possibility of utilizing both the in-house establishment and contractual methods. In-house approaches are all in competition with contractual relations with outside performers. There are even more potential contractual performers than there are Government laboratories. I think a more or less constant examination is necessary. You will find when you talk to Dr. Weinberg that his laboratory provides a constant series of proposals. I think the area covered by these proposals extends well beyond the narrow bounds of nuclear energy. I think the first proposals for desalting plants came out of the Los Alamos Laboratory and subsequently were developed by Dr. Weinberg's group at Oak Ridge. They are starting in one area and moving into another area. They are now developing the idea of large industrial complexes as a way of getting at the food problem in some parts of the world. It is an open question whether that should be developed at Oak Ridge or some parts should be developed at another place. The ideas are out for discussion and consideration now. Mr. ROUSH. It is my own feeling that we do not have a program of directing these problems to the labs with the thought that they might pick up ideas which will be helpful, and I am particularly referring to the problem of crime. It seems to me that we just have not directed an endeavor in this direction and that if we did it would be most helpful. Mr. DADDARIO. Mr. Roush brings up a point I would like to just touch on before turning over to Mr. Mosher. Dr. Weinberg in his book, "Reflections on Big Science" states : "When a government laboratory finishes a project it cannot ask what are the most important national problems as seen from the widest possible viewpoint to which our talents can be put. Rather, the lab- oratory must ask, what is the most important problem coming within the purview of our sponsoring agency to which we should next turn." Would you be fundamentally in disagreement with this quotation from Dr. Weinberg's book? Dr. H0RNIG. No, I wouldn't be in disagreement. It is stated from the advantage point of the director of a strong general purpose labora- tory of a very high level of competence which can turn to various problems that it can perform. Whether this particular collection of people should turn to something else or be disbanded is a question that would have to be decided case by case. Mr. DADDARIO. Then, your recommendation in that regard would seem to follow somewhat the committee's feeling at this point. Although we haven't had an opportunity to examine it in detail, it would appear necessary to classify laboratories and to give wider flexibility and latitude to the directors of some, and to take a harder line on some of the others. PAGENO="0024" 20 Dr. H0RNm. I think there is no question that there is a great range in the quality and competence both of the laboratories and the direc- tors. There is also a great range in the character of the laboratories, and all of these differences ought to be taken into account by proper technical management. Mr. DADDARIO. One of the points that we are including within the scope of these hearings is whether highly competent and highly qualified laboratories have the capability to do as much as they are able. Mr. Mosher? Mr. MOSHER. No further questions. Mr. DADDARIO. Dr. Hornig, we still have to hear from Dr. Weinberg. I have a whole series of other questions. I am going to ask you just one and we will send the rest of them to you, if we could. Dr. H0RNIG. That is fine. Mr. DADDARIO. I know that imposes a burden on you, but we can work it out in a way most suitable to you. On page 11 you say you know of no current policies or procedures which hinder one agency from using another's capabilities. Aren't you saying that because we have gotten where we are in this whole area as a result of purely happenstance, that somehow it has worked out pretty well, and, therefore, we ought not to change it? Dr. HORNIG. Not in the least. I know of no formal administrative bars to carrymg out the work of one agency in another. It means exactly what it says. It doesn't mean to imply anything further than that. Mr. DADDARIO. It does not mean that if we were to improve the management set up as it presently exists we would not, in fact, make it easier? Dr. H0RNIG. When I say bar, I mean that there are no rules or regulations, except possibly the ones I mentioned which exist, such as personnel ceiling. The laboratory can't always expand to take a new task at the present time, and there is some question regarding the Economy Act of 1932 which has been interpreted by some-and this is a somewhat open question-to restrict the recipient laboratory from building new facilities to take on the work from someone else. There may be some marginal bars, but I means that the big bar lies in the technical management of the agencies. The big problem is to determine when it is appropriate to use facilities in other agencies-when this is the best procedure as opposed to contracting it out or building a new facility in which the collection of people is particularly adapted to the problem. The procedure of job shopping in the case of a big problem might be a very weak way of doing it. The principal bar and the principal problem is that of the technical management in the agencies. Mr. DADDARTO. We always make a mistake in not setting aside the whole day of hearings to hear you, and we have in this particular instance, but I appreciate the fact that you have been here. You have already given us a great deal of help and we will call on you again. Dr. HoRNIG. You have a very distinguished list of witnesses who ~can speak really first hand to many of the problems we have addressed this morning. Mr. DADDARIO. Thank you ever so much. PAGENO="0025" 21 QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO DR. DONALD F. HORNIG BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, RESEARCH, AND DEVELOPMENT Question 1. To what ewtent does section 8 of Ea~ecutive Order 10521 represent the policy of the present Administration with respect to the effIcient use of scien- tific research equipment and facilities held by Federal agencies? Answer. Section 8 of Executive Order 10521 (March 26, 1954), as amended by Section 6 of E.O. 10807 (March 13, 1959), correctly states the general policy of the present Administration with respect to the efficient use of scientific research equipment and facilities held by Federal agencies. This section reads as follows: "Sec. 8. To facilitate the efficient use of scientific research equipment and facifi- ties held by Federal agencies: (a) the head of each such agency engaged in scientific research shall, to the extent practicable, encourage and facilitate the sharing with other Federal agencies of major equipment and facilities; and (b) a Federal agency shall procure new major equipment or facilities for scientific research purposes only after taking suitable steps to ascertain that the need cannot be met adequately from existing inventories or facilities of its own or of other agencies." Question 2. What information about Federal laboratories-including both di- rectly and contractor operated laboratories-is maintained by OST and the Fed- eral Council? Answer. Neither OST nor FCST maintains information on individual labora- tories, just as they do not maintain complete information on research projects or on Federal research funds supplied to individual universities. OST and FCST endeavor (1) to ensure that systems for collecting and analyzing important data exist so that appropriate information will be available to OST and FCST on call, and (2) to promote good administration of laboratories, including efficient use of equipment and facilities. The National Science Foundation maintains information `on Federal research. funds, and the Science Information Exchange (SIE) maintains information on research projects in progress. Some of the FCST Committees maintain informa-- tion on research funds and projects of special interest to them. The Federal Council's Committee on Scientific and Technical Information has worked steadily on the improvement of Government-wide information systems for managers, as well as for bench workers. For example, a 1966 DOD-NASA agreement to use common research project formats for information reporting is being expanded. to other agencies as a result of a 1967 FCST agreement, and a contract study is* underway to improve agency project reporting activities. As noted below, the Federal Council is considering the maintenance of an inventory of Federal laboratories and facilities. The attention given by OST to the question of the efficiency of Federal labora- tories has been directed at issues that are considered to be more central than the efficient use of research equipment and facilities, although this element of efficiency is encompassed within the broader questions. The role of Federal laboratories, the criteria for deciding whether work should be done in in-house labs or under contract, personnel policies, adaptation `of laboratories to changes in missions, and means of up-grading management capability have been matters. of primary concern. Question 2(a). How does this compare with what you would consider to be the ideal information for fostering full and effective use of government labora- tories and their capabilities? Question 2(b). What guidance has O$T or the Federal Council given to agency heads about information they should maintain? Answer. FCST has instructed its Committee on Federal Laboratories to develop a plan for an inventory of all Federal laboratories, building upon the substantial experience that has accumulated in preparing agency-wide or special purpose inventories. It is not yet clear that the benefits from compiling and publishing an inventory of laboratories will equal the cost of doing it. Accord- ingly, we expect that any plan approved by the FCST will be oil an experi- mental basis and that the plan will provide for an assessment of the value of the inventory. įiiestion 2(c). Without information about what work the various Federal laboratories are doing and whether or not they are being used to capacity, `is it realistic to. say that an agency should make use of ea'isting resources? Answer.Phe existing system rests on the assumption that scientists, engineers and research administrators in Federal laboratories are well acquainted with their scientific colleagues ~ and out of government, and that they have a realistic PAGENO="0026" 22 idea of their resotirces and what work they are doing. This assumpti~n is, of course. not entirely true. For this reason. the plan to establish an inventory of Federal laboratories will be put into effect. Question 3. What consideration has been given to applying the standards anti procedures devised for appraisal of contractor research and development per- forlna4?,ce to government-operated laboratories? To what entent would this be desirable? Answer. Appraisal of in-house laboratory performance is a normal responsi- bility of agency management and does not differ in any important way from the appraisal of contractor research and development performance. Procedures in use in the Government for both in-house and contractor R&D appraisal commonly involve such techniques as visits to the laboratory by teams of agency manage- ment representatives; evaluation of results by agency management and-espe- cially where more basic research is involved-by outside advisory groups; and continuing reviews of laboratory operations through reports, audits, conferences, day~to-day contacts, and so on. In some cases, development activities lend theni- selves to controlled scheduling procedures such as PERT, but such control methods are generally not applicable to research near the basic end of the spectrum. Evaluations are necessarily qualitative rather than quantitative to a vonsiderable degree, and involve judgments based on such factors as experience and comparison with good practice elsewhere. The prime objective is not the application of any specific set of administrative techniques, but the elevation of the quality and efficiency of administration of Federal laboratories totally, including such matters as maintenance of challeng- lug and relevant laboratory missions, elevation of salary scales to attrac-t first class managers, and securing sufficient freedom for laboratory managers. Question 4. What was the eaperience of the Federal Council Committee for Long- Range Planning in its attempts to put together a long-range plan for the research and development planned by the various agencies? Are there alternative approaches to this goal of long range planning? Answer. The answers to these questions have been well stated in a 1967 report, "The Office of Science and Technology" of the Science Policy Research Division of the Legislative Reference Service of the Library of Congress for the Military Operations Subcommittee of the Committee on Government Operations. "Planning is one of the commonly accepted elements of modern administration. As such, planning has held the attention of the White House Science structure. Long-range planning for research and development has been described by the Federal Council as: * 2 * the process of identifying the major alternative strategic paths that programs might follow, ~veightag the technical knowledge and resource commitments required if each alternative path w-ere followed, assessing the full consequences of following each path, assessing the major con- tingencies that might arise if each path were followed, and making sets of deci- sions in the light of all of ;these considerations.1 According to the Council, two considerations tend to extend the time scale for Federal long-range planning for research and development. First, the required resources take a long time to create. Second, once created, many of the important resources for sCience have a long life. The Committee on Long-Range Planning.-In September 1961 the Federal Council concluded that more systematic, continuing planning was necessary for all the departments and agencies active in research and development. Accordingly it recommended appointment of a Committee on Long-Range Planning. The recommendation was approved and the Committee w-as established. Its functions are to :2 1. Identify and coordinate long-range goals of Federal agencies in science and technology. 2. Foster preparation of an inventory of research resources-manpow-er and facilities. 3. Project future demands for resources and funding. 4. Develop techniques for Government-wide planning to minimize gaps and redundancies, and to achieve maximum utilization of resources. ~ The Role of the Federal Council for Science and Technology: Report for 1963 and 1964. Office of Science & Technology. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1965, p. 19. 2 Federal Council for Science and Technology: 1962 Annual Report. Office of Science and Technology. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1963, p. 12. Departments and agencies represented on the Committee on Long-Range Planning are; Agricnltur~i Côm- merce; Defense; Health, Education, and Welfare; Interior; and the Atomic Energy Com- mission; the Federal Aviation Agency; the National Aeronautics and Space Administra- tion; the National Science Foundation. Time Bureau of the Budget may observe its meetings. PAGENO="0027" 23 5. Formulate recommendations for program emphasis and allocation of resources. 6. Function as a clearinghouse of information on planning techniques, to aid departments and agencies in formulating their individual plans and programs. The first chairman of this Committee was Dr'. Harvey Brooks, the only chair- man of a Federal Council Committee who was not a Federal official. The Corn- mittee's actiivties were described in the Federal Council's reports for 1962 and for 1963-64. The draft FCST report for 1965 does not mention the Committee at all. According to the Office of the Federal Council's secretary, this Committee is presently inactive. The Interdepartmental Study of Long-Range Plann.ing.-One early undertak- ing of the Committee on Long-Range Planning was to begin a survey to develop .a projection through 1970 of research and development plans and requirements of the Federal agencies. Working with the Science Resources Planning Office of the NSF, data was to be sought for funds, facilities, and technical manpower requirements. The Federal Council described preparations for this report as follows: With due conSideration for practicability of data solicitation, definitions were formulated and categories selected for in-house versus out-of-house; basic versus applied research and develpmen't; of different fields and subfields of science and of objects of science (missions). Assumptions which underlie planning and *constraints imposed by agency, departmental, executive, and legislative branches are also being studied. A serie.s of briefings have begun by representatives of individual agencies to share their experience in planning policies and practices.3 The study, however, was not published by the Federal Council, which gave the following reasons: 1. It was difficult to secure from all agencies usable assessments of basic goals, issues and alternatives because some were more immersed in looking ahead and had a more favorable attitude toward long-range planning than others. 2. The initial approach had centered upon one dimension of planning-re- source use as measured by money and manpower, and had placed less stress upon matters of vital practical significance, such as identification of goals, and alterantive paths of program development. 3. Attention and resources directed to future consequences of current decisions, and their implications, were not fully adequate at all points of the Government. Here the report specifically said that the OST did not hrve the staff resources required to keep attention centered on the major goals of the study, and that the National Science Foundation was not adequately equipped to guide the study toward exploration of policy issues. 4. Finally, it had proven impossible in this first effort to add the data from the agencies together for the Federal Government as a whole in a meaning- ful way.4 Looking at this experience, the Federal Council observed that planning must proceed simultaneously in a number of largely autonomous spheres, which had important implications for planning process, for there could be no such thing as "the plan." * * * there can under such a concept be no thing as "the plan," just as there is no simple, single national science policy. There are many plans, each representing a valid way of looking at science and technology. This characteristic of planning process is consistent with our pluralistic approach to the definition and resolution of important public matters. Pluralism allows wide participation end the stressing of various kinds of legitimate goals. This sort of process is a familiar one in political affairs, and it makes planning for science consistent with our fundamental traditions.5 The Councils conclusion was that such developments as the experience of the Committee on Long-Range Planning had led to concepts and methods of long- range planning for science which are more realistic and more complex than those of a few years ago. Future activities of the Federal Council related to long-range planning will reflect experience accumulated by all of these groups. The OST and Long-Range Planning.-Statements by the OST have shown its interest in long-range planning for research and development. Its budget state- Federal Council for Science and Technology; 1962 Annual Report, op. cit., p. 13. The Role of the Federal Council for Science and Technology: Report for 1963 and 1964, op. cit., p. 20. 5 Ibid., p. 22. PAGENO="0028" 24 ments for fiscal years 1964 and 1965 highlighted the planning function. For fiscal year 1965, OST said it was "spearheading an effort to rationalize long-range planning of Federal research and development." OST said it was working closely with the Bureau of the Budget and the planning staff of the National Science Foundation, but did not mention the Federal Council's Committee on Long-Range Planning. OST's expectations indicated an optimistic outlook for long-range planning in 1964: We expect to identify more clearly the aggregate requirements for Federal funds and for skilled manpower; to determine future commitments to support major research and development facilities; to visualize the implications of con- centration or diffusion of effort between scientific fields and between institutions,. where the impact of support from a number of separate agencies may be quite different from that determined on an agency-by-agency basis. Such long-range planning should also make it possible to identify unwitting duplication in the planning of new research facilities and to illuminate gaps in programs which in- advertently occur when one agency is of the belief that another has assumedt program responsibility*° But by 1966 Dr. Hornig apparently had changed his views. In testimony early in 1943f~ to the Research and Technical Programs Subcommittee of the House Government Operations Committee, he said: I do not believe that any single mechanism within the Executive Office of the President, for example, or even within the office of the head of Oach depart- ment and agency, could be relied upon to blueprint the nature of research and development to satisfy our needs.7 In answer to a question, he elaborated further, saying: I do not think a single planning mechanism-I have watched attempts-is cap- able of introducing enough ideas to make the system good. I do not believe the blueprinting process from the top is the best method. What we try to do, therefore, is collect and put together ideas from outside the Government and from within the Government and develop programs. That I think is a proper central function.8 Question: 5. What past or present studies sponsored by the Federal Government are providing information about factors that determine the "critical size" for a given laboratory? Are any future studies planned? Answer: There have been no formal studies of what consitutes a "critical size" for a Federal laboratory. The critical size would vary widely depending on the- purpose and function of the individual laboratory concerned. The Defense Science Board, for example, has judged that 1,000 or more professional scientists and~ engineers would constitute a critical mass in a "weapon-center" laboratory; one can visualize other situations where a number smaller than 10 might be sufficient. This is properly a matter for judgment by the technical managers of each agency.. Studies and discussion of what constitutes a "critical size" under varying circum- stances might be helpful, but no specific studies are planned by OST at present.. Question: 6(a). What has been done to implement the Bell Report recom- mendation that "arrangements should be made to call on Government laboratory and development center personnel to a larger ectent for technical advice and par- ticipation in broad program and management decisions-in contract to the pre- dominant use of outside advisors." Answer: I agree wholeheartedly that Government laboratory personnel should be called upon for advice and should participate in broad program and manage- ment decisions. At the same time, of course, there remains a strong need to provide continuously to the system the breadth, freshness of viewpoint and independence which is obtained only from outside advisers. A number of agencies have taken steps since publication of the Bell report to increase participation in management decisions by their laboratory directors. I would refer you, for example, to the testimony by the Defense Department, which discussed the establishment in the Armed Services of new overall manage- ment positions responsible for the effective management of the laboratories, and of the improvements in communication with the laboratories this is helping to provide. Groups of laboratory directors meet regularly with these top technical managers to discuss requirements and capabilities, and to exchange views with "Independent Offices Appropriations for Fiscal Year l96~." Hearings before a subcom- mittee of the House Committee on AppropriatIons, 88th Cong., 2d sess., 1964, p. 903. "The Federal Research and Development Programs: The Decisionmaking Process," op. cit., p. 8. `Ibid., p.9. PAGENO="0029" 25 ~users. Other agencies such as the Commerce Department have established Assistant Secretaries for research and development in recent years, who as a general rule meet frequently with directors of the laboratories for which they are responsible. The Committee on Federal Laboratories of FCST has sponsored a series of important seminars in which the major participants have been laboratory ~managers. Major topics have included (1) how to create and sustain an environ- ment for creativity in Federal laboratories and (2) administration of personnel ~ceilings. In the fall of 1968, Federal laboratory managers will meet with repre- *sentatives of universities to discuss the educational role of Federal laboratories. Question 6(b) - (c). How many laboratory directors are now members 01 Pt~AC and its established panels? How many are O~T consultants? Answer: One of the present members of PSAC is Dr. Lewis Branscomb, Direc- tor of the Joint Institute for Laboratory Astrophysics of the National Bureau of Standards. Several past members of PSAC have served, prior to their terms on PSAC, as Federal laboratory directors or as Federal technical program managers. Federal laboratory directors occasionally serve as active OST or PSAC panel members, but much more frequently are called upon for advice or assistance on an ad hoc basis. For example, Drs. Astin and McLean who appeared at the recent hearings of the Subcommittee on Science, Research and Development, have served actively in the past on panels and as consultants, and my office continues to seek their advice on a variety of matters as the need arises. Dr. McLean is currently a members of a PSAC panel studying certain military technology. This of course is in addition to the extensive involvement of Federal laboratory directors and research managers in the work of the many committees of the Federal Council for Science and Technology, which itself is an adjunct of the OST structure. Question 7. Do you agree with Dr. Astin's statement about the essential im- portance of a laboratory directors' council, and if so, what steps are being taken to form a laboratory directors' connoil at the O$JT level? Would it include direc- tors of contractor operated laboratories? Answer: Dr. Astin has assured me that his comment regarding the usefulness of councils of laboratory directors was intended to apply to the departmentai level. OST does not now have a laboratory directors' council, and has no present plans to establish one. The Committee on Federal Laboratories of the Federal Council for Science and Technology, under Dr. Astin's chairmanship, is making a very effective contribution in my opinion to bringing together the best judgments of the Federal agencies on how to improve laboratory management and utiliza- tion. Membership of this Committee is as follows: COMMrrTEE ON FEDERAL LABORATORIES Chairman Dr. Allen V. Astin, Director, Administration Building, National Bureau of Standards. Members Edward M. Glass, Assistant Director (Laboratory Management), O.D.R.&E., the Pentagon. Dr. George W. Irving, Jr., Administrator, Agricultural Research Service. Dr. Robert W. Berliner, Director of Laboratories and Clinics, National In- stitutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. E~recutive Ffecretary George E. Auman, Assistant to the Director, Administration Building, National Bureau of Standards. Alternates (A) and/or ~tafj' Assistants (~) Evan Anderson, Staff Assistant, Office of Assistant Director (Laboratory Man- agement), O.D.D.R.&E., the Pentagon. Dr. Robert J. Anderson, Associate Admir~istrator, Agricultural Research Service. Dr. Steven C. King, Assistant Director, Animal Husbandry Research Division, Agricultural Research Center, Beltsville, Maryland. Dr. Seymour J. Kreshover, Director, Institute of Dental Research, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. PAGENO="0030" 26 James H. Noone, Personnel Management Specialist, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. John M. Sangster, Chief of Personnel, National Institutes of Health. Bethesda, Maryland. Dr. Allen 0. Gamble, Chief, Manpower Planning and Studies Section, Resources and Analysis Branch, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. Members Boyd C. Myers, II, Deputy Associate Administrator for Advanced Research & Technology (Operation), NASA Headquarters. Dr. William T. Pecora, Director, U.S. Geological Survey. Dr. S. Dillon Ripley II, Secretary, Smithsonian Institution. Harold H. Leich, Chief, Policy Development Division, Civil Service Commis- sion. J. Lee Westrate, Management Analyst, Office of Management & Organization.. Alternates (A) and/or Btaff Assistants (B) Grove Webster, Director, Personnel Division, Office of Administration, NASA Headquarters. Dr. William Thurston, Assistant to the Science Adviser, Office of the Secretary. Interior Department. Leonard Pouliot, Director of Personnel, Smithsonian Institution. Dr. Philip G. Ritterbush, Assistant to the Secretary, Smithsonian Institution. Observers Dr. Sidney G. Reed, Jr., Head, Office of Planning and Policy Studies, National Science Foundation. Question 8(a). Would you please describe what. OBT has done to make sure that the facilities which the Government has are used to their fullest eatent, and what direction it has provided to bring the needs of technical managers and laboratory directors together? Answer: Through studies such as the one on Federal laboratories conducted under PSAC sponsorship by a panel chaired by Dr. II. R. Piore, my office has examined the question of improving the effectiveness of Government laboratories and has discussed its findings with the agencies. Members of my staff, who are in close touch with the agencies, are continuously concerned with. effective use of these facilities, and the Federal Council provides a continuing forum for discussion. The Budget Bureau is of course much involved in these questions as well. The question of bringing together the needs of laboratory directors and tech- nical managers remains fundamentally a responsibility of the agencies and departments. OST can encourage the establishment of mechanisms for doing this, as indicated in the answer to question 6(a). Question 8(b). Is it a fair statement to say that the Federal Council's Lab- oratory Committee looks more to the internal management and operation of laboratories than to questions of duplication of work by different laboratories? Answer: This statement is essentially correct. We do not believe the problem of duplication of work is a serious one. When it does come up, however, we take steps in cooperation with the Bureau of the Budget to eliminate it. Question 8(c). Would a laboratroy management office at the OBT level, with functions comparable to those of the Office of the Assistant Director for Lab- oratory Management of DOD, be a constructive addition? Answer: In view of the primary function of my office to advise and assist the President, it would seem inappropriate to establish an activity in this setting which would have a management fimction analogous to the DOD Assistant Director for Laboratory Management. Establishment of a separate office for this purpose at the Presidential level seem to me to be out of proportion to the size and nature of the problem. I am continuing to examine the question of whether the existing OST-BOB and Federal Council machinery can be strengthened to accomplish the essential functions you have in mind. Question 9(a). Of the over 100 laboratories of substantial size in the Federal establishment which you mentioned, in how many do you estimate the laboratory director has discretionary funds? What do you estimate is the average amount of these funds as a percentage of the laboratory's budget? Answer: The diversity and nature of agency practices makes this a difficult question to answer with any certainty, but I would estimate on the basis of dis- cussion with the major R&D agencies that directors of perhaps 75-80 percent PAGENO="0031" 27 of the larger laboratories have either earmarked "discretionary funds" or have internal reprogramming authority which in effect gives them significant latitud& to take initiatives. Reprogramming authority is theoretically quite extensive in some cases. The "real" flexibility available to these laboratory directors probably averages in the range of 5-10 percent of their total budgets for in-house work. The Defense Department, for example, operates somewhat more than half of the Federal laboratories. It provides earmarked discretionary funds to its labora- tory directors ranging from 0% to perhaps 8% of in-house budgets, depending on negotiations between the directors and the Assistant Secretaries for Research and Development in the three Services. The laboratories performing research of a more basic character generally have smaller earmarked discretionary funds- the Naval Research Laboratory has none, for example-but provide relatively wide latitude to the director in program determination. Question 9 ( b ) - ( c). Do any directors of contractor operated laboratories now have discretionary funds? Is the same reasoning regarding discretionary funds for the directors of Government operated laboratories applicable also to con- tract or operated laboratories? Answer. I believe that the same general reasoning applies to both. Flexibility is. provided in principle to the directors of many contractor operated laboratories (1) through provision for independent R&D as an allowable cost under the con- tract, `(2) through the fee paid to the contractor-part of which can in some cases be. used for independent research and development-or (3) through the management practices of the agency, which permit some internal shifting of funds at the director's discretion. Question 10. What is your reaction to the DOD proposal to eliminate man- power controls on cross-agency work to achieve fiea~ibility similar to that avail- able to the AEG contract laboratories? If you agree, what action do you propose to take? If you do not agree, what is the basis for your position? Answer. In general, I believe that laboratory directors can be most effective when they have reasonably wide latitude in internal allocation of financial re- sources made available to them. When controls or manpower or other resources are superimposed on dollar limitations, the effect tends to circumscribe the direc- tor's flexibility in ways which in some cases may be undesirable. Under the present system, manpower controls are applied by the Budget Bureau to entire agencies or departments, which must then reallocate these controls internally. Although this system theoretically provides internal flexibility within which an agency might be expected to meet newly arising needs for cross-agency work, the agencies have indicated that this flexibility is difficult to preserve in practice. I endorse the DOD proposal as an ideal solution, but recognize that we can not consider it seriously under the new restrictions on Federal employment. If future circumstances permit relaxation of the overall limitations, we will work with the BOB to see whether the DOD proposal can be adopted. Mr. DADDARIO. Dr. W&nberg, do you have others with you whom you would like to sit at. the table? Dr. WEINBERG. No, just myself. Mr. DADDARIO. You have come alone? Dr. WEINBERG. Yes, sir. Mr. DADDARIO. We are happy to have you. Dr. WEINBERG. It is a pleasure to be with you here to talk to you on a question that has concerned me for many years. STATEMENT OP DR. ALVIN N. WEINBERG, DIRECTOR, OAX RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY Dr. WEINBERG. In spite of much talk about the necessity of re- deploying Federal laboratories, I shall begin my testimony with an admonition against premature redeployment. There are many urgent problems of the Federal Government to which large Federal establish- ments have devoted themselves for a long time. But simply because the problems `are difficult, and progress is slow, does not mean that the PAGENO="0032" 28 instrumentalities devoted to these problems ought to be scrapped and the problems forgotten. I want to warn most earnestly against re- deploying a laboratory before the problem around which the laboratory was originally mobilized has been resolved. You notice I don't use the word "solve", but "resolve". I dwell on this point because in so many of the discussions of re- deployment the atomic energy laboratories are given as examples of establishments that have worked themselves "out of a job." In point of fact, nuclear energy development is entering a completely new and unprecedentedly hopeful era: The development of the really eco- nomical breeder reactor. Until this goal has been reached, nuclear energy has not achieved its goal, nor has the nuclear research com- munity come close to working itself out of a job. The cheap breeder reactor represents a permanent solution to the world's energy problem. Insofar as a cheap, ubiquitous, and inexhaustible source of energy can serve to extend mankind's natural resources indefinitely, it is clear that the achievement of this goal is one of the most important long-term jobs of our society. Any talk of dismantling or massively redeploying the Government laboratories responsibile for getting on with this job is, in my opinion, irresponsible and mischievous. Mr. DADDARIO. I hope that is not a charge. Dr. WEINBERG. No, I didn't have any Members of Congress in mind when I wrote that. It is rather some speeches I have heard recently by people other than Congressmen. Having made this disclaimer, I shall describe the way in which the Oak Ridge National Laboratory has partially redeployed into several new areas, and I shall try to draw some general conclusions from our experiences in redeployment. I am submitting for the record ~ short history of ORNL, but in this statement I shall refer only to those aspects of our history that are relevant to the matter of redeploy- ment. In 1955 I wrote an article, "Future Aims of Large Scale Research," in which I pointed out that the job of creating a new energy source from fission, though very difficult, was finite. Eventually the labora- tories concerned with fission reactor development would no longer be so centrally occupied with this job, although, as I have already said, this time has not yet really come. In line with this sort of specu- lation we organized a series of "advanced technology seminars" at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in 1961. At these seminars we exam- ined a number of large-scale technological problems, generally those having important social implications. The subjects treated at these seminars included desalting the sea, atmospheric pollution, carcino- genesis, civil defense, liquefaction of coal, and space technology. As matters turned out, we have in the ensuing 7 or so years become in~ volved in a major way with desalting, civil defense, and carcinogene- sis. I shall described how we became involved in each of these activi- ties, and what our experience has been. Desalting the Sea.-Our involvement with desalting the sea had two separate origins. On the one hand, several of our solution chem- ists who had worked on the original development of plutonium chem- istry during the Manhattan project were intrigued by the physical chemistry of desalting, a topic we discussed in our advanced technol- ogy seminars. At that time I was a member of the President's Science PAGENO="0033" 29 Advisory Committee, and I was in close contact with the President's Science Adviser, George B. Kistiakowsky, and Roger Revelle, Science Adviser to the Secretary of the Interior. Encouraged by both Drs. Kistiakowsky and Revelle, we held conversations with the Atomic Energy Commission and the Department of the Interior about Oak Ridge. working in this field. The two congressional committees in- volved-the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy and the House Com- mittee on Interior and Insular Affairs-became interested in the possi- bility of Oak Ridge participating in this work. A rather formal agree- ment was executed between the two Government departments, and the agreement was officially sanctioned by the corresponding committees, setting ORNL up as a desalting laboratory for the Department of the Interior, but still operated as a contractor establishment of the AEC. The program, headed by Dr. K. A. Kraus, has involved about 20 chem- ists and engineers, and has been largely concerned with the physical chemistry of reverse osmosis. The budget for the work runs around $600,000 per year. In the 6 years since the work started, some very striking findings have been made, the most important being the dis- covery of "dynamic" membranes that have much higher capacities than any previous reverse osmosis membranes. The second thread in the ORNL desalting story began in 1961 when Dr. R. P. Hammond of Los Alamos pointed out in a lecture at ORNL that heat from nuclear reactors could be used to desalt the sea economi- cally if the whole process, including evaporation, were performed on a large enough scale. Though greeted at first with skepticism, we at ORNL finally were persuaded that Hammond was basically correct. These exciting findings were conveyed to Dr. Jerome B. Wiesner, the President's Science Adviser, to the AEC, and to the Office of Saline Water. A. committee under Roger Revelle was formed to investigate the validity of. these claims; the committee in the main substantiated these claims and as a consequence the AEC and the Department of the Interior expanded their programs in nuclear desalting. By this time Hammond had moved to Oak Ridge and, since ORNL was the Labora- tory most interested in desalting, it was natural that the responsibility for research and development in nuclear desalting should devolve on the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. At present we have about 90 scientists and technicians working on all phases of desalting, both its nuclear and nonnuclear aspects. The total budget for these activities is around $3.6 million per year, of which $2.2 million comes from the Department of the Interior, $1.4 million from the AEC. This makes ORNL one of the larger, if not the largest, desalting laboratories in the world. However, this repre- sents only about 4 percent of the entire operating budget of the Laboratory. Civil Defen~se.-In 1962 the distinguished Nobel laureate, Eugene P. Wigner, became deeply concerned about the state of civil defense in the United States. Largely under his urging, the National Academy of Sciences sponsored a summer study,: Project Harbor, which tried to assess our knowledge of civil defense. One of the recommendations of Project Harbor was that one orseveral laboratories be set up to.study civil defense in acoherent, integrated way. Participating in Project Harbor were several Oak Ridgers. More- over, Eugene Wigner, who was the guiding spirit of the effort, was a 93-201-68-----3 PAGENO="0034" 30 former Research Director of ORNL. It was therefore natural that ORNL `be put forward as a possible site for one of the civil defense laboratories proposed by Project Harbor. This idea met with the ap- proval of both the AEC, whi'Oh has some statutory `responsibility in civil defense, and the Department of Defense, and a civil defense proj- ect was established at ORNL in 1964. The project has been rather small-about 20 engineers, natural scientists, and social' scientists- and its total budget is around $730,000 of whi'ch DOD (O'OD and ARPA) contributes $580,000, AE'C $150,000. `Though the group is `small, it is one of the few groups that looks at the problem of civil de- fense from a global, coherent vie'wpoint. It therefore probably has had more influence on our country's civil defense policies than its small `size'~vould suggest. `Co-carcino genesis and other Involvements with iVIH.-ORNL has ál*ays'been extremely strong in the biological sciences: the largest single division at the laboratory (450 scientists and technicians) is `the biology division. The laboratory has always been concerned with the genetic and somatic effects of radiation. Since radiation is only `one of the many physical insults to the biosphere, it seemed natural to many of us at ORNL (and this came out of one of our advanced tech- nology seminars) to see whether we could contribute to resolving biological problems caused by environmental contaminants other than radiation. Our interest came to a head at about the same time the Government began to take a serious interest in the "Rachel Carson" problem, as I like to call it, which is the growing deterioration of our biological environment as a result of the spread of chemical agents of one sort or another. These concerns led to conversations with the National Institutes of Health, particularly with the National Cancer Institute, and a joint ORNL-NCI program aimed at elucidating the synergistic action of radiation and chemicals in inducing cancer was set up. At present this co-carcinogenesis program runs at about $2 million per year. Another important involvement with NIH came about through our development of the zonal centrifuge, an outgrowth of the centri- fuges developed for uranium isotope separation. In this case, Dr. Norman Anderson saw the usefulness of these devices for separating biological moieties of various sorts. This was a matter of obvious interest to NIH as well as to AEC, and a joint program to develop zonal centrifuges for ~biomedical use was undertaken. The program has been a success: this past year ORNL zonal centrifuges have been used to purify flu vaccine for human use, and it is likely that, before too long, many vaccines will be routinely processed by means of ORNL-NIH developed zonal centrifuges. We find ourselves being further drawn into work of interest to, and supported by, NIH: bioengineering, automation of clinical chem- istry, and large-scale separation of transfer RNA's. In most of these cases the unique characteristic of ORNL-a mission-oriented, inter- disciplinary institution in which strong biology and strong engineer- ing coexist-seems to be a strong attractant for NIH. At present ORNL spends $4,500,000 per year for biomedical research sponsored by NIH. Other Invo'Zvem~ents.-ORNL also does work for NASA and various defense agencies. The total of all non-AEC work comes to PAGENO="0035" 31 about ~`$12 milliOn per year, which represents about 13 percent of ORNL's total operating budget. As things are now going, we may find ourselves drawn ever further into matters that grow naturally from what we already do. For exam- ple, civil defense, with its requirement for dual-purpose tunnel.shel- ters, inevitably impinges on the whole question of the basic structure of the city. Thus to do civil defense properly, we become involved in the city itself; and HIJD is interested in involving our civil defense staff in some of its research. * Or from our interest in desalting, we are drawn to the fascinating question first of desalted water for agriculture, and then to the possi- bility of agro-industrial complexes in desert areas as an instrument of international development. Here we become involved, very naturally, and almost inevitably, in dry-land agriculture and irrigation; hence, our involvement with the Department of Agriculture and the Bureau of Reclamation, foreign aid agencies, and possibly those agencies con- cerned with natural resources, since cheap power can be used to extend our resources. Or again, from our interest in radiation ecology, co-carcinogenesis, and analytical chemistry, we find ourselves drawn toward the generai question of pollution, and particularly the matter of eutrophication of fresh waters. In this we are being encouraged by the Joint Commit- tee, and also by the recent amendment to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 that directs AEC laboratories to participate, under proper cir- cumstances, in research aimed at promoting public safety and health. General 0 bservations.-What general lessons do I draw from our experience at Oak Ridge in partial redeployment? Perhaps the most important is that successful redeployment is possible, but only if the redeployment flows naturally from the interest and capability of the laboratory itself. We discussed desalting for more than 2 years before we took the plunge; during that time many of our people acquired familiarity with the issues. I like to use the phrase, "Successful rede- ployment must be done adiabatically"-that is, gradually, so that the redeployment activities are natural extensions of the old ones. The big mission-oriented Government laboratories are to my mind uniquely useful and powerful instrumentalities for helping to solve difficult sociotechnological problems. Perhaps the most important advantage that these mission-oriented, interdisciplinary laboratories afford is their ability to impose a reintegration on the fragmented research that is inherent in the splinter organization of the Federal Government. Mr. DADDARTO. You would then somewhat support the Bell Commit- tee's recommendation of such an institute? Dr. WEINBERG. I thmk I would support that in the long run, but I agree with Dr. Hornig's view that gradually o'iving Government agency laboratories much more of the flavor of ~overnment labora- tories is the proper direction to move at the present time. Whether we should eventually seek some Federal policies that of- ficially deals with redeployment that now seems to happen rather naturally, I can't say at present. At any rate, I agree with Dr. Hornig that the time is not yet ripe to make a general Federal policy on the matter as was envisaged in the Bell report. PAGENO="0036" 32 Mr. DADDARIO. You already have given some examples of how your laboratory gradually developed other activities to the point where now some 13 percent of the funds you expend come from other agencies. Dr. WEINBERG. Right. Mr. DADDARIO. Notwithstanding that, you then said you agreed with Dr. Hornig that we ought not to be rushing into this. This subcom- mittee is particularly concerned about taking advantage of what we have learned, and I would think that we ought to make this gradual development a little more accelerated. I guess our argument here would be a matter of speed. Dr. WEINBERG. Yes. I guess I am not prepared at this stage to say that we should have a GSA for the general laboratories. It is to this extent that I disagree ivith the Bell report. On the other hand, I agree with you fully, Mr. Daddario, that giv- ing the agencies a Government-wide flavor is a good thing, and I think `it can be done in the way that we have been doing it at Oak Ridge. Mr. DADDARIO. At this stage I do not believe I would be in favor of a GSA-type program, either. But that is not to say that I believe that because various agencies of Government or even various committees of the Congress have jurisdiction over certain areas that it ought to be that way and we ought not to recognize these as to what they are and then break them down. It would follow more logically from one type of laboratory to another if these inhibiting barriers can be removed. Dr. WEINBERG. I agree Take civil defense, for example. The Federal Government supports some 200 separate contracts, but where can one go for a "coherent doctrine" with respect to civil defense? The interdisciplinary "projec- tism" that characterizes research in the national laboratories can im- pose a much-desired coherence on the research of the Federal Govern- ment. The crossing of agency lines implies a reintegration at the work- ing level that can counteract the inevitable fragmentation caused by the structure of our Government. Problems transcend agencies. Only when problems are dealt with as a whole, as is possible in the big laboratories, do they get solved as a whole. Desalting requires the technology of evaporators and the technology of energy sources; in a laboratory these two can be reintegrated, even though in the Govern- ment they are fragmented, the one being the concern of the OSW, the other of the AEC. I am convinced that the key to the responsible redeployment of the big laboratories is the role and attitude of the top management. I be- lieve that the redeployment will be successful and in the national interest if the laboratory director himself views very broadly his responsibilities in a way that transcends the confines of his own sup- porting agency, and if he is aware of and sensitive to the national in- terest. It is on this account that I have strongly recommended that directors of big interdisciplinary Government or captive laboratories be brought into the highest levels of Government science policy. I would recommend that PSAC, for instance, always have at least one laboratory director on it. I must say that I have always valued my own term on PSAC not so much for what I contributed, but rather for the breadth of understanding that my tenure gave me, a breadth that has proved invaluable in the current redeployment of ORNL. PAGENO="0037" 33 How can the crossing of agency lines be made smoother? Our ex- perience at ORNL suggests that though the initial stages are some- times rough, smooth relations can be worked out. As to the question of when a laboratory ought to become involved in something outside its own agency, I think this is judged best from within the laboratory, particularly by the laboratory director, in cooperation with the labora- tory's main supporting agency. The redeployment can run into difficulty if there is no fiscal "fly- wheel" to smooth out fluctuations in funding. Our Laboratory is an arm of the AEC; we, therefore, have enough flexibility in shifting funds between AEC programs to shield our scientists from drastic fiscal fluctuations. Without such flexibility on how to use social scientists. effectively, I think that we begin to see a pattern of mutual interaction at our institution that might eventually serve as a pattern for how National Socio-Technical Institutes of the future should operate. Thank you, Mr. Daddario. Mr. DADDARIO. Thank you, Dr. Weinberg. When you talk about this fiscal flywheel as means of exploring new ideas, do you mean to put it all together? Wouldn't you run into a problem there of giving the other agencies who have assigned work to you an understanding that they need not be as efficient as they ought to be in paying and as a result you would not have sufficient funds? Dr. WEINBERG. We would hope that the other agencies, if they are satisfied with what the Laboratory is doing, would deal with us in much the same way as our parent agency does. The fiscal flywheel I have in mind here is partly to eliminate thia redtape problem which has beset us and partly to take account of the. fact that the fiscal year for some agencies seems to go a little differently than the fiscal year for other agencies; and perhaps most important is the matter of having the option of using this money to get com-~ pletely new things started. Mr. DADDARIO. That really is the point to which I am referring. Dr. WEINBERG. Yes. Mr. DADDARIO. If you could separate out this redtape situation from the good-idea area, how much or what percentage are you thinking about? Dr. WEINBERG. This depends really on the size of the laboratory. A laboratory as large as the Oak Ridge National Laboratory would be in very good shape in this respect if the laboratory director had an overhead account of, say, 4~ percent. Now, the money presumably would be used when a real hot idea comes up. The director would not, of course, use very much of his "kitty" without informing his sponsoring agency, but I would think that there would be enough give and take in the situation so that the sponsoring agency, if it has confidence in the director, would give him some leeway in using these funds. As Dr. Hornig said, some of the best ideas are the bootlegged ideas. The way Harvey Brooks puts it is very good. It should always be possible to bootleg work in one of these laboratories, but it shouldn't be too easy to bootleg; and having a 4-percent overhead which is part of the laboratory's property strikes me as being about the right sort of thing. Mr. DADDARIO. How much would that all amount to, what you are bootlegging and the 4 percent you will get? PAGENO="0038" 34 Dr. WEINBERG. We have a director's account in our Laboratory which is rather a private matter. Mr. DADDARIO. Just tell me privately. Dr. WEINBERG. About one and a half percent, but it really isn't all that much that is within the control of the laboratory director. The AEC feels this is a very real problem and would like to do something ubout giving the Director additional leeway. The Commission feels that it is constrained because of the way the money is appropriated. Congress puts labels on its money and is very uncomfortable if money that is appropriated for something is used elsewhere. I can understand the concern from the point of view of the Joint Committee, but I really think the laboratories should say, well, there is a certam cost of doing business at our laboratory and that cost is the director's kitty. Mr. DADDARIO. What would it do to the quality of your laboratory if you were able to have such a fund? Dr. WEINBERG. After the very kind things that Dr. Hornig said about me and Oak Ridge National Laboratory, I couldn't say anything but that it would remains as good as it is. Mr. DADDARIO. Anything can be improved. Dr. WEINBERG. But I would say that I think this more than any other single thing would give to the Laboratory a kind of flexibility and flare that really would make a very great difference. Mr. DADDARIO. I recognize that there are problems here and that there must be some judgment as to how it ought to be done and with whom. It does appear, however, that for a relatively small percentage of the total funds expended that the quality of effort could be raised con- siderably. Dr. WEINBERG. I agree completely, and if the Subcommittee on Science, Research, and Development can somehow put this across, I would say that it would be doing the Federal research picture a very great service. Mr. DADDARIO. Dr. Weinberg, you talked about this irresponsible and mischievous redeployment with which I would agree and- Dr. WEINBERG. I speak of massive redeployment there. Mr. DADDARIO. Yes. I would not feel that there is support for the idea that the AEC laboratories are working themselves out of a job. You talk about the tremendous hope that you have for the new breeder reactors and the effect it would have on our resources gen- erally. Then you look to the future and visualize the place of your labora- tory. I would agree that this would be a proper and logical develop- ment, yet it will not come about unless we pay some attention to it now. What guidance can you give us as to whether you expect this to occur and in what way you conceive it coming about? Dr. WEINBERG. Let me say that at the Oak Ridge National Labora- tory we already have started co-opting social scientists. We have about five social scientists who work full time. These are mainly connected with the work on civil defense, but this summer we had chemists, agron- omists, and sociologists, working with us on developing this new agro-industrial complex for desert areas. You ask how I visualize our acquiring a "social" floor; I think it will follow rather naturally from our involvement in problems that obviously have stronger social corn- ponents. PAGENO="0039" 35 If civil defense ever becomes a serious question in the United States, or if our involvement in civil defense really does develop into concern with urban development, then it is inevitable that we shall have to bring in additional social scientists. In general, the proper word is "gradualism." We seek salients where we can make important contributions. We move in those salients when they coincide with obvious national necessities; where these salients do have social com- ponents, we draw in the social scientists as we need them. I don't visualize the Laboratory simply saying, "We will, whole hog, establish a department of social science," without having some rather definite job for the social scientists. Mr. DADDARIO. But as this gradual redeployment activity takes place, you find other areas of activity coming before you. Unless competent people can be assigned to these projects, they will flounder and cannot be taken advantage of. Do you see this as a need for you to have such a flexibility? Dr. WEINBERG. I think it is. I guess we have moved in this direc- tion perhaps more strongly than most of the AEC laboratories; about 13 percent of the Laboratory is redeployed in areas some of which have strong social implications. The question of how much further and how much faster we should move is something that is under active discussion at our Laboratory, and I guess I am not prepared to say how much further and how much faster we should move. Mr~ DADDARIO. You could not have arrived at the point where you are now in this redeployment unless you had been able to make ar- rangements to transfer personnel or if you had personnel ceilings. Dr. WEINBERG. We operate our Laboratory by contract, so we don't have a personnel ceiling; this actually is one of the advantages, in this redeployment business, of dealing with contractor laboratories because they have dollar ceilings rather than personnel ceilings, as the civil service laboratories do. However, we generally have obtained personnel for new projects by taking them away from things that in our judgment and the judg- ment of the Atomic Energy Commission were less important, and putting them to work on those things which we thought to be most fruitful and with which the Commission seemed to agree. The 90 people on desalting were taken from predominantly AEC jobs, but the AEC contributes about half of desalting support. Of the 20 who are working on civil defense, about half had been working on other jobs. The chap who is in charge of Civil Defense at ORNL, Dr. J. C. Bresee is a very able chemical engineer who became interested in civil defense. Mr. DADDARIO. Isn't this one of the important objectives we ought to have, people who have been working in one field who have a flare or have developed a capability of applying knowledge? Dr. WEINBERG. Very much so. I must say I don't know if this is entirely relevant to the question here, but this assumption that out of social science as we now know it will come the solutions or resolution of problems-this is on the whole a vast and unprovable assumption. It may be what we need is a completely new breed of social engineers or possibly hard engineers who learn something about social science. I think that what the social scientists supply to the solution of problems which have a technolog- PAGENO="0040" 36 ical component is not so much their expertise and method as it is their perspective. They know what the problem is. They have read widely on the historical and social factors involved. Designing a social system isn't like designing a desalting plant, but a desaltmg plant can be an economic base around which a changed approach to an unsatis- factory social system can be organized. It is much more tricky and difficult to help correct a social ill. But to me it seems reasonable to have emerge what might be called sociotechnical institutes which would result from the redeployment of the present mission-oriented laboratories. Well, we don't have a book that says this actually can be done, but we should try as best we can. Mr. DADDARIO. What you are doing is developing an environment in which the engineers can work together and get to understand each other. They will be talking to each other about the same problems and have their ideas rub off on one another, and this is certainly a lot better than it has been. Dr. WEINBERG. I agree, and therefore I consider this idea of National Sociotechnical Institutes as sort of the paradigm for the Federal Research Institute of the coming generation. I take this thought quite seriously. Support for it comes from both sides. On the one hand you see the hardware people like we are reach- ing out toward social science people. On the other hand, you also see the think tanks, which are predomi- nantly social, reaching toward hardware solutions. We have had a variety of conversations with think tankers about the possibility of having them supply some of the social science expertise that we might need. Mr. DADDARIO. We ought to get them out of the tank. Dr. WEINBERG. Yes. Mr. DADDARIO. That is a boxing expression; not a very nice one. But at any rate, Dr. Weinberg, we have reached the point where this first day's session must close. I certainly appreciate your coming here and I do think you have given us some advice that will be helpful in the formulation of cer- tain of our objectives and guidelines, and the criteria through which these objectives can be obtained. The committee appreciates your presence. (The following is a brief history of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory:) A BRIEF HISTORY OF TIlE OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY In the war years of 1940, 1941, and 1942 there emerged in the United States several physical research groups whose aim was centered on the exploration of techniques for releasing power from the atomic nucleus. The groups soon com- bined into three main centers-one at the University of California in Berkeley, one at Columbia University in New York, and one deliberately misnamed the "Metallurgical Laboratory" at the University of Chicago. These efforts were coordinated under the sponsorship of the Office of Scientific Research and De- velopment in Washington, but in a year they grew so big that they needed a new administration, and thus was born the now famous "Manhattan District" of the United States Army. Almost simultaneously, the three projects, plus a fourth, demanded large-scale engineering realization of their laboratory efforts. The Army engineers in the Manhattan District decided upon "site X" in eastern Tennessee, 25 miles west of Knoxville, protectively located, rather sparsely settled, in an attractive countryside, well watered, and supplied with abundant electric power from the Tennessee Valley Authority. A 58,8S0~acre tract of land was PAGENO="0041" 37 marked off, the bulldozers moved in, and a city which reached a maximum of 75,000 inhabitants sprang up in a matter of months. The community was named Oak Ridge, for it lay along a crest known as Black Oak Ridge, and the whole establishment was called "Clinton Engineer Works," after the nearby town of Clinton. The scientists from Columbia joined forces with the Union Carbide Corpora- tion and set up an enormous plant for separating isotopes of uranium by means of their new gaseous diffusion process. The men from California joined with the Tennessee Eastman Company and erected a fantastic set of magnetic separators as an independent attack on the same job. The fourth plant was designed and constructed for the separation job also, but its process, based on thermal thifu- sion, was deemed less promising and the project was discontinued. The physicists and chemists from Chicago had a different kind of problem on their hands. They joined forces with the Du Pont Company, and it is their story that we wish to follow in particular. Late in 1942 the Metallurgical Laboratory had succeeded in the controlled re- lease of nuclear energy. Conditions had been found under which neutrons could propagate a chain reaction in uranium, burning the rare isotope U-235. This, however, was only the first step `toward the wartime need. The chain reaction supplies extra neutrons which on being absorbed by the other uranium isotope, 11-238, produces a new element, plutonium. Plutonium in kilogram quantities was the objective of the moment. However, it was unsafe to operate a high-powered nuclear chain reactor in the midst of Chicago, with little shielding and under the knowledge that the reaction bad in it the power to go out of control and cause a disaster. Therefore the Metallurgical Laboratory established at its branch, "Clinton Laboratories" in Oak Ridge, a much larger chain reactor, air-cooled and originally designed to dissipate 500 kilowatts of heat from nuclear fission, but it was quickly raised to several `times that level. This "X-10" reactor was the first nuclear reactor to be run at power; it gave mankind its first experience in the behavior of reactors when they are operated under other than cold conditions. And most importantly, it provided the plutonium needed to operate the pilot plant and show that the separations process to be used for full scale production at Hanford was workable. Although the original purpose of Clinton Laboratories, later named the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, was met by mid-1945, these early years left an imprint which remains even today. There is an acceptance of the responsibility for pursuing goals in the national interest, and teams composed of many disci- plines are willing to work together in achieving important objectives. There still exists the chemical and chemical engineering flavor of the Laboratory's first assignment, and it shows up in ORNL-developed processes used for fissionable material production throughout the Commission and for the recovery of uranium and thorium from ores. Even the ORNL power reactors, based upon the fluid fuel concept, follow this chemical tradition. After the war there was a period of readjustment. Many of the scientists left for university posts, but a sufficient number remained to form the nucleus of what is now the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. The `University of Chicago re- linquished the responsibility of operation, to be followed by the Monsanto Chemical Company, and then by the Union Carbide Corporation, whose contract with the Atomic Energy Commission has been in force at the Laboratory since 1948. Thus `the business and personnel policies of the Laboratory are those of the Union Carbide Corporation, but the research policies are determined by the Laboratory management in direct collaboration with the Atomic Energy Com- mission or other government agencies such as may be involved. The Oak Ridge National Laboratory today provides a striking contrast to the original laboratory which cost $13 million and had a wartime peak staff of 1515 people. The now diverse program which encompasses almost every area of interest to the AEC-and other federal agencies as well-is carried out by a staff of more than 5400 people in facilities valued at $3~35 million. The annual operating cost of ORNL is about $100 million. About 87% of this represents programs of the AEC itself; the balance, work for other government agencies. Of the AEC por- tion, approximately 44% is devoted to reactor development and technology; 39% to physical research; 15% to the life sciences; 2% to radioisotopes develop- ment; and smaller amounts to nuclear education and training. At ORNL, two approaches to organization are traditional. First, we have divisions which may be grouped somewhat homogeneously by discipline. Five divisions are primarily chemically oriented; six are ipainly concerned with physics; and five are concerned one each with biology, health physics, math& PAGENO="0042" 38 matics, metallurgy and ceramics, and engineering. A second kind of organiza~ tion, projects, crosses divisional lines; these projects are organized to attack large problems that require a massive effort on the part of a multidisciplinary team. The project-division structure of ORNL fits well with the role of basic research at the Laboratory, with about 25% of the research classified as "basic." However, because this basic research is performed in the environment of a lab- oratory dedicated to large national purposes, it usually acquires a general rel- evance that often is missing in basic research conducted in institutions whose sole purpose is basic research. The Oak Ridge National Laboratory's contractor, Union Carbide Corporation, operates three other installations for the Atomic Energy Commission, two of which are in Oak Ridge, and the third in Paducah, Kentucky. ORNL derives many advantages from the single contractor operation. By the use of common functions such as purchasing, accounting, and legal staff, many economies are realized. Both personnel and work may be moved with relative ease between in- stallations. Many ORNL successes, such as the liquid centrifuge and the High Flux Isotopes Reactor, are due in considerable measure to support received from the other installations in Oak Ridge. MAJOR PROJECTS AT ORNL Thermal breeding We have long believed that our most important objective is attainment of an inexhaustible, cheap source of energy. The ORNL approach to abundant energy by means of the thermal breeder may be traced back to 1944 when studies of an aqueous homogeneous reactor were carried out. Two small experimental homogeneous reactors were operated during the period 1952-1960. The more significant step, however, was taken in 1949 when the Laboratory became involved in development of the nuclear powered aircraft. In the course of this investiga- tion, a vast amount of knowledge of molten fluoride fuel systems was accumu- lated, and the work culminated with the operation of the Aircraft Reactor Experiment in 1954. Since that time, study of molten fluoride systems as fuels and molten salt breeder reactors has continued, and the great promise of the concept has now been proved in the Molten Salt Reactor Experiment. Although the Laboratory's major power reactor effort is devoted to the molten salt concept, a program aimed at thorium utilization in general is also carried out. Transuranium element development The Laboratory has been interested in the trahsuranium elements since its inception, with development of processes for purifying plutonium providing a vein of continuity. The program reached a milestone in 1965 when the High Flux Isotopes Reactor, the world's highest flux research reactor, became critical. The HFIR ultimately will produce 1 gram of californium-252 per year, as well as other interesting elements of both higher and lower atomic number, for use in the national heavy element research program. Other parts of the transuranium element complex are the Transuranium Processing Facility, where targets con- taining heavy elements to be irradiated in the HFIR are made. Following irradi- ation in the HFIR, the targets are returned to the Transuranium Processing Facility for separation of the transuranium elements. Because study of the heavy elements requires special facilities, a Transuranium Research Laboratory was constructed. Up to one-half of the staff may be composed of visiting scientists from other parts of the United States and the world. Water and food The economics of nuclear power are such that very large reactors are rela- tively less expensive than small ones. This introduces the possibility of vast agro-industrial complexes. Such a complex might employ a 10,000 MWe reactor to produce inexpensive water and electricity. The electricity would be used to make agricultural chemicals and other products, and the excess reactor heat would be used for evaporating sea water. The water and agricultural chemicals from one such complex would then be used by methods of intensive agriculture to provide food for millions of people. We are currently making economic studies of big reactors, and research is being carried out on improved evaporators. A recent summer study was devoted to the agro-industrial complex itself. PAGENO="0043" 39 Nuclear safety and other reactor develoDment Our largest activity in reactor development is the nuclear safety program. From a modest beginning in 1955, when a few observations were made on fis' sion product release from overheated reactor fuel, the scope of the program has increased to encompass almost all of the safety problems which confront the nuclear power industry, including seismic effects on reactors, structural prob- lems of pressure vessels, reactor safety standards, and an information center serving the industry. In addition, the Laboratory conducts a variety of smaUer studies in support of most phases of the U.S. reactor development program. Isotopes development center It is natural that we should always have been interested in fission products, for they presented so many problems in the early work on plutonium purifica- tion-problems that were oniy resolved by gaining an understanding of the fission products themselves. In addition, the Laboratory found itself with an available riactor and a collection of the best electromagnetic separators in the world. As a result of these circumstances, modest production of radioisotopes and sepa- rated stable isotopes was undertaken, and, on August 2, 1946, the first commercial shipment of radiolsotopes-to the Barnard Free Skin and Cancer Hospital-was made. For many years the Laboratory remained the world's largest producer of radio- and stable isotopes; the impact on science, technology, and medicine of the Laboratory's efforts in isotope production has been enormous. At one time, proc- esses for producing commercial quantities of about 100 radioisotopes and more than 250 stable isotopes of 52 elements were operating. By the end of 1962, more than i~/2 million curies of radioisotopes and 5 kilograms of enriched stable isotopes had been shipped. For many years now, ORNL has been steadily with- drawing from radioisotope production to make way for private industry. In spite of this, each year the number of curies shipped from the Laboratory has increased, reflecting a transition from making many small shipments to making a few very large ones. Today we are concerned mainly with those difficult problems of isotope technology such as big power sources with which private industry is not prepared to cope. The Isotope Development Center, in addition to producing isotopic power sources, seeks new ways of using radioisotopes and radiation and. provides an information service for radioisotope users. Controlled thermonuclear program Research on ways of obtaining power from the fusion process has been under way since 1953. The ORNL approach is based on continuous high energy injection into a containing magnetic field. Two large devices, POX-i and DCX-2, have been built to study the processes involved. More recently, increased emphasis has been placed upon the theoretical aspects of plasma instabilities and finding ways of dealing with them. Life sciences Biology.-Some of the earliest investigations carried out at ORNL had to do with the effect of radiation on animals and man and finding ways of ameliorating these effects. Over a period of many years, an extensive mouse colony was estab- lished to permit study of these effects, and experimental techniques were devel- oped. By 1.946 the program was sufficiently extensive to warrant establishing a Biology Division at the Laboratory. In the last few years, biological science at ORNL, as elsewhere, has undergone growth at a rate akin to that of physics during the early decades of the century. The Biology Division is now the largest division of the Laboratory. Many of the programs being carried out for other federal agencies are based in large measure upon experience acquired in the study of radiation effects: problems of aging, the effects of germ-free environment on animal welfare, and chemical mutagenesis. Equipment is being developed, and techniques for applying ultracentrifugation to the separation of viruses and to the preparation of vaccines are being pursued. The entire biology program at ORNL is underlain by a very large program of basic research in many areas of modern biology. Ecology.-During the war years radioactive waste from the Laboratory was discharged to the environment, and it is natural that adjoining areas should be exploited as a unique laboratory for studying the effect of radiation on the en- vironment. The program has expanded greatly and now constitutes a comprehen- sive effort aimed at understanding most aspects of radiation ecology. PAGENO="0044" 40 Physical sciences Physics.-Physics research at ORNL lies predominately in the low- and medi- um-energy ranges. k large fraction of the program concerns reactions of neutrons, especially those pertaining to reactor development or the utilization of neutrons as tools for research. Important problems under investigation are elucidating the physics of fission, nuclear structure determinations, measurements of cross sections of importance to both thermal and fast reactors (and the origin of the universe), and studies of shielding both reactor and space radiation. In much of this work the Laboratory's superb reactors and medium-energy accelerators are used. Chemistry.-Studies of chemical properties and of reactions in aqueous and nonaqueous media are carried out, to a large measure, in support of the AEC's reactor programs. The first weighable quantities of technetium were separated at ORNI, and the element promethium was discovered at the Laboratory. More recently, emphasis has been placed on the chemistry of the transpultonium ele- ments; and, in early 1968, two new isotopes of neptunium were discovered at ORNL. Metallurgy and solid state Physics.-The iniportance of materials problems in reactor technology were fully appreciated in 1946 when the Metallurgy Division was established. Early work on fuel element development resulted in an alu- minum plate-type fuel technology upon which much of the current generation of research reactors is based. More recently, attention has been focused on the materials problems of new reactor types and on high-temperature materials suit- able for high-performance reactors and space applications. Research in solid state physics deals not only wi.th the effect of radiation on simple systems such as single crystals but also on actual material of contruction, with the hope of undertanding the processes involved and ultimately controlling them. Education Since its inception, the Laboratory has been active in education and training, beginning with training the staff for such AEC installations as Hanford, Savan- nah River, and the National Reactor Test Site. Between 1950 and 1965 more than 1000 individuals, many from industry, were provided formal training in the Oak Ridge School of Reactor Technology. Almost from the beginning, ORNL staff members have taught at the neighboring University of Tennessee, but a major step forward was taken in 1963 with the awarding of a Ford Foundation grant to UT. This makes it possible for 30 senior ORNL staff members to spend one day per week teaching at the University as regular members of the faculty. In late 1965 a major new undertaking, the Oak Ridge-University of Tennessee Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, was initiated. The school is jointly administered by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory and UT; the first class of students entered in the fall of 1967. For many years the Massachusetts Institute of Technology maintained a prac- tice school in Oak Ridge. This school was re-established in September, 1966; and, in late 1967, the University of Tennessee established a similar practice school. Other educational activities at the Laboratory include the Research Participa- tion Program, under which college faculty members work at *the Laboratory, a Traveling Lecture Program, and a program which permits promising technical :students to work at the Laboratory during the summer months. Currently, more than 140 people are engaged in graduate thesis activities at ORNL. March 25, 1968. QUESTION'S SUBMITTED TO DR. ALVIN M. WMNBERG BY THE SUB- COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, RESEARCH, AND DEVELOPMENT 1. In your prepared statement you say that the key to responsible redeployment is the role and attitude of top management, and that a laboratory director must view very `broadly his responsibilities in a way that transcends the confines of his supporting agency. (a) Are there any policy statements that you are aware of at the OISIT or Bureau of the Budget level that would specifically foster or hinder this policy? (b) Do you believe that you could have redeployed your laboratory as you described without the specific authorization of the AEC and the Joint Committee? (c) The other side of the redeployment question is duplication of activities. How do you encourage the former without encouraging the latter? What guide- lines would you recommend? 1. (a) I know of no statements sponsored either by OST or BOB that partic- PAGENO="0045" 41 ularly relate to this question. I believe the attitude of top management toward redeployment `would be improved if laboratory directors had more opportunity to participate in the w'ork of OST and PSAC. Although I know of no policy to hinder this, I believe there `is no special policy `to foster such participation. (b) In every ca'se of redeployment, our laboratory received `the full sanction and concurrence of ABC. All money spen't at ORNL goes through ABC-either by direct appropriation or through interagency transfer. (c) Duplication is not really much of a problem since ultimately what any governmen't or contractor laboratory spends is paid for `by a government agency, and the government agency presumably has cognizance of `what is going on in fields it pays for. 2. While the present Laboratories Committee of the Federal Council for science and Technology is concerned with Government laboratories as such, with the ea~ception of Dr. Astin its members are not working laboratory directors. What advantages and disadvantages do you see for establishing a small council of Federal laboratory directors that would represent the views of both directly and contractor operated Federal laboratories at the Ewecutive Office level? 2. I don't think much of a council composed exclusively of Federal laboratory directors. They would spend most of their time talking a'bout unessential adinin- istrative questions. Rather, Federal laboratory directors should be brought into the existing scientific policy~rnaking framework of the government as panel members, advisors, and members of the regular committees such as the Defense `Science Board, General Advisory Committee to ABC, PSA'C, etc. 3. A sharp line frequently is drawn between those Government laboratories that are directly operated and those that are contractor operated. In terms of your eceperience, what are the principal characteristics of each mode of opera- tion and the differences between them that are significant to utilization of Gov- ernment laboratories? 3. The main practical difference is that a government laboratory usually oper- ates both on a personnel and budget ceiling, a contrac'tor laboratory only on a budget ceiling. This gives the contractor laboratory a good deal more flexibility than the government laboratory. On the other hand, `since the contractor labora- tory is not really part of government, its influence on government practice is apt to be less direct. However, this depends profoundly upon the personalities of the laboratory management and their counterparts in government. 4. What authority do you have to deal directly with other agencies that may wish to engage ORNL's research and development services? 4. Strictly speaking, all our contacts must go through AEC; in this sense we have no authority to deal directly with other agencies. However, AE'C has inter- preted our prerogatives in this respect `liberally, and, once contacts through official channels have been set up, day-to-day relations with other agencies are handled about like day-to-day relations with separate branches of AEC. 5, As a general policy, do you believe that discretionary funds should be made available to all laboratories or only those which have demonstrated quality work (a reward for competence)? (a) Do you believe that discretionary funds should be used only in further- ance of an agency's mission or could some of the funds be used as seed money to ecoplore how technology developed by a laboratory could be applied to other national problems, perhaps outside the jurisdiction of the sponsoring agency? 5. I think some discretionary funds should be available to every laboratory. The size of the fund should be negotiable, and naturally would be cut `back if the management used these funds irresponsibly. The laboratory management should be allowed to use the funds for very broad exploration, even if this leads outside the agency'~s narrow mission. Again what is required is a sense of proportion and responsibility on the part of manage- ment, and this comes from participation in policy formulation. 6. The DOD witness proposed the elimination of manpower controls on cross- agency work in order to achieve fleceibility similar to that available to the AEC contract laboratories. What is your opinion of this proposal? 6. As I said in number 3, I agree that there should be a budget ceiling, not a personnel ceiling on a laboratory. This implies that people can be fired; I as- sume that even within Civil Service this is possible when there is a reduction in force. Mr. DADDARIO. This committee will adjourn until tomorrow morning at this same place at 10 o'clock. (Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned to recon- vene at 10 a.m., Wednesday, March 27,1968.) PAGENO="0046" PAGENO="0047" UTILIZATION OF FEDERAL LABORATORIES WEDNESDAY, MARCH 27, 1968 HOUSE OP REPRESENTATIVES, CoMMIrnE ON SCIENCE AND ASTRONAUTICS, SUBCOMMITrEE ON SCIENCE, RESEARCH, AND DEVELOPMENT, Washington, D.C. The subconimittee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10:20 a.m., in room 2325; Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Emilio Q. Daddario (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Mr. DADDARIO. The meeting will come to order. This is the second day of our hearings on the utilization of Federal laboratories, and the subcommittee will hear from two distinguished Federal laboratory directors and from an able and thoughtful adminis- trator of Federalresearch and development. The achievements of the National Bureau of Standards and its lab- oratories are well known and need not be recounted here, but there is one particular attainment whose history is virtually a case study of Federal laboratory utilization. During the urgent days of World War II, the National Bureau of Standards developed the proximity fuse, and subsequently the scientists and engineers of this project spun off to become the present Harry Diamond Fuse Laboratory of the De- partment of Defense. This indicates, I believe, that laboratories can be responsive tourgent national needs, and indicates also that a capability existing in one agency can be successfully redirected to other agency ~ We are pleased, therefore, to have as our first witness Dr. Allan V. Astin, Director of the National Bureau of Standards. Dr. Astin is also the Chairman of the Federal Council's Laboratory Committee. The human resources of our Federal laboratories are a precious asset and, like other assets, their value to society depends upon howwell or how poorly they are used. Following Dr. Astin, we will hear from Dr. William B. McLean, teChnical director of the Navy Undersea Welfare Center. Dr. McLean is responsible for the development of the Sidewinder air-to-air mis- sile system, and has received the President's Award for Distinguished Federal Civilian Service. Our final witness this morning will be Mr. Harold B. Finger, Asso- ciate Administrator for Organization and Management, NASA. Mr. Finger has had extensive experience as a research and development ad- ministratör and has been a frequent witness before our committee. As the space program has matured during the last 10 years, it has produced a wealth of new knowledge, technology, and methods of management which have found application far removed from their original space-oriented purpose, and we are particularly interested in (43) PAGENO="0048" 44 NASA's experience in accelerating the transfer of space science and technology to other national goals or problems. Dr. Astin, we would appreciate it if we could insert your first state- ment in the record, perhaps with a few general comments, and have you go right into your statement concerning the Laboratory Com- mittee. Dr. A5TIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be most happy to do that. (Dr. Astin's biography follows:) DR ALLAN V ASTIN Dr. Astin was born in Salt Lake City, Utah, in 1904. He received his bachelor's degree in, physics from the University of Utah in 1925 and his PhD from New York University in 1928. From 1928 to 1930 he was a National Research Council Fellow at Johns Hopkins University. Dr., Astin joined the staff of the National' Bureau of Standards in .i932~ His principal fields of work included precision electrical measurements, the develop- ment of early radio telemetering techniques, and during World War II the de- velopment of proximity fuzes. He was named Chief of the Bureau's Ordnance DevelOpment Division in 1948. The President appointed him as' the fifth Director of the National Bure'tu of Standards May 31 1952 Honors and awards include the, following: Gold, Medal Exceptional Service Award, Deparfnient of `Commerce; honorary, Doctor of Science Degrees from Lehigh University, George Washington `University, New York University; the National Civil Service League Award; the Rockefeller' Public' `Service Award; the Scott Gold Medal `of the American Ordnance Ass'ociation; the Award to Executives of the American Society for, Testing and Materials; and the Distin- guished Alumni Award of the University of Utah. Dr. Astin is a Fellow of the American Physical Society, the Institute of E1ectrical and Electronic Engineers; an honorary life member of the Instrument Society of' `America, the' Standards Engin~ers Society Inc `~nd the American Dental A~sociation He is a member of the American Philosophical Society American 4~cademy of Arts and Sciences and the National Academy' of Sëiences. He serves as the U.S. member on the International Committee of Weights and Measures and as Chairman of the Committee on Federal' Laboratories o'f the Federal `Council for Science and Technology. , ` ` , STATEMENT OP DR ALLAN V ASTIN, DIRECTOR OP THE NATIONAL BUREAU OP STANDARDS Dr ASTIN I would also like to offer to the committee two descriptive documents ,concerning the Bureau which I think some of you. have seen: We would be happy to furnish additional copies if you wish. First, the recently published history of the national Bureau of Standards called "Measures for Progress," and the other is our 1967 annual report. The history contains a foreword by Dr. Vannevar Bush, in which he says, "If men are to accomplish together anything useful whatever, they must above all be able to understood one another. That is the basic reason for a National Bureau of Standards." Our basic concern is, as Dr. Bush indicated, to provide the frame- work for communication, understanding, and exchange in the Nation's sc1entific and engineering community. We have a second function, however, of providing a center for scien- tific and technical services to the Government and to the private sector. The first responsibility consists really of two aspects. We must pro- vide the national framework for uniform, consistent, accurate, com- patible, physical measurement in this country. That includes provid- PAGENO="0049" 45 ing services so that everybody can be assured of means of coupling to the measurement system, and coordinating our measuring system with that of other nations. The second part of this particular function is to provide data on the properties of materials which are of great importance to science and not available elsewhere. These two activities involve us very much in the science of measure- ment with close coupling with everybody in the country who uses physical measurement. In this connection, we acquire various skills which have led to the Bureau being looked upon as. a scientific service center to the rest of Government. This is the function which is chang- ing, and which I would like to talk about briefly to summarize some of the things that are in my statement. In the early days of the Bureau we were very much involved in in- dustrial research and development. We were involved in such things as development activities on automOtive and aircraft engines, and in the development of optical glass. As the Nation's technical competence rose we rapidly got out of these activities and concentrated on the measurement problems to insure compatibility of the many activities in the various technical fields. At the same time the Bureau began early in its history to serve the Federal Government as a service center. I think one of the first tasks was the testing of material used in the old House Office Building. We have also been used by other Government agencies as a central resource for research. The Navy Department used the National Bureau of Standards as its research center for 10 years before the Naval Research Laboratory was established. The old National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics used the National Bureau of Standards for its laboratory resource for several years before it established laboratories of its own. You referred to our part in the formation of the Harry Diamond Laboratories. The Navy Ordnance Laboratory at Corona, Calif., was spun off from the National Bureau of Standards at the same time. More recently, our former Central Radio Propagation Laboratory became a key research component of the newly formed Environmental Science Services Administration. These represent instances where other organizations use the Bureau for a particular job The work develops to a certain stage, or they acquire facilities of their own, and then the activity is taken out of the Bureau. We have similar things now in process. We are working with the General Services Administration and helping them set up in our fa- cilities a laboratory to develop product acceptance test procedures and do qualified product testing for GSA. At the same time we have a laboratory dealing with several aspects of motor vehicle safety research for the Department of Transporta- tion. We expect that these two activities, as they mature, will probably ultimately be transferred to the sponsor agency. We are also working with the Department of Housing and Urban Development toward use of our building research activities as a resource to help them in the solution of some of their problems. So, you see, in this way we provide a central service to Government, and it is a changing service. 93-201-68----4 PAGENO="0050" 46 We sometimes play a similar role in relation to the industrial sector. Our staff will frequently get involved in and interested in some aspect of development which they find they cannot carry as far as they would like to and still remain part of the National Bureau of Standards. This is because we do not encourage or authorize the development of commercial or proprietary products. However, we can't and would not want to stop people from getting ideas. Frequently when this happens, the individuals leave the National Bureau of standards, either to go with a commercial company, or very often to set up their own companies. Examples of this have been Harris Laboratories, Rabinow Engineering, The Weinschel Engi- neering Laboratories. In addition, we have helped organizations like the American Gas Association and the National Institute of Dry Cleaning in setting up laboratory activities of their own. Mr. DADDARIO. Dr. Astin, you bring up the way in which the Bureau has been helpful in developing the first steps which have led to the creation of other agencies in Government and new industry. It would seem to me that the ones that have been established in industry developed in response to needs within our society. What is your thinking about the way in which the Government agencies have developed laboratories after the groundwork has been broken. Is it your view that this is a healthy situation and that it should always work this way? Does your experience give you any indication as to how this pattern might, in fact, be improved? We are concerned about how we can, in fact, develop better laboratories, and I have some question really as to whether they should always be under and completely subservient to the agency which has a particular mission. Dr. ASTIN. I am not sure that I could define any general rules for this. It is my view that any agency, particularly some of the new ones who think they need a laboratory, should explore the opportunities to have their work done in existing facilities before the decision is made to establish a new laboratory. It is specifically for this reason that I mentioned the experiences with the Department of Transportation in the vehicle safety area and with GSA in the product testing area. I think, ultimately, these will become laboratories within the parent agencies, but what they did was to look first for some existing activity on which they could build before they start something on their own. Mr. DADDARIO. Would your work as Chairman of the Federal Coun- cil's Laboratory Committee include some judgment on whether or not such laboratories are to, in fact, be established? We know that some laboratories are established only because the parent agency has the authority to do it under its organic legislation. We had some problems in this area, as you will recall, with the biomedical developments within the space program. We had some concern about whether this work should have been done in existing laboratories. We have kept after it over the course of time, and yet it did grow in a very strange way. Dr. ASTIN. The interdepartmental committee has not looked at the problem of criteria for establishing laboratories. We have been very much concerned, however, with the elements which make for the effec- PAGENO="0051" 47 tive operation of laboratories and it is one of our conclusions that one of the most important things for any laboratory is a broad, dynamic, and challenging mission. This would mean, I think, that one would not set up a laboratory unless there is a broad, challenging, continuing responsibility. I would think that one would avoid setting up a labora- tory for an ad hoc task because then you . get stuck when the )Ob is done with a resource that you really don't know what to do with. I would like to make one more comment about the activities of the National Bureau of Standards before going on to the Federal Council activities. This concerns our coupling with the educational community as well as the industrial community. We like to look upon the resources of the National Bureau of Standards as national resources which are available to anyone with a legitimate need for sharing or using them. At our new laboratories at Gaithersburg, for example, we have a num- ber of very unique facilities. We have sorne~very fine ionizing radia- tion producing facilities. We have probably the best spectroscopy facilities in the world. These are facilities which we share. We have mechanisms in operation for sharing with the scientific and techno- logical community throughout the area, including most of the uni- versities in this area and other Federal agencies like the Naval Re- search Laboratory and the National Institutes of Health. So we look on these as facilities that have unique and significant aspects, but they are national facilities, national resources, and are there to be shared. Similarly, we make all of our facilities available to the industrial community for their people to come in and work with our people on problems of interest to them and of national significance. At the present time we have approximately 65 people who are on the staffs of different industrial organizations working in our labora- tories on problems of mutual interest. This sharing thing, I think, is most important, and it is one of the things I wanted to emphasize before closing my comments on the Bureau. * Mr. DADDARIO. Dr. Astin, you touched on your work, with the De- partment of Housing and Urban Development. I wonder if you could go into that in a little detail because that is a subject of interest to us. Dr. ASTIN. Yes. We are interested in. working with HUD in devel- oping better techniques for evaluating building structures and their components. We feel that much of the present technology for evalua- tion of building systems is archaic and does not really take adequate account of the performance aspect. In general, most building codes to which buildings must conform are based on detailed specifications as to the materials that go into a structure and the form and arrange- ment of materials. They have no relationship, or very remote relation- ship, I should say, to the functions the building is to perform. Consider, for example, the wall of a building. A wall. provides struc- tural support. It also provides shielding from heat and light and sound. Ideally, one should specify the properties of a wall in terms of its ability to~ attenuate sounds, to withhold the transmission of heat or cold and in terms of the forces it is required to withstand. Most building codes specify materials. If it is going to be a brick wall they specify the sizes of the bricks, the composition of the mor- tar and things of this sort, or if it is a wood wall they specify size and spacing of the structural members. PAGENO="0052" 48 This completely freezes innovation. if we are going to bring to bear the b~st of nmdern technology in coping with the Nation's housing problems, particularly the problems of lOw-cost housing, we have to have building codes and building regulations which permit to the maximumpossible extent the development of new ideas. This can only be done if we know how to specify the performance requirements of a building and have related test methods to determine whether or not a proposed structure will conform to these requirements.: It is this problem that we are working with. We are outlining now some spe- cific activities, some short term, some long term, where we can begin to get performance-type building codes rather than design-type build- ing codes. This is a specific problem area~ Mr. DADDARIO. The objective would also be to do this at a lesser price than presently? Dr. ASTIN. Definitely, yes. Through innovative use of modern tech- nology I am sure that much more can be done in getting better hous- ing for less money. Mr. DADDARIO. Do you have any estimate, Dr. Astin, of how much lower? I think this is important because the way you are going to get building codes down is by public opinion being drawn to this particular fact. V Dr. ASTIN. Well, I have no good way of making an estimate as to howV nmch the possible lowering of cost would be. I am sure Vthat there could be some significant reductions if we could get away from many of the restrictions V of present designed base building codes. Mr. DADDARIO. Do you contemplate it to be in the order of 10 per- cent, 20 percent, or do you have no judgment at Vail on it? Dr. ASTIN. I would rather not make an estimate on it at this time, sir. I think it would be large enough to devote considerable amount of effort to try and bring this about. In Other words, I think the gain is well worth whatever it costs tO develop performance based building codes. V Mr. DADDARIO. You are talking about better houses at a lower price tag? V V V V Dr. ASTIN. That is right, yes, sir. I would now like to speak to you jflV my capacity as Chairman of the Federal Council for Science and Technology's Committee on Federal Laboratories. V V V The Committee on Federal Laboratories is the current designation for a continuing Federal Council VCommitteeV which, under a series of different names, has concentrated from the time of its formation in 1959 on achieving the most effective V operation of Federal laboratories from a management point of view, as contrasted to other Federal Council committees which deal primarily with programs and policies. Perhaps the best way to explain the functions, operation and concerns of the Committee on Federal Laboratories is to trace its development and activities starting with a predecessor group to the Federal Council, the Interdepartmental Committtee on Scientific Research and Development. V V PAGENO="0053" 49 1THE INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE ON SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT The Interdepartmental Committee on Scientific Research and De- velopment (ICSRD) was established by Executive Order 9912 in 194~7. One of the duties of the Interdepartmental Committee as enumerated in the Executive order was to: Study or propose studies and recommend changes in administrative policies and procedures, including personnel policies, designed to increase the efficiency *of the Federal research and development program. While ICSRD was also concerned with Federal policies and practices concerning research grants and contracts, encouraging col- laboration among Federal agencies engaged in scientific research and development, obtaining advice from persons outside the Federal Gov- ernment, and similar matters, its most productive activities generally proved to be in the area of administration of scientific programs. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FCST AND THE PANEL ON ENVIRONMENT AND INCENTIVES FOR RESEARCH In 1959 Executive Order 10807 established the Federal Council for Science and Technology and revoked Executive Order 9912. The new order, in addition to establishing the Federal Council, specifically in- cluded provision for a Standing Committee of scientist-administrators to undertake studies for and make reports to the Council, and to pro- vide a continuing source of recommendations. Thus, in effect, Execu- tive Order 10807 provided for the abolition of ICSRD and its reconsti- tution as a Standing Committee of the Federal Council. Two of the functions of the Federal Council are to recommend poli- cies and other measures to provide more effective planning and admin- ~istration of Federal scientific and technological programs and to achieve more effective utilization of the scientific and technological re- sources and facilities of Federal agencies, including the elimination of unnecessary duplication. To help carry out these objectives the Council organized the Standing Committee of scientist-administrators, as specified in the order, and the Standing Committee in turn appointed a Panel on Environment and Incentives for Research. This was the predecessor of the present Committee on Federal Laboratories. From its beginning the Panel on Environment and Incentives for Research concerned itself with (a) problems affecting the assigned responsibilities of Federal laboratories, (b) the condition of Federal laboratory management, and (c) organizational and personnel prac- tices. ACTIVITIES DURING 1961 AND 1962 During 1961 and 1962, an obvious and increasing deterioration in the ability of Federal laboratories to recruit and retain sufficient numbers of the outstanding scientists and engineers vital to effective accom- plishment of their missions was perceived by the Panel to be the pri- mary matter of importance requiring immediate attention. Accordingly, the Panel, with the help of a working staff contributed by its members, initiated studies and recommendatioUs as to both the salary and nonsalary factors which were affecting the Govern- ment's ability to obtain its share of highly competent people from the PAGENO="0054" 50 competitive market. The Panel's subsequent analysis and recommenda- tions were adopted by the Council and submitted to the President in a two-part report entitled "The Competition for Quality". The portion bearing on salary reform was used in developing the administrations legislative proposals and was submitted to the Congress with relevant statistics on July 12, 1962. The analysis of nonsalary factors which could be effected by administrative action was transmitted by the President to department and agency heads on May 13, 1962, with a publicly released directive for implementation. During 1962 the Panel also submitted recommendations to the Fed- eral Council on improved utilization of the Government Employees Incentives Awards Act of 1954. Mr. DADDARIO. At the top of page 3 you speak of the Panel looking at problems affecting the assigned responsibilities of Federal labora- tories. Are you talking there about duplication or are you talking about internal management of those organizations? Dr. ASTIN. We are talking about the organizational and procedural problems which interfere with getting the job done. Mr. DADDARIO. How do you bring the individuals together and how do you allow the people who are involved in the Federal laboratories to participate? Yesterday we had some testimony on the need to do this more often than we do, not only because you can get different points of view, but also because laboratory directors would find out more what was going on and they could improve their own manage- ment activities. Dr. ASTIN. Well, it is my feeling that every laboratory manager or director should have some responsibility for formulitting at least a portion of his program. In general the laboratory supports the mis- sion of the agency, and to be effective, it has to be responsive. But if the program is to be dynamic and effective, then formulation of some portion of this program has to be under the control of the laboratory manager. At the same time it is desirable, I think, for him to have mecha- nisms for seeking advice from experts in the technologies involved.. In general advisory committees to laboratory managers have proved' very helpful. Now, this essentially means first of all, that the laboratory director should have some significant input into the program he is concerned~ with. Second, he must have the necessary resources, freedoms, and fiexi- hilities to manage the program that is assigned to him. We have been concerned with both aspects of this problem; that is, with the manager's need for some role in defining his program con- tent, and second, with the authorities which he needs to have in order' to effectively manage the program assigned to him. Mr. DADDARIO. What kind of discretionary authority are you talk- ing about and what amount of funds percen~agewise would you allow him, in order to develop this capability that you are talking about?' Dr. ASTIN. I would think that the amount of funds or resources at his disposal would vary some with the nature of the mission. I would guess, in general, it could run from a low of 5 percent up to perhaps 20 or 25 percent of his total resources. This would depend on the PAGENO="0055" 51 nature of his mission or program, but of that order, well under a half, but better than 5 percent. Mr. DADDARIO. You fluctuate from a low to a high? Dr. A5TIN. Yes. Mr. DADDARIO. Do you include in that, that there should be some judgment made as to the amount in respect to the laboratory? Dr. ASTIN. Yes. A laboratory with a very routine responsibility would probably need less. A laboratory with extremely difficult tech- nological problems to solve would need more. It would depend to some extent on the nature of the assignment to the lab. Mr. DADDARIO. The nature of the assignment and the quality of the laboratory? Dr. ASTIN. Yes. Mr. DADDARIO. Are you going to rate them through this committee? How are you going to do that? Dr. ASTIN. No. Our interagency committee will not get involved in rating laboratories. On the other hand- Mr. DADDARIO. You indicate that they should be? Dr. ASTIN. I think that it is essential in any organization that is concerned with a number of laboratories. I think they have to have some mechanism of rating. Within the National Bureau of Standards, for example, I consider that NBS is a composition of many labora- tories. I think one of my responsibilities is to have techniques for rating the different laboratories within the organization, and where the leadership or management is ineffective, doing something about strengthening it as well as encouraging those that are strong. Mr. DADDARIO. I think it is extremely important to come to some determination about how much flexibility and discretionary authority you would allow a director. I would quite agree it should vary what- ever the figures might be, and one of the most important criteria would be the quality of the laboratory itself. I have the feeling. although we have not come to that conclusion as yet, that a small percentage of funds would, in fact, raise the quality of good labora- tories even further. If a director had this authority, it would not only enhance his capability, but it would have some bearing on the entire quality of the performance of the people under him. You would, I imagine, support that? Dr. ASTIN. Yes. Mr. DADDARIO. Dr. Hornig yesterday touched on part of the responsi- bility that he has and came to some determination about eliminating laboratories when they reach a certain point. Considering that he was considering a judgment of that kind, would his office be the place where this rating process should take place? Dr. ASTIN. I am not sure whether that would be a proper place or whether it ought to be done on a department basis. Most certainly, though, I would think Dr. Hornig's office is concerned with the over- all quality of Federal laboratories. That is one of the reasons his office has encouraged our interagency committee because we are very much involved with the problems which affect the quality of Federal labora- tories. In fact, most of our reports deal with one or another aspect of the quality of Federal laboratories. PAGENO="0056" 52 Mr. DADDARIO. However, it might be done; then, we ought to be giving it considerable thought to how this could be brought about? Dr. A5TIN. Yes, I would agree. Mr. DADDARIO. The idea that a laboratory director's council be formed has been proposed from time to time. Do you see this as a helpful step in allowing the directors to participate better in overall management policy? Dr. As~rIN. I think it is essential. I don't think you will either de- velop or retain good laboratory directors unless they have the oppor- tunity to have such participation. Mr. DADDARIO. That is a very good answer, Dr. Astin. I do think that there is a requirement to allow these men to so function. They are men of such competence that their advice would be helpful. I guess we can move along. Dr. A5TIN. All right. NAME AND REPORTING CHANGE In line with its primary preoccupatiqn with the quality of the Fed- eral R. & D. staff, in May of 1962 the name of the "Panel on Environ- ment and Incentives for Research" was changed to the "Panel on Sm- entific Personnel." In 1963 the committee began reporting directly to the Federal Council rather than through the standing committee and the title was changed to th~ "Committee on Scientific Personnel." ACTIVITIES DURING 1963 During 1963 the Council concentrated on putting into effect the recommendations in the committee's 1962 report, "The Competition for Quality." The recommendations stressing the threat to the qual- ity of science in Federal laboratories arising from noncompetitive salaries for the higher level positions were a factor in enactment of Federal salary legislation. The recommmendations of the committee relating to the environment and incentives for work in Federal labo- ratories were considered within the executive branch. Based upon the committee's report, the Council agreed that these steps should be taken by agencies: (a) To sustain a challenging scientific environment capable of keeping and attracting good people, the missions of laboratories should be broad enough to present a set of scientifically challenging tasks, and redefined wherever necessary to give them continuing vitality; (b) Research directors should have more authority; (e) Layers of management over laboratories should be reduced; (d) Full advantage should be taken of the flexibility existing in civil service regulations, and these regulations should be less often used as a rationalization for ineffective personnel management. Also, during 1963 members of the Committee on Scientific Person- nel, together with several invited scientists, met with the Civil Service Commissioners and senior officials of the Commission to dis- cuss staffing and personnel management problems associated with the administration of Federal research and development activities and to explore possible remedies. A summary report of this conference was distributed by CSC Chairman John Macy to senior scientists and PAGENO="0057" 53 engineers in the Federal Government. The primary point of the re- port was to reemphasize that the existing Federal personnel system is, in general, quite adaptable to the special needs of research and de- velopment establishments if full use is made by management of this. adaptability. Mr. DADDAIiIO. Dr. Astin, yesterday I asked about the recommenda- tion made by the Bell committee on the formation of a GSA type re- search institution which would have its own merit system, its own sal- ary levels, and this type of thing. I did not understand Dr. Hornig t& be particularly in support of that. What are your feelings? Dr. ASTIN. Well, we have considered this problem within the com- mittee. As a matter of fact, one of the reports that I am coming to a. little later in my statement began initially to try and see if there was a need to create a special scientific corps in the Federal Government. We came to the conclusion that this is not necessary, although there are special considerations in terms of environment and management that professional personnel need. If management is aware of the spe- cial requirements for professional growth and development, then these can probably be achieved quite satisfactorily without setting up a special scientific corps. I think, though, one of the best arguments I can think of for the development of a corps, or something associated with it, is the absolute necessity of providing in any scientific and engineering organization for the continuing education of the staff. We have, I think, at NBS a fairly good program for this, but it could be better and one of the reasons it isn't better-one of the reasons it isn't better throughout Government-is that it takes money and it takes an investment of resources to train people. Now, the military services do this and the way they can do it is be- cause they are a corps. I think estimates have ben made that people in the military officer corps spend as much as 10 to 15 percent of their time in total career life in training. No scientific agency begins to ap- proach this, but I don't think the requirements are any less critical in a scientific organization for continuing education if they are to keep abreast of new developments and to maintain a high level of quality. Again I say that if one recognizes the special requirements for pro- fessional development and has an opportunity for it, you don't need a corps, but maybe it would be easier to get them if we had a corps.. Mr. DADDARIO. You could have this constant education which would be helpful to a person's career as it is in the military. There is the problem, though, that if a man were to decide to take a year's leave of absence to go off somewhere on his own, when he came back he could find himself in a position where his career might be affected ? Dr. ASTIN. That is correct. Mr. DADDARIO. But in the military, unless you go to these various schools, your military career is affected by not going. it is just the opposite. Dr. ASTIN. Yes. Mr. DADDARIO. What areas, particularly, need constant education? Dr. ASTIN. I don't know of any field in the physical, medical, bio- logical, or engineering sciences that do not require continuing educa- tion. In scientific fields there are always new discoveries in technology,. there are always new and better ways of doing things, new tools to do PAGENO="0058" 54 things with. Unless there is a mechanism to keep up to date on these, the scientist's effectiveness is lowered. I remember a number of years ago a meeting involving the late Lloyd Berkner. He made the assertion that Ph. D.'s ought to be out- lawed when they are 7 years old because they are no longer effective, * and if a man is to keep his Ph. D. effective he should reearn~ it every 7 years. Mr. DADDARIO. Then you would say that the quality of our national laboratories, as good as some of them are and as pooi as others might be, that all would improve in quality if we did, in fact, have a policy for such education? Dr. A5TIN. I have no doubt about it, sir. It is most desirable. Mr. DADDARIO. This would be something that you would advise us to set our goals to? Dr. A5TIN. Yes, sir. Mr. LtTKENS. May I ask a question? Mr. DADDARIO. Yes. Mr. LUKENS. I a.m interested in this program. I certainly endorse it fully, and I agree with your assessment that continuous training * is vital. I would like to ask this. Iii the military a person is retrained for * specific assignment and reassigned every 3 years. Do you think that the personnel assignment concept within the scientific discipline is a major advantage or would there by any advantage to changing the physical surroundings, or is there a basic advantage to have a man serve for 20 years in one position? Dr. ASTIN. It varies. There are many cases, and we have a number of them at the National Bureau of Standards, where very intensive and long specializations are essential. However, I am of the opinion that any individual, any senior indi- vidual in one of the Federal laboratories, would be a better man if his outlook were broadened; that is, if he had a better appreciation of where his work fits in, not only to his own agency's mission, but where his agency's mission fits into national goals. For this reason I have been a strong proponent of training fellowships which tend to broaden an individual's outlook. Now, we have in the Department of Commerce a science technical fellowship program. It was established while Dr. Hollomon was As- sistant Secretary for Science and Technology. Its primary purpose is to give promising individuals within the four technical agencies of the Department a broadened outlook on the Government's involve~ ment in science. They are selected on a merit basis, and spend an aca- demic year in such training. It generally consists of a series of courses consuming perhaps 2 months and then actual work assignment in another agency. All of these individuals return to either their prior job or a better job at the end of the training assignment. This tram- ing is now in its fourth or fifth year in the Commerce Department. I would think that a program of this sort governmentwide would help very much to improve the overall quality and certainly the per- spective and breadth of view of the scientific and professional people. Mr. LUKENS. This is assumed with a minimum jeopardy? Dr. ASTIN. Yes. The man is assured of either his present job at the *~nd of the training assignment, or a different, and usually better, job. PAGENO="0059" 55 Mr. LtTKENS. Mr.. Chairman, may I ask permission to ask a couple of more questions ? .. Mr. DADDARIO. Yes. Mr. LIJXENS. What is your assessment of the . fellowship program right now. It seems to have paid off very handsomely. Dr. ASTIN. Our postdoctoral associate program, which is now about 12 or 13 years old, is in my judgment one of the most effective devices we have for maintaining the quality of our scientific staff. It is a pro- gram that brings into the Bureau 16 to 20 new Ph. D.'s each year. These individuals are selected for us by the National Research Council. They come in and work on any one of a list of projects we propose, and with any one of a list of supervisors they select from the list we have given. So, they have essentially all of the freedoms of a post- doctoral research fellowship in any university. The appointment is for 1 year subject to .1 year renewal. This pro- gram does for us two things. It provides a continual flow through the organization of extremely bright people because they represent some of the best new Ph. D.'s in the country. For example, this year for the 16 appointments we could make there were over 100 applicants, and the National Research Council certified to us around 50 of these as being well qualified. This means that we ~an select only a third of the very best of these. Thus we have this flow through the Bureau continually of this bright talent. It has another advantage, although this is secondary. We retain a few of these people, approximately a third, as permanent employees of the NBS. Those that came through the program first now. represent some of our very best young scientists in the organization. Mr. LUKENS. At the University of Colorado you also have a visiting fellowship program. Are there any plans to increase that? Dr. A5TIN. ~es. All of these programs are limited now by lack of funds. Both of these programs essentially represent an investment in t:he long-term capability of the organization. When we are in a time of extremely tight budget, we have to defer some of these long-term investments, and we are in that state right now. Mr. LUKENS. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for your courtesy. I would like also to go on record to say that you, Dr. Astin, are doing a very fine job, and the National Bureau of Standards has a fine reputation throughout the world. I think whatever help we can give to NBS in the furtherance of these basic programs and standards would certainly have my vote and my support. Dr. A5TIN. Thank you very much, sir. Mr. DADDARIO. You would like to hear that more often, wouldn't you, Doctor? Dr. ASTIN. Yes, sir. I would like to hear it tomorrow. [Laughter] I am scheduled to appear before the Appropriations Committee. Mr. DADDARIO. Will you keep this in mind? Mr. LUKENS. That is not my committee. [Laughter] Dr. ASTIN. "Change in Function of the Standing Committee." About this time a reevaluation of the functions of the standing com- mittee of scientist-administrators was undertaken and resulted in a proposal, accepted by the Council, that the standing committee have PAGENO="0060" 56 as its primary function the improvement of communication between policy level officials in the various agencies and the entire body of career scientists, engineers, and administrators of technical programs. The major device for communicating would be symposia held once or twice a year as the need arose, with wide participation and with. publication of transactions so as to reach roughly 2,000 senior Fed- eral scientists and research administrators. The first symposium, planned in close cooperation with the Corn- mittee on Scientific Personnel and sponsored jointly by the Civil Service Commission, was held in October 1963, and dealt with "Cur- rent Problems in the Management of Scientific Personnel." A second symposium in April 1964, was concerned with "Technical Informa- tion and the Federal Laboratory." A third symposium in December 1964, was organized for the pur- pose of discussing "The Environment of the Federal Laboratory." This symposium, like the first in the series, was jointly sponsored by the Federal Council and the Civil Service Commission. The program included a review of many completed and ongoing studies of inflexi- bilities and management problems in the Federal service and provided' for small group discussions of specific problem areas. Copies of the proceedings of the three symposia and of the other panel reports have been published and are available if the committee would like to have them. Mr. DADDARIO. Is there any way we can come to a judgment about what effect they have had? Dr. ASTIN. We have not appraised their value. I think they have' been of some use. I have been a little disappointed in the use that has been made of them, but I occasionally get reports from someone that they found something of value in one or the other of them. Mr. DA~DARIO. We will not go into your reasons for havmg been dis-- appointed at th~s time, but we should explore it for the record along' with other questions we may have. Dr. ASTIN. We would be pleased to explore these things with you;' yes. CONSOLIDATION OF STANDING COMMI?I~1~EE AND COMMITTEE ON SCIENTIFIC PERSONNEL As the activities and committees of the Federal Council continued to expand, the standing committee' became concerned primarily with the effective operation of laboratories operated by the Federal agen- cies. This had much in common with the interest and activities of the Committee on Scientific Personnel and in May of 1965 operations of the two committees were merged into the standing committee. STUDY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS IMPORTANT TO FEDERAL SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS A major project of the Committee on Scientific Personnel, arid subse- quently the standing committee, during 1964 and 1965 was the system-. atic identification and assessment of environmental factors important ~o Federal scientists and engineers. Questionnaires were administered to suitably chosen samples totaling some 1,025 Federal scientists and engineers employed in 17 representative Federal laboratories through- PAGENO="0061" 57 out the United States. A summary of the data and its analysis was presented to the Federal Council during March 1966. The analysis indicated the importance of various environmental features to Federal scientists and engineers and evaluated the extent to which these per- sons were satisfied with provision of these features in the Federal service. The results were published in a report entitled "The Environ- ment for Quality" and in the July-September 1966 issue of the Civil Service Journal. The Committee's analysis clearly identifies three sets of factors of high importance to Federal scientists and engineers. These are: (1) professional values, such as the opportunity to work on creative and challenging projects and to make full use of skills and abilities; (2) features concerning appropriate and equitable pay and ability to ad- vance; and (3) matters related to adequate on-the-job support. On the other hand, such things as job titles, the retention of rights to patents, consulting fees and honoraria, rigidity of security controls, and freedom to consult, lecture, and teach are considered relatively unimportant by the vast majority of persons. STUDY AND RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING MARGINAL EMPLOYEES The Standing Committee took account of frequent indications of ~concern and dissatisfaction about the difficulty of removing marginal employees and the consequent adverse effects upon the efficiency of laboratories. The Standing Committee studied problems related to marginal employees in some depth and concluded that these could best be minimized by the continuous and systematic application of sound personnel practices at all stages of employment and at all levels of management within the agencies. Changes in civil service rules and new legislation were proposed in a number of cases. These were identified in a report, "Management :and the Marginal Employee," and related to 22 specific recommenda- tions directed at laboratory managers and directors, agency officials, the Office of Science and Technology, the Civil Service Commission, and the Bureau of the Budget. The report was distributed by the Chairman of the Federal Council to the heads of major Federal :agencies. Legislative needs implicit in the situation include the authority to require a longer probationary period for research scientists and engi- neers and the ability in some cases to reimburse prospective ap- pointees for a preemployment interview at the Federal laboratory. Avoidance of marginal employees begins with the initial selection and screening process. USE or FEDERAL LABORATORIES POR EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES During 1966 and 1967 in response to a request from the Federal Council for Science and Technology, the standing committee under- ~took a study relating to the use of Federal research and development (B. & D.) facilities for advanced education and training : (1) To deter- mine how well Federal laboratories are doing in continuing educa- ~tional efforts, (2) to make recommendations for improvements, and (3) to explore the potential of Federal agencies in contributing more ibroadly ąo ihe educational activities of the Nation. PAGENO="0062" 58 The principal requirements for the study were knowledge of pres- ent types of relationships between Federa~ laboratories and':universi~ ties, identification of successful experiences, and definition of the major impediments to more productive int~rp1ay,':To.obtain the neces- sary information several members of a committee task: force visited and interviewed laboratory managers and their staffs, at some .75 Fed- eral research and development inst~allations and one Federal contract research center located throughout the United States.. Information gathered by the task force was analyzed, summarized, and submitted together with recommendations for improvement action to the Federal Council in September 1967. The Federal Council has approved the report in principle and it is presently in~the process of revision and publication for possible general use. ` Concurrently with the study of educational relationships the Corn- mittee on Federal Laboratories was asked to help evaluate a closely re- lated policy statement proposed by the National Science Board to facilitate increased use of Government facilities by ~the general scien- tific community. A report and recommendation was presented to the Federal Council and accepted' for appropriate action. Data, discus- sion, and recommendations pertinent to this proposal have been incor- porated in the aforementioned report on university-laboratory rela- tionships. _____ CURRENT AND FUTURE COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES In July 1967, in order to provide a more meaningful name in line with its present functions, the name of the standing committee was changed to the Committee on Federal Laboratories. Currently the Committee is engaged in followup activities to its study and recommendations on "Education and the Federal Labora- tories." Tentative plans are being made for a symposium of Federal laboratory and department' officials to discuss the findings and facili- tate implementation of the recommendations throughout the Federal service. Planning for this is an early item of business. One specific recommendation of the committee is that a further study of some aspects of university-laboratory relationships be under- taken jointly by a group made up of both universities and Federal representatives. If feasible this might begin by planning for the above symposium to include university as well as Federal laboratory par- ticipation. Another subject which the committee is tentatively exploring for possible future study is the procurement, management and utilization of Federal R. & D. equipment and facilities. As yet no definitive an- swers have been arrived at as to the feasibility and advisability of such a study. In addition to the foregoing, numerous factors such as restrictions on travel, which tend to hinder training programs and communication with the wider scientific community; the compression of salaries at the top of the grade structure; manpower ceilings; and similar matters which reduce the ability of Federal laboratory managers to manage in a flexible and effective manner, are, and will continue to be, matters of concern to the Committee on Federal Laboratories. PAGENO="0063" 59 SOME CONCLUDING REMARKS As Chairman of the Committee on Federal Laboratories, I feel that the subcommittee's interest in increasing the flexibility and usefulness of existing Federal laboratories to avoid needless proliferation of or- ganizations is a sound one. The extent of contracting for outside research and development, the creation of new Federal Contract Re- search Centers, and the disruption of staffing efforts resulting from periodic expansions and contractions of Federal research programs, have all been matters of concern to committee members, to Federal B. & D. officials, and to the Congress itself from time to time. In this context the experience of the Committee on Federal Labora- tories does have something to offer. Probably one of the primary rea- sons for the creation of new laboratories is the need for a rapid buildup or restructuring of R. & D. capabilities for specific programs. To the extent that Federal salaries do not permit the rapid recruitment of frequently scarce and highly competent personnel, to the extent that Federal examining procedures and the establishment of registers slow down the hiring process, to the extent that Federal leave and other benefits are not designed to accommodate the staffing fluctuations, and to the extent that it is difficult to terminate, retrain, or transfer em- ployees with no longer needed skills, the inevitable tendency is for offi- cials responsible for new programs to let new contracts or start new facilities. There are a number of legislative and administrative steps that could be taken to alleviate the above deterrents to Federal laboratory flexibility. One is the ability to make short-term appointments to all levels of positions without conferring permanent civil service tenure and without going through the routine examination process. To at- tract the type of people needed, one should also eliminate such side deterrents as the inability of new appointees to take any leave during the first 90 days of their appointment. There are times when new programs need to have the ability to hire scientists of other nations. A legislative proposal for a visiting scien- tist and scholar program that would correct some of these deficiencies is currently in the process of preparation. Further restrictions hindering the ability of the directors of exist- ing Federal laboratories to adjust to new and changing programs are administrative and budgetary controls on travel, which hinder train- ing and informational exchange; unduly restrictive controls on man- power; extra-laboratory controls of various types on the number of employees at various grades and on average grade and salary levels; and narrow management interpretations of agency and laboratory missions. The number of hierarchical levels in an organization generally has an increasingly restrictive effect upon laboratory flexibility as their number increases. As a concluding statement I would recommend that, to the maxi- mum extent practicable, laboratory directors be given an overall al- location of resources with which to achieve a mutually understood set of program goals. Within this general framework, administrative and management decisions as to the proper mix of staff, supporting services, facilities, travel, et cetera, should be left to the judgment of PAGENO="0064" 60 the laboratory director, who should be held subject to postaudit and fully accountable for the end results. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. (The prepared statement follows:) PREPARED STATEMENT OF ALLAN V. ASTIN, DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL BUREAu o~' STANDARDS Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to have this oppor- tunity to participate in these discussions on the utilization of Federal labora- tories. The National Bureau of Standards, which observed its 67th birthday this month, is among the oldest and largest of the Federal laboratories. Since its in- ception, the Bureau has been concerned primarily with providing the central basis within the United States for a complete and consistent system of physical measurement. This responsibility for measurement standards and techniques, and for reliable data on the properties of matter and materials constitutes a unique continuing mission that will exist so long as we have scientific and technological activities in this country. Furthermore, it is a most demanding mission. This was well expressed by the Ad Hoc Committee of the National Academy of Sciences that evaluated the Bureau's functions and responsibilities in 1953. Their report stated: "It is not sufficient to have fairly good standards of measurements, fairly good methods of testing materials, mechanisms, or structures, or reasonably good de- terminations of important physical constants. The standards, the measurements, the test procedures must be the very best, the most accurate, the most reliable that can possibly be achieved at any given time, limited only by the state of the art at the time. It is thus more than a play on words to say that the ~stand- ards' by which the Bureau is judged must be the very highest and best." By its very nature, the measurement standards mission grows with each pass- ing year. As our Nation's science and technology advances at an ever accelerating rate, our measurement capabilities must keep pace. As our Nation becomes in- creasingly dependent upon science and technology for industrial growth, and for solutions to a variety of pressing national problems ranging from environ- mental pollution to safety on our highways, the measurement standards mission of the Bureau becomes increasingly important to our national welfare and national goals. While this basic measurement mission has provided the prime focus of NBS activities through the years, the Bureau also has served since its inception as a central resource of scientific and technical competence within Government. Other agencies have made extensive use of the Bureau's competence and facilities, par- ticularly in the exploratory stages of new technical endeavors. This has been a constantly changing role that has involved the Bureau, at least temporarily, in a great variety of technical activities, some of which have continued and have grown to become major national programs involving new Federal laboratories. A brief résumé of the Bureau's historical development may help to illustrate ways in which its program has changed to meet changing requirements of the Government and of the Nation. ESTABLISHMENT OF NBS The National Bureau of Standards was established in 1901, after oirer 20 years of effort toward this goal by the Nation's scientists and engineers. Standards laboratories in other countries had been meeting the needs of industry for measurement instruments of maximum reliability, accuracy, and range. Outstanding among these were the Physikalisch-Technische Reichsanstalt established in 1887 in Germany and the National Physical Laboratory author- ized in 1899 in Great Britain. At the same time the United States was emerging from a primarily agricultural nation to a primarily industrial one with a rapidly expanding export market. In 1900, the National Academy of Sciences, supported by unanimous endorse- ments from professional societies and the country's leading physicists, chemists, and engineers strongly urged the Congress that the establishment of a National Bureau of Standards was indispensable to the Nation's scientific, technical, and economic progress. PAGENO="0065" 61 Congress responded in 1901 by passing the Organic Act which established the Bureau as the central point within the Federal Government for the construction, custody and comparison of measurement standards, and the determination of physical constants and the properties of materials, when such data were of great importance to scientific or manufacturing interests and were not to be obtained of sufficient accuracy elsewhere. The first and most urgent task of the National Bureau of Standards in 1901 was to establish its own working standards so that it could begin to provide calibration services to science and industry. The prototype meter bar and kilo- gram had been in the custody of the Treasury Department's Office of Standard Weights and Measures. The office and the two standards were transferred to the new Bureau and work was begun on developing multiples and submultiples of these two primary standards. A few electrical standards were obtained from the national standards labora- tory of Germany, and the Bureau immediately embarked upon what was to become a long and difficult program-ranging over a time span of almost 50 years-before suitable standards for the basic electrical units were assured. Other agencies of Government were quick to recognize the exceptional scien- tific and technical competence of the staff being assembled at the Bureau in those early years, and were eager to draw upon their talents. For example, when the Bureau was established, there were no other government scientific laboratories in the fields of physics and engineering. Soon, the Bureau began to test and evaluate materials other agencies were using. This gradually led to the development of methods of testing and standard purchase specifications, an activity in which we continue to have some involvement to this day. Private industry was equally interested in standardization. In 1904, at the request of the American Chemical Society, work was begun on standards of purity for chemical reagents. A year later, the American Foundrymen's Associa- tion turned over to the Bureau a project on the standardization of four types of cast iron. These were reanalyzed by chemists at the Bureau, and in industrial and commercial laboratories. They were then issued as National Bureau of Standards standard samples. This program has grown, until today, there are more than 600 standard reference materials issued by the Bureau, including metals, ores, chemicals, spectroscopic standards, isotopic standards, and radio- activity standards. The demand by science and industry for new standard refer- ence materials is so great it seems unlikely the list will be completed in the near future. DECADES OF EVOLUTION AND ADAPTATION During the first two decades of its existence, the Bureau was, in many respects, carrying on an industrial research program. Typical investigations involved: lubricating oils, automotive engineering, studies of refrigerants, electrolysis, corrosion, determination of critical points of steels, properties of ceramics, lime, metals, protective coatings, rubber, textiles, paper, and optical glass. In many of these areas, industry rapidly recognized the value of the Bureau's pioneering research and organized its own research programs. As this occurred, the Bureau would gradually withdraw from the field, except insofar as the remaining prob- lems involved compatibility of physical measurement. The second two decades might loosely be described as a period when the Bureau became involved in standards of practice and performance, codes and specifica- tions. This trend had been accelerated by the industrial problems connected with the First World War. Typical of these activities were programs on screw thread standardization, development of the National Electrical Safety Code, and Com- mercial Standards and Simplified Practice Recommendations. The two world wars offer a striking comparison of the general level of science and technology, and the way NBS programs were utilized to meet urgent national needs. In the first war the Bureau aided in the development of a method for manufacturing precision gauge blocks, production of high quality optical glass, and sound-ranging devices to locate artillery. The problems were essentially of an industrial nature, and the facilities and competence of the Bureau were utilized accordingly. World War II made different demands upon science and industry, and the Bureau's role was thus of a different nature. The Bureau contributed to the development of methods for the purification of reactor materials in the Man- hattan project, the radio proximity fuze, the BAT guided missile, and the predic- tion of radio weather for long-range military communication. Here, the Bureau's 93-~O1-6S----5 PAGENO="0066" 62. long-standing work in chemistry, radio, electricity and electronics had been needed. The heavy commitment of NBS resources to the assistance of other Federal agencies during World War II, and the almost explosive development of Govern- ment concern with scientific and technological programs in the years immediately following, created severe problems for the Bureau. In its efforts to be responsive to the many demands for technical assistance from the military, the Atomic Energy Commission, and numerous other agencies intent upon exploiting and( refining the scientific and technological breakthroughs achieved during the war,, the Bureau at times devoted as much as 77% of its manpower to the programs of other agencies, and depended on funds transferred from those agencies for up to 85% of its financial support. In 1953, following a study of the Bureau's programs and activities by a com- mittee of the National Academy of Sciences, substantial changes were initiated~ in the content of the Bureau's scientific activities and in the emphasis which would be placed on its varied functions. Military development programs were transferred to agencies of the Department of Defense. Plans were begun to de-. crease the amount of work done by the Bureau for other Government agencies.. These moves would enable the Bureau to concentrate `its efforts on the vital measurement and calibration services needed. by the Nation, and on the deter-. mination of the physical constants and the properties of materials. It would continue its long-standing, close cooperation with industrial and scientific stand-. ardizing organizations. This reorientation of the Bureau toward its original,. basic functions was given special emphasis and appropriateness by the greatly increased demands made upon the Bureau's measurement services as a result of the advent of the space age in 1957. The new and exacting requirements of the space age, the widening use of. automation, the ever faster application and transfer of technological break-. throughs to the civilian economy-these factors and others all offer evidence that the measurement needs of the Nation will be greater in the years ahead~ than ever before. It is within this context that the Bureau during the last decade has modernized its facilities, and has continued to strengthen its measurement" capabilities and the research which is essential to its measurement competence.. CHANGES IN LEGISLATION The' evolutionary changes in NBS activities that I have outlined were not~ accompanied by significant changes in the Bureau's basic legislation until 1950.. This was possible largely as a result of the liberal interpretation of the compara-. tively general language in the original Organic Act and a substantial amount~ of authorizing language inserted in appropriation bills over the years. In 1950,. the Organic Act of 1901 was amended to include more specifically' four additiOnal' functions which the Bureau had been performing for many years. These were (1) The development of methods for testing materials, mechanisms, and structures, and the testing of materials, supplies, and equipment, including items. purchased for use of Government departments and independent establishments., (2) Cooperation with other Government agencies and with private organiza-. tions in the establishment of standard practices, incorporated in codes and specifications. (3) Advisory service to Government agencies on scientific and technical~ problems. (4) Invention and development of devices to serve special needs of the Government. In 1950, the Bureau also was given authority to establish a working capital fund that has proved to be an excellent mechanism for handling reimbursements, for the extensive services we render to other agencies and the public. NEW IDEAS AND ORGANIzATIONS The National Bureau of Standards has served over the years as a breeding~ ground for both new ideas and new organizations. This, quite possibly, has been one of the most important contributions of the Bureau to the operations of the Government and of the private sector. It has taken various forms. In some cases actual organizational units were transferred from NBS to another agency. In others, research initiated at NBS was picked up and carried on elsewhere-in another Federal laboratory, in private industry, in standards-making organiza- tions, and in standards laboratories. This has not occurred by accident. It has PAGENO="0067" 63 been the continuing policy of the Bureau to do those things in the physical sciences which are related to our basic missions when a national need exists and the work is not being done adequately by anyone else~ When another agency or industry develops the capability to carry on and become self-reliant in the field, we step aside and turn our attention to the unending appearance of new areas that require our attention. For example, the Naval Research Laboratory, established in 1923, absorbed research on radio communications with submarines that was initiated in labora- tories at the Bureau during World War I. Similarly, the Naval Ordnance Labora- tory absorbed work NBS had done on range finding and the stabilization of naval guns. For a time after the establishment of the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics in 1915, the Bureau served as its main research facility. The early aerodynamic research performed at NBS was ultimately greatly expanded in the NACA's own laboratories, which in turn became a part of the National Aero- nautics and Space Administration. In 1953, in response to the recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences Committee I mentioned earlier, ordnance work generated at the Bureau during World War II and the Korean conflict was transferred from NBS. Three NBS divisions became the Harry Diamond Laboratories under Army Ordnance. Naval Ordnance took over NBS work on missile development that had been con- ducted at Corona, California. Other examples could be cited concerning research initiated at NBS that has provided a basis for activities now conducted by the Federal Aviation Adminis- tration, the Federal Communications Commission, and others. Most recently, our Central Radio Propagation Laboratory became a key research component of the newly formed Environmental Science Services Administration. NBS also has provided a breeding ground for private endeavors. Many of our staff members get ideas that need industrial, exploitation and leave the Bureau for this reason. Two of our neighbors in Maryland, Rabinow Electronics, and Weinschel Engineering, were formed by former NBS employees. The American Instrument Company was also founded by a former employee, and techniques for geophysical prospecting became the basis for private enterprises headed by former NBS employees working in that field. Certain of the technical activities in which the Bureau pioneered provided the basis for extensive industries. For example, there was no optical glass made in the United States prior to World War I. When the war cut off supplies from Europe, NBS established a research program in the making of optical glass. The technology developed in that research program, especially the development of new types of pots for melting the glass, was the foundation of our domestic opti- cal glass industry. In 1921, NBS scientists tested their first crude radio guidance system for air- craft. By 1929 they had refined it to the point where the pilot could keep on course and know his approximate position at all times without being able to see outside his plane. By 1930 they had accomplished the first blind landing of an airplane entirely by radio guidance. The continuation of this technology under private development has helped to shape large segments of the transportation and instrument industries. There are other examples. The printed electronic circuit which is used so widely today was developed under NBS sponsorship during the wartime ordnance development. NBS built the first internally programmed electronic computer in this country. The technology from that project was absorbed immediately into what has become a multimillion dollar private industry. Numerous other cases could be cited. SHARING RESOURCES As you can see, the Bureau has a long tradition of sharing its laboratories- both staff and equipment-with others. This is provided for in our Organic Act as amended. NBS is really a complex of many laboratories. The range of research in them and the sophistication of the labs themselves have grown greatly over the years. So much so that our former quarters in the District of Columbia became hope- lessly cramped and outmoded. Provision was made for moving the Bureau to its present quarters at Gaithersburg, Maryland. The present facilities are as modern as today's state of the art permits. These facilities, and the professionals who staff them, are available, to varying degrees and in diverse ways, to the Federal PAGENO="0068" 64 and State governments, the academic community, private and public standards making bodies and standards laboratories, professional societies, and industry. GOVERNMENT AGENCIES We do a considerable amount of work for other Federal agencies, ranging from fairly fundamental research to testing and calibration. A. substantial part of the NBS annual budget-currently 40% of the total-is made up of funds transferred to us from other agencies for services rendered. This percentage has varied over the years, and even now differs among the various organizational units within the Bureau. For example, about 70% of the funds available to the Institute for ,Applied Technology is transferred from other agencies. While we wish to, and `will continue to, provide services to other Federal agencies, we do have to be ~careful that the ratio of other agency funds to appropriated funds is such that the basic missions of the Bureau are not distorted by over-dependence on outside support. NBS laboratories also serve State and local needs, primarily In the weights and measures field. Here, our specialized expertise is passed on to the States mainly through the mechanism of the NBS-sponsored National Conference on Weights and Measures, an annual meeting of State weights and measures officials, In which NBS scientists and engineers actively participate. We are also in con- stant contact with State officials on calibration problems, measurement tech- niques, training of local personnel, and other areas related to weights and meas- ures used in commerce. THE ACADEMIC COMMUNITY NBS interactions with the academic community are varied and growing. They include use of our laboratory facilities in a number of ways. NBS has an Associate Director for Academic Liaison, with the following ob- jectives: (1) to improve and stimulate the intellectual quality of NBS programs and staff, (2) to make the fullest possible use of NBS special resources, both laboratory facilities and staff, (3) to strengthen national competence in those areas of science and engineering which are related to NBS missions, (4) to pro- vide a means for NBS staff to further their education through collaborative research, (5) to train personnel in fields important to NBS but in which a short- age of competent people exists, (6) to serve as a resource to industry through educational training programs aimed at meeting national as well as regional in- dustrial needs. An outstanding example of Government-university cooperation is the Joint Institute for Laboratory Astrophysics (JILA), a cooperative effort of NBS and the University of Colorado. JILA itself is located at the University of Colorado in Boulder, Colorado. Its purpose is to further laboratory and theoretical re- search and graduate level training in astrophysics. The faculty comes from both the University and NBS. The laboratory facilities of both institutions are like- wise shared. In addition, JILA's visiting fellowship program brings to Boulder about 10 distinguished scientists in the broad field of laboratory astrophysics. These scientists eome from all over the world. We maintain a graduate school at NBS. Courses may be given for credit at universities or strictly on an in-hours career development basis. Enrollment is not limited to NBS or other Federal employees. The postdoctoral associate program is another important cooperative effort involving the academic community. A list of candidates is chosen and ranked by a National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council panel. An NBS Post- doctoral Committee meets at lest annually and makes its selections from this list. The program was started at NBS in 1955. Since then, it has been success- fully extended to many other laboratories in the Federal Government. PRIVATE STANDARDS ORGANIzATIONS NBS works very closely with private standards making bodies, of which there are some 500 in the United States. We participate in the work of many of the organizations, such as the United States of America Standards Institute, and of course help any of them with problems associated with measurement standards and techniques. In 1961, NBS sponsored the establishment of the National Conference of Standards Laboratories, and has acted as its secretariat ever since. The NCSL is a continuing, non-profit, laboratory-oriented organization to promote coopera- PAGENO="0069" 65 tive efforts toward solving common standards and measurement problems. Its members include standards laboratories of individual companies, universities, independent laboratories, and those in other government agencies. NBS extends its laboratory resources to professional societies and standards groups in several ways. Our experts visit groups all over the country and pass on the latest developments of NBS research in different fields. We also sponsor (or are host to) many conferences, seminars, workshops, meetings, and such, at which Bureau scientists and engineers report on the latest results of NBS research, and participants are given an opportunity to visit NBS labs, and thus note how our special facilities may be used at some future time to solve a measurement or standard problem. INDUSTRY Finally, our laboratory facilities are shared with industry itself. The most effective mechanism is our Research Associate Program. Under this plan, in- dustrial groups sponsor research at `the Bureau which is of special interest to them and yet has public significance. Experiments are carried out by Research Associates who are paid by their sponsors but who work in Bureau laboratories with the Bureau staff. The knowledge and skills thus derived by Research Asso- ciates are expected to advance the Nation's economy and to increase utilization of NBS research results. The Research Associates contribute their industrial experience and their knowledge of urgent industrial needs. The work of Research Associates is not directed to proprietary solutions. In- stead, it is aimed at removing obstacles to the use of measurement; such ob- stacles may arise from a lack of sound data or instrumentation, or from a lack of criteria or of appropriate techniques. At present there are 63 Research Associates at NBS representing 23 com- panies, trade groups, and government organizations. In summary, the laboratories of the NBS are utilized in many different ways and by many groups. These include actual use of NBS equipment by others, work done for others, extension of our laboratory capability through contact between our experts and others, calibration and testing for various customers, and by the distribution of our laboratory products, such as the standard refer- ence materials and reference data. THE PROBLEM OF ADDED RESPONSIBILITIES Since 1950, when the basic missions of the Bureau were fully spelled out, a number of responsibilities have been assigned to us-some by amendment of the Organic Act, some by specific legislation, and some by delegation from the Secretary of Commerce. Among these new assignments are: (1) The dissemination of technical, scientific and engineering information through the Federal Clearinghouse for Scientific and Technical Information. (2) The establishment of uniform Federal automatic data processing standards. (3) Operation of a National Standard Reference Data System. (4) Research on and development of flammability standards for fabrics and household furnishings. (5) Operation of a National Fire Research and Safety Program. The problem is not that we don't have the capability of performing these functions, but that we have not been provided with the resources necessary to carry out the programs at optimum levels. The result is that `we have had to do extensive reprogramming which has seriously hurt our longer established programs. Our ability to pick and choose priorities now is practically non- existent. And we face this situation at a time when there is an urgent need to keep abreast of rapid technological advances requiring basic standards and data services. As a Nation, we can ill afford any unnecessary delays in these tech- nological advances which are vital to our domestic economy, to the expansion of our export trade, and to the solution of such far ranging national problems as urbanization, environmental pollution, transportation, anU many others. Mr. DAr~DAuIo. Just one question, Dr. Astin, because we do have two more witnesses. On your first statement, the one that I asked you to summarize, you say on the last page "our ability to pick and choose priorities now is practically nonexistent." PAGENO="0070" 66 Do you have a whole series of things that you would like to do ~ Dr. ASTIN. Yes, sir. Mr. DADDARIO. This position would seem to make it difficult to ac- complish any of those. Dr. ASTIN. Well, the point I was trying to make there is that we have been given a number of new responsibilities at the National Bureau of Standards, some by exective direction, some by legislation, and we are finding it difficult to get resources for these new respon- sibilities. For example, the standard reference data responsibility given to us nearly five years ago now by the Federal Council for Science and Technology is being funded primarily through curtailment we have made in other activities in order to put `some resources on it. We have been unsuccessful in convincing the Congress of the importance~ funding this program at the level that would make it most effective for the Nation's scientific and technological effort. This country spends approximately $17 billion a year for scientific research and develop- ment. Standard reference data, if adequate, would greatly facilitate this total activity. If it only improved it as much as a percent or two, which I think would be a very modest achievement to expect from a data system, the savings would be phenomenal, but we are now operat- ing the standard reference data program at one-tenth the level we consider necessary to be effective. Similarly, the Congress two and a half years ago gave us the respon- sibility to develop standard for automatic data processing systems, and to assist other Government agencies in the optimum or more effec- tive utilization of automatic data processing systems. During the hear- ings preceding the enactment of that legislation it was shown that if that program were. adequately implemented it would save the Govern- ment around $150 million every year in its expenditures for automatic data processing systems. The Government's expenditures totaled about $3 billion a year, and it was conservatively estimated during the hearings that savings of a hundred and fifty million would be achieved. This is some 20 times what we think it would take in appropriations to NBS to operate the program-clearly a good investment, but we are nowhere near the operating level it takes. Because we consider these important pro- grams, we have converted our resources to them to the maximum ex- tent possible, but we can't do any further reprograming of this sort without killing something equally as important. Mr. DADDARIO. The inhibiting factors placed by the Congress is not anything we are trying to avoid. We have made it clear from time to time that these programs do reflect quality. From the standpoint of standard reference data program, we hope that we can impress upon the Senate the need to pass the bill already passed by the House. The reason I asked you this question about the problems you have insofar as priorities are concerned is because it does appear clear that there are management problems and some of these management prob- lems are related things that Congress has or has not done. We do not intend to infer that all the problems `are in the executive branch. I am pleased, Dr. Astin, you brought up these two points because without any question the effectiveness of your activities could be en- hanced by support in these areas. They are good examples. PAGENO="0071" 67 Dr. Astin, we are pleased to have you here. As always we overesti- mate Our ability to hear the number of witnesses we had planned be- cause what you have to say is of such importance to us. Dr. ASTIN. It is always a pleasure to appear before you, Mr. Chair- man. Thank you. QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO DR. ALLAN IT. ASTIN BY THE SUBCOM- MITTEE ON SCIENCE, RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT Question 1. Are contractor operated laboratories represented on the Laboratory Committee? If not, why? Is the work done by the Laboratory Committee in- applicable to contractor operated laboratories? Answer: Contractor operated laboratories are not represented on the Com- mittee on Federal Laboratories. The Committee on Federal Laboratories is con- cerned with the `management and staffing of the Government's in-house labora- tories and with the rules, policies and procedures that affect their operation. Contract operated laboratories are no't bound `by `the same laws and regulations as in-house laboratories, and their employees are not under the civil service system. However, if and when some of the management principles or problems dealt with `by the Committee on Federal Laboratories would appear to be of interest and concern to contract laboratories, the Committee would not hesitate to seek the participation of contract laboratories in pertinent studies. This has been done in `at least one instance. Question 2. You state that the "inevitable tendency is for officials responsible for new programs to let new contracts or start new facilities" because of certain problems you mention in connection with the Civil Service laws and regulations. Can you illustrate specifically what the problems are and what you believe should be done to correct them? Answer: When an agency is made responsible for a program requiring a significantly new or different R&D capability, or when a new agency with an R&D need is created, the key consideration usually is how can this need be met within `the pressing time requirements that generally prevail. In this context, unless one can readily expand and/or restructure existing Federal R&D staffs and facilities, agencies are prone to establish a new laboratory for several reasons. The need for greater flexibility in providing for something new, frequently leads to the formation of a federally financed or related laboratory outsi'de of the civil service system. This is due to the fact that appointments can be made easier and `faster; prospective appointees can be paid for their travel for pre- employment interviews; more competitive salaries can be paid-~particularly at the critical higher levels; procurement of supplies, equipment and facilities can be accomplished quickly with less red tape; etc. Establishment of new laboratories within the Federal structure occurs in part because of the time consuming and difficult problems involved in reorienting or reshaping existing staffs. These may include difficulties in terminating marginal people or those wit'h no longer needed skills, in transferring civil service person- nel to other units, in retiring non-productive employees, and in getting sufficient manpower ceiling or travel and training allocations to retrain significant por- tions of the present `staff. A second reason for the formation of new in-house laboratories is the human tendency of many people to want to have the work for which they are responsi- ble performed under their immediate control rather than through some other organization. Other persons may `have an empire building tendency. A third reason for the formation of new laboratories is the simple fact that the person involved may not be aware of the existence elsewhere of a suitable existing Federal competence that could do the work. Specific management actions that would facilitate redirection of effort would be the maximum delegation of authority for consummating personnel, training, and procurement actions to the laboratory director leveL Legislative and regu- latory actions that would help would be to increase the ability of laboratory managers to hire the necessary professional talent. Some current examples of such legislative action would be passage of the bill to permit the reimburse- ment of selected professional applicants for preemployment interview travel, and the attainment of truly competitive salaries for top scientific positions. Federal laboratories need the capability to hire outstanding experts for limited PAGENO="0072" 68 periods of time as embodied, for example, in a legislative proposal for a Visiting Scientist and Scholar Program which has recently been submitted to Congress by the Civil Service Commission. Additional authority to permit the temporary hiring of research scientists and engineers for periods up to five years without going through competitive civil service examinations and registers and without granting them permanent civil service status would facilitate the hiring of eminent scientists and ensure much greater flexibility in more readily restructur- ing laboratories' staffing capabilities. The present law precluding the taking of annual leave during the first 90 days of employment hinders, in some instances, the recruitment of top quality and senior personnel. The ability to retire people after 30 years of Federal service at the option of management would also help. Question 3. You mentioned that you were a "little disappointed" in the effect of the three symposia which were sponsored in conjunction with the Civil Serv- ice Commission. What did the symposia attempt to accomplish and why were you a "little disappointed" in the results? Answer: In general the symposia sponsored by the Federal Council for Science and Technology were designed to exchange ideas about effective ways of solving administrative matters and Government problems-particularly those pertain- ing to personnel. A number of valuable ideas were exchanged. In the Committee's experience, management and staffing problems m Federal laboratories are due much more frequently to the policies, practices and decisions of managers at various levels within the departments and agencies than to the Government-wide laws and regulations. The symposia attempted to deal with this problem through fostering communication (1) laterally among labo- ratory management officials regarding the system and what is possible and (2) vertically with agency officials at various bureau and department leveLs in order to arrive at better understanding of the operating level's problems and needs. While the symposia have been generally successful in respect to item 1, we were in the main unsuccessful in obtaining the attendance of a broad spectrum from the higher administrative levels. In retrospect, another weakness in the planning was that the Committee did not include a mechanism for followup to determine how much was achieved. From random comments received from some participants it did appear that some symposium generated information was useful. Accordingly, plans for the next symposium will include provisions for a systematic followup to evaluate results. Question 4. If the Committee decides not to study the procurement, manage- ment and utilization of Federal HdW equipment and facilities, is there any other organization at the O~T level that could perform the study? What considerations would be before the Coin~inittee in deciding whether or not to ma/ce the study? Answer: The Committee on Federal Laboratories is currently making an abbreviated survey of Federal equipment policies and practices. Whether or not the Committee decides to make a detailed study and analysis will depend on its ability to devise a meaningful objective study pertaining to the utilization of equipment, being able to obtain the necessary types of information, and being able to foresee some rationale for analysis that would seem to promise useful and generally relevant conclusions and recommendations. At present we know of no other organization at the OST level that might readily perform such a study, although, of course, the Office of Science and Technology could, if it so decided and funds were available, hire a person and/or staff specifically for the purpose of monitoring the management and utilization of Federal facilities and equipment. Question 5. What information about Federal laboratories-both directly and contractor operated-should be collected and maintained by the Eccecutive Branch? Who should do it? How desirable and feasible would it be to set up a clearinghouse for information about selected Federal laboratories? Answer: In order to carry out the intent behind this question one needs to resolve a basic matter of understanding, namely, definition of what con- stitutes a laboratory. To illustrate, we frequently have difficulty in responding to queries about the "laboratories" of the National Bureau of Standards. Does the Bureau have three laboratories-the Institute for Basic Standards, the Institute for Materials Research, and the Institute for Applied Technology? Or does it have three laboratories-one in Washington, D.C., one in Gaithersburg, Md., and one in Boulder, Colorado? Looking at the definition from a more specific point of view, is each of the technical divisions, each with its own distinctive types of activity, a laboratory? In other agencies with numerous small field stations, one needs to make a decision as to minimum size. Is a five, ten PAGENO="0073" 69 or twenty man unit a laboratory? This suggests that at least two parameters in any definition would be the questions of geographical concentration and of the number of professional personnel. Once a laboratory is identified, I would say the following data would be helpful in making an initial screening of existing Federal facilities for possible new program assignments: Name of Federal laboratory; Location; Number of professional staff, broken down by major disciplines, that is, engineers, physical scientists, biological scientists, behavioral scientists, and medical scientists; A statement of the laboratory's major mission(s) ; and A brief statement concerning each of the laboratorY's major facilities or fields of competences. I believe it would be fea~sible to establish a center clearinghouse for this type of information, probably in OST. However, in 1955 the Interdepartmental Com- mittee on Scientific Research and Development, the predecessor to the present Committee on Federal Laboratories, in response to Executive Order 10521, did prepare a Government-wide inventory of major Federal laboratories and equip- ment. A supplement was issued in 1957. Insofar as the Interdepartmental Com- mittee was able to determine, little or no use was ever made of the informa- tion, which, incidently, was given a security classification of "restricted" be- cause of the amount of specific, detailed information in the total compilation. Two types of clearinghouse might be considered. One type would be to establish an office which would promulgate certain guidelines as to the level and type of information to be sought and a standard format for its presentation. Then to periodically request, update and disseminate the information. This would be a formidable undertaking requiring a fulitime staff of several persons, use of automatic data processing and printing equipment, space, and significant fund- ing. A second, less ambitious approach would be one of gathering existhig equip- ment, facility and program inventories which are already being produced in varying degrees by many `agencies and simply function as a central reference and information facility. Even this latter approach would require a minimum staff capable of establishing a useful integrative indexing system and of motivat- ing agencies to fill in blank si~aces where inventories do not now exist. This too would require space and a not insignificant amount of financing if it was to really fill a useful role. This leads to the question of desirability of establishing a clearinghouse of such information. Its desirability would have to `await the test of use. I think this would depend heavily on the extent to whieh agencies were brought to think in job shop terms by direction, policy, and urgings from Congress and top Executive Branch officials. Question 6. ~S'evcral agencies have set up procednres to appraise the perform- ance of contractors that do research and development for them, or that manage agency laboratories. To your knowledge, what consideration has been given to applying the standards and procedures of these appra4sal processes to Govern- ment operated laboratories? To what cwtent would this be desirable? Answer: The Committee on Federal Laboratories has not studied this subject. The Department of Defense uses criteria to measure contract performance, but I am not familiar with the standards and procedures referred to. We plan to investigate these. In view of the foregoing, I am not prepared to say to what extent specific existing appraisal techniques should be used in any particular laboratory other than our own. From a management viewpoint, of course, some type of evaluation is a practical necessity. Question 7. What criteria do you use to' rate the laboratories within the NB~? Answer: To answer this question meaningful for NBS I would like to para- phrase the question as follows: What means or criteria do you use to assess program capabilities within the NBS? The answer is that an annual or some- times more frequent series of reviews of all of the significant programs of the Bureau are made by operating personnel to top NB'S officials. Generally pro- grams are closely related to one or several organizational units. The program of each division is also subject to review at least annually by Advisory Com- mittees of the National Academy of Sciences. Finally, an outside evaluation of the Bureau as a whole is made by a Statutory Visiting Committee which reports annually to the Secretary of `Commerce on the efficiency of NBS operation's. At the program reviews those responsible for the program discuss their past accomplishments, present work and future program plans. Information is given PAGENO="0074" 70 and questions raised concerning the adequacy and competence of the staff and future requirements,; similar matters are covered in respect to facilities, equip- ment, funds and other resources. Program requirements and priorities are dis- cussed in respect to their relationship to national needs. On the basis of all of the above, `the present health and future outlook of Bureau programs are as- sessed by NBS officials, priorities are set, and appropriate allocations and coin- mitments are made. Occasionally decisions are made that some programs of substantially diminished importance have outlived their usefulness. When such decisions are made, the staff menThers involved are reassigned when possible or reduced in force when reassignment is impracticaL Question 8. The DOD witness proposed the elimination of manpower controls on cross-agency work in order to achieve flewibility similar to that available to the AEC contract laboratories. What is your opinion on this proposal? Answer: As indicated in my statement before your Committee, I feel strong- ly that laboratory directors should be given an overall allocation of resources with which to achieve a mutually understood set of program goals and, within this general framework, should be free to use the resources as he best sees fit. In this context I would endorse the elimination of manpower controls on cross- agency work in terms of numbers. However, laboratory directors should be sub- ject to certain policy guidelines to ensure a reasonable balance. For example, one such guideline might be that the laboratory not undertake such work when acceptance of it would require the building or acquisition of additional space. If political considerations or policies require some type of manpower con- trols then a more acceptable and practical limitation would be one placed on the total amount that could be paid for salaries, rather than one in terms of staffing patterns. Manpower controls contribute `to the inflexibility of in-house procedures and, in our judgment, sometimes lead to contracts for personal services as a means of circumvention. Question 9. What criteria should govern: (a) how much independent money a laboratory director should have? (b) the appraisal of what the director has accomplished with funds previously authorized to him? Answer: In respect to the criteria for part (a), I would agree with Dr. Hornig that suitable factors to apply would be the degree of narrowness or leeway in the mission and work of `the agency and the quality of the laboratory and its management. The more general the nature of the work and the higher the quality, the more independent money should be provided. This might reasonably range from 3 to 15 percent. In respect to question (b), the appraisal of what a director has accomplished with funds previously authorized to him could probably best be accomplished by periodic program reviews at which laboratory officials present and discuss their program accomplishments, plans, and problems with a competent technical review board of higher authority. These periodic reviews should evaluate the results obtained from use of `the independent funds in terms of their relevance and contribution to: 1. The laboratory's mission; 2. The parent agency's mission; and 3. Building and strengthening the basic `capability of the laboratory staff. A pattern of results of trivial value or little relevance to the above objectives would indicate inefficient use of funds. Question 10. Does your laboratory have ceilings for its personnel? If so, how are these ceilings set and who does it? What flexibility do you have for assign~ ments within a ceiling? How feasible is it for you to obtain a change in personnel ceiling to accommodate work for another agency? Answer: The NBS does have manpower ceilings controlling the number of per- sonnel. Bureau requests are reviewed by Departmental and Bureau of the Budget officials with the numbers adjusted accordingly. The manpower ceiling allocated to the Bureau is specified in terms of two numbers: (1) total employment and (2) number of permanent full-time positions. Within these overall totals NBS is free to shift personnel assignments among any of its subordinate organizations. If forecast in time, a change in personnel ceiling to accommodate work for an- other agency would be reflected in our yearly manpower request to the Depart- ment. If this was not known until after allocation of the annual ceiling, it would require a request that the ceiling be changed. The result would depend on the decision of Department officials. In a recent case the Bureau's manpower ceiling was increased to accommodate a new program for another agency to implement recently enacted legislation. PAGENO="0075" 7,1 Question 11. The concept of utilization implies that sooner or later decisions will have to be made to allocate and schedule ewisting laboratory capability among competing agency needs. Is there as present any place in the Ewecutive Branch short of the President where priorities can be assigned to Federal mis- sions for the guidance of agency heads and laboratory directors in the event of competing requirements for the same facility? What is the function of the Labo- ratory Committee in the setting of such priorities and scheduling? Answer: I think that assistance and coordination in the assessment of mission priorities and the allocation and scheduling of work at existing laboratory ca- pabilities is presently an important function of the FCST and the Office of Sci- ence and Technology. For the most part this is a voluntary effort depending on consensus and the acceptance of guidelines by agency officials. The Committee on Federal Laboratories has no role or responsibility in the setting of such priori- ties and scheduling. Its concern is primarily with the procedures and resources by means of which the policy decisions are implemented. Mr. DADDARIO. Our next witness is Dr. William McLean, technical director, Navy Undersea Warfare Center. (Dr. McLean's biography follows:) Da. WILLIAM B. MCLEAN Dr. McLean obtained BS (1935), MS (1937), and Ph.D. (1939) degrees in physics from the California Institute of Technology and served as a part-time physics instructor. He received a Post Doctoral Fellowship for academic years 1939-40 and 1940-41 at the University of Iowa and entered Federal Civil Service in 1941 as a nuclear physicist with the National Bureau of Standards. In 1945, Dr. McLean transferred to the Naval Ordnance Test Station, China Lake, Cali- fornia where he advanced to the position of Head, Aviation Ordnance Depart- ment. In 1954, he was appointed to his present position of Technical Director. Special awards include the maximum Federal Government Award of $25,000 for the development of the SIDEWINDER air-to-air missile (1956), the Naval Ordnance Test Station's L. T. B. THOMPSON Award (1956), a Resolution of Commendation by the California State Legislature (1957), the President's Award for Distinguished Federal Civilian Service (1958), and the American Ordnance Association's Blandy Gold Medal (1960). He is a member of Tan Beta P1, Sigma Xi, American Physical Society, Ameri- can Association for Advancement of Science, Research Society of America, American Ordnance Association, Institute of Radio Engineer, American Society for Public Administration, and American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. STATEMENT OF DR. WILLIAM B. McLEAN, TECHNICAL DIRECTOR, NAVY UNDERSEA WARFARE CENTER Dr. MCLEAN. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I appreciate this op- portunity to talk with you about the research and development effort in Federal laboratories. As recognized by this group in its present inquiry, the management of research has become a national problem of some magnitude. The researcher is no longer concerned only with purely technical problems but also with the application of his technology to social, economic, and political problems' on a national and an international scale. I am of the opinion that research is never a job that can be completed, but will continually expand as more positive results become available. It is, therefore, obvious that no sfiigle organization can ever attempt to cover all possible areas of research, even in a very superficial manner. I believe it should be our objective in research to make sure that our work is as near the frontiers of knowledge as is possible; that we are working in those areas where we have strong interests and the proper tools to carry out the research; and that we are continually searching for a better understanding of nature and are always on the lookout PAGENO="0076" 72 to find discrepancies in our known knowledge which will lead us to interesting new possibilities. Mr. DADDARIO. Dr. McLean, I am pleased to see that you have ]ncluded in your preliminary remarks the concern that the researcher has with the social, economic, and political problems. I believe this to he a very important aspect. Dr. MCLEAN. Yes. Mr. DADDARIO. This gives us a great opportunity to use these talented men in the solving our social, economic, and political problems, and a great effort must be made to enhance this capability. Dr. MCLEAN. Yes, sir. I think the interdisciplinary work is very important to include in laboratory programs. Mr. DADDARIO. You were here yesterday when Dr. Weinberg talked about this? Dr. MCLEAN. Yes. Mr. DADDARIO. In some of their work at Oak Ridge they find as they begin to accomplish some of these objectives for other agencies they are going further and further into problems of society. This would also be the case from what you have said. Dr. MCLEAN. I believe so, yes. We know that federally financed research and development can be accomplished through several different means: the in-house laboratory, the Government-owned facility operated by a contractor, universities provided grants or contracts, contracts with nonprofit organizations, and contracts with private corporations. All of these types of manage- ment structure appear to work well. To me, the crux of the problem is not the type of organization but the process of setting management objectives for the organization so as to keep them broad enough and just impossible enough that people can generate their own methods of working toward these common objectives and he judged by the impersonal process of competition. Management of the development of our weapons systems is a complex and complicated task requiring not only the skills to solve the purely technical problems, but also the highest order of management coordination. Let me illustrate from my past experience as Technical Director of the Naval Ordnance Test Station, a laboratory of approximately ~,OOO people engaged prin- cipally in the development of air launched weapons-now the Naval Weapons Center. The ASROC weapons system involved an extensive research and development effort whereby NOTS as lead laboratory for the Bureau of Naval Weapons undertook project responsibility for development of the entire weapons system, including propulsion, fire control, launcher, and development of the torpedo and mechanical test and incorporation of the nuclear depth charge. This required interfaces with a wide range of governmental and industrial activities, includ- ing several Navy bureaus, the Atomic Energy Commission, and nu- merous prime and subcontractors for production of the system and its component parts. The laboratory's involvement with this program started with the definition of a fleetS need. It carried through concept development, feasibility demonstration, prototype development, con- tractor direction on production, and finally fleet introduction and troubleshooting. PAGENO="0077" 73 NOTS was able to accomplish this program because of its broad mission, extensive experience in a variety of program areas, and di- verse technical skills. It is my belief that a broad charter and work experience utilizing skills from many disciplines are essential key- stones to undertaking large systems developments which must be supported by the effort of many agencies. In addition, some one must have the desire, determination, and skill to establish and maintain control of all the variables involved. The concept of a single responsible designer for systems as compli- cated as those of our modern weapons has not been employed fre- quently in our current military designs. To achieve a simple, inte- grated design, we should employ the concept of appointing a single master designer for each system, who would execute his responsibili- ties in a manner similar to that of the master architect of a buildiiu~. If we are to have a truly integrated design, a single man must under- stand what he is trying to create, must be responsible for the choices among the infinitude of alternatives available, and must weave the various elements of the design into the integrated system. Like an architect, he must understand the tools of his trade. An outstanding example of such an architect is Adm. Levering Smith in the Polaris program. In the planning of military equipment, with which I am most f a- miliar, we have for centuries operated under the general objective of developing devices to destroy more effectively the enemy or his tools for making war. During recent years our national IR. & D. effort has achieved for us the capability of near total destruction. I believe now that our national goals have shifted a portion of our R. & D. attention to "limited warfare," which in effect is the extension of police methods and weapons against international crime. The control of crime on a national level and waging conflicts such as the one in Vietnam would seem to have many aspects in common. It is highly probable as your questions suggest, that we will see the use in international settings of the techniques and equipment developed for control of national crime and vice versa. The Naval Undersea Warfare Center is a relatively new organiza- tion, established on July 1, 1967. The functions and programs, however that were brought together to make up this new organization were al- ready well established within the Navy laboratory structure, and will provide the takeoff point for new program developments. This new organization was part of a general Navy plan to restruc- ture in-house laboratory effort into centers of excellence for improved utilization of laboratory resources. The plan encompassed the de- velopment of a number of self-contained organizations, to include en- larged systems integration capabilities, with each center working to- ward the identification and solution of specific and related military problems. The Naval Undersea Warfare Center was created from elements of the former Nayal Ordnance Test Station and Navy Electronics Lab- oratory. It is a primary research, development, test, and evaluation activity of the Naval Material Command, and it is responsible to the Chief of Naval Material for the administration of assigned funds, conduct of operations, and the accomplishment of the mission. The mission of the Center is to support the fleet by originating and anal- PAGENO="0078" 74 yzing new ideas in undersea warfare and ocean technology, by trans- lating these into effective operating systems and by assisting in the introduction of resultant undersea warfare systems and technologies into production and service use. The work of this Center covers a wide range of research and develop- ment in such fields as underwater optics, underwater acoustics, mili- tary oceanography, sonor technology, oceanometrics, fluid dynamics, lasars; and advanced computer techniques, and systems developments in submarine launched weapons, deep submersibles, homing torpedoes, deep sea salvage systems, deep-operating research vehicles, fire control systems, underwater sensors, and search and recovery systems. I have provided your committee with brochures and reports of our work. Some of the material describes the work of the new Center or- ganization; some from the former Navy Electronics Laboratory and the Naval Ordnance Test Station describe our ocean research and sen- sor development, ASW weapon developments and ocean engineering programs prior to the reorganization of last July which transferred these programs to the new Center. NTJWC is currently operating on the original sites of the two pri- mary laboratories from which the Center was formed. The Center has major laboratories both in Pasadena and on the Point Loma water- front at San Diego, Calif. with additional research facilities at Mis- sion Beach, Calif.; Kaneohe Bay, Oahu, Hawaii; Cape Prince of Wales, Alaska; and Lake Pend Oreille, Idaho. The Center operates test ranges at Morris Dam, Long Beach, and San Clemente Island in California. The Center is currently operating with a civilian ceiling of 1,400, in- cluding 567 scientists and engineers. We have 350 assigned military personnel. The budget for this fiscal year is $51.1 million. Resources in technical facilities and equipment assigned or used by NTJWC, are valued at approximately $100 million. The functions of this laboratory are moving in the direction of de- signing equipments and techniques needed for the inspection, explora- tion, and control of the undersea environment. A broad mission in this area is required for the support of the Navy's undersea warfare effort. The programs on the detection and tracking of submarines are pri- marily classified and designed for control of the seas. They involve sonar systems, advanced data processing, weapons, and fire control, as well as investigations of the structure of the oceans of the world on a regional basis. The report of the Panel on Oceanography of the President's Science Advisory Committee (issued by the White House in June 1966) provides us with excellent guidelines for exploration and use of the sea during the next 10 years. National goals as expressed in this report are: Prediction and control of the sea's phenomena for safety and economy of seagoing activities, the full development of marine resources for man's use, and more strategic use of the under- sea environment to enhance national security. . . The Naval Undersea Warfare Center work at this time includes ef- fort in all of these areas. The Center is currently a strong element in implementing the recommendations of the President's Science Advis- ory Committee. For example, NTJWC was designated by the Chief of Naval Material as the lead laboratory for the deep ocean technology program. The interlaboratory task team working on this program is PAGENO="0079" 75 coordinating its effort with the national agencies and committees work- ing in the fields of oceanography and engineering. Other efforts now underway are in such areas as marine biology, oceanography, underwater photography, and the man-in-the-sea pro- gram. These provide NTJWC with skills and capabilities for the pur- suit of research and development tasks for other agencies outside the Department of Defense. The most difficult problem for the laboratory director is to under- stand and evaluate the multiple conflicting inputs which he receives, and from them choose a course of action for the employment of his limited resources to do research and exploratory work on which to base future programs. His guesses may be inaccurate but he must take them. My guess at the present is that the Navy will contmue to execute its historical mission of exploration and control of new re- sources and of providing the tools for furtherance of the U.S. mter- national aims. The changes during the next 10 years will reflect the facts that the new resources are on the sea floor and that the exertion of political pressure by the United States is limited by the existence of mutual atomic deterrence. We, therefore~ should be putting research and exploratory effort into: 1. New equipment to explore and operate on the sea floor. 2. Understand how to define and recognize limited and definite objectives. 3. Creating a variety of the precise tools, equipment and procedures needed to achieve objectives of limited scope. It would appear that a limited war operating with clearly defined objectives involving persuasion rather than destruction will require procedures similar to those needed for the control of crime under the objectives created by national law. You discussed yesterday the question of a national policy for laboratories. This question is related to the whole problem of organiza- tional life cycle. A laboratory of the type I have been associated with takes at least 5 years to become productive and after perhaps 20 years has come to know its field so well that it is sure that nothing new is likely to arise. Creativity requires bringing together previously un- associated ideas; that is, change requires knowledge applied to new problems. The continuing resource and essential product of Govern- ment laboratories is the accumulated experience of its people. The organizational problem is to continue to generate changes which will allow this experience to be applied in new areas. Organizational changes are needed at a rate matched to the effective life cycle. For R. & D. labs, changes at rates less than 5 years will stop productivity and at more than 20 years will promote atrophy. Mr. DADDARIO. Do you fit into that the need to retrain people? Dr. MCLEAN. To send the people away for training. Another method is to reorganize so that you need people in new positions. Any mechanism that keeps things from becoming too stable I think will keep the laboratories alive. Mr. DADDARIO. Since you depend to a degree upon guesswork, it would help in making your guesses more accurate. Dr. MCLEAN.. Broader experience will help make the guesses more accurate. PAGENO="0080" 76 A Federal policy which would insure that the changes in laboratory management and mission are slower than 5 years and more rapid than 20 might be considered desirable for maximum return on the investment made in creating experienced laboratory people. The pres- ent procedure of establishing new organizations as new needs arise is probably good if it can be coupled with a mechanism for transferring people and facilities from organizations whose effectiveness and mis- sions are disappearing. The procedures for disestablishmg labora- tories should be improved. In the real world many organizational loyalties make the dissolution process extremely difficult. In the process of selecting between laboratories, as in any growth process, competition is very important. Therefore, if the Government were to establish clearly defined, narrow, and exclusive missions for its laboratory organizations it would eliminate competition and would soon be faced with the complete coverage of all areas of technical endeavor by organizations convinced that nothing can be changed and all new projects are worthless. Within the effective life cycle of a laboratory I believe the labora- tory can develop its competence to the highest degree if it is exposed to a variety of problems. The legal limitations on accepting work from other agencies have presented no problems. The general belief that there is a definite relationship between manpower and perform- ance does present problems. My own experience would indicate that people can perform at rates at least in order of magnitude (factor of 10) different depending on interest or lack of it in the work being un- dertaken. Interesting programs are easy to add to an already full work- load. As Parkinson states in one of his organizational laws, "Work ex- pands to fill the time available for its accomplishment." I believe in the converse and that only by overloading development groups can we be sure of maximum return. We should by all means encourage interagency use of laboratory facilities. The policies on interagency use are generally permissive rather than directive. The procedures for placing work in other laboratories or accepting work from other agencies are well established and can be utilized on a mutual agreement basis. There is much merit in doing work for multiple agencies. There is no substitute for being known by one's peers and outside effort accomplishes this objective. Interlabora- tory contacts also provide data for the comparison of civil service standards. There are limiting factors that control the amount of outside work- load that can be accepted. These limiting factors are the physical plant, the mix of scientific talent available, existing program commit- ments, and restrictions on the use of resources (overtime limitations, for example). Laboratories lack a fast reaction time when new facilities are required. As you know, to construct new facilities requires a minimum of 5 to 6 years from the time that the requirement is first known. There needs to be more flexibility in construction for research and develop- ment activities. Because of the complicated array of factors affecting laboratory workload, it is difficult to assess the the laboratory capa- bility remotely. This assessment should be a prime function of the laboratory director assisted by his staff. PAGENO="0081" 77 In addition to evaluating laboratory workload, the laboratory director has complete control of the line items in the budget allocated to independent research and independent exploratory development. I believe that one of his most important functions is to apply these resources in such a way as to investigate new ideas of the laboratory personnel. The ability to act quickly on new suggestions is very important in maintaining the morale of scientific people. In selecting from ideas, which are always more numerous than the funds available, the director must have clearly in mind the needs of his parent organization and the state of technology. He should give highest priority to suggestions that will provide developments which the organization will need in the next 5 years and to experiments which attack critical questions on the forefronts of technology. Mr. DADDARIO. You are talking about areas which he feels fall within the province of his agency's jurisdiction or mission. How far would you allow him to vary that in the achievement of national goals? Dr. MCLEAN. I think that this is a very complicated question to an- swer because there are two forces working. One is that he has to have things which will show a need by the organization in the immediate future, and at the same time he needs to know that things are likely to have the biggest payoff, so he needs to look to things that are quite far out and haven't really ever previously been associated with his organizational needs, but in the future might very well have advan- tages to the organization. Mr. DADDARTO. Would your recommendation be that he be given, if guidelines were to be established, the widest possible latitude or would you narrow it down? Dr. MCLEAN. I believe he needs the widest possible latitude in the choice of problems and at the same time the greatest amount of in- formation on what the organization needs and how it is likely to be going in the next period. In other words, he needs both information and latitude in selection. Mr. DADDARIO. A laboratory council would be helpful in this regard. Dr. MCLEAN. Yes. Mr. DADDARIO. Would you agree with Dr. Astin that laboratory di- rectors ought to meet and tell each other what they are doing, and that if they are given wide latitude they could come to a judgment about their problems? Dr. MCLEAN. Yes. The Navy has had such a council working for the last 8 years between the laboratory directors and this has been very helpful. Mr. DADDARIO. You suggest it be expanded? Dr. MCLEAN. I suggest it is needed very much. The only problem is size, that you will have to limit the size of the groups because all the laboratory directors of the Federal Government in one organization or one meeting would be unmanageable. Mr. DADDARIO. Please continue. Dr. MCLEAN. The independent programs are reviewed after the fact and future allocation of new funds made on the basis of judgments on the success of each laboratory's past programs. The most unbiased judgment of a director's use of independent funds is the degree to which the laboratory secures development pro- jects from the parent organization based on information and demon- strations made possible by independent work. 93-2Oi-68-----~ PAGENO="0082" 78 Of the various methods of supplying independent research funds, I would favor the one which assigns a certain percentage of the total budget of the laboratory for this purpose. The rewards for careful use of the funds to guide developments toward things which are needed by the sponsoring agencies will, in this case, be automatic. Cross agen- cy use of the laboratories will be improved and will provide that each user pay part of the support needed to develop laboratory competence. Mr. DADDARIO. What is the percentage amount in your own instance? Dr. MoLn~N. In our own experience we have had about 5 percent in this category, and I believe that this is a workable number. Of course, you always have more things to do than 5 percent will allow you to accomplish, but- Mr. DADDARIO. If you were to have 5 percent and the widest dis- cretionary authority in the use of it, you feel this would be a good beginning? Dr. MCLEAN. Yes. I have had 5 percent over the last 20 years and this has been very useful in directing the laboratory's program. It is the money which keeps the laboratory creative, I believe. Mr. DADDARIO. We do not have time to get into that now, but it is something we would like to develop for the record, Doctor. Dr. MCLEAN. All right. Civilian personnel ceilings are set for the laboratory by the Director of Navy Laboratories who receives a total allocation of billets for Navy laboratory operations from the Office of Civilian Manpower Management. The Navy ceiling, of course, is derived from overall DOD and Executive establishment limitations. Hirings are based upon funds available to support a certain employment level, within the estab- lished ceiling. Increases to the ceiling depend upon a number of fac- tors including need, total employment level within the Department of the Navy, and ceiling points available within the system for realloca- tion. Typically, the laboratory ceiling is not adjusted for performing particular projects, whether these are Navy sponsored or for another agency. Rather, the laboratory is expected to adjust its total resources, which should in the long run, represent the optimum size and skills mix to perform a broad spectrum of work to meet priority needs. I might repeat that there is value in a workload consistently higher than the laboratory can handle, since the pressure of taking on addi- tional interesting work tends to force out low interest and low pay- off programs and promotes the early transfer of work to industry. However, with an accounting system where an efficient operation can be judged and rewarded, the need for manpower ceilings as a con- trol could be removed and greater flexibility obtained by allocating funds. Mr. DADDARIO. If you really took off the personnel ceilings, would it have that effect or would it just give you the opportunity to continue low payoff programs? Would it make matters worse rather than bet- ter? I don't know that I would particularly agree with you. I recognize this is a problem, but you already raise the problem by saying you can only force out low priority work by having something new and more interestmg. PAGENO="0083" 79 Dr. MCLEAN. The reason if you don't have the manpower ceilings you need a very good accounting system which relates money to man- power. Mr. DADDARIO. What you mean is you establish your own ceiling. Dr. MCLEAN. And it is controlled by funds and you have to use the funds to force out the low interest, low payoff problems. Mr. DADDARIO. What do you do by forcing them out anyway? Dr. MCLEAN. Generally that is a problem of-actually, they get forced out just by the fact that nobody works on them if they have other work to do. Mr. DADDARIO. You say that you have to force them out and I agree with you. You are not just raising it for the first time. One of the ob- jectives ought to be to come to some determination about how to prevent this from coming about in the first~instance. On the other hand, we have had some recommendations covering re- training and giving the directors more authority. Dr. MCLEAN. The most effective method, I believed, for forcing out programs of low payoff is to give the men something more interesting and something more valuable to do. Mr. DADDARIO. The low payoff comes not because the director has been negligent, but rather some of the guesswork is bad. You get things going- Dr. MCLEAN. And he has been working on the job for a long time and he has reached the area of marginal return for effort in that par- ticular area. He has discovered all the things that are really important, but if he doesn't have any new job to go to, the pressures to keep going on the old job are very strong. Mr. DADDARIO. So we have to follow your suggestion to develop bet- ter capabilities in the first instance to keep it narrowed down. The other is to come to the earliest assessment possible about what ought to be eliminated. Dr. MCLEAN. It isn't so important to assess what ought to be elimi- nated. The problem is to give them new work that is better, that they will recognize as being better. Mr. DADDARIO. Then you know what is better and what should be eliminated. I recognize it is not an easy decision. Dr. MCLEAN. No, it is not easy, but I think the more we can push people into new fields the easier it is to get them to transfer from work that they have been with for a long time, but should be dropped. Mr. DADDARIO. Please continue, Doctor. Dr. MCLEAN. When doing work for agencies other than the parent activity the balance between work for the parents and others is im- portant. In the laboratories where I have worked, the ratio was about 90 percent for the Navy and 10 percent for other activities. I think this is a reasonable split to provide outside contacts and exchange of information. In military laboratories it might be desirable to have as much as 5 percent of the effort supported by nonmilitary agencies. We have performed work supported by other agencies or of direct benefit to them, such as warhead and missile tests for the AEC and Army, provision of ocean range facilities for NASA and major industrial firms such as Lockheed, North American, General Atomics, and West- inghouse. Other effort includes undersea geologic maps used by the Geological Survey, assistance to the Air Force and AEC in recovering PAGENO="0084" 80 lost objects, calibration work on instruments, assistance to Arctic Research Institute on the structure of sea ice, and the use of sonar to count fish in the Columbia River for the Department of Interior. One corrnnercial aspect of our work is the appearance on the market of handheld sonar for skindivers and sonar equipment for fishermen. NUWC test facilities are available to all Government agencies and contractors. I believe the only nonsubjective measure of effectiveness in R. & D. must result from comparisons on a competitive basis. This means that we need more than one laboratory in each field of endeavor which is important to Government operations; or more realistically, we need two or three groups of laboratories, each having a broad scope of activ- ities extending all the way from research through development, test- ing, and evaluation, and limited production of the type needed to provide guidelines for large-scale industrial production. Competition between these laboratories, or groups of laboratories, should be encour- aged and the record of their accomplishments evaluated. Our abilities to satisfy society's needs are judged by competition and rewarded by success or failure. This process provides high incentives and high motivation. People work best when they feel they have set their own objectives and have control of the process. The general management can be very loose and competition can provide opportunities both to try and to judge organizational procedures. Such management will be successful only for laboratories with a broad mission since parts of the total process cannot be productive by themselves, for example,. pure research without application is never profitable; the final product is the most reliable measure of productivity. In my opinion, the most practical method of supporting interagency research and development is through a direct agreement between the laboratory and the outside agency. Joint undertakings and interagency transfer of funds, while quite feasible in principle, tend to become enmeshed in workings of the system to the point where a great deal of program effort is absorbed by administrative and communication problems unless a central focal point exists. When a program needs integrated planning the existence of a planner or a master architect seems essential. This man should have the following characteristics: 1. Technical competence. 2. Dedication and enthusiasm for the job. 3. Planned availability for the duration of the job. 4. Knowledge of, and control of, the needed resources including supporting laboratory efforts. If such a man is not available the programs will proceed better in smaller units without overall coordination. A study of our successful and unsuccessful projects as related to the continuity of management might serve to enlighten this point. In conclusion, gentlemen, I feel that in the management of Federal laboratories the following operational principles should be retained: (a) Self-determination of the direction of a laboratory's programs by the skillful use of independent funds and friendly interlaboratory competition. (b) Reward for achievements and discipline for ineffectiveness through competition. I propose also that the management of Federal laboratories: PAGENO="0085" 81 (a) Extend and augment the concept of laboratory centers of excel- lence with broad missions such as the Naval Weapons Center, Naval Undersea Warfare Center, Naval Ship Research and Development Center, and Naval Command Control Communications Laboratory Center. (b) Extend and augment councils of laboratory directors to pro- mote better interlaboratory communications and understanding of lab- oratory capabilities. (c) Use the methods of the Navy's Vietnam laboratory assistance program to bring technical problems directly to people with the req- uisite technical competence for resolution of the problems. (d) Ask laboratories to review their contractual actions for cross- service to other laboratories; that is, reward interlaboratory coopera- tion. (e) Propose legislation that will decrease the leadtime required to procure facilities to support research, test, and evaluation effort. (f) Continue to make laboratories available to other agencies so long as this effort does not exceed 10 percent of the total effort of the lab- oratory. (g) Give the laboratory directory the authority to decide on proper balance between programs. (Ii) Consider colocation of facilities by Federal agencies in order to broaden the experience of each. Mr. DADDARTO. lElow do we get this evaluation process to the pomt where it can be effective so that Congress, which must make the final determination and allocation of funds, can effectively deal with it? Dr. MCLEAN. I think it has to be done on the basis of having more than one group in each field. They don't have to cover the same field, but for instance, we have had for many years the work which was pretty well allocated to just one organization so if anybody wanted n particular fuse of a particular kind it was only that organization which could provide it. I think it would have been much better if we had had more than one organization in that particular field. At the present time we have only one organization for producing guided missiles, or I mean space vehicles. I hate to suggest it, but perhaps two NASA's would have been useful and perhaps the Air Force performs a useful function in providing competition to the NASA organization. Mr. DADDARIO. Well, when you say we oniy have one, we do in fact have two. Dr. MCLEAN. That is probably a good idea. Mr. DADDARIO. Are you saying we should have three ? Dr. MCLEAN. No, but I think we need to maintain that idea of competition throughout the whole research and development struc- ture. It is very bad to get an organization charged with the entire responsibility for a particular area that is important to the Govern- ment. That brings up the problem- Mr. DADDARI0. You wouldn't say in every instance? Dr. MCLEAN. No, but I think the users, the people who need the product, ought to have more than one alternative when it comes to getting a particular kind of job done and therefore there should be a number of laboratories with broad missions rather than the same number of laboratories with very specific missions. PAGENO="0086" 82 Mr. DAnD~nIo. I do not find any argument with that. But you do have to come to some judgment as to what they are all doing in the final analysis even though you create this competitive situation. Dr. MCLEAN. Yes. I guess it might be nice to make that a user choice. Congress, for instance, in allocating funds to particular or- ganizations can decide which ones it thinks have been doing the best job and does decide that. Mr. DADDARIO. I think we tried to do it. My question goes to the mechanism. I do not believe that we have a particularly workable system at the moment although we try to come to these judgments. However, to come to these judgments in the most effective way re- quires that we improve the decisionmaking process. My interest in asking these questions is who do you see as making these decisions? Do you think that the director or the agency head should come to a judgment through some mechanism which he would establish? Dr. MCLEAN. Well, in the experience that I have had at the Naval Ordnance Test Station where we were developing systems that could be used by the Army, the Navy, or the Air Force, one of the mech- anisms of judging progress was how many systems were purchased by the Army or the Air Force, whereas the development work was supported primarily by the Navy. Mr. DADDARIO. We are not going to develop this mechanism here and now, but your general attitude about this is helpful. What do you mean by reward for laboratory cooperation? Dr. MCLEAN. From the standpoint of the interlaboratory coopera- tion rather than disapproving. Mr. DADDARIO. Rewarding by looking with pleasure rather than dissatisfaction. Dr. MCLEAN. For instance, one way to punish rnterlaboratory co- operation is to have a management that doesn't understand what either of them is doing, threaten to take funds away from one and give it to the other laboratory without any idea as to whether either program is being effective. I was caught between competition as a deciding mechanism and the fact that that also punishes for cooperation between laboratories. The same problem that industrial organizations have. If they are in competition they have difficulty in cooperating. Mr. DADDARIO. By cooperation do you means people working side by side in the same building, joint use of personnel, or even the transfer of personnel from one agency to another if the facilities are available? Dr. MCLEAN. I mean more of the side-by-side cooperation so that they understand each other's programs. Mr. DADDARIO. So that they would be available to each other? Dr. MCLEAN. Yes. Mr. DADDARIO. And business would be made easier. Dr. MCLEAN. Yes, they know the kind of programs the other labora- tories are working on, and can utilize their facilities if they are par- ticularly adaptable. Mr. DADDARIO. That being possible in every instance, it would cer- tainly increase the use of technology in this regard, which today is considerable. Dr. MCLEAN. Yes. PAGENO="0087" 83 Mr. DADDARIO. Dr. McLean, you have been extremely helpful, and I hope that we might send some further questions to you for the record. Dr. MOLEAN. All right. Mr. DADDARI0. I appreciate your being here. QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO DR. WILLIAM B. MCLEAN BY THE SUB. COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 1. In your statement you say, "the procedures for disestablishing laboratories should be improved." What specific recommendations would you make in this regard? This problem was introduced only in recognition of the need for more considera- tion and study of alternatives for accomplishing the disestablishment of labora. tories. My mention of the need was intended to indicate the lack of ideas as to workable techniques for the closing of laboratories. Some of the factors which make the disestablishment of laboratories difficult, or in some cases prevent it, are the following: a. The organizational unity and loyalty necessary to the operation of an orga- nization prevents its rapid dissolution. The more effective and productive an organization has been in the past, the more it generates internal resistance to disestablishment. b. The political environment in which laboratories exist also contributes to the difficulties encountered in the dissolution of laboratory organizations. 2. In your testimony you speak of competition as a measure of quality, yet the other side of the coin is duplication. How do you draw the dividing line, anti what criteria are there to guide you? In research we set a general goal of understanding the operation of nature. Such an objective allows freedom for each research man to define his own areas of interest. Competition provides a general management function as long as all the individuals can understand what the others are doing ar~d can judge their own rate of progress relative to that of others. We have a breakdown when the rate of progress exceeds our ability to absorb, and we have duplication through ignorance. This is obviously a waste and the demands for centralized planning come to the front. We have a choice between broadening our ability to consume by discovering better methods for transmitting and absorbing information, or we can choose to limit production by instituting centralized planning as a substitute for individual goals. I like to think of research as being those operations which occur at the borders of the known area of knowledge and which are concerned with the penetration into the surrounding infinitude of the unknown. As the realm of the known increases, it is obvious that the total number of areas of research which can be undertaken will also increase. We hear a great deal about planning research in such a way as to avoid gaps in coverage, about trying to make sure that all research will be profitable, and about the necessity to avoid duplication. It is my belief that it will always be impossible to cover all possible areas of research. The best we can do in the management of research is to find people who have a genuine interest in carrying out research activities and try to stimulate discussions across organizational lines in order to promote th.e generation of new ideas. I hope we can forget about clearly defined missions and the avoidance of duplication. No well-informed and sensible research man is going to deliberately do the same kinds of work which are being carried out in another organization. The more the planning of research can be delegated to the man close to the work, the more likely it is that it will approach the boundaries of the known realm of knowledge. 3. In your testimony you state that the 5 percent discretionary funds which you have had "keeps the laboratory creative." Would you please provide some anamples of how this authority has helped? The following items or techniques were fostered or developed by the use of discretionary funds available to me: (a) The Johnson Shark Screen (a major advancement in the Navy's search for adequate protection of its personnel from sharks). (b) Syntactic Foam (this buoyant material is now used in most deep sub- mersible vehicles). (c) The use of ultra sonics for wire and metal forming. (ti) Color sonar (presentation of sonic information in color). This may prove useful in the recognition of specific rock formations below the sea floor. PAGENO="0088" 84 (e) Sea-See. A research vessel designed for observation of biological activity in the first 50 feet of the ocean's depth. The device utilizes plastic hemispheres which provide the observer with all-around visibility and will be useful for obser- vation of fish schools, porpoise behavior, sea lions, and the operation of travel nets. 4. $everal agencies have set up procedures to appraise the performance of con- tractors that do research and development for them, or that manage agency lab- oratories. To your knowledge, what consideration has been given to applying the standards and procedures of these appraisal processes to Government-operated laboratories? To what eat ent would this be desirable? For any organization or individual to feel successful there must be some mechanism for measuring the degree in which they have fulfilled their goals. In an organization which is profit-oriented, such an evaluation is straight- forward, rigorous, and simple. If the figures are in the black, all associated with the organization are happy. If they are in the red, or tending toward the red, then something must be done to rectify the situation. Government organiza- tions, military organizations, educational institutions, and research and de- velopment activities, whenever they are adequately removed from the profit- making pressures, have a more difficult time in establishing a proper evalua- tion of the effectiveness of their processes and results. For all such organiza- tions I believe the evaluation must be on the basis of competition similar to that involved in making a profit. The fact, however, that results cannot easily be expressed in terms of a single variable, such as money, tends to make the evaluation proëess much more difficult. Governments are judged by history, and military organizations by wars. These are very harsh and final judgments and do not provide a very adequate, self-rectifying mechanism. In essence, the appraisal of contractor and laboratory performance is limited by the capabilities of the individuals available to perform the appraisal. Of necessity, an appraiser must be a person who has been very successful in the field being evaluated. Yet, every appraiser has his own set of biases and b& lieves that his own approach is the only correct approach. The competitive system is the only appraisal system that leaves open the possibility of innova- tion. In spite of these difficulties in evaluation, the Navy is setting up technically competent review committees to review laboratory performance. The effect of these committees on laboratory performance has yet to be evaluated. 5. The DOD witness proposed the elimination of manpower controls on cross- agency work to promote flewibility similar to that available to the AEG contract laboratories. What is your opinion of this proposal? I believe that some form of manpower controls or ceilings are essential in the absence of competition or techniques for measuring the output of a laboratory. Independent of the size of an organization assigned any particular job, pressure will always arise to demonstrate the requirements for more people. The difficulty of maintaining effective communication with increasing size of an organization is the reason, I believe, that organizations tend to become less, efficient as they become larger. Dr. R. B. Kershner of the Applied Physics Labor- atory, Johns Hopkins University, has written a very interesting paper' on the optimum size of organization for any given job. He plots the time to accomplish a given objective against the number of people assigned to the task and shows that the curve has a minimum value. With too few people assigned, the job moves too slowly to maintain the interests of the people and their sense of ac- complishment. As a result, a long time is required to finish the job. If the number of people is increased beyond the optimum, competition for the jobs available becomes keen. Communications begin to fall off. The understanding of what is to be accomplished becomes more remote. The need for specific, definite sped- fications becomes greater. And, finally, the ability of each engineer to participate in setting the goals toward which he is working, and his contribution to the tota' design, becomes less with a resulting loss of interest. Tension within such an overstaffed organization grows, mistakes become more common, and the ability to try new things which might lead to significant short cuts becomes entirely too risky. The need for more coordination and more planning as the program lags becomes more apparent. The system is self-accelerating in that, as more co- ordinators are added, the engineers and scientists have less opportunity to pro-. vide feedback into the setting of specifications; thus, progress toward the final 1R. B. Kershner, "The Size of Research and Engineering Teams," in Th~ Proceedings of the Eleventh National Conference on Adnvin~stration of Research, Penn State University Press, September 1957, pp. 77-83. PAGENO="0089" 85 goal is further delayed. If we want to avoid these difficulties and have a par- ticipative type of operation, we should, as managers, try to do every job with. an organization which is at the optimum, and this usually means the smallest size for its effective completion. If we increase beyond the optimum size, how- ever, the forces become such as to automatically justify further increases in size. I have proposed that as a management tool every important job should be undertaken by two organizhtions having a factor of ten difference in size. 6. What criteria should govern: A. How muck independent money a laboratory director should have? B. The appraisal of what the Director has accomplished with funds previously authorized to him? a. Of the various methods of supplying independent research funds, I favor the one which assigns a certain percentage, say 5%, of the total budget of the laboratory for this purpose. This should not be an automatic level for all laboratories but should vary according to the original and significant work that is accomplished by a laboratory. b. The independent programs are reviewed after the fact, and future alloca- tion of new funds is made on the basis of judgments on the success of each laboratory's past programs. In my opinion, therefore, the most valid appraisal of a director's use of independent research funds is the degree to which the laboratory secures development projects from the parent, or other sponsoring organization, based on information and demonstrations made possible by inde- pendent research. 7. Does your laboratory have ceilings for its personnel? If so, how are these ceilings set and who does it? What fiewibility do you have for assignments within a ceiling? How feasible is it for you to obtain a change in personnel ceiling to accommodate work for another agency? Oivilian personnel ceilings are set for the laboratory by the Director of Navy Laboratories who receives a total allocation of billets for Navy laboratory opera~ tions from the office of Civilian Manpower Management. The Navy ceiling, of course, is derived from overall DOD and Executive Establishment limitations. Hirings are made based upon funds available to support a certain employment level within the established ceiling. Increases to the ceiling depend upon a number of factors including need, total employment level within the Department of the Navy, and ceiling points available within the system for reallocation. Typically, the laboratory ceiling is not adjusted for performance particular projects, whether these are Navy sponsored or for another agency. Rather, the laboratory is expected to adjust its total resources, which should in the long run, represent the optimum size and skills mix to perform a broad spectrum of work to meet priority needs. I might repeat that there is value in a workload consistently higher than the laboratory can handle, since the pressure of taking' on additional interesting work tends to force out low interest and low pay-off programs and promotes the early transfer of work to industry. However, with an accountin.g system where an efficient operation can be judged and rewarded, the need for manpower ceilings as a control could be removed and greater flexibility obtained. I feel that the need for ceilings will decrease in proportion as our ability to correlate manpower and costs and performance improves. If the accounting and evaluation can be such as to make this possible, then one ceiling on money' should provide the local managers with more flexibility. Mr. DADDA1UO. I apologize that we will not be able to hear you today Mr. Finger, but I hope you will be able to come back tomorrow and be our first witness. Mr. Finger has done fine work for NASA and the AEC, and we are pleased to have him as a witness. We are sorry that we have to hold you over to tomorrow. Our other witnesses tomorrow will be Dr. 1~\Tilliam H. Pickering, Director of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and Phillip S. Hugbes, Deputy Director of the Bureau of the Budget. This committee will be adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow at this same place. (Whereupon, at 12:25 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned to recon~- vene at 10 a.m., Thursday, March 28, 1968.) PAGENO="0090" PAGENO="0091" UTILIZATION OF FEDERAL LAB ORATORIES THURSDAY, MARCH 28, 1968 HoUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, CoMi~trm~E ON SCIENCE AND ASTRONAUTICS, StTBCOMMIrrEE oN SCLF~NCE, RESEARCH, AND DEVELOPMENT, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10 a.m., in room 2325, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Emilio Q. Daddario (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Mr. DADDARIO. The meeting will come to order. Today we continue our hearing on the utilization of Federal laboratories. Our first witness today is Harold B. Finger, Associate Adminis- trator, Office of Organization and Management, NASA. We had hoped to hear from Mr. Finger yesterday, but time prevented us from doing `so. We appreciate your coming back again this morning. Our second witness is Dr. William H. Pickering, director of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. The outstanding performance of the Sur- veyor spacecraft, and the other missions to the moon and the planets, have made the Jet Propulsion Laboratory a well-known name through- out America. The technologies of telemetering, remote control, com- munication, data processing, and analysis that have been developed for these missions appear to have application to many other Federal `programs and in many nonspace fields. The subcommittee notes, for example, that two important areas mentioned by the President's Crime Commission which would have the most significant ini1pact on law- enforcement work were the need for better communications and the need to apply systems analysis to police operations. Our final witness this morning is Phillip S. Hughes, Deputy Director of the Bureau of the Budget. It was the Bureau of the Budget that produced the Bell report which has been referred to a number of times in these hearings. In preparing the President's annual budget request to Congress, the Bureau has the opportunity to effect the proper utilization of Federal laboratories to a great extent. By budget allocation between agencies, the Bureau in effect must decide whether to use existing facilities to accomplish Federal research and development programs, to establish new facilitie~s, or to expand existing ones. What we are interested in today is how these decisions are made. Mr. Finger, we are pleased again to have you here and to find out what you have to say about this problem. (Mr. Finger's biography follows:) (87) PAGENO="0092" 88 HARoi~ B. FINGEB Mr. Finger was appointed to this position on March 15, 1967. He reports di- rectly to the Administrator and is responsible for the evaluation and strength- ening of agency-wide management policies and practices involved in the conduct of NASA programs and activities. He provides executive leadership for the offices under the direction of the Assistant Administrators for Administration, Industry Affairs, Technology Utilization, University Affairs, and Special Contracts Review and Negotiation. In addition, elements responsible for audit, inspection, Head- quarters administration, and organization and management planning report to him. Previously, Mr. Finger had been Manager of the Space Nuclear Propulsion Office since August 1960. This office is responsible for nuclear rocket develop- ment for both NASA and the Atomic Energy Commission and isotopically-heated rocket thruster work for the AEO. Beginning in November 1961, he also served as Director of Nuclear System.s for NASA's Office of Advanced Research and Technology. In this capacity, he managed research, development and flight testing of nuclear electric power systems and electrical propulsion and the flight: testing of nuclear rocket systems. During this period he was also named Director' of AEC's Space Nuclear Systems Division in June 1965. Here he `headed a new Space Electric Power Office, administering space reactor and isotope electrical power systems work. Finger had been on the NASA Headquarters staff since it was established in October 1958. He was Chief of the Nuclear Engine Program. On March 5, 1961, he was appointed Assistant Director for Nuclear Applications. Finger joined the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, the predeces- sor to NASA, in 1944 as an aeronautical research scientist at the Lewis Flight Propulsion Laboratory, Cleveland. In 1952, he was named Head of the Axial Flow Compressor Section and in 1854, Associate Chief of the Compressor Research Branch. Three years later, after nuclear training at Lewis, he was made Head' of the Nuclear Radiation Shielding Group and of a Nuclear Rocket Design Analysis Group. Finger was born in New York City, February 18, 1924. He earned a B.S. degree in Mechanical Engineering from City College of New York in 1944. He was awarded an M.S. degree in Aeronautical Engineering at Case Institute of Tech- nology in 1950. Finger has specialized in `research on turbo-machinery, gas turbine engines~ nuclear rockets, and shielding. Author of numerous technical papers, he was co- winner of the 1957 Society of Automotive Engineers Manley Award for the. best paper on aeronautics. He is a member of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. Mr. and Mrs. Finger (the former Arlene Karsch) `and their three daughters live in Bethesda, Maryland. Mr. FINGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of the committee, I find that anything any one of us can say in this area is only a small part of this total problem because there are so many factors to be discussed in determining how best to use the laboratories and get them to adjust to new needs and get them pre- pared for new needs that may come along as essential national re- quirements. Therefore, although I have prepared a lengthy statement on this subject, it does not cover all of the points that need discussion. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I propose that I summarize my statement using it only as an outline. Mr. DADDARIO. Fine. STATEMENT OP HAROLD' B.. FINGER, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT, NATIONAL AERO- NAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION Mr. FINGER. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration is a research PAGENO="0093" 89 and development agency applying its scientific, engineering, and management capabilities primarily to the accomplishment of aero- nautical and space programs for which it is responsible. NASA's laboratories are its in-house technical strength and are an essential element of its management system. That strength has been carefully and deliberately built up to provide a national resource that is now applying its talents to advancing the technology of aeronautical and space systems so as to provide scientific understanding of the earth and its atmosphere, of the solar system, and of man and other forms of life and also to apply that technology in other ways that will also benefit mankind. These other ways include the direct applications of space technology to communications, weather prediction, and navi- gational aids. I want to emphasize, however, that the funds for this program, about 90 percent of our budget, are spent in industry with the in-house laboratory competence providing a technical interface with the con- tractors to anticipate problems, help guide the contractors to the proper solutions of problems that come up during the development programs. The laboratories are then a very key part of our system for getting the work done, but we do rely very heavily on the available capabilities of industry. Also trying, during the course of the pro- gram, to strengthen the capabilities of industry to carry out advanced technological programs and to apply that advanced technology in other areas. Although NASA could not predict or guarantee the magnitude or exact direction of future mission activities, it did establish its labora~ tories so that expansion or retrenchment could be achieved while maintaining this basic capability. Thus, when the most active periods of mission-oriented work begin to ~decline, the laboratory does not have to deteriorate and decline as well. It has the flexibility to take on new roles and missions, to shift its primary emphasis (from development to research, for example) or to retrench its total capability to a lower level where effectiveness can still be maintained. In the broad range of science and technology, there should be no end to a laboratory's mission or purpose. The best labo- ratories of all kinds repeatedly demonstrate the aibility to go through a continuous renewal of challenging objectives in order to stay alive and vital. And this process of renewal is only successful where the ne~v objectives are those which are best oriented toward new needs. NASA now has 11 research and space flight centers; counting the various unique installations that are associated with these centers, we have 19 installations, plus 27 tracking stations. We own a total of 143,000 acres of land and utilize through leasing and other arrange- inents an additional 194,000 acres. We now have 32,442 civil service employees and, in addition, contractor and university employees op- erating or supporting these installations. These employees cover the span of disciplines from mechanics and technicians to Ph. D.'s in all of the science and engineering disciplines. Our total capital invest- ment at these in-house installations is over $3.5 billion. In addition, there is another half a billion dollars that is located with various other institutions, industrial contractor and university institutions, where we have ownership of the capitalized equipment sand facilities. PAGENO="0094" 90 The development and growth of NASA's laboratory competence has been accomplished in several ways that are indicative of the changing mission goals that have been and must be assigned to research and development organizations. When NASA was established, the research capabilities of the Na- tional Advisory Committee for Aeronautics-the Langley, Lewis, Ames, Wallops, and Flight Research Centers-were brought in to serve as the nucleus for this country's aeronautical and space research and development. The research laboratories of the NACA still serve as a major NASA element leading the forward thrust of our aeronautical and space technology. Each of these research centers directs limited flight mis- sion development projects as a means of using its capabilities to assist NASA in handling it.s large growth in flight activity and also to keep so involved in real flight problems that research activities are realisti- cally directed toward advancing the country's capability in aero- nautics and space. Among the flight development activities that have been placed in these research centers are, for example, the responsibility for directing the development of the Centaur rocket at the Lewis Research Center, the Pioneer Solar probes at the Ames Research Center, the biosatellite projects aimed at determining the effects of the space environment on life forms at the Ames Research Center, the Lunar Orbiter project directed by the Langley Research Center. Because their emphasis is on a broad program of research and technology development, their~ activities are characterized by relatively stable workloads that are not subject to the rapid buildup and phasedown characteristic of mdi- vidual flight mission projects. In addition to the research capabilities required to carry out the assignments made by the National Aeronautics and Space Act to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Congress as- signed to NASA a development and space flight operations responsi- bility that required a scientific and engineering development capa- bility beyond that available in NACA. As a result of authorities specified in the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958, the Vanguard team of the Naval Research Lab- oratory was transferred to NASA and formed the nucleus for NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. Incidentally, they were supplemented by a group out of the Signal Corps activities in Fort Monmouth that later became the leading people in the weather, meteorological, and atmospheric science areas.~ The Development Operations Division of the Army Ballistic Missile Agency was transferred to NASA to form the basis for the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala. The Jet Propulsion Labora- tory operated for the Army by the California Institute of Technology was transferred to NASA, and you will hear more about that from Dr. Pickering. A cadre of personnel of the Langley Research Center was assigned to the space task group to initiate this country's first manned space flight activities in Project Mercury. In 1961 when the national commit- ment was established to develop a space flight capability sufficient to land men on the moon in this decade, the space task group became the core of the Manned Spacecraft Center in Houston that is now responsi-~ PAGENO="0095" 91 ble for developing the Apollo command and service modules and the lunar module that will land men on the surface of the moon and for the flight operations of these systems. What is now the Kem~edy Space Center in Florida was established as an outgrowth of the launch operations directorate of the Marshall Space Flight Center. We generally refer to these newer centers as our "development" centers because of the nature of their mission responsibilities. Although their emphasis is on the development and conduct of space missions, we still maintain the research and advanced technological develop- ment base at these centers as a means of anticipating the best means for carrying out and planning our future programs and, in the process,. to maintain their technical competence. These centers have been re- sponsible for our major space flight missions including our manned Mercury and Gemini missions in which almost 2,000 hours of manned space flight were achieved and the capabilities of man to operate in space were demonstrated. These flights also demonstrated the capa- bility to control, rendezvous, and dock vehicles in space and evaluated many other requirements for manned space operations. The NASA development centers have also directed the development of such proj- ects as the TIROS, Nimbus, Syncom, Relay, Ranger, Mariner, Sur- veyor, and many other major scientific space experiments and satel- lites that apply this technology for communications and meteorology. All of these organizational units were, therefore, based on the scien- tific, engineering, and management discipline competence that was already in existence as a national resource. These skills are now ap- plied to different mission goals and have resulted in substantial prog- ress toward the achievement of those goals. In order to carry out the programs that have been established, the NASA civil service employment has grown from 8,420 employees in 1958 to a peak of 33,726 in 1967 and is now down to 32,422. Combined with the contractor and university people who are working with us in our installations, this manpower and the equipment and facilities that are available to them give NASA the competence to carry out the missions assigned to it and also provide the competence that can be applied to other activities by NASA within its overall area of respon- sibility. If we consider the history of all of these centers from their NACA and Department of Defense background to the current time, we find a continual change in work assignment, in mission goal, and even in discipline mix. Facilities have also undergone continual change. For example, the altitude wind tunnel was built at the Lewis Research Center in 1942. Its 20-foot diameter test section was used to test air- craft reciprocating engine-nacelle-propeller combinations at speeds of 500 miles an hour and at conditions equivalent to 50,000-foot altitudes. During World War II tests in this facility resulted in important contributions to the improvement of the B-29. That facility is now known as the space power chambers. It has been divided into separate environmental space chambers that simulate conditions up to alti- tudes of 400,000 feet and temperatures approaching space condi- tions. It is, therefore, now a space environmental test facility. From aircraft tests at 500 miles an hour and altitudes of 50,000 feet we have now gone to tests of the Centaur rocket and to models of large solid rock nozzles and also to tests of space power systems. PAGENO="0096" 92 The Lewis 10- by 10-foot supersonic wind tunnel was completed in 1955 as part of the nationwide unitary wind tunnel plan. it was used to test turbojet and ramjet engine systems, but was then modi- fied after NASA was established to do work on rocket systems that included the investigation of the vehicle base heating problem which results when multiple engines are clustered together, such as is the case in our Saturn rockets. During recent years that facility has been modified again to provide the capability to simulate conditions that would be experienced in a supersonic aircraft so that engine and engine inlet configuration matching problems can be investigated for the supersonic transport. The engine propeller research `building was built in 1942 and was the first operational facility at the Lewis Research Center. It was used for a reciprocating engine testing, for turbojet engine testing, and is now used for electric propulsion research. At the Langley Research Center, which is our oldest installation, having been established in 1918, many facilities have been converted to meet new needs. The fan drive system of the full-scale wind tunnel at Langley was modified so that accurate control was possible through the tunnel speed range required for vertical and short takeoff landing research and low-speed flying quality `studies of high-speed aircraft designs. Changing research needs prompted the phasing out of the gust tunnel and the conversion of the available space to an urgently needed noise research laboratory. The aircraft loads calibration laboratory is a large laboratory building which has undergone several conver- sions to meet changing research needs; it now houses such simula- tion equipment as LOLA (Lunar Orbit Lctdown `and Approach sim- ulator), zero gravity simulation water tank, a tactical effectiveness simulator, and visual simulator for a foot control maneuvering unit. The Jet Propulsion Laboratory moved from the development of jet assisted takeoff (JATO) equipment for aircraft to other projects involving rocket and jet propulsion technology. Emphasis was changed to the development of reliable liquid and solid fuel propel- lants, guidance systems, tracking devices, and telemetry. In conjunction with the Army Ballistic Missile Agency, JPL had a major responsibility for this country's first satellite, Explorer spacecraft. From this background JPL has developed to its present role of responsibility for such major NASA projects as Surveyor, Ranger, and Mariner. JPL's special capabilities are also being applied to solve specific problems of the Department of Defense. Certain capabilities of the Signal Corps laboratory at Fort Mon- mouth, that were brought into the Goddard Space Flight Center in 1959, had carried out one of the four upper atmosphere sounding rocket programs in the United States through the 1950's. They designed and developed Vanguard II, a cloud cover experiment, and the first meteorological satellite, which was launched in 1959. This group, in NASA, formed the nucleus of the organization that managed TIROS, Nimbus, and the atmosphere Explorers, a total of 14 successful satellites. This group of men became one of the strongest groups of meteoro- logical and atmospheric scientists in the world, in particular pioneer- ing the use of infrared technique to measure the earth's atmosphere and surface and in studying the structure of the atmosphere. PAGENO="0097" 93 At the Marshall Space Flight Center, the test stand that had origi- nally been built for testing the Jupiter and Redstone rockets, the Redstone placed our first satellite into orbit, was used later for the static testing of the first stage of the Saturn I rocket having a thrust of one and a half million pounds. What was done, existing capabilities were brought into NASA built on a nucleus of the basic engineering and scientific skills that were available. These people could move into areas of work. They are just as qualified to move into other new areas. I might mention here also that skills of people have also been adjusted. For example, a year ago we set up at the Manned Spacecraft Center, which is responsible for the development of Apollo Com- mand and Service Modules and the Lunar Module, a space science directorate which looks forward to the long-term application of the Apollo hardware, and to the scientific analysis and research that is to be clone with the experiments carried in that Apollo hardware. My prepared statement discusses this further. Some facilities have also been closed down and are no longer used except for the space that they make available for shops, small labora- tories, and offices. New facilities have been built to take on the new activities that are required by our programs. The engine and stage test facilities at Marshall Space Flight Center and the Mississippi Test Facility, the space propulsion facility being completed at the Lewis Plum Brook Station in Sandusky, Ohio, the Space Environmental Simulation Laboratory at the Manned Spacecraft Center in Houston, the space simulation facilities at the Goddard Space Flight Center that permit development of complex unmanned spacecraft, are all new installations required by our programs, but made available through the scientific and engineering capabilities of our people working in close association with the capabilities of industry, university, and other Government agencies. Recognizing that in the Saturn-Apollo system, we will have de- veloped a strong capability for investigating and exploring space, we are now looking ahead to the increasing emphasis that will be re- quired in applying this capability to meeting important scientific needs and to the continued advancement of technology. While the Manned Spacecraft Center is still busy with the research and develop- ment required to assure that the Apollo spacecraft systems will operate successfully in orbital and lunar mission flights, we are emphasizing the scientific disciplines required to draw full benefit from these flights. During 1967 we established at the Manned Spacecraft Center a space science directorate which we believe must grow to emphasize the sci- entific content of our activities. Also, at the Manned Spacecraft Center we are nearing completion of a Lunar Receiving Laboratory that will have all of the equipment necessary to analyze the samples that are returned from the moon by our astronauts and to do other scientific research related to the moon. We are also, as was just announced by the President on March 1, 1968, establishing a Lunar Science Institute near the Manned Space- craft Center to provide an opportunity for university scientists to come into close association with the work carried out by the Manned 93-20i-----6S------7 PAGENO="0098" 94 Spacecraft Center so that that work and the data obtained can be made available to these scientists throughout the country that are in- terested in and concerned with these matters. Therefore, while the de- velopment activities are proceeding, we are also phasing over into a stronger science emphasis. At the Marshall Space Flight Center, the Saturn vehicle develop- ment work, for which Marshall has been responsible, is now nearing completion. The 14 successive successful flights of the Saturn TB and the first successful flight of the Saturn V conducted last November, indicate the competence of the NASA organization at the Marshall Space Flight Center and of the industrial contractors with whom Marshall has worked in the development of this vehicle. Although continued testing will be required at the Mississippi Test Facility in order to test out those vehicles that are produced to be flown in later missions, the advanced design, research and development work is de- creasing on these vehicles. We have, therefore, assigned to the Mar- shall Space Flight Center responsibility for development of the ATM, the Astronomy Telescope Mount, that will be used in conjunction with manned flights to be conducted in the 1970's using much of the Saturn-Apollo capability. This astronomy work is quite differ- ent from the kind of vehicle development work with which Marshall has been associated in the past but, here again, it is the basic com- petence of the people assigned that permits them to move from one activity to another and still make significant contributions. Obviously, some change in the discipline skill mix at Marshall will be required as they phase over into these other activities, but this change is still built on the foundation of the basic scientific, engineering and man- agement competence of that organization. The Ames Research Center, at which hypersonic aerodynamic re- search led to the definition of the shapes required to permit ICBM weapons to reenter the atmosphere and also led to the basic theory and design information for the reentry conditions of space vehicles has moved into the field of biosciences as an essential ingredient of NASA's program. They are defining experiments, developing instru- ments, and working on evaluation of biologic chemistry as part of their activities aimed at the study of exobiology, extraterrestrial life. Again, on the base of an overall scientific and engineering com- petence, it is possible to modify work assignments and to expand read- ily into new areas of science and technology. The main point I want to emphasize by these numerous examples is that the skill and training and competence of our people permits them to make significant contributions in the changing needs of aero- nautics and space work and can do the same in work on other national programs and needs. Physics is physics no matter what organization it sits in; chemistry, mathematics, biology, these are basic sciences that do not vary depending on the organization in which these dis- ciplines are practiced even though the specific application and em- phasis may be different. The engineering talents required to advance our technology of bat- teries, fuel cells, nuclear power sources, aircraft engines, rocket propul- sion, materials development ~tnd fabrication, electronics systems anal- ysis and design, test and development methods are also directly ap- plicable to the propulsion, power, structural analysis, guidance and PAGENO="0099" 95 control, design, and development associated with other environments than air and space travel, with travel under the seas, on their surface, and on the ground. We have found repeatedly that a significant proportion of the tech- nological advances we have generated in meeting our own program needs, turn out to have a current or potential application to the activ- ities of some other Federal agency. We have tried to capitalize on this R. & D. fact of life by m'akin~ real efforts to make this technology known to other Federal agencies and to industry and the academic community as well. We are are working to disseminate all of our technology to all segments of the economy. However, we feel that it is easier for the people who understand the teelmology to infer its possible use for other purposes, than it is for managers in other pro- grams to search the entire range of technology to find things that may be of use. In many cases NASA, therefore, has taken the initiative in ap- proaching other agencies where we have felt that some facet of our emerging technology might be of value to them. In other cases, agen- cies have approached us about making use of some NASA capability. From these kinds of contacts, we have over the years developed a num- ber of different types of working relationships which can be tailored to meet many kinds of national needs. I would like briefly to illustrate some of these relationships for this subcommittee. Perhaps our most important relationships with another agency are the long standing associations we have maintained with the Depart- ment of Defense in which NASA and its predecessor, the NACA, conducted research on military aircrafts of all kinds, We have con- ducted research ranging from preliminary design to operational trou- ble shooting on virtually every `significant military aircraft developed in this country since the 1920's. In addition to work on and with military aircraft, NASA has exer- cised an important role in civil aviation. In some cases military de- partments have come to us with specific problems of design, structures, materials, or operating problems. In other instances our research has produced a technological advance which we recognize can be applied to a military plane, DOD has furnished NASA with aircraft for test and evaluation programs and we do the research. NASA benefits in this relationship because we learn about the latest aircraft development and extrapolate that knowledge into more advanced research. NACA and NASA research results have been applied in almost every aircraft that is flying. In these areas NASA has worked with DOD on the F-ill, the C5A, various vertical and short takeoff landing aircraft, et cetera. The de- velopment of high-performance gyros for space flight has been applied in navigation platforms for aircraft such as the C141 and the C5A. Some of the most important gas turbine engine research results and design concepts and solutions for operating problems on gas turbine engines grew out of the test and analysis work done at the Lewis Re- search Center in the late 1940's through the 1950's. As an example, the real understanding of compressor and turbine operation in such engines over the range of speeds and altitudes and over the range of engine acceleration `and with disturbance of inlet air conditions came from that testing. Interestingly enough, in research on SST problems PAGENO="0100" 96 at Lewis, it has been necessary to go back to that work and to extend it to new regimes of flight. Fortunately the capability still exists in the people who did that original work and are still available to carry it out now. In our manned space flight programs, NASA has made extensive use of DOD research facilities such as those at the Arnold Engineering Development Center at Tullahoma, Tenn., and the Department of the Navy Man Rated Centrifuge at Johnstown, Pa. The NASA approach to making full utilization of existing national capabilities is further illustrated by the relationships which have evolved with the U.S. Geological Survey. The need for expertise in the geology disciplines was recognized early in the space program and assumed critical importance with the approval of the Apollo program early in 1961. The NASA choice in fulfilling this requirement was to call upon the geological competence already developed by the USGS. The utilization of USGS expertise in direct support of the space program has been evidenced in several forms. For example, the USGS has detailed outstanding scientists to work directly with NASA during the formative stages of the Apollo pro- gram development. The USGS has also detailed specialists to assist in the planning and formulation of an earth resources program. In other instances, USGS scientists have been principal investigators on NASA missions such as Ranger, Surveyor, and Lunar Orbiter. Fi- nally, the USGS is contributing to the planning for detailed explora- tion of the moon through creation of a Center of Astrogeology located at Flagstaff, Ariz., which works in close association with the NASA Manned Spacecraft Center at Houston, Tex. Obviously, as part of NASA's role in aeronautics and space, we are also in a position to serve the needs of the Department of Trans- portation through the technology produced. For example, we are currently funding research in cooperation with the Department of Defense and the Department of Transportation involving the feasi- bility of a form of grooved aircraft runway which could improve air- craft tire traction under adverse weather conditions. Work in the aircraft landing loads facility at Langley Research Center several years ago, aimed `at investigating the performance of aircraft tires on wet or slippery surfa'ces, produced technical data that proved of value to the study of autom~bile tires in `wet road conditions as well. This led to experiments with grooved runways at our Wallops Station and resulted in an awareness of the hydropl'aning problem of auto- mobile tires on wet roads. These experiments combined with data from other countries and other research efforts h'ave led to grooving the sections of this country's highway's and have clearly `demonstrated the reduction in aocidents that result. This work was brought to the attention of the Department of the Army `and `the Bureau of Pu'blic Roads and through these agencies to the tire and automobile industries as `well. Another example of work done in support of the missions of other agencies is the effort getting underway with the National Institutes of Health in computerized image processing. During the `conduct of the Ranger, Surveyor, and Mariner projects and based on `advanced lunar and planetary video image or picture data. As a result, contrast and `detail were brought `out far more clearly than was the case through the normal video system. It w'as found that essentially the PAGENO="0101" 97 same technique could be used to enhance medical X-rays and NIT-I is flow ar~anging to sponsor work at JPL aimed at the medical applica- tion of this space related technique. Obviously, support of the supersonic transport work is directly a part of NASA's overall responsibility for aeronautics and space. Over 200 NASA scientists and engineers work with the Federal Aviation Agency in the evaluation of the proposals that were submitted to that Agency for the development of the supersonic transport. In addition, it was the `basic calculations conducted by NASA that indicated that aircraft configurations could be defined to provide a financially sound transportation system. Technological development and technological advancements are still required to make such a system fully effective and NASA as well as the FAA contractors are working to provide this technology and NASA is also working to advance technology beyond that required for the SST. Supersonic transport models have been tested in NASA windtun- nels, engine research is underway on all of the components that would be involved in supersonic aircraft engines, noise and sonic boom studies are underway, materials work related to the high and low temperatures that will be experienced in supersonic aircraft is under- way. All of this obviously fits within NASA's overall responsibility. Support is, therefore, readily provided to the FAA in these areas. It should be emphasized that NASA is, in general, not a user agency. We are a research and development agency. The research and develop- ment work that has led to the early communications and weather satel- lites has resulted in operational systems under Comsat, the DOD, and the Department of Commerce. These organizations fund for the operational systems while NASA funds for the initial development work to prove out the principles involved sufficiently well that economic and other factors can be judged by t.he user to determine the desir- ability of an operational system. In .a similar way we are now conducting early phases of work to determine the technological capabilities of earth resources satellites. If the technology can be developed to provide effective surveys of agri- culture output, crops, water, and other resources, timber, et cetera, through use of space systems, then agencies such as the Department of Interior and the Department of Agriculture could determine the suit- ability of such techniques for operational systems and they would fund for the operational systems and use their output. In general, NASA's policy is to apply its capabilities, manpower, facilities, equipment, to the support of work requested by other agen- cies that are within its overall area of responsibility without requiring reimbursement by the other agency. Only those out-of-pocket costs associated with the specific equipment that must be procured or the special add-on costs beyond those that are directly a part of NASA's operating capability are provided by the other agency. This is similar to the case I described earlier where the Department of Defense pro- vided NASA with aircraft or engine components while NASA applied its capabilities to the conduct of the work without reimbursement. Obviously, our budget and program plans must anticipate such work. With recent reductions in our budget, particularly in our adminis- trative operations budget, we are now hard pressed to carry out those programs for which we have a primary responsibility. We, therefore, PAGENO="0102" 98 have less ability to respond to requests for assistance from other agen- cies than we had previously. It is the administrative operations appro- priation that provides the funds necessary to support the technical and management competence in our laboratories and headquarters opera- tions. In addition, these administrative operations funds provide for the operation of our unique facilities and equipment that we have estab- lished in our Government laboratories. In those cases where industrial groups are interested in using cer- tain of our facilities and capabilities, we would make such oppor- tunities available if the work fits properly within our overall program and capabilities and if the resulting information is to be made generally available. Under these conditions, we would fund for the normal operating costs involved, but would require that the industry provide the special equipment and special out-of-pocket costs over and `above those that are required to maintain our operating capability. In certain cases where industry has requested special tests in our facilities for their information and use, they have appropriately reimbursed the Government for normal costs incurred. As we see it, our laboratories are a national resource available to assist other agencies as well as we can, while still carrying out the re- sponsibilities with which we `are charged. We `believe that it is our responsibility to retain that capability as an effective, advancing, com- petent, `highly motivated resource. We believe we must fund for it. We do not believe that it is appropriate to charge other agencies for operating costs incurred as we apply that resource to support these other agencies. We do not believe that a stable operating capability could be retained in our laboratories if we required reimbursement for every task performed for another agency and became a job shop opera- tion. We believe the country's scientific and technological strength would suffer in this case. In summary, there are several points I would like to reiterate: 1. NASA is a research and development agency depending primarily on its laboratories for the technical competence to permit it to effec- tively carry oi~t the aeronautical and space programs with which it is charged. 2. NASA's laboratories are a national resource that ha~s applied its skills to ever-changing problems and to ever-changing goals and has, therefore, retained and attracted competent, highly trained, highly motivated scientists, engineers, and management people. This com- petence can be applied in other program areas. 3. NASA is continuing to adjust its laboratory discipline and skill distribution and its research emphasis in recognition of the changing character of its programs. 4. Within its overall areas of responsibility and competence and within the limits of its resources available for carrying out its own programs, NASA is supporting other program needs and is prepared to provide more of that support if its resources, its current workload, and its program requirements permit. 5. NASA does not believe that laboratories established and devel- ope.d over long periods and with great difficulty and at great expense should be converted to job shop operations, but should rather be' re- tained and supported and adju~ted to permit these laboratories to take on new missions and new assignments as the need for such work develops. PAGENO="0103" 99 In addition, there are several broader conclusions that we have reached from our experience. First .-Our experience in the creation of flew laboratories has made it clear that this is an extremely difficult and complex process, and one that cannot be entered into lightly. The basic requirements for success appear to be a strong and clear purpose for the laboratory, significant future beyond the immediate set of problems which inspired the need, and challenging missions and objectives which serve to at- tract and hold the competent people who constitute the real capability of any institution. Even under these circumstances, constant manage- ment reinforcement of resources of the laboratory will be needed to assure the formation of the "critical mass" which makes a laboratory self-sustaining and productive. Secomd.-Agency and laboratory management cannot assume that the existence of effectiveness assures its maintenance. The creation of new and useful contributions to technology by a laboratory can be lost very quickly if the laboratory is incapable of continuously renew- ing its objectives in a way which meets real national needs. Labora- tories must be free enough and flexible enough to take advantage of research "targets of opportunity" as they present themselves. New missions are important in that they serve as the challenge around which a laboratory can organize its efforts. Third.-It has become increasingly apparent that new technology almost inevitably has significant application outside of the environ- ment in which it was created, and the creator of technology has a real responsibility to make the results of his work known to others who might benefit from it. In NASA, we feel that this cannot be a passive responsibility, and we have actively sought to initiate con- tacts with many agencies. Not all agencies are able to have laboratory capability of their own, nor is it necessary that they should have. One of the key factors in the ultimate effective utilization of the Federal laboratory capability is that agencies acquire at least enough technical competence to recognize their own needs for research and develop- ment su~pport and to establish contact with the existing laboratory capabilities which can be used to solve these kinds of problems. Foyrth.-NASA has found that a laboratory capability and a real need for laboratory support can almost always be brought together. This has proved to be true in ways ranging from informal consulta- tion to interchange of people all the way up to the joint conduct of major R. & D. programs. The solution to many of the problems which this subcommittee has identified in its past hearings, such as more and better information about Government-wide research capability, better budgeting and accounting practices, better interagency co- ordination, could speed up and improve the process, but the agencies involved must take the initiative in their own behalf. That completes what I had prepared, Mr. Chairman. Mr. DADDARIO. Thank you, Mr. Finger. Mr. Mosher. Mr. Mosunii. Not at this point. Mr. DADDARIO. Mr. Brown? Mr. BROWN. While you have been talking, I have been running through my mind a method of conceptualizing the role of the labora- tories. I would just ask your comment on this because I have not really PAGENO="0104" 100 explored it much in my own mind. It seems to me that abstracting from what the laboratories are doing and almost removing it from any relationship to the space program or to any other specific program, what we have is a competence in various ways, you might say. We have a competence in the field of sensing and communicating informa- tion, a competence in the field of the transporting matter, and a com- petence in the way of providing life support systems for organisms. 1~\Te are talking here about the fundamental concern of human beings for sensing and for obtaining information in the widest possible variety of ways. For example, the orbiting astronomical laboratory is merely a sensing device and the development you are doing on laser communica- tion is just another way of communicating information. The develop- ment of space capsules are means of transporting humans and pro- viding life support systems for them. These are essentially the prob- lems that face mankind, and if the laboratories are looked upon in this way, I would think it could be the most versatile of instruments for fulfilling the wide variety of tasks. Is there within your management operation some far out think- ers who conceptualize and think in this way and have a feedback go- ing on all the time in terms of missions, of process, so that this can can organized and managed in a reasonable way? We are really talking about how many dollars are we going to al- locate here. The thing that bothers me about the whole space pro- gram is that it was conceptualized really as a sort of challenge, an adventure, and not in terms of the fundamental needs of human be- ings-except insofar as challenge and adventure is one of those fundamental needs. My thinking has been going in this general di- rection for some time now, and I wonder if you have any comments along that line? Mr. FINGER. Yes, sir. One of the main points, I think, we have tried to emphasize in the space program is tha.t what develops out of it is the advancement in the broad areas of science and technology that then can be applied outside of the specific programs with which we are involved. At various times we made the point that it was really the development of a total capability that was significant in the lunar mission; not that particular mission as such, although a great deal will be learned. But more is learned, during the process of getting to the moon in new technology and in the sciences. In the unmanned space program there is a similar kind of sci- entific and technological development that results. We have also tried to emphasize that this scientific and technologi- cal information would have broad applicability. The application of space technology in communications and meteorological satellites are part of the already proven benefits. The work going on in NASA is aimed primarily at the specific responsibilities we have. Although at the same time we have recog- nized these broader implications by trying to make this scientific and technological information known to the broadest range of people pos- sibleY. Therefore, we haven't let this happen in a haphazard way. We have tried to force this dissemination and transfer of informa- tion. I don't mean only through the technological utilization program as such, but through the agency's scientific and technical information PAGENO="0105" 101 data banks that provide for storage and broad dissemination of the information obtained. Through the project activities in universities and industries we believe that the process of having that work done in those institutions they then can apply the technology to other ac- tivities that they have, in all areas. NASA's prime responsibility is for space and aeronautics. Our major efforts have been in planning that program in a way that gets the scientific information that we need for those programs, but also tries to advance technology as much as possible to have the greatest benefit across the wide spectrum of disciplines involved in NASA's programs. I have tried to indicate, and I think you really did it better than I did, that these basic capabilities that we built up are capabilities that can be moved to any scientific and technological undertaking. The fact that it is now applied to aeronautics and space doesn't mean it must always be there. We have tried to define where this technology is transferable to other activities. That sometimes is difficult to do because we are still in the middle of accumulating much data and we will be for some- time, but we do see some of these applications. Mr. BROWN. This long-range planning is the thing that interests me because I see some signs. They may not be important, but there are signs of allocating resources and planning the direction in which we are going. This may be a reaction to, say, the large-scale application of resources to space per se or to some projects like the supersonic transport which is coming in for a lot of criticism. Insofar as NASA or the laboratories are identified exclusively as ad- junct to major products with which the body politic becomes disen- chanted, the laboratories will suffer and NASA will suffer. Hence, there needs to be fundamental research and development in its broad- est possible light and this is one thing I think perhaps we have failed to do. Again and again people ask us to justify the space program. It is hard to explain to them that this is a part of the fundamental de- velopment of the human mind and its progress into new areas. They say what are we getting out of it today on earth. The laboratories have tremendous potential in this area conceptualized in a fashion that ef- fects the broad range of human needs rather thau something that peo- ple may not quite see the value of today. For example, this moon labo- ratory. I am big on the moon laboratory, but I would rather concep- tualize it in a way that would make it more understandable to more people. Mr. FINGER. I should mention a planning activity that is getting underway. in NASA that is trying to define those programs that would offer the greatest benefits generally that might be conducted or that would logicafly be conducted in the future. We ~tre bringing our cen- ters, the laboratories, and Center Directors and center personnel into that planning process in a way t.hat the Center Directors sit on the senior group a.nd the laboratory personnel take `direct participation in the work. In some of those discussions, for example, we went through this same kmd of a problem. How do you indicate very clearly what the scientific and technological output of these. programs are? PAGENO="0106" 102 As an example, I think one important feature of the orbital experi- ments that have been run with man and that might be run by follow-on orbital laboratories is not so much to find out what man can do, hut to learn more about man himself. Mr. BROWN. The development of satellites may do more for the re- mote sensing and communication fields than anything that has ever happened. We already have ComSat, a spinoff from our space activi- ties. We have the potential to revolutionize our knowledge about weather, resources, and communicating information through broadcast satellites which ultimately may provide direct access to every home with unlimited information. This aspect of the space program is some- thing most people do not understand unless you point it out to them in very specific terms. Ultimately it may be as important, or more im- portant, than anything else we are doing. Yet abstractly what we are doing is sensing and communicating. That is why I am talking in terms of abstracts and the capacity of the laboratories to work in the broadest possible conceptual framework. Mr. DADDARIO. Mr. Rumsfeld. Mr. IRIJMSFELD. On page 12, you made the statement that "we feel it is easier for the people who understand the technology to infer its possible use for other purposes, than it is for the managers in other programs to search the entire range of technology to find things that may be of use." What do you mean by "easier"? Easier for whom? Mr. FINGER. What I really mean is that-incidentally, there are some differences of opinion on this point. Mr. RUMSFELD. Indeed there are. Mr. FINGER. We are really trying to work it both ways. What I am saying here is that if a problem is defined, it is easier for those people who have worked on the technology to determine what elements of their technology could be used to solve that problem. Mr. RtJMSFELD. The problems aren't defined in most cases. Mr. FINGER. We are trying to work it both ways. This is why we set up these biomedical application teams to work with university medical schools, with hospitals, to have those institutions, the prac- ticing institutions, define the problems that they face in carrying out their work. This is what we are also doing with the law enforcement people. We then go through our technology using these team ap- proaches to try to search the technology for direct applicability to defining solutions of those problems. At the same time through our Dissemination Centers and other technological utilization approaches, we are also trying to assure the broadest possible dissemination of the technology we have or that we develop so that anyone can look through that technology. We are trying to present it in a way that they can see it and know that it exists. We are trying to approach it both ways. Mr. *l~'E1~~. Is it a fair analogy to state that, based on the as- sumption that people in this country like to read books and since it would not be feasible to send every person in the country a list of every book in every library, you want to develop a situation where NASA can serve as the librarian, searching its index file to see what information might be available on any given problem, for anyone who might make an inquiry? PAGENO="0107" 103 Mr. FINGER. rfliat is correct. But we are also trying the other ap- proach too. We just think you have to work very hard at this business of making the greatest use of scientific and technological developments and information. Mr. RUMSFELD. So it is going to take an education process to get people to pose the problems? Mr. FINGER. That is correct. It took Mr. Rumsfeld some education even to get the people with whom we work in industry, universities, and in our own laboratories, even within Government, to define the technology they were developing. A man who has to solve a particular problem of fasteners goes ahead and solves it for his application and doesn't realize he has developed a piece of technology in the process. We are getting better reporting from the pepole who work in our program. But you also have to define the problems that may be solvable by technology or scientific information that is developed. Mr. R.TJMSFELD. It would seem that the Bureau of the Budget could play a rather significant role if it would require an indication, regard- less of what Government agency is making the request for funds to undertake certain activities, that the agency has gone to an indexing system and talked to the people. Do they do that now? Mr. FINGER. There are several approaches for doing this. Our ap- proach is to a large extent experimental. We are trying to find ways of doing this. The Commerce Department has activities set up for this through the State Technological Services groups. We have got these Disseminating Centers that work with them, but many of these are Department of `Commerce activities and activities of other agencies. Mr. RUMSFELD. Maybe it would be helpful to `the record to give ex- amples where NASA has taken the initiative. Mr. FINGER. Fine. (The information requested is as follows:) Listed below are some examples of where NASA has taken the initiative to transfer technology to other Government `agencies: 1. Recent work of the Ames Research Center in the field of ablation mate- rials for protection of satellites during reentry has produced a family of polymer composites that demonstrate fire suppressant and insulation prop- erties that appear to be useful in a variety of military applications. This material appeared of sufficient importance to warrant bringing it to the special attention of the Director of Defense Research and Engineering by letter. 2. The results of research on the causes and prevention of aircraft tire bydroplaning were made available to the Bureau of Public Roads for use in bringing about a reduction in the number of accidents `due to automobile tire hydroplaning. 3. The techniques of enhancing lunar photographs by means of computer analyses was found by JPL to be of value in the enhancement of X-ray photographs. This was brought to the attention of the National Institutes of Health which now plans to continue this JPL effort with NIH fund support. On occasion a whole body of technology has been transferred to other Govern- ment agencies to enable them to better utilize systems developed by NASA. Examples of such transfer include: 1. To the Environmental Science Services Administration, technology pertinent to their use of meteorological satellites. 2. To the Air Force, technology pertaining to the Gemini reentry vehicle, in connection with the use of that vehicle, as the basic crew transfer means in the Air Force MOL Program. ~3. To COMSAT, technology pertaining to communication satellites. Within the regular framework of the Technology Utilization program new knowledge from the NASA R&D programs is being selected and organized by PAGENO="0108" 104 means of computerized techniques to match some of the needs and special prob- lems of the following agencies: Department of Transportation; Office of Atmos- pheric Water Resources, Bureau of Reclamation; Social and Rehabilitation Serv- ice, HEW; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; and the Office of Law Enforcement Assistance. Specific examples are: 1. The Office of Atmospheric Water Resources of the Bureau of Reclama- tion is using NASA provided aerospace technology on a continuing basis in four of its university based weather modification studies. 2. The Social and Rehabilitation Service, HEW, is currently utilizing aerospace generated `technological information in the field of vocational re- habilitation to help develop better prosthetic devices and to improve training aids and techniques. 3. Following the Ohio River bridge tragedy in late 1907, NASA met with representatives of the Atomic Energy Commission and the Department of Transportation to explore the possibility of applying technology derived from the aerospace and nuclear energy programs to problems of inspecting bridges for safety. From the NASA information bank have come several areas of technology which are potentially applicable to bridge inspection problems. In addition a great deal of technology has been transferred by various con- tinuing arrangements. Such arrangements usually have been established on the basis of mutual recognition by NASA and the other Government agencies of a need for positive efforts to facilitate the flow and exchange of information. Frequently this is accomplished by means of interagency committees or working groups. Another example is the dissemination of thousands of NASA scientific and technical publications to other agencies, their contractors, and grantees. Mr. RUMSFELD. On page 17 you get to this question of funding, and I am sure we will have an opportunity to discuss this in greater detail. However it would seem to me that you can't anticipate it. You can simply guess and try to keep a reasonable level of competence. Mr. FINGER. Well, some of this work is .of such a magnitude that you really can't fit it within the budget without a preliminary plan. Also, it is of such a magnitude that it requires that kind of planning on the part of the other agency as well so that there is an advance notice on `it. The kinds of things that come up within a year, within budget periods, are usually smaller initial efforts aimed at some research ac- tivity or the procurement of a piece of equipment that is needed to carry out a research activity that has been going at a fairly low level and some flexibility has to be provided for that. Our Administrative Operations or in-house operating fund has come down along with the program reductions and, therefore, there is less flexibility to do this. Mr. RUMSFELD. Just for the sake of discussion here, let's say that that is a good idea and argue it this way: That this country has a Federal Government; a Federal Government has certain revenues, and it makes determinations as to how revenues are going to be expended. Priorities are established to do that. It seems to me that it would be much easier for both the Congress and the executive branch to make intelligent judgments with respect to priorities if, in fact, the user agency of Government were required to and did plug into its set of priorities, first to the Budget Bureau and then to Congress, the specific requests that are being made. I think that there is some merit to that argument. I think further that not only is there some merit, but it would seem there is some merit to the point that Mr. Brown raised that we just have to be a little realistic about what things are going to be funded. There are going to be things of a higher priority. To the extent that things can't be credited with a higher priority, these things which cannot be corn- PAGENO="0109" 105 municated in such a way that they plausibly fit into that higher priority, will find, I would think, that the funds or funding through the Bureau of the Budget, through Congress, and ultimately through the taxpayers of this country, will be at a minimum. Mr. FINGER. That is the way it is done. The Bureau of the Budget does get the various proposals of the various agencies and these in- clude the user requests where the user justifies his need for his system. Mr. BIIMSFELD. Yes; but the thrust of your statement from page ir is against that. It seems to me that you say you don't want to be a job shop. And yet how else can priorities be established unless one option is weighed against another option and a decision made that one option has a higher priority and one has a lower priority? Mr. FINGER. I was making that point in support of the position that we have taken that when we do work in support of another agency using our existing capabilities, we should be prepared to fund it. Mr. RUMSFELD. Are you saying that because that is the position you have taken? Mr. FINGER. When you build a national resource in a laboratory with the capability that exists in it, you can't have that capability fluctuate by demands from other agencies if you are to retain that capability as an effective resource. Mr. RUMSFELD. To the extent that a capability is being used to ful- fill an effort that has a high priority and is being ftinded through a different departn'ient, wouldn't it be proper to identify the funding and allocate a normal portion of the cost to it? You are arguing against it. Mr. FINGER. No; if the capability that is in existence is applied to that other required effort, but we need to retain that capability, we should add to the operating costs the add-on costs- Mr. BUMSFELD. Why do you draw the line there? I am not saying if it weren't used, it should still go on. Then, it would be allocated to NASA. Mr. FINGER. There are real problems with how those kinds of funds would be transferred back into the responsible agency to support the existing capability. Mr. RUMSFELD. Wouldn't it be proper to assume that if there is no use for that capability over a period of years in one agency, it should be transferred to a different agency? Mr. FINGER. I am saying if you have that capability, you ought to evaluate its worth and rather than allowing fluctuations in support levels, there is someone responsible for retaining that capability in existence and applying it against the programs and responsibilities that are undertaken by the Government. We are suggest.ing that it is an essential requirement to keep that capability in existence and some- one-some agency-should be charged with that responsibility. Obviously, if there is no need for it, that is going show in the pro- gram activities that are presented to the Bureau of the Budget, to the Congress, and in the priorities established. In that process, it will be determined if there is no need for the capability and- Mr. RTJMSFELD. It won't show. What will show is that there is a level of capability through which things are being done. What won't show is that the technology that is being developed as a result of those PAGENO="0110" 106 activities during a given year simply wasn't needed or wasn't scheduled for or wasn't desired. That won't show as clearly. Mr. FINGER. I am going into too much detail in my consideration of it, but it seems to me it would be very difficult to present the integrated picture of what that organization is doing in support of the laboratory people associated with it. Some people would be charged to one agency and others to another and I do not believe you would get a budget that would show the total context of what that organization is supposed to do, and what its total workload is. Mr. RUMSFELD. I won't pursue this because I suppose it is more properly a subject for people who deal in that area. Mr. FINGER. It is an active subject of discussion. Mr. RIJ3ISFELD. I will say this as a member of the Government Oper- ations Committee. We just yesterday had a discussion about the many Government reports that are put out. Should the public pay for them or should the people who want them, pay for them? It seems to me having to pay for something is a very good way to impose a discipline. If people want them, they will purchase them. If the demand is that great, people will be willing to pay 25 cents for this little pub- lication that is being reprinted. I am just afraid that NASA might be wandering out of its area of expertise in recommending these very fixed conclusions as to how the funding should take place. Mr. FINGER. Without meaning to get into that subject that you dis- cussed in a broad sense, we found that when we do put a charge on some of these technology utilization reports, the demand actually goes up. Mr. Rm~ISFELD. You bet your life. I don't have any other questions. Mr. DADDARIO. Mr. Finger, just one further point on this, however. Mr. Rumsfeld mentioned a point which I think to be particularly important. You had a lot of agencies looking to NASA to do work when it had the money and they did not. You now have a period of severe budget limitations and you can no longer do that. I would come to the conclusion then that the work was not important in the first place, and that it was just being done by chance and there was no particular plan to it.. What we would like to know is how, in fact, do you manage these things so that you are doing things you ought to do and not doing it just because money is available? Mr. FINGER. The point I really was trying to make is that if work is requested, NASA has. taken it on within its broad areas of responsi- bility; in such areas as the aerodynamic research or in communications activity, weather research, where we are charged with a research and development responsibility in a broad sense. That is still our primary responsibility. If someone else came into NASA to ask to use a Part of the capability that was in existence for work that was not at all within NASA's areas of responsibility, then I think that would have to be weighed in terms of priorities with the ongoing activities that NASA had. NASA would have to weigh them. They would certainly also be reviewed in the Bureau of the Budget in the process of their budget review activity. They would be reviewed in Congress as the Congress acted on total resource allocations to these installations. PAGENO="0111" 107 Mr. DADDARIO. But you weigh these priorities with having some- thing to do with the money manpower and facilities to do it. Is that criteria enough to make such judgments because obviously when the funds are not there, the ability to do this work is restricted. You can accept less than you had the year before. Therefore, things are not being done that you could have done, and it becomes a question as to whether this is important or not. If it is important, it ought not to be judged in this way. Mr. FINGER. The way our authorizations work, we get authorization by program area. These are adjusted in the process of budget review through the executive branch and through the Congress so that we get an authorization against a program line item. That tells us, in ef- fect, what the maximum amount is that can be spent in that line item. Any increase requires that we first notify the Authorization Commit- tees. If a. program area were not cut at all, that would clearly indicate the intent of the Congress to keep tha.t area going along. Our general attitude would be to try to conform with that intent. Mr. RITMSFELD. Then NASA would reprogram it into another area? Mr. FINGER. I was trying to avoid that. No; I think the important thing is that if other areas were cut, we woiil.d not have the flexibility to reprogram into those, and we could not reprogram in those cases without coming back to the Congress and notifying Congress of that intent. The issue comes up before the Con- gress to judge so the program is reviewed. Mr. DADDARIO. Thank you, Mr. Finger, we appreciate the benefit of your statement and some of the questions we have been able to ask.We will have other questions for the record. QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO HAROLD B. FINGER BY THE SUBCOM- MITTEB ON SCIENCE, RESEARCH, AND DEVELOPMENT Question No. 1. Do all of the directors of NASA's inhouse laboratories have discretionary funds? (a) What is the average amount as a percentage of the laboratory's budget? (b) If all of the directors do not have such funds, what criteria are there to determine who gets it and who does not? (c) What criteria are used to evaluate the work performed with such funds? (d) Dr. Pickering stated that he did not have discretionary funds. If you agree that such funds improve a laboratory's capabilities, should not contractor operated laboratories also have such funds? (e) Was the work on computerized image processing for medical w-rays funded initially by NAyA? Response. NASA has not made use of the approach to discretional funding as described by Dr. Pickering and others during the hearings of the Daddario Committee, i.e., entirely discretionary without any stated purpose for the funds at all. We have always recognized, however, the importance of allowing our laboratory directors to have flexibility and discretion in the selection of specific tasks to be researched, and in the adjustment of tasks selected, and have devel- oped a research program management system which permits this flexibility. This system provides for definition of the overall technical scope of the research pro- gram at three di~erent progessively refined levels, i.e., program, subprogram, and task area. A NASA Center Director is authorized to initiate a research work unit at any time if he has available resources and the unit falls generally within the technical definition of the task area involved. In addition, at any time during the fiscal year, a NASA Center Director is authorized to reprogram funds from one task area to another within the same subprogram if more promising tech- nology areas are identified. This overall management system assures sound overall balance in the agency's research program and provides sufficient discretion to PAGENO="0112" 108 Center Directors to initiate work and change emphasis within a broad subprogram at any time during the year. In answer to part e. of this question, the development of techniques for en- hancing distorted photographic images through the use of computers was under- taken by NASA to provide technology necessary for such spacecraft as Surveyor, Lunar Orbiter, and some Mariners. Once these techniques were proved success- ful, their possible applicability to biomedical problems was pointed out by NASA's Office of Technology Utilization. The NASA Office of Advanced Research and Technology (OART) supported preliminary investigat.ions of these applications and, when it became apparent that these computer techniques did indeed have biomedical applications, NASA queried the National Institutes of Health (NIH) as to their interest in supporting further research along these lines. NIH has in- dicated a strong interest in pursuing this line of applied research at the Jet Pro- pulsion Laboratory and has approved a grant to Cal Tech for this purpose. Question No. 2. In your testimony you cited a number of instances where NASA is doing work for other agencies; however, you do not discuss what work other agencies are doing for NASA. Please describe the eatent of this latter effort and the amount of money normally involved annually. (a) How is NASA kept aware of the work being performed in laboratories of other agencies? (b) What criteria are there to determine if NASA should perform work in- house, contract to industry or universities, or have the work performed by another government agency? Response. Virtually every agency in the Federal Government provides some support to NASA in some form. The following is a list of the agencies which were reimbursed for some form of support in 1968: Agency for International Development Atomic Energy Commission Civil Service Commission Department of Agriculture Department of Commerce Department of Defense Department of Health, Education, and Welfare Department of the Interior Department of Labor Department of State Department of Transportation (FAA) Government Printing Office General Services Administration Library of Congress National Academy of Sciences National Science Foundation Post Office Department Smithsonian Institution Veterans' Administration The total reimbursement to these agencies in 1967 was $312.7 million, and in 1968 this total is expected to decline to $281 million. Approximately 81% of this sum is to the Department of Defense. The support provided covers a broad range of activities from research to custodial and related services. In the Space Applications Program, for example, support is received from DOD, Department of Commerce, Department of In- terior, AEC, and the Department of Agriculture, for work in supporting research and technology, NIMBUS, geodetic satellites and meteorological soundings. Much of the DOD support to NASA over several years has been operational support for the manned space flight program. In the Apollo program for instance, DOD provides, through its various services, spacecraft technical support and contract administration; launch vehicle technical support, propellants, and contract ad- ministration; technical and administrative support at the Eastern Test Range; engine development testing; range operations, aircraft services; and manned space flight recovery operations. The Corps of Engineers has been instrumental in carrying out the bulk of NASA's major facility construction needs since the earliest days of the agency. NASA also obtains support from DOD and other agencies on smaller research and development activities on a non-reimbursable basis. These activities are usually arranged informally between NASA laboratory directors and their coun- terparts in other research establishments, on the basis that the requested assist- ance is consistent with the existing research program of the helping organization. PAGENO="0113" 109 NASA keeps informed of the research work being performed in other agencies through n variety of interagency groups designed to provide forums for the dis- cussion of and the exchange of data on research efforts. These include efforts of the Aeronautics and Astronautics Coordinating Board and its subsidiary panels, the Office of Science and Technology, the National Science Foundation, the Fed- eral Council on Science and Technology and specific interagency groups working on such problems as oceanography and weather. In addition it uses the ability of the individual scientist and engineer to keep himself currently informed about advances or work under way in his discipline through personal contact, pro- fessional meetings, scientific and technical information systems, scientific jour- nals, and other professional contacts and activities. In addition, NASA maintains a highly effective scientific and technical information program to provide current tecimical information to its own staff, and also to make the results of NASA's own technical programs rapidly available to scientists and engineers in industry and the universities. The question of what criteria are used by NASA to determine whether NASA should perform work inhouse, by contract, by universities, or by another government agency really depends on a set of complex management factors which must be appraised on a case-by-case basis. There is no set of criteria which are followed in every instance. There are, however, several general policies which NASA follows as a basis for decision-making: 1. NASA's statutory charter, the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958, requires us to make "the most effective utilization of the scientific resources of the United States." In implementing this policy, NASA has placed reliance on universities as the principal source of scientific capability in the space program. 2. NASA has conformed to applicable policies of the Executive Branch, im- portant among which is the Bureau of the Budget's Circular A-76, which provides guidelines "in furtherance of the Government's general policy of relying on the private enterprise system to supply its needs." NASA does rely on industry for the performance of the great bulk of its development, fabrication, and operational support of hardware systems. 3. NASA will maintain strong inhouse Civil Service technical competence in order to define our technical goals and objectives and control our technical programs. We will also maintain strong management and administrative coin- petence in order to protect the government's interests, and properly control the expenditure of government funds. Beyond these basic policies, each decision as to whether to perform work inhouse, by contract, by universities, or by another government agency must be based on a thorough evaluation of all management considerations such as the following: 1. Where the best capability is. 2. Whether that capability is really available. 3. The relative cost of each alternative. 4. Urgency, or the need to have a result by a certain time. 5. Whether capability is complete or must be built up. 6. Need to preserve inhouse capability. 7. Workload balancing. 8. Government laws, regulations, and policies. 9. Need to apply NASA management and technical capability to the major mission requirements. Question No. 3.-In performing work for industry, you say that NASA charges for "normal" costs of the work. How does this compare with the full-cost recovery policy of the Atomic Energy Commission? What effect would a full-cost recovery policy have, in your opinion, upon private use of NASA facilities? Response-When the accounting practices underlying the NASA and ABC policies for charging industry for use of agency facilities are examined, we find that they are essentially the same. NASA develops a schedule of user charges for each of its facilities where industry use is desired. This user charge includes the normal cost of doing each specific activity. Both NASA and AEC follow the policy of requiring users to bear any special costs-such as the cost of special equipment peculiar to the user's work-which are necessary. Question No. 4.-In your testimony you stated that in the broad range of science and technology, there should be no "end" to a laboratory's mission or purpose; that the best laboratories of all kinds repeatedly demonstrated the ability to go through continuous renewal of objectives in order to stay alive and 93-201-GS----S PAGENO="0114" 110 vital. How do you define the "best" laboratories, how do you determine this quality? To what extent would you preserve the less than best laboratories? Response.-The problem of evaluating the capability and performance of re- search organizations is a difficult one and perhaps one which can be answered only subjectively, since it is difficult to quantify or "score" such a complex and sophisticated organization as a research laboratory or development center. We believe that the NASA experience confirms what appears to be a widely held view among research administrators, that the basic determinant of strength or weakness is a very fundamental issue of the value and importance of the purposes of the organization, the validity of its objectives to recognize national or social needs and the capability to satisfy these purposes, objectives and needs. It would seem very hard for a research organization to succeed if its basic purposes and motivations seemed unimportant; on the other band, the research organization which has an important and significant role to fulfill has a very good start in the critical process of building and holding a research competence. We believe that the buildup of NASA in the years immediately following its formation has many illustrative examples as cases in point. Many of these were cited during the testimony before the Subcommittee on Science, Research and Development of the House Committee on Science and Astronautics. But it can be reiterated that the strong sense of national purpose and the challenge of the new opportunities for space research and development played an incalculable role in attracting a high quality of personnel within our new laboratories and in provid- ing the motivation to reorient capable people into new technical areas. The con- tinuing challenge of the program, plus the spirit of purpose and sense of accom- plisliment. has resulted in the retention of these talented and highly motivated people to an extraordinary degree. Our research and development centers, as in- stitutions, have thus achieved a high order of effectiveness through the feeling of all of their people that important things were being accomplished and valid na- tional purposes were being served. As for the preservation of laboratories which are "less-than-best," just as a business executive, faced with declining sales, looks first for ways to improve efficiency and produce products which will be better received, so also the first reaction of the research administrator is usually to re-examine the research ob- jectives and productivity of a laboratory which is faltering, or which is nearing the completion of its initial goals. In each case, the central fact is that the crea- tion of a business or a laboratory is very difficult, time-consuming and expensive, and a manager must think long and hard before he makes any decision to termi- nate what has been created or to create an entirely new installation. In the case of a research and development organization, there are almost always many re- search areas, not receiving adequate attention, toward which a lab can be directed. Under the circumstances. the abolishment of a laboratory would probably be un- dertaken only when, in the judgment of management (and probably an external appraisal as well), the following conditions exist: 1. The initial purpose of the lab has been served, and there is no reasonable extension or continuation of it. 2. There is little likelihood that a reasonably pertinent new role for the labora- tory can be found. 3. The abolishment of the laboratory would not leave any important gap in the national capability for performing necessary research or development work. Finally, if the re-development of a declining lab were attempted and failed, it should probably not be continued. In many cases, consolidation of the most effective parts of a lab which is being abolished with some other research institu- tion is an effective compromise which may save the best of the remaining per- sonnel. Question No. 5.-You testified that NASA laboratories do not have to deteriorate and decline. that they have the flexibility to take on new roles and missions, to shift primary emphasis, to retrench. Please illustrate this eoiecpt with refei-cnee to NASA policies and procedures that affect a NASA laboratory director's discre- tionary authority to use funds for new research, to reassign personnel, to change the total personnel strength of his laboratory. Response-The testimony given before the Subcommittee on Science, Research and Development of the House Committee on Science and Astronautics gave many examples where NASA organizations have demonstrated the flexibility to take on new roles and missions, shift primary emphasis, or retrench. The answer to question #1, above, discusses the discretion which can be exercised by labora- tory directors in the selection and funding of research activity. Several other PAGENO="0115" 111 Points of long standing NASA/NACA policy can also be cited to illustrate the substantial freedom and independence of the NASA field installations: 1. It should be emphasized that NASA is a research and development agency. Because this is true, the NASA Headquarters has just as strong an interest as its field installations in the development of the strongest possible R&D capability and the preservation of the flexibility to take advantage of new research opportu- nities and serve the most significant national goals which are within its capabil- ities. Thus, the goals of the Headquarters and the laboratories are in consonance. 2. Center directors have flexibility and significant authority to control the assignment of their people. 3. Center directors have the responsibility as well as authority to ask for more people if they need them. 4. Center directors have authority and responsibility to initiate requests for new or additional facilities and research equipment necessary to carry out their work. The realities of the budget process frequently mean that a laboratory di- rector does not always get w-hat he asks for, and there may be fiscal or policy reasons which cause agency management or the Executive Branch to turn down resource requests. But the basic policies of center director discretion and control over his own work force and research facilities are well understood and have played an important part in maintaining flexibility. NASA has a unique capability to manage large scale R&D programs of many kinds and to sustain a research program over a broad range of technology. This capability is in our laboratory structure and innovative ideas and concepts for research usually generate in these labs and are initiated by them. Qn.cstion No. 6. Several agencies have set up procedures to appraise the performance of contractors that do research and development for them, or that manage agency laboratories. What procedures does NASA nse, and what con- sideration has been given to applying the standards and procedures of these appraisal processes to NASA operated laboratories? To what ewtemt would this be desirable? Response. NASA recognizes that the appraisal of the effectiveness of its re- search and development activities is an important part of management, and t.his applies whether these activities are inhouse or contracted. We have de- veloped systems for R&D contractor performance evaluation tied to the basic requirements of contract management and administration, and also tied to our incentive fee patterns. Indeed, the NASA inhouse technical competence pro- vides the capability to make such evaluations. In addition, many of our R&D contractors are those who design, fabricate and operate hardware for NASA rather than those who do research, and their performance can be judged rather precisely in terms of cost, performance, ability to meet schedules, and the success of the mission. These same criteria are also used to judge inhouse NASA performance in those laboratories which are flight mission oriented and are charge~l with the management of flight hardware. In the special case of the Cal Tech/JPL contract which is for research and development, NASA regularly evaluates technical and administrative perform- ance using an evaluation board composed of representatives designated by the Administrator. Evaluations are performed semiannually and are based upon criteria es- tablished by the Board. In addition, there are two other regularly scheduled meetings each year in order to dllscusss trends, questions or performance factors which could become agenda items at subsequent formal evaluation meetings. Since NASA Centers undergo continuous technical, functional and manage- ment review the extrapolation of the Cal Tech/JPL appraisal is not con- templated. For NASA's inhouse Centers, the most effective appraisal system has been demonstrated to be reliance on continued close and regular technical and professional Headquarters/Center communications and association, plus regular reviews and appraisals by functional staff offices. Question No. 7. The DOD witness proposed the elimination of manpower controls on cross-agency work in order to achieve flecoibility similar to that available to the ABC contract laboratories. What is your opinion of this proposal? Response. While the idea of relief from manpower limitations for cross- agency work has some attraction, we feel that the necessary flexibility for undertaking work between agencies should be possible within present budget approval techniques. Where relatively small manpower commitments would be required of a performing agency in doing work in its general area of responsi- bility for another agency, it should be possible to absorb these requirements PAGENO="0116" 112 within the total existing capability. The existence of such cross-agency work would, of course, help buttress the manpower budget of the performing agency. In instances where a major manpower commitment would have to be under- taken by the performing agency, the magnitude of the intended research pro- gram would probably be such that the requesting and performing agencies should, in any event, present their intentions to the BOB and include provision for necessary money, manpower, and equipment requirements in the budget of the performing agency where it would be jointly defended. We believe that it would be sufficient to rely on BOB willingness to accept these forms of cross- agency arrangements and work with agencies to assure that appropriate re- sources can be made available. Questions No. 8 and 10. No. 8: The concept of utilization implies that sooner or later decisions will have to be made to allocate and schedule enistivg labora- tory capability among competing agency needs. Is there at present any place in the Ewecutive Branch short of the President where priorities can be as- signed to Federal missions for the guidance of agency heads and laboratory directors in the event of competing requirements for the same facility? No. 10: Based on your ewperience, what advantages and disadvantages would you see in an office of Government laboratory management located at the level of or within the Office of Science and Technology? Such an office would be analogous to the present office of the Assistant Director (Laboratory Manage- inent), in the Department of Defense's Office of Defense Research and Engineering. Response. There is not, at this time, any office in the Executive Branch where priorities are assigned to Federal research missions, and in fact, it would be difficult to establish research priorities separate from the process of establishing national goals, objectives and priorities themselves. This process is accomplished now by the President working through the Bureau of the Budget and the entire framework of relationships between the Congress, the Administration, and the agencies directly. The question of whether there should be an office of Government Laboratory Management can probably be answered only if the functions of such an office could be defined to show how it should fit into this existing framework, and how it would relate to the large number of agencies having line management responsibility over Federal laboratories. NASA would support specific means of assuring more effective inter-agency coordination and cooperation in R&D activities and cross-servicing between agencies. Question No. 9. A sharp line is drawn between those Government laboratories that are directly operated and those that are contractor operated. In terms of your ewperieivce, what are the principal characteristics of each mode of operation and the differences between them that are significant to utilization of Government laboratories? Response. NASA's only major experience using a contractor to operate a research and development laboratory is the Cal Tech/JPL experience. Our experi- ence clearly demonstrates that the contractor approach can be made to work in the NASA context, and, in the last analysis, our management of the Iet Propulsion Laboratory has been quite comparable to our management of inhouse labs. Question No. 11. What authority do your laboratory directors have to deal directly with other agencies that may wish to engage their research and develop- ment services? Response. NASA laboratory directors are authorized arid encouraged to deal directly with any other government agency which may desire to engage their research and development services. They may not, however, expend NASA re- search and development fuiids, nor accept reimbursement from other agencies to pay for these services. All NASA research and development funds are author- ized for specific NASA projects only in accordance with Project Approval Docu- nients approved by the Administrator. Authority to accept reimbursements for work performed by NASA for other agencies is also controlled by NASA Head- quarters. When the effort proposed by another agency is of sufficient magnitude or of the nature to require more than a simple exchange of funds between agen- cies, an interagency agreement or memorandum of understanding requiring the approval of top NASA management is required. Question No. 12. In what ways are the directors of your large, multi-program laboratories kept informed of the scientific and technological content of new or changed government functions, such as those of the Department of Transporta- lion or the Department of Housing and Urban Development? TV/tat incentives PAGENO="0117" 113 a-re there for your laboratory directors to give thought to such matters in addi- tion to their primary responsibilities to your programs? Response. NASA laboratory directors and other senior NASA officials are able to obtain information about the scientific conten:t and research requirements of other Federal agencies through such normal devices as national professional meetings, trade journals, scientific and technical information systems, and direct contact between agencies, particularly in Washington. NASA has recently ex- panded the role of its Office of DOD Affairs into DOD and Interagency Affairs specifically to expand and improve our contacts with other agencies, and the quality of our knowledge about their research activities and needs. We believe, however, that much could be done to improve this kind of information exchange, and NASA is working toward, and will support specific measures to facilitate such improvements. Question No. 13. The Committee understands there have been discussions be- tween NASA and the International Association of Chiefs of Police about appli- cation of NASA technology to specific police needs. Please provide details about these discunsions, particularly concerning the outcome. How is the NASA-supplied information expected to be used? By whom? Response. In late 1967, at the request of the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), members of NASA's Office of Technology Utilization briefed IACP representatives on the NASA effort to encourage additional uses of knowl- edge gained in the space programs and in particular to aid in movement of this knowledge across disciplinary boundaries. The briefing included a description of the work of NASA-sponsored Biomedical Application Teams in seeking answers i-n aerospace technology to the problems currently impeding medical progress. These teams, serving as a link between aerospace laboratories and medical research groups, help the medical researchers define their problems in functional terms, then seek suggested answers from experts among NASA scientists and engineers and those of its contractors. The teams also make searches of the NASA stockpile of scientific and technical literature by using computers to match terms describing the medical problems against terms describing documents in the NASA collection of some 350,000 technical reports. IACP followed up the briefing by asking NASA to make pilot searches on two problems specified by IACP: a. Development of extended range personal radio communications, so that police officers, whether in car or on foot, could be contacted individually or as a group, could have three-way voice capability (i.e., station to officer, officer to station, and officer to officer), and could direct original messages to discrete addresses. b. Development of lightweight thermal clothing to eliminate the need for heavy cumbersome clothing. The results of these searches were provided to IACP in February, 1968, and the Office of Technology Utilization is currently awaiting IACP comments on 1)0th the literature searches and the reports. Question No. 14. To what extent has NASA reviewed the Science and Tech- nology task force report of the President's Crime Commission to see what NASA capabilities might contribute to the specific prospective applications of science and technology set out in that report? a. Two areas identified by the Commission as having the greatest immediate impact on police operations are communications and systems analysis-areas presumably in which NASA has great competence. This being the ca-se, how is, or how could, NASA make its capabilities available? Response. The Office of Technology Utilization does not attempt to develop or select unilaterally the specific technology needed to solve the problems of poten- tial users of aerospace technology. It cannot do this alone. This would presume a knowledge of the problems in depth, detail, and specificity not possessed by NASA. Rather, the Office of Technology Utilization strives to establish a working inter- face w-hich will facilitate the acquisition of the technology by the user. The user is helped to describe his problem in language used in aerospace technical litera- ture. Choice and definition of the problems for which solutions are desired can best be determined by the potential user just as he can best judge the relevance of suggested solutions- resulting from searches of the aerospace literature and personal interface with aerospace scientists and engineers. NASA can best make its capabilities available by working with and through the agencies or institutions having primary or direct responsibility for crime prevention or control. PAGENO="0118" 114 Question No. 15. What other work is NASA's Office of Technology Utilization funding which is related to natio'nai problems such as crime? a. How does NASA assure that it is not dupiicattng work sponsored by the Department of Justice or a similar agency? b. What is the rationale behind such grants or contracts-what does NASA eupect to achieve? e. Do you believe that NAkS1A could make such grants or contracts if it were not specifically authorized through its technology utilization program to accelerate the spin-off of the space prograni? Response. Section 102 (c) (4) of the Space Act directs that NASA "shall con- duct long range studies of the potential benefits to be gained from, the oppor- tunities for, and the problems involved in the utilization of aeronautical and space activities for peaceful and scientific purposes." We are anxious to increase and extend efforts to transfer, where applicable, space developed technology to the solution of social problems, but only working with or through other agencies. For example, arrangements have been made for the Midwest Research Institute, one of the NASA-sponsored regional dissemination centers, to provide data to the Office of Atmospheric Water Resources of the Bureau of Reclamation which might assist in the solution of problems in the area of w-eather modification. We are also cooperating in various ways with, among others, the Atomic Energy Corn- mission, the Department of Defense, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, and the Department of Agriculture. Working in this manner, there should be no duplication with other agencies. There are no NASA grants or contracts which relate specifically to crime as such. The work done for IACP was done under existing contracts designed to bring about broad dissemination of new technology. NASA also supported a grant to the American Association for the Advancement of Science for studies on how a large program like the space program affects the economy. One of the published works resulting from this grant was a book called "Social Indicators" which did contain a discussion of the Uniform Crime Reports compiled by the FBI, citing them as an example of the need for improved and comprehensive information reporting systems. NASA recognizes that useful products of research and technology historically have gained application outside of the place of origin. This would be expected to happen in time even if NASA had no technology utilization program. We feel that this process should be aided and expedited, and that aerospace technology can be brought to bear on many pressing social problems, for the benefit of all man- kind. We believe that this historical tendency for specific inventions and develop. ments to adapt themselves to society's needs has been recognized at several points in the Space Act as well as in annual Authorization Acts. Specific authorization for technology utilizatiqn does make possible grants or contracts designed to broaden and accelerate the dissemination of our technology. Mr. DADDARIO. We will flow hear from Dr. Pickering and get the point of view of a laboratory director. Dr. Pickering. Dr. PICKERING. Mr. Chairman, I should like to read to you a state- ment. (Dr. Pickering's biography follows:) DR. WILLIAM H. PICKERING William H. Pickering has been director of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory of the California Institute of Technology since 1954. As such, he has been respon- sible for the programs which resulted in Explorer I, the first U.S. artificial satellite, Pioneer IV, the first succesful U.S. cislunar space probe, the Mariner flights to Venus in 1962 and 19~l7 and to Mars in 1964-05, the Ranger lunar photographic missions in 1964-415 and the Surveyor lunar landings of 1966-67. Dr. Pickering was born in Wellington, New Zealand, but immigrated to Cali- fornia as a young man to attend the California Institute of Technology. There he obtained both bachelors and masters degrees in electrical engineering and a Ph. D. in physics, became a member of the faculty, and worked under Nobel Laureate Robert A. Millikan in a world-wide program of high-altitude cosmic- ray research. During World War II, he conducted applied research in electronics at Cal Tech, MIT, and other laboratories. In July 1944, he organized the elec- tronics effort at JPL to support guided-missile research and development. He PAGENO="0119" 115 became project manager for Corporal, the first operational missile developed by JPL. As JPL's director, Dr. Pickering was involved in U.S. Army proposals tor Earth-satellite launchings, and in 1957-58 for the development and operation of the early Explorer satellites and Pioneer space probes. Following these proj- ects, he lead JPL into the new National Aeronautics and Space Administration as a major contractor responsible for unmanned lunar and planetary flight projects and the supporting technology. He has been professor of electrical engineering at Cal Tech since 1946; he was the first president of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics in 1963, and president of the International Astronautical Federation in 1965-66. He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Royal Society of New Zealand, among others. He is an advisor to the University of California, the University of Washington, and the University of Connecticut. He has been a member of the Army Scientific Advisory Panel and was a charter member of the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board. He has published a number of articles and technical papers in the field in which he is active, and has received NASA's Distinguished Service Medal, the Army's Distinguished Civilian Service Award, the British Interplanetary Society's Special Award, the Columbus Gold Medal of Italy, the James Wyld Memorial of the American Rocket Society, the Robert H. Goddard Memorial Trophy of the National Space Club, the Galabert Award of France and Italy's Order of Merit, among others. He is married to the former Muriel Bowler; they have two children, William Balfour and Anne Elizabeth (Mrs. Wayne Mezitt). STATEMENT OF DR. WILLIAM H. PICKERING, DIRECTOR, JET PROPULSION LABORATORY, CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECH- NOLOGY Your interest in the optimum utilization of Federal laboratories is particularly gratifying and reassuring to those of us who have been involved in Government-sponsored research and development activ- ities. I am honored and pleased to be invited to testify before your committee today. My remarks, Mr. Chairman, are made with reference to my experi- ence as director of a mission-oriented laboratory sponsored by the Government but operated under contract to a university, and one which has worked for a number of agencies and experienced significant changes in primary objectives during the past 30 years. The Jet Propulsion Laboratory was the first Government-sponsored rocket research group in the TJnited States, originating on the campus at California Institute of Technology in 1939 as an outgrowth of the activities of the Guggenheim Aeronautical Laboratory. Headed by Dr. Theodore von Karman, JPL performed research and development on rocket propulsion devices for aircraft until 1940, when the Army Air Corps assumed sponsorship. I might comment in passing that at that time the interest in the work was such that it grew beyond the scope of the university and the Aerojet Corp. was formed as a byproduct of our activities. By 1941 the first successful jet-assisted aircraft takeoff units were developed, followed by pioneering liquid and solid propellant rocket systems and the basic concepts underlying modern telemetry systems. 1n 1944 JPL began a long association with the Army Ordnance Corps, during which it developed the first of the modern guided missile weapons systems, and, in the late 1950's, the first inertially guided, solid propellant missile system. PAGENO="0120" 116 The national crisis following the first sputnik brought a significant shift in the Laboratory's interests, emphasis, and motivations. In 1958 JPL assisted the Army in developing and launching Explorer I. In December of that year, by Executive order of the President, sponsor- ship of JPL was assumed by the newly formed National Aeronautics and Space Administration. During the past decade, the primary mission of the Laboratory has been to support NASA research and development associated with tmmanned lunar and planetary missions. Thus, in 30 years JPL has evolved into a seasoned, mission-oriented laboratory, based on experience in the technologies of guided missiles weaponry and deep space exploration. It may be relevant here to recall the esseiitial capability which a mission-oriented laboratory such as JPL affords. This capability is the common attack, by a number of diverse and often conflicting tech- nical disciplines, upon a common problem or mission. The motivation for this process, and for the engineers and scientists who carry it out, is the mission itself. While the laboratory must be competent in the various disciplines, its special skill is the ability, through a matrix of talents or "systems engineering," to produce an integrated device or system, based on these disciplines, which will accomplish its mission. The development of such a team is a slow process and, once accom- plished, it is a most important fa.ctor in the continuing success of a mission-oriented teclmical laboratory. To turn now to the issue before the committee today, namely, how best to use our existing Federal laboratories, let me begin with the question of redirecting a laboratory when its assigned mission may have been completed or is of lower priority. JPL has experienced one significant redirection in its history. This occurred in 1958, when sponsorship was transferred from the U.S. Army to NASA, and our mission changed accordingly from weapons systems development, to deep space research. This redirection was orderly and valuable, I believe, to NASA and the Nation. There were a number of factors that made the transition successful. With the creation of NASA, an explicit decision was made, at the necessary levels within the Government, that the services JPL could perform for NASA would be of more value to the Nation than its work for the Army. There also existed within JPL an enthusiasm for and adequate understanding of the new mission, its technical demands, and the functions the Laboratory could carry out in meeting these demands. This understanding derived largely from work in the space field JPL had performed under Army sponsorship, as, for example, the effort in the Explorer project. The actual transition to NASA required about 18 months. The new mission required expansion in personnel, enlargement of facilities, and significant alteration of the technical discipline mix of the professional staff. An interdisciplinary development and maturing of systems engineering capability was accompanied by the addition of space sciences as a divisional function. Mr. DADDARIO. Dr. Pickering, if you had civil service employees working for you, taking into consideration rules, regulations, and what not, could you have performed this transfer at all or would it have been made more difficult? PAGENO="0121" 117 Dr. PICKERING. Mr. Chairman, as you know, about a year later the Marshall Center was transferred into NASA and this was an example of a civil service laboratory being transferred from the Army to NASA, and I believe the transition was made in a reasonable fashion. The mission in the case of Marshall remained somewhat closer to their original mission than in our case where we had to reorient from weapons to deep space research. Mr. DADDARIO. You would not see it as restrictive? Dr. PICKERING. No. The factors present in the transfer of JPL to NASA sponsorship are those necessary to any successful redirection of a mission-oriented laboratory. There must be a sponsoring agency having the requisite charter and funding. There must be a decision mechanism which can assess the national priorities of new versus old missions, and which has authority to make the decisions for redirection. There must be an appropriate match between the new mission and the existing capabili- ties of the laboratory. And there must be an understanding within the laboratory of the new mission. The last factor, the understanding of the new mission, is needed not only for assessment of the match between capability and mission, but also for the formulation of plans and programs, and the motivation of the staff toward involvement in the new mission. Some elements of the laboratory must become immersed in and identified with a mission in order to have an appreciation in depth of its implications. Mr. DADDARIO. Here you se/em to be touching on a laboratory which is changing the direction of its activities, getting involved with new missions, but having had over a period of time an ability to develop experience in this, and it can redirect its activities. Dr. PICKERING. Yes. I am thinking of the mission-oriented labora- tory as distinct from the research laboratory. A research laboratory which is accustomed to performing research in a wide spectrum of activities can gradually evolve that basic research program to other ends. But in the case of the mission-oriented laboratory, you have a team capable of carrying out a mission in which a large segment of the laboratory is integrated into that team. The question is how does that team get reoriented toward a new mission? For that there must be a real understanding of the mission and a real motivation of tile people. This will come about after some elements of the laboratory have had experience and an ability to perform work in the new mission. Mr. DADDARIO. During the course of our seminars, Dr. Teller and Dr. Weinberg and others have constantly referred to the fact that we do not have the greatest applied research capability in this country. We do extremely well in the basic research area, but we do not do as well as they think we can in the applied area. What you are saying here is that you do have this kind of a capa- bility and that you can, in fact, accomplish varying types of national goals and objectives. Dr. PICKERING. Yes, sir. I believe we do have the applied capability in this country. I am a little bit surprised that Dr. Weinberg or Dr. Teller would criticize this because it seems to me in this country over the past couple of decades we have demonstrated some remarkable achievements in the area of applied science. PAGENO="0122" 118 Mr. IDADDARIO. They were not criticizing. They were saying we are not using our capabilities in this regard as efficiently as we could. Many of the problems of this day and age come upon us more rapidly now than ever before, and we must quickly develop the capability to meet them. Pollution is an area where knowledge must be applied more rapidly before the situation becomes more dangerous than it presently 1S: This is what the discussion was about and I do not want to infer that it was a matter of criticism, but rather it concerned better use of our resources. Dr. PICKERING. I think this is a matter of priorities. What have these resources been used for, these applied science laboratories? Have they been used for missions which have been regarded as the most urgent priority by the Congress? Now, if the assessment of priorities places other problems first then I believe the mission-oriented teams can be reoriented toward new priorities even though the new priorities involve shills outside the purely physical sciences. Mr. DADDARIO. Would you add to `that, taking the situation as you see it, that we ought to be developing this competence in a broader way? I)r. PICKERING. Yes, sir. I have some more to say about t.his later on in my testimony. Mr. DADDARIO. All right. Dr. PICKERING. Having touched on the complete redirection of a laboratory to a new mission, let me turn to a partial redirection, in- cluding such questions as the use by one Government agency of ca- pabilities of a laboratory funded by another agency, and the utiliza- tion of a mission-oriented laboratory in seeking solutions to social problems. The Jet Propulsion Laboratory has a long history in moderate-sized funding from agencies other than the principal sponsor. For example, for many years, the wind tunnels at JPL were partially funded by the three branches of the military services. At present, the Laboratory is carrying out tasks for the Department of Defense, and we hope also to perform work for the National Institutes of Health. Our experience here strongly suggests that where all of the involved agencies concur, implementation is feasible. Whether the redirection be complete and permanent, or partial and temporary, preliminary technical work of "seed" effort in the new mis- sion is required. Accordingly, seed work on a modest scale in areas out- side of the primary laboratory mission is a justifiable investment. In JPL's experience, Explorer was such a seed project, enabling the Laboratory to make an orderly transition to the new NASA mission. A new mission may be stimulated by a high-level policy decision from above, or a new technical idea from below; in either case, dis- cretionary funds for such activities are required. In fact, some dis- cretionary funds within the primary mission are generally needed to realize the fullest potential of a mission-oriented laboratory. The ap- l~Ticat1on of such resources should be within broad policy limits estab- lished by mutual agreement with the sponsoring agency, but should otherwise reflect the independent thought and judgment of the labora- tory management and staff. At present, JPL has no such discretionary funds and all tasks are specified by contract. PAGENO="0123" 119 Mr. DADDARIO. What percentage of those funds are you talking about? Dr. PICKERING. In the 5- to 10-percent area of discretionary funds. Mr. DADDARIO. What would this do in your opinion to the quality of your Laboratory? Dr. PICKERING. It would improve the quality because Laboratory morale is related to the enthusiasm and support which people have for the work they are doing. It must be work they believe in. In general, of course, the people at the Laboratory would not be there unless they believed in the total mission of the Laboratory. With reference to the research areas represented by seed effort, when peo- ple at the Laboratory who have good ideas which they would like to work on, in areas which are not directly supported under the con- tract, but which nevertheless in the judgment of the Laboratory Direc- tor would be appropriate areas to work in, an opportunity to do so would obviously help the morale of all the professional people at the Laboratory. Mr. DADDARIO. It would help the morale and increase the quality of your Laboratory. It would allow you to do some of the seed work that could lead to directions you are not even aware of now. If you were to take 5 or 10 percent of your funds for discretionary work, wouldn't you with the remaining 90 percent, because of the increased quality of the work and the morale in the Laboratory, actually do better work with less funding? Dr. PICKERING. I believe it would, but obviously this is just a matter of speculation. It would be difficult to prove. Mr. DADDARIO. I understand it would be difficult to prove, but we have had laboratory directors here before and from whom would we get a better judgment than from you people who are involved in it? You seem to be unanimous in this regard. Dr. PICKERING. I think it is an important factor. Mr. RUMSFELD. How much is 5 percent? Dr. PICKERING. $5 million. Excuse me, let me make it clear. I am t~alking about 5 percent of the total administrative operations type of funding for the Laboratory, and may I just interject that our Labora- tory being operated under contract is not AO funded, it is funded through t.he H. & ID. funds, but a fraction of about 70 percent of our funds goes out to contract. Mr. IRIJM5FELD. What is the dollar figure you are talking about? Dr. PICKERING. $5 million. Mr. RUMSFELD. Your work is on specific contract? Dr. PICKERING. Yes. At present we have a contract on which our work is provided by tasks. Mr. RtThISFELD. It is all with the Federal Government? Dr. PICKERING. All with NASA. Mr. IRIThISFELD. I know of institutes that do 98 percent of their busi- ness with the Federal Goverument, 95 at the minimum; between 2 and 5 percent with private sector; and use the profits in their private contracts as discretionary funds. - Dr. PICKERING. Well- Mr. RIThISFELD. I am not suggesting it is necessarily applicable here, but this is a procedure that I know is being used. PAGENO="0124" 120 Dr. PICKERING. In *our case the physical plant, the facilities, are owned by the Federal Government. We operate the laboratories for the Federal Government. Mr. RUMSFELD. Right. I just raise this as an example of a way that some people are getting discretionary funds. If discretionary funds can be allocated, there is no reason why an arrangement like this couldn't be. I am saying it is another way that it is being done, not the best way nor the way it should be done. Your answer is not an answer because we have Govermnent-owned property, as the gentleman sitting behind you can tell you, in private commercial operations all across this country, so the very fact that that is the rule now does not necessarily mean that it must be the rule forever. Mr. DADDARIO. All right. Dr. PICKERING. The question has been raised as to how a mission- oriented laboratory can be responsive to such national problems as transportation, housing, or crime. We tend to presume that prob- lems which have been caused or aggravated by technology can be solved by technology. In fact, the solutions involve political, social, and economic considerations, and new technical devices may be a minor contribution to the total solution. A concerted attack on the problems can best to made by a team of specialists including skills ranging from the physical to the be- havorial sciences to economics and law. Such teams must operate under the disciplines developed by the systems analysts in the mis- sion-oriented laboratories, and can be readily built around the exist- ing groups. Some elements of these skills already exist in laboratories concerned with total mission responsibilities, because mission opera- tions require human operators; thus human skills, motivations, and limitations must be incorporated into mission design. Therefore, it is quite feasible to convert existing Laboratory capabilities in response to these national problems. In fact, many engineers and scientists are deeply concerned with such social problems, and I am sure that in most laboratories, it would be easy to find high motivated individuals willing to explore these areas. Recently, at JPL, we held informal discussions with senior mem- bers of the Los Angeles Police Department concerning the technical problems they face. It Is clear that the Laboratory has the skills to develop some of the needed solutions. The interdisciplinary attack, in which the system analysis is accom- plished by social and political scientists as well as engineers and physi- cal scientists, is an attractive and promising concept, although largely untried. Cal Tech has been moving in this direction, seeking to close the gap between the physical and social sciences by expanding and re- orienting its curriculums. Finally, we have the question of whether to create new laboratories for new missions, or whether to assign new missions to existing labora- tories. I believe that the assignment of a new mission to an existing laboratory can be profitable. An established laboratory processing staff, management, and facilities can, if competent and suitably matched to the new task, move more rapidly into the new mission. On the other hand, such a reassignment should be made only when there is assurance that the quality and character of the laboratory justify the new mission. Since the Federal Government does have a PAGENO="0125" 121 large structure of multidisciplinary laboratories, we should seek to use them in the best national interests. The present laboratories can be reoriented, if necessary, to match new needs. Broadening the interdisciplinary base and changing the professional mix of talents is an entirely reasonable and practical pro- cedure in view of the ever-growing demands on the national resources. But to do so effectively, a prope.r effort must be made to assess the capa- bilities of the existing laboratories and to evaluate the new problems to determine what contributions they might make. Such an `assess- ment can be made only if adequate seed money or discretionary re- sources are made available before a laboratory's primary mission has been completed. Some such procedure is necessary if we are to achieve optimum utilization of the existing Federal laboratory system. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. DADDARIO. Dr. Pickering, you point out, as has been done by others, that technology cannot be relied on to overcome all of the problems that have been caused or aggravated by technology, and that you `bring in the political, economic, and social considerations. You then speak about the utilization of present laboratories, and the fact that there are some extremely competent national laboratories. You then get to the point where they must be evaluated. We have touched on this with others, and how to evaluate them is a pretty diffi- cult problem. What do you think about it? How do we go about this rating process? Dr. PICKERING. Mr. Chairman, again I think that discretionary or seed effort in new areas may `be the key. In other words, if you invite a laboratory to develop its capabilities in certain other areas to a limited extent, I think it will be quickly evident as to whether or not that laboratory `will come up with useful new ideas. For example, if you asked JPL to build submarines I couldn't tell you that we could build good submarines. On the other hand, if you told me that you wanted JPL to build submarines and asked for a study effort over the next 6 months to determine what we could do, after a 6-month study an assessment of the JPL capability `could be made against the total national com- petence for building submarines. This could then lead to a useful eval- uati'on as to whether, in fact, JPL could help. Mr. DADDARIO. That is sensible, but it still doesn't eliminate the need to have some kind of an evaluation process at this stage of the game. I do not think that every laboratory would deserve this discretionary authority. If we were to establish a policy that a certain number who we knew had the ability and `t'he competence and would use this dis- cretionary authority to raise their quality even higher, `could `have the funds, then the rating requirements would still `be necessary. Dr. PICKERING. Yes. I think that there is a certain element in the internal development of the laboratory itself to `be `considered. If I may reflect on our own experience in the transfer from Army to NASA, a year or two before the transition it was becoming evident to us at the laboratory that the mission `we were performing for the Army was becoming a less valuable match to our canabilities. 1n~ other words, we had accomplished `certain things for the Army. But in looking to the future it was not at all `obvious where we were PAGENO="0126" 122 going next. At that point the people at the Laboratory on their own initiative began looking for areas which were a better match to our talents. In fact, the support which JPL gave to the Army, as the Army began to develop interest in the Explorer effort, evolved naturally and was partly initiated by the laboratory itself because of the realization that some sort of a change in mission was necessary. I think that holds true `in other laboratories. In other words, if a laboratory is a dynamic laboratory and if it sees its mission coming to an end or changing priorities, the laboratory itself will initiate some moves to explore new areas. Mr. DADDARIO. Oak Ridge is now spending about 13 percent of its overall funds in areas beyond its original mission, especially in the area's of desalting and civil defense. As they work into both of these areas they find themselves capable of increasing their development in many of our social and economic problems, and they find that these become important involvements from the standpoint of finance. Obviously, this would be the case in many areas, and we do need to bring some direction to it. I would think that the use of existing lab- oratories should be at the heart of it. Yet we would have to `come to a determination about which laboratories have this quality. Dr. PICKERING. Mr. Chairman, you do pose a difficult problem. I understand from Dr. Weinberg that the AEC agreed some 5 or 6 years ago that Oak Ridge should explore some new areas. I think that should be the position of a sponsoring agency. The sponsoring agency, would have to recogiiize the changing mission and the potential of the lab- oratory in new areas. To do this on a total Federal basis, I feel, would be very difficult. It would imply a total Federal catalog of laboratory capabilities which I am sure does not now exist. I am not sure it could ever exist because it would involve too much comparison of apples and oranges. Mr. DADDARIO. Would you have much difficulty in privately coming to an assessment about these things? Dr. PICKERING. We laboratory directors have opinions about our quality and the quality of some of our competitors. Mr. DADDARIO. You don't have to go any further than that. Mr. Rumsfeld. Mr. RUMSFELD. Just to clarify something. As I recall, the chairman indicated that he felt discretionary funds should not be available to all such laboratories, but some should be selected out. Mr. DADDARIO. That is correct. Mr. RUMSFELD. Is it correct that you agree with that? Dr. PICKERING. I note in my testimony that the reassigmnent in new missions is only when there is an assurance that the character and quality of a laboratory justify the new mission. Let me point out that in order to go into a new mission the first step is to provide discretionary funds and encouragement to explore. Mr. RuMs~m~n. Are you endorsing discretionary funds only for that purpose? Dr. PICKERING. No, sir. Mr. RUMSEELD. Let's refer to it apart from transition. Dr. PICKERING. Then I will endorse discretionary funds in ~eneral I believe in a mission-oriented laboratory that the primary mission- Mr. RUMSFELD. Do you agree or disagree with Mr. Daddario? PAGENO="0127" 123 Dr. PICKERING. I disagree with him. Mr. R.tTMSFELD. I was under the impression you agreed with him earlier, and I didn't see how you could agree. Mr. DADDARIO. Let me add one provision here. If there happens to be, and I would expect that there is a laboratory hidden away here or there which ought to be put out of existence, would you give them 5 or 10 percent discretionary authority at this stage of the game? I am considering all laboratories. Mr. RtTMSFELD. As I recall, I have the floor. I would say that neither Dr. Pickering, nor I is suggesting that. If it should be out of business it should be out of business, but if it is in business the odds are it should be in business. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. You are talking about morale and the need for general competence. ~ discretionary funds have any merit then `they have merit for those in- stitutions which are in business if they should be in business. Isn't this right? Dr. PICKERING. I would suggest the following. If discretionary funds are provided for a laboratory, the sponsoring agency will not stand up and allow the laboratory to do whatever it wants to. Mr. RUMSFELD. Then we shouldn't call them discretionary funds. Dr. PICKERING. They are discretionary to the extent that the labora- tory makes the initial decision, but after the laboratory has used these funds, it will be asked what it did with them and some sort of report will be expected. I suggest that the way in which a laboratory uses its discretionary funds will be a good indication of whether or not the laboratory should continue in existence. I think if you gave discretionary funds to a laboratory which was in effect a dying laboratory, it would be pretty clear after a year or so that that, in fact, was the case. Mr. RTJMSFELD. This is one of the difficult problems the Bureau of the Budget has in evaluating such things. Dr. PICKERING. If the laboratory is dying because of the quality of the staff, even with discretionary funds it will not produce anything very useful. On the other hand, if it is dying because it has been under some sort of control and has been directed into areas which the staff hasn't been able to follow, by providing discretionary funds the laboratory may quickly revive. Mr. DADDARTO. We are examining the situation as it pertains to all national laboratories. During the course of these discussions Dr. br- Dig spoke of the difficulty in really phasing out a laboratory which for a number or multitude of reasons could be made necessary. I don't know that we could or should in an overall way say you should eliminate a laboratory because of such and such a reason or we should take this discretionary authority and apply it to all. We ought to separate them. On the other hand, if this discretionary authority is as important as it would appear to be, then we ought to take a look at the labora- tories, and to prove that it can work, pick those of the highest quality. I do not think it would be the toughest job in the world. If you reach the point where you could prove this out, you could expand or restrict this particular authority. All we are doing is exploring this and theorizing in a sense, because nobody at this stage of the game on this PAGENO="0128" 124 committee could come to such a recommendation with the facts now in. Would you find it difficult to accept the proposition, at least in the cases of those laboratories which are of the highest quality and considering we could come to a way to make some evaluation, that those directors ought to have such authority? Dr. PICKERING. I believe they should. Mr. DADDARIO. Dr. Pickering, I wish to thank you for your testi- mony, and we appreciate your coining here to appear before us. We are especially fortunate because your laboratory has had the flexibility to meet new challenges over the course of time and is a case study for us. It shows that flexibility is not an impossibility. You, as well as other laboratory directors, point again to the constant need of the society to bring together the physical and social problems and to use tile men who are scientifically and technically trained to accomplish these objectives. Your testimony is extremely heartening to us. Dr. PICKERING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO DR. WILLIAM H. PICKERING BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, RESEARCH, & DEVELOPMENT 1. One of the factors you mention necessary to any successful redirection of a mission-oriented laboratory is "a decision mechanism which can assess the national priorities of new versus old missions, and which has authority to mah~e the decisions for redirection." (a) Who do you see in the Executive Branch as having this authority other than the President? To the best of my knowledge, only the President possesses the authority to transfer a laboratory from one agency to another. Of course, mutual agree- ment by agency heads can effect such a transfer, as apparently occurred in 1953 when the National Bureau of Standards transferred laboratories to the Army and Navy; however, such agreements do not appear to be common. Also, of course, the assignments of individual laboratories are frequently changed, although within the overall mission of the agency. (b) Do you have any suggestions as to how the present structure of govern- ment could be improved to provide this mechanism? The Office of Science and Technology, together with the President as decision- maker, would seem to provide the framework for this mechanism. Apparently, OST has not been active in reviewing laboratory missions, and perhaps they could be encouraged to become more active in this area. Another alternative is a Federal Department of Science and Technology. In my opinion, such a Department may, at some future time, become desirable. 2. ~5ince JPL does not have discretionary funds, how does it ea~plore new ideas or areas in which it may have a competence? Discretionary funds are needed for the exploration of new areas, as well as for realization of the fullest potential within the primary mission of the laboratory. The absence of discretionary funds at JPL makes the exploration of new ideas and areas difficult and fragmentary. However, some exploration occurs within our primary mission, in which NASA establishes various research and study tasks pertaining to new programs and devices. Also, we are requested by NASA to be alert for and to document instances in which space-developed technology may be utilized in other fields. (a) As the space program matures, please describe what efforts JPL has undertaken or plans to undertake to make use of its existing competence. As you know, our primary mission is the unmanned exploration of the planets, and this venture has just begun. The maturation to which you refer is not imminent, either scientifically or technologically. The exploration of the planets would only be abandoned for lack of Congressional support and funding. However, in view of existing national needs, our planning office is studying the feasibility of our performing work in new areas. In certain selected fields in which our competence has been demonstrated, we plan to make proposals on a modest scale through NASA for undertaking new work. 3. Please describe the results of JPL's discussions with the Los Angeles Police Department. PAGENO="0129" 125 These discussions have yielded a greater mutual understanding of the coii- siderable potential inherent in modern technology for solving some of the ur- gent problems in law enforcement. Our people have identified existing needs which our advanced technology can satisfy; for example, in areas of command and control, data processing, gas chromatography, and mass spectroscopy. How- ever, funds presently available to the LAPD for work in these areas are ex- ceedingly limited. 4. While the present Laboratories Committee of the Federal Conncil for Science and Technology is concerned with Government laboratories as such, with the ewception of Dr. Astin its members are not working laboratory directors. TV/tat advantages and disadvantages do you see for establishing a small council of Fcdcral laboratory directors that would represent the views of both directly and contractor operated Federal laboratories at the Eccecutive Office level? I am personally in favor of the establishment of a council of Federal laboratory directors. Such a council would have the advantage of rapid identification of the major common problems facing these laboratories, as we'll as the prompt evaluation of the practicality and consequences of proposed actions. The principal problem with this council, as with almost every advisory corn- mittee, is in organizing the group with the requisite authority and reporting level such that it can be effective. Also, since these laboratories are rather diverse in character, it may be difficult to assemble a group which is large enough to represent a suitable cross section of laboratories, and yet not so large as to be unwieldy. 5. A sharp line frequently is drawn between those Government laboratories that are dircctly operated and those are are contractor operated. In terms of your cwperience, what are the principal characteristics of each mode of operation and the differences between them that are significant to utilization of Government laboratories. In niy view, the intrinsic difference between laboratories operated by the Government and those operated for the Government under contract, centers around motivation, flexibility in staffing, and the effects of Government regula- tions on the technical development process. Many of the university operated Government laboratories were started during World War II, in order to accomplish missions requiring the application of technology that did not exist within the Government. The close association of these laboratories with the academic community has contributed to their ability to attract and maintain outstanding staffs. Contract operation of these laboratories has allowed a degree of freedom and quick reaction that has not been possible within Government laboratories func- tioning wholly under Federal regulation. It has been my observation that mission- oriented, contract-operated laboratories have generally `been better able to ac- commodate to changes in mission assignment, especially with regard to staffing and redeployment. The constraints placed by the Government on the operation of Civil Service laboratories have undoubtedly affected their ability to compete for highly skilled technical manpower. The lack of these constraints, and the close association with universities, have placed the non-profit laboratories in a `better competitive position. This has been covered rather well by the Bell Report. G. What authority do you have to deal directly with other agencies that may wish to engage JPL's research and development services? While we do carry out discussions of an information-exchange type with other agencies, we are not able to negotiate with them for tasks. The facilities at JPL are owned by the Federal government and administered under a contract between NASA and Caltech; thus, NASA must approve any use of these facilities for other agencies. I appreciate the opportunity to further amplify my remarks to your Committee and I hope you will not hesitate to call on me at any time for further information. Mr. DADDARIO. We are running a little late, but I would appreciate it if we might be able to hear as much of Mr. Hughes' testimony as we possibly can, and I regret keeping you here until this hour. I hope we might be able to hear you and not have to bring you back. Mr. HUGHEs. I would be very pleased to have my statement in the record and simply refer to two or three points in rather cryptic fash- 93-201-68-----9 PAGENO="0130" 126 ion that reflect a position and then be available for your questioning. I think it might be more useful from the committee's standpoint. (Mr. Hughes' biography follows:) PHILLIP S. HUGHES Phillip S. Hughes took office as Deputy Director of the Bureau of the Budget on March 10, 1966. Prior to his present appointment he was Assistant Director for Legislative Reference of the Bureau of the Budget for 8 years, from June 1958. In that capacity, he reviewed legislative proposals sponsored by the Administra- tion and advised the Budget Director and the President on legislative matters. Earlier he served as Deputy Chief of the Office of Legislative Reference for 21/2 years. Mr. Hughes has been a career civil servant with the Bureau since 1949. At the time be joined the Bureau's staff he was a Budget Examiner for veterans pro- grams. In 1953, he became an Assistant Division Chief. Mr. Hughes was born in Chicago in 1917. In 1930 his family moved to the State of Washington, and in 1938 he received a B.A. degree from the University of Washington. He entered Federal service as an Analyst with the War Manpower Commission in the early days of World War II. Subsequent to military service in the Navy, he joined the staff of the Veterans Administration. Three years later in 1949, he joined the staff of the Bureau of the Budget. Mr. Hughes was honored with an Exceptional Service Award by the Bureau in 1965, and the Career Service Award by the National Civil Service League in 1962. He is married to the former Jean Evans and they have 3 daughters and one son. They reside in Chevy Chase, Md. STATEMENT 0]? PHILLIP S. HUGHES, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, BUREAU OP THE BUDGET As I indicated we are here to discuss some of the key issues that you have identified related to the effective utilization of laboratories. I think quite obviously we share the committee's concern that the GOv- ernment's research and development facilities are managed efficiently and effectively just as we have the same concern with the use of all Gov- ernment resources. We recognize and agree that this requires at least some degree of flexibility in terms of the using of existing capabilities to meet the research needs of other agencies. Feasibility is a problem here and I think this is something that we should talk about. I refer in my statement to the Bell report, which I am sure you are thoroughly familiar with. Unless there is some point that you wish to pursue there, or perhaps we could come back to it, I would suggest that we move on perhaps to about page 4 of the statement. We are in essential agreement with the general concepts of the Bell report, and I don~t think it is necessary to reiterate them. Mr. IDADDARIO. No. Mr. HUGHES. You have posed `a number of questions which bear on `two major aspects of Federal laboratory management: First, keeping the laboratory responsive to new needs and opportunities which strongly relates to the quality of the laboratory, and the second, the utilization of existing laboratory resources to meet such pressing national problems as transportation, pollution, housing, and crime. With respect to the upgrading of laboratories these problems ob- viously are the prime responsibilities of the agencies. We do, however, feel that basically the management of the agency must consider the future of its laboratories in terms of their capacity PAGENO="0131" 127 to serve the research needs of the agency itself; that is, `of the funding agency. One `suggestion `advanced for keeping a laboratory responsive to new opportunities is to provide the laboratory director with some discre- tionary funds to undertake new projects of his own choosing. This Bell report recommendation has been implemented to some degree by the agencies. We fully agree that some d'iscr~tionary funds are needed if a laboratory is to respond promptly to new opportunities within the area of its research competence. The question is now of maximizing the use of labs to avoid need- less duplication. There is no doubt that lab services should be avail- able across agency lines but basically again we believe that the labora- tories must support the mission of the agency which provides the major funds. Thus the sponsoring agency has first call on the services of its laboratories and sets the priorities of their efforts. The avail- ability of any particular laboratory to serve the needs of any other Government agency depends largely upon the workload imposed by its own. Whether or not the work of Federal laboratories should deliberately be redirected to meet the needs of other agencies is a difficult question. There should be no hard and fast rules on this because there is no simple answer. Conceptually and technically speaking, we know of no formal barriers preventing one Government agency drawing on the capabilities existing in a laboratory funded by another agency. How- ever, a number of considerations or factors are relevant; current and anticipated workload in support of the parent agency's mission; the compatibility of existing laboratory skills for work on other agency problems; the amount of retraining of staff which is necessary; whether or not new leadership can be obtained expeditiously from the private sector or other Government laboratories; and the requirement for additional equipment and facility modification. And, of course, Federal statutes, regulations, and procedures must be sufficiently flexible to make redirection of an existing laboratory a truly practical alternative to the establishment of a new Federal laboratory. The Economy Act of 1932 provided the authority for agencies to place orders with other agencies for materials, supplies, equipment, work or services they can provide if funds are available and if this is in the interest of the Government. However, a major limitation on the use of this authority for any large-scale redirection of a laboratory's efforts is the Comptroller General's ruling that the performing agency should be in a position to supply what is necessary without adding new plant and equipment. The full implications of this interpreta- tion must be examined case by case to determine the extent to which laboratories are prevented from doing work for other agencies. Mr. RUMSFELD. On page 4, at the very top, you make the statement that laboratory's services should be available to other than the parent agency to the extent practical. Mr. HUGHES. Yes. Mr. RUMSFELD. I take it there that by "other" you mean other gov- ernmental agencies? Mr. HUGHES. Yes. Mr. RUMSFELD. Purely within the Federal Government? PAGENO="0132" 128 Mr. HUGHES. Yes. The answer is "Yes" with regard to the statement. I had not thought particularly in terms of the utilization of the Gov- ernment's research `and laboratory facilities `by extragovernmental organizations. I don't regard that as either unfeasible or undesirable, however. Mr. DADDARIO. `Such as the National Bureau of Standards does? Mr. HUGHES. That is right. Mr. RUMSFELD. And the Government Printing Office? Mr. HUGHES. This is a little different area. Mr. RUMSFELD. I certainly applaud the Bureau's encouraging the use of personnel and resources and facilities but it seems to me that I have a little trouble with your statement in `the middle of page 4 where you say: With respect to upgrading the quality of Federal laboratories, the Bureau of the Budget feels that such matters are the prime responsibility of the agencies having jurisdiction over them. I don't know what you mean `by "quality" so I don't know that I disagree, but to some extent that might sound a little contradictory to some of the things that have `been said here this morning if we agree they should `be used within government at lea'st within government as broadly as possible, then it would seem to me an office like the Office of Science and Technology would be in a very significant position here to depend on what quality means to see that these Federal laboratories have the competence or quality or are in fact used by the `broadest number of governmental activities and agencies *and if simply the agency that has jurisdiction over it determines the quality or compe- tence or capability, then in fact that would be considerably narrower, one would think. Mr. HUGHES. Yes, that is correct. Clearly, we have our share of resnonsibility in terms of financing, of the recommendations and actions we take which affect the allocation of funds and personnel, of choices which are made among programs for the allocation of resources, and so on. We are inevitably involved in that. The management of the facility, however, must be, and the exper- tise, the technical expertise, must come primarily from the agency itself. I say this with due respect to Mr. Westrate and other people in the Bureau who give close attention to Federal laboratories and other research and development facilities, our job is a management job basically. Mr. RUMSFELD. This is not true of the Office of Science and Tech- nology. Mr. HUGHES. It is less true, but I think you ought to ask Dr. Hornig. The Bureau's statement makes it clear we would and do work as closely as we can with the Office of Science and Technology, but I think Dr. Hornig would agree that Dr. Pickering, for instance, has the firmest understanding about *the capacities and the qualities of his laboratory rather than Dr. Hornig or the Bureau of the Budget. Truly, the financial choices that we make affect laboratory opera- tions, but within those general constraints and within that general management framework the laboratory director, agency head, and his advisers must operate. Our techniques here- Mr. RUMSEELD. Not must; are. If there is a broader government good to be served and it is determined by this committee and recommended PAGENO="0133" 129 to the administration or acted into law that a final filter had to be ap- plied to this to see that government generally had a certain level of competence, this then would filter down like everything else does. Mr. HUGHES. I think that is right. But at least in the present state of art, and I characterize it as an art rather than a science, the best techniques which we have evolved for allocating funds in areas where choices are very difficult, where the management problems are very difficult, are techniques which involve the forcing of choices upon the people who manage the programs. Dr. Pickering referred to this and so did Mr. Finger. We are interested in Harry Finger's selection of R. & D. efforts within his particular sphere of responsibility. Certainly through our own expertise and whatever help we could obtain from Dr. Hornig and his staff, we would try to compare NASA's projects and NASA's laboratories with AEC and National Science Founda- tion activities. Mr. RUMSFELD. Let's terminate the answer and go on to something else. I don't think we are on the same wavelength. If you make a decision that water fountains were necessary in Gov- ernment installations, then you would allow water fountains through the Bureau. You would let people have water fountains. Have you ever approached this question of discretionary authority for these laboratories on this basis in the light that Dr. Pickering has suggested; that is, that it is a possible and necessary cost of doing business to see that a laboratory has funds for general competence, morale, or all of these reasons he lists, all of which would not be appli- cable if you did not apply them to all laboratories? Mr. HUGHES. We have not taken the initiative with respect to dis- cretionary funds as far as I know. Mr. WESTRATE. The Bell report which was proposed essentially under the leadership of the Bureau of the Budget dealt with this problem. In that respect, the Bureau did take the initiative. As far as we are concerned that is still a very valid conclusion. Mr. DADDARIO. Mr. Hughes, we are at the point where we most likely will have to have you come back. The Bell report states that "it would seem, based on the results of this review, that it would be possible and desirable to make more use of existing governmental facilities and avoid the collection of dupli- cate facilities. This is not as easy a problem as it might seem. It is ordinarily necessary for a laboratory, if it is to provide strong and and competent facilities, to have a major mission and major source of funding." It goes on to say this will limit the extent it is possible to make facilities available to other agencies but that "it is clearly possible to do this and a continuing scrutiny is necessary." What we would like to know, and we can't possibly go into it at the moment, does the BOB feel the same way as it did when this report was published in 1962? What has been done about it? Who performs this continuing scrutiny? How does it fit into these que~tions we have been asking about facility ratings and this type of thing? We may be able to handle this by submitting a series of questions, but if we are not, we would like to try to work out an arrangement to have you come back. Mr. HUGHES. As you wish, Mr. Chairman. PAGENO="0134" 130 PREPARED STATEMENT OF PHILLIP S. HUGHES, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF THE BUDGET Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: We are here at your request to discuss some of the key issues you have iden- tified which are related to effective utilization of Federal laboratories. The Bureau of the Budget shares your concern that the Government's `research and development facilities be managed efficiently and effectively just as we want the most effective use of all Government sources. Efficient and effective utilization in'cludes use of a laboratory's capabilities to `meet the research needs of an agency other than its own when this is feasible. Federal laboratories are one element of the Federal Government's broad in- volvement in research and development. In dealing with this and other issues in research and development the Bureau of the Budget `obtains `assistance and advice from the Office of Science an'd Technology. Normally, the Bureau of the Budget depends upon the agencies to set policies for their research and development facilities and to take those steps needed to insure competent management. However, When major management issues do arise or when problems affecting laboratories cut across agency lines we, `in cooperati'on with the Office. `of Science and Technology, can take the initiative to deal with them. Also during the `past few years we have found it most advan- tageous to participate in the work of the ~ommittoe on Federal Laboratories `of the Federal `Council for Science and Technology. The Bureau's own most recent comprehensive assessment of Federal labora- tories occurred in connection with our study of the broader question of Govern- ment contracting for research and development, which was prepared with the participation of OST, DOD, NASA, AEC, NSF, and the Civil Service Commission. We presented our findings in 1962 under the `title "Report to `the President on Government `Contracting for Resea'rch and Development." `This study is popularly known as th'e Bell Report. Some of the questions you have raised `about Federal laboratories were also considered in that `report. Therefore, I would like to men- ti'on several of the Bell Report's conclusions about Federal laboratories which I believe bear directly upon the issues being examined in `these hearings. These conclusions are: Choices among the various means for conducting research `and develop- men't work should be made on the basis of rel'ative efficiency and effectiveness in accomplishing the desired work with `due regard `to the need to maintain and enlarge the long-term strength of the Nati'on's scientific resources, both public `and private. A strong base of `technical knowledge sh'ould be continually maintained within the Government service and available for advice to top management. Federal laboratories provide a useful source for such knowledge as well as a source of `technical management for `the agencies. Because `the Government laboratory has a close and `continuing relation- ship to its agency, it can provide maximum responsiveness to the needs of the agency and a maximum sense of sharing the agency mission. Government agencies should maintain a strong internal competence in research `and development. By doing so, the agencies will be able to make the difficult and extraordinarily important program decisions which rest on scientifi'c and technical judgments. Finally, it appears possible and desirable to make more use of existing governmental facilities and avoid creating duplicate facilities. However, there are certain problems which limit the extent to which it is possible to to make the facilities of one agency available for the work of other agencies. Mr. Chairman, the Bureau of the Budget believes that these statements are still valid and that they form essential guidelines for the effective use of Federal laboratories. Basically they assert that Federal agencies greatly benefit from having their own laboratories to work on mission-related problems, but that duplication of facilities should be avoided, and that a laboratory's services should *be available to other than the parent agency to the extent practical. Further, new laboratories should not be created without the most careful con- siclerati'on of `alternatives; the basic consideration is getting the job done effec- tively and efficiently. You have posed a number of question's which bear on two major aspects of Federal laboratory management: (1) keeping a laboratory responsive to new needs and opportunities which strongly rela'tes to t'he quality of the laboratory, PAGENO="0135" 131 and (2) the utilization of existing laboratory resources to meet such pressing national prdblems as transportation, pollution, housing and crime. With respect to upgrading the quality of Federal laboratories, the Bureau of the Budget feels that such matters are the prime respon:sihility of the agencies having jurisdiction over them. The mission of the agency prescribes its research needs. When particular research needs have been met, a laboratory should be appraised with respect to its capacity to undertake new research efforts. Good management dictates that constant attention be given to a laboratory's effective- ness and adaptability or capacity for redirection. The Bureau has no ready solu- tions to the problem of redirection. We do feel, however, that basically, agency management must consider the future of its laboratories in terms of their capac- ity to serve the research needs of the funding agency. One suggestion advanced for keeping a laboratory responsive to new oppor- tunities is to provide the laboratory director with some discretionary funds to undertake new projects of his own choosing. This Bell Report recommendation has been implemented to some degree by the agencies. We fully agree that some discretionary funds are needed if n laboratory is to respond promptly to new opportunities within the area of its research competence. Earlier I indicated that the Bureau of the Budget concurs in the Bell Report conclusion that maximum use be made of existing research and development facilities to avoid needless duplication. While there is no doubt that laboratory services should be available across agency lines, Federal laboratories must sup- port the mission of the agency which provides the major source of its funds. Thus, the sponsoring agency has first call on the services of its laboratories and sets the priorities of their efforts. The availability of any particular laboratory to serve the needs of any other Government agency depends largely upon the workload imposed by its own. Whether or not the work of Federal laboratories should deliberately be redi- rected to meet the needs of other agencies is a difficult question. There should be no hard and fast rules on this because there is no simple answer. Concep- tually and technically speaking, we know of no formal barriers preventing one Government agency drawing on the capabilities existing in a laboratory funded by another agency. However, a number of considerations or factors are relevant: current and anticipated workload in support of the parent agency's mission; the compatibility of existing laboratory skills for work on other agency problems; the amount of retraining of staff which is necessary; whether or not new leader- ship can be obtained expeditiously from the private sector or other Government laboratories; and the requirement for additional equipment and facility modifica- tion. And of course Federal statutes, regulations, and procedures must be sufficiently flexible to make redirection of an existing laboratory a truly practical alterna- tive to the establishment of a new Federal laboratory. The Economy Act of 1932 provided the authority for agencies to place orders with other agencies for materials, supplies, equipment, work or services they can provide if funds are available and if this is in the interest of the Government- However, a major limitation on the use of this authority for any large-scale redirection of a laboratory's efforts is the Comptroller General's ruling that the performing agency should be in a position to supply what is necessary without adding new plant and equipment. The full implications of this interpretation must be examined case by case to determine the extent to which laboratories are prevented from doing work for other agencies. Present funding arrangements do not inhibit agencies performing work for each other. A transfer of funds for services rendered is all that is required. Where problems exist, they relate to Government laws and procedures for dealing w-ith such matters as personnel, new construction and use of facilities as I mentioned earlier. This Subcommittee has expressed concern about the capacity of mission oriented laboratories to respond to certain national problems-transportation, housing and crime. In short, the essential issue is the timely adaptability on existing Federal laboratories to do research in `these areas. The Bureau's basic position is that of the Bell Report. If there is a pool of talent in a Federal laboratory and it is available to work on such problems, the pertinent agencies should work out the necessary arrangements, subject to the basic interest and mission of the agency having jurisdiction over the laboratory. By itself, this arrangement may not produce a large-scale assault on the national problem. In the absence of tight arrangements, the Department of Trans- PAGENO="0136" 132 portation, Housing and Urban Development, arid Justice, could find their priorities slipping if a servicing laboratory must divert its resources to work on new tasks assigned by its own agency. Under the philosophy of the Bell Report the case can be made for the Depart- ments of Transportation, Housing and Urban Development and Justice develop- ing their own in-house research capability, As mission-oriented agencies, they now have similar research and development needs to their sister agencies. A decision to do this, however, must depend upon the most careful analysis of the range of alternatives. This analysis might lead to meeting the research needs of these agencies through any combination of their own laboratories, the laboratories of other agencies, and contractural relationships with universities and industry. If the agency can satisfy its research requirements without establishing one or more of its own laboratories, it should obviously do so. With respect to the establishment of contractual arrangements, Bureau of the Budget Circular A-76 provides guidance to the agencies on the question of Gov- ernment entry into commercial or industrial activity to provide a product or service obtainable from a private source. The essential purpose of the Circular is to further the Government's general policy of relying on the private enterprise system to supply its needs. Technically speaking, the Circular excepts nothing. Thus, research and development facilities come within its general purview-, although other statements of policy such as the Bell Report affect decisions regarding research and development facilities. Obviously, however, and this is particularly true in the research and development area, program requirements and management considerations are the most compelling determinants. Thus, the Circular clearly recognizes that there are circumstances under w-hich the Government should provide a commercial or industrial product or service for its own use and provides the guidance for this determination. This is par- ticularly true in the case of "new starts." Instructions are given for making cost comparisons of alternatives. Should an agency have authority to establish an in- house activity it must complete the cost comparison analysis prior to submitting its budget requests to the Bureau of the Budget. Thus, the budget process is a further check on the decision for a "new start." Finally, I would like to say a few words regarding the establishment of per- sonnel ceilings for laboratories. These determinations are made by the agencies, not by the Bureau of the Budget. With the assistance of the agencies, the Bu- reau does establish personnel ceilings for agencies as a whole. These are end of the year ceilings. Two figures are set-one for full-time employees, and one for total employees. The figures are based on an appraisal of current agency pro- grams as compared with the previous year. The agency submits its request to the Bureau; this is examined in much the same manner as budgetary proposals. Once the overall agency figures are determined, the agency makes its final per- sonnel allocations for all its units, including its laboratories. With respect to the flexible use of personnel in laboratories or other agency activities, Bureau policy as set forth in Circular A-64 encourages interagency sharing of per- sonnel resources. Thus, agencies can arrange for personnel transfers where this is mutually advantageous. QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO PHILLIP S. HUGHES BY THE SUBCOM- MITTEE ON SCIENCE, RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT Qvestion. 1. Please describe the type of "assistance and advice" which the Bvreau receives from O~ST. Does it consist primarily of technical advice or does it inclvde advice as to priorities, fvnding and duplication? Answer. Contacts between the BOB and OST are extensive and occur at all staff levels. The Bureau's budget examiners frequently obtain substantive advice regarding agency scientific and technical programs. Sometimes such advice is strictly technical. At other times OST provides views on funding levels, priori- ties and on questions of balance in interagency programs. Occasionally OST staff participates in the preparation of special Bureau studies such as the Report to the President on Contracting for Research and Development (Bell Report) and The Administration of Government Supported Research at Universities. The Bureau continually seeks advice on R&D policy and budget issues from Dr. Hornig and his OST associates. Bureau involvement in OST activities also provides a valuable input for per- formance of the Bureau'.s own functions. To illustrate, the Bureau has an. observer on the Federal Council for Science and Technology and all FCST PAGENO="0137" 133 committees. Thus, the Bureau is directly involved in discussions of the full array of R&D issues considered by the Council and its subunits, a number of which deal with interagency programs. The POST recommendations are con- sidered by the Bureau as well as by OST and the agencies, and the data col- lected by FCST study groups are a valuable addition to the information the Bureau requires in formulating its judgments. Question 2. In your prepared statement you say that "new laboratories should not be created without the most careful consideration of alternatives." What do you consider are the alternatives, and what criteria are there to guide an agency in making a proper choice? How does, or should BOB oversee this determination? Answer. In our judgment there are two principal alternatives for accomplish- ing the Government's R&D work. Either existing or new in-house facilities must be used or arrangements must be made to perform the needed R&D by contract or grant with industrial, educational, State or local governmental and not-for- profit organizations. In considering the first alternative an agency should deter- mine the feasibility of using the facilities of another agency before seriously considering creating a new one of its own. Precise criteria for choosing among alternatives are at best difficult to develop, but there are a number of guidelines which an agency can consider in making its choices. For example, BOB Circular A-49 requires each agency to establish criteria for the use of management and operating contracts and suggests guide- lines for such criteria. The Bell Report of 1962 discussed the natural advantages of direct Federal operations and the various patterns of contracting now in use and included the following general guideline for choosing among alternatives which we believe is still valid: ". . . Not all arrangements, however, are equally suitable for all purposes and under all circumstances, and discriminating choices must be made among them by the Government agencies having research and development responsibilities. These choices should be based primarily on two considerations: "(1) Getting the job done effectively and efficiently, with due regard to the long4erm strength of the Nation's scientific and technical resources; and "(2) Avoiding assignments of work which would create inherent conflicts of interest." A number of specific factors must be examined by an agency in considering alternatives for satisfying its R&D needs. They include: a. The requirement for and nature of the R&D effort to be undertaken in sup- port of the agency's mission and programs. b. The importance of maintaining or acquiring technical competence within the agency to do both an effective job of managing R&D programs and being a sophisticated buyer of the products and services the agency requires. c. The availability of outside resources to perform the work, e.g., established university laboratories, Federal contract research centers, industrial labora- tories, and other Government laboratories. d. Comparative costs. With respect to the factor of cost, BOB Circular A-76 provides guidance for agencies to decide among alternatives on the basis of cost comparisons. How- ever, as was pointed out in Bureau testimony, program requirements and man- agement considerations are the most compelling determinants for choosing alternatives in the research and development area. In general, BOB reviews proposals for major new laboratories in the context of agencies' overall budget proposals-the programs proposed by the agencies, the means they propose to accomplish the programs and the resource implica- tions (dollars, manpower, facilities). The Bureau obtains from the agency the information needed to identify alternative courses of action and relative priority for program funding. There is no specific procedure which singles out laboratories for special treatment from other programs and facilities. Depending upon the situation however, the Bureau may ask an agency to complete a special study to identify alternatives to a laboratory proposal and provide other pertinent infor- mation. Question 3. In your prepared statement you state: "We fully agree that some discretionary funds are needed if a lqboratory is to respond promptly to new opportunities within the area of its research competence." a. Generally speaking, what amount do you recommend as a percentage of the laboratory's budget? PAGENO="0138" 134 b. f~l~ould discretionary funds be available to both Government operated and contractor operated laboratories? If not, what is your reasoning for drawing a distinction? e. As a general policy, should discretionary funds be made available to all laboratories or only those which have demonstrated quality work (a reward for competence)? d. Do you believe that discretionary funds should be used only in furtherance of an agency's mission or could some of the funds be used as seed money to ew- plore how technology developed by a laboratory conld be applied to other national problems, perhaps outside the jurisdiction of the sponsoring agency? Answer. The referenced statement from the Bureau's testimony was intended to express a principle of sound laboratory management. Rigid programming of laboratory funds would deny flexibility to the laboratory in responding to targets of research opportunity. Desired flexibility can be achieved by giving the labora- tory director reasonable latitude in reprogramming and by setting aside a quan- tity of discretionary funds for projects of his choosing. The amount of desired flexibility and method `for achieving it would, of course, depend upon `the nature and mission of the laboratory. The `Bureau does not recommend a specific percentage of a laboratory's budget to be set aside in the form of discretionary funds. `Essentially thi's would be an operational decision to `be more appropriately made by the laboratory director and agency officials reviewing his program proposals. The percentage of the budget designated in the form of discretionary funds would depend on a num- ber of factors-size, competence, nature, mission and programs of the laboratory; degree of flexibility desired; and previous experience in the use of such funds based upon careful evaluation. The agencies now have authority to reprogram funds for laboratory operations. In general, we feel there is considerable latitude available. Control of funding at the program or laboratory level is designed to give reasonable flexibility to follow promising avenues of research, particularly when some funds are not tied to specific projects. Contractor operated laboratories also have reasonable flexibility in using funds. For example, AEC laboratory directors have considerable control over the use of funds within their programs, subject to after-the-fact review. Also, discre- tionary funds in the form of allowances for independent research and develop- ment or set-asides for undirected research already exist in DOD contracts with industrial laboratories. These funds are utilized in a similar manner to the funds which companies set aside for their own research efforts for product im- provement. Further, some Federal `Con'tract Research Centers are given consid- erable latitude in initiating their own research efforts under terms of the con- tract. Still `other FCRC's rely for such purposes on use of their fees. The purposes of discretionary funds in a Government laboratory are basically the same as such funds `used by .a contractor. These funds can be justified for `both. As a basic policy, we believe that discretionary funds should be available to those laboratories of sufficient size and with missions, programs and quality of management which give promise of effective use of such funds. Quality of their use (determined by agency evaluation) should be a major factor in deciding the amount for subsequent years, but laboratories should be given the continuing opportunity to acquire and demonstrate their competence. Thus, a reward and penalty `system would be (and is now) used. In general, we believe that discretionary funds in the laboratory should be used in furtherance of `the parent agency's mission. This does not preclude ex- ploring new `technologies which might also be applicable to the solution of a national problem falling primarily within another agency's jurisdiction. With such discretionary funds, the laboratory could pursue `the new technology to the point where the other agency could evaluate it for sponsorship in terms of its own programs and priorities. Question. 4. In your statement you state: "Under the philosophy of the Bell Report the case can be made for the Departments of Transportation, Housing and Urban Development and Justice developing their own in-house research capability." You also state: "If the agency can satisfy its research requirements without establishing one or more of its own laboratories, it should obviously do so." a. Assuming each of these agencies proposed its own research laboratory, what steps or studies, if any, would the Bureau require the agency to take be- fore approving the request? PAGENO="0139" 135 b. If a disagreement arose between the agency and the Bureau concerning the need for the laboratory, how would the matter be resolved-or who would make the final decision? Answer. The basis for the Bureau's first statement is our continued belief t'hat some in-house research capability is essential to the efficient and effective performance of the missions of most agencies. We feel that an agency should have the capability within its own staff to identify research needs, to relate research findings to the solution of problems within its mission and to insure that it will be a wise purchaser of Rand D. A number of the comments we made in response to question 2 above are ap- propriate here also. The budget process is the principal vehicle the Bureau uses to consider new programs, facilities, manpower, etc. It should be recognized that agencies consider alternatives such as (1) having research work per- formed by others, and (2) using available Federal land or facilities-if a new laboratory must be established. If an agency's budget and program justification did not include information from the agency's study of alternatives, it would likely be reqested. If it appeared that an agency had not considered appropriate alternatives, the Bureau might ask that a study be done. We have no standard set of steps or studies for such situations. The content of a study would be determined by the particular situation involved and the specifications would be worked out with the agency. The study would, of course, be directed toward identifying alternative ways of getting necessary work accomplished and the related impact upon effectiveness, efficiency and cost. The Bureau's procedures allow for full discussion of disagreements with the agencies on budget issues. The final decision on including funds for a laboratory (or any other item) in the President's budget is, of course, made by the President. Question. 5. The Bell Report stated that a "continuing scrutiny" was needed to make sure that the facilities which the Government has are used to their fullest ertent. Whose responsibility is it to provide this continuing scrutiny? What has BOB done in this area? Answer. Utilization of laboratories must be evaluated by the agencies in the context of their mission needs and available funds. The extensive program in DOD under the guidance of the Office of Laboratory Management in DDR&E and its service counterparts illustrates agency efforts in this area. Closing and disposing of some excess laboratory facilities has occurred. For example, when the Connecticut Aircraft Nuclear Engineering Laboratory became excess to ADO's needs, the facility was promptly closed. Bureau of the Budget reviews occur as a normal part of the budget process. The Bureau likewise has an observer on the FCST's Federal Laboratory Com- mittee which deals with a number of general management issues. Question. 6. As an indication of the eatent of cross-agency work, please sup- ply information showing the amount of funds transferred between Government agencies in FY .1967 for the conduct of research and development, such information should include the transferring agency, the receiving agency, the amount of funds transferred, and the project or purpose for which the funds were transferred. a. What instructions or directives has BOB issued or plan to issue on the cross-agency use of Federal laboratories? Answer. The Bureau and most agencies do not maintain data banks on cross- agency reimbursable efforts, but some basic information is available in the agen- cies. The attached tabulations * prepared at BOB's request provide a sizable number of examples of cross-agency efforts, general purpose and size of the dollar involvements. The Bureau's principal pronouncements which have implications for cross- agency use of Federal laboratories include the Bell Report, BOB Circular A-TO and instructions to the agencies on implementation of the planning. programming and budgeting system (PPBS). The Bureau contemplates issuing no further di- rectives on cross-agency use of laboratories at this time. Question. 7. Since the Bell Report was published in 196~, what significant actions have been taken by the Bureau and the agencies to carry out the recom- niendations? What recommendations remain in need of action? Answer. In summary, the following significant actions have `been taken to implement the Bell Report recommendations. It should be noted `that a number of these actions are continuing, so in some respect, they are unfinished items of business. *The tabulations referred to may be found in the committee files. PAGENO="0140" 136 a. The Federal pay reform legislation enacted in 1962 and subsequent legis- lation has considerably improved the Government's competitive position in attracting top flight personnel into public service. b. A number of agencies, e.g., DOD, AEC, Post Office, HEW, have strengthened their internal management arrangements for research and development partic- ularly by giving key officials agency-wide responsibilities for such activities. c. Agencies reported to the Bureau they have used the guidelines stated in the Bell Report regarding the inherent advantages of various R&D performers when selecting organizations to perform agency tasks. d. Conflict of interest questions discussed in the report have been dealt with by conflict of interest legislation, Presidential memoranda and agency regulations with appropriate enforcement measures. e. The Bell Report urged the improvement of Government specifications for R&D tasks through better feasibility studies and other means. The principal agen- cies involved, DOD, AEC and NASA, have taken a number of steps to obtain needed improvements. For example, DOD developed its concept of a "Program Definition Phase" with ABC and NASA following a similar pattern. All agencies report increasing the use of their own laboratory capabilities in developing improved specifications. f. Most agencies, particularly DOD and NASA have taken steps `to improve their R&D contracting through promoting greater competition for contracts and emphasizing the use of fixed price and incentive contracts in an effort to overcome some of the deficiencies of cost-plus-fixed-fee contracting cited in the Bell Report. g. There has been major activity in the agencies in the complex area of im- proved contract administration. The principal agencies, DOD, AEC and NASA, have revamped their procedures covering the full spectrum .of administration- contractor source selection, project control and monitoring, reporting systems arid contractor performance evaluation. The agencies also have refined the PERT system as an aid in planning and controlling the three major variables in large systems development programs-time, cost, and technical performance. h. Extensive w-ork has been undertaken throughout the Government to im- prove Federal relations with universities. OST has taken leadership in this area iii collaboration with the Bureau of the Budget, NSF and HEW. In par- ticular, the w-ork of the Federal Council's Committee on Academic Science and Engineering should be noted. Recently, the requirement for time and effort reporting for university professorial staff and other working on Government sponsored research has been eliminated. In 1966 the Bureau of the Budget issued its own report on "The Administration of Government Supported Research at Universities" in an effort to bring improvements to the complex area of agency aclininistration which so vitally affects university programs. i. The steps which agencies have and are taking to upgrade in-house labora- tories are well known to the Committee. Testimony offered by DOD, NASA and other representatives have provided the specific details. The recommendations of the Bell Report dealing with the basic problems of Federal laboratories gave additional stimulus to efforts which were already underway, particularly in DOD which has the bulk of the Government's own research capabilities. j. The Bell Report also proposed improvements in the `technical information exchange system. Leadership in developing these improvements has come from OST with the extensive efforts of the Committee on Scientific and Technical Information (COSATI) of the Federal Council for Science and Technology. COSATI has a sizeable agenda of problems on which it is now working with broad participation of agency personnel. Further implementation of the Bell Report recommendations continues. One additional area in which BOB has been involved is the complex problem of con- tractor compensation. Some reliance has been placed on incentive contracting to insure reasonableness of compensation. In addition, efforts are underway to improve agency policies and procedures, to secure personnel competent to review- compensation and to provide more reliable data on prevailing rates of com- pensation. Question 8. As the lead agency in the development of principles for Federal organization and management, what is the Bureau's view on organizational loca- tion of Federal laboratory directors in relation to the agency head? How can the nvmher of administrative layers that eaist in some agencies between the labora- tory director and the agency head b~ reconciled with the directo'r'u need for flcaibiiity, discretions and quick response in the direction of his laboratory? PAGENO="0141" 137 Answer. There is no one proper reporting level within agencies for all labora- tory directors, nor is it possible to state what precise specified flexibility or dis- cretion all laboratory directors should be allowed. The organizational location of an agency's laboratory directors in relation to the agency head must neces- sarily depend upon the size and complexity of the agency's missions and pro- grams and the laboratory's role in their accomplishment. As a management principle, the Bureau favors as few administrative layers as are consistent with adequate management controL The principal research agencies, DOD, AEC, and NASA, have realistically faced up to the problem~ of multiple administrative layering. DOD has created its Office of Laboratory Management with its three service counterparts to serve as focal points for the review of agency-wide laboratory problems and require- ments. The contract laboratories of AEC now report to the AEO General Man- ager and NASA laboratories report to an associate administrator. In Com- merce, the Director of the National Bureau of Standards reports to an assistant secretary, and in NSF the Director of the National Center for Atmospheric Re- search reports to the director of a major program division. The actions taken thus far to reduce the adverse effects of layering are considered steps in the right direction. Question 9. Dr. Weinberg, Director of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory pointed out that the redeployment of Federal laboratories can run into diffi- culty if there is no fiscal flywheel to smooth out fluctuations or delays in funding. Speaking of e~vperience with NASA, 1w said: "However, with non-ARC funds we have much. less fleaiibility. If because of a red-tape error, funds from NASA are delayed three weeks we are in serious difficulty if we do not close out the NASA-supported work-even though three weeks later it is to be resumed. Obviously some financial flywheel must be pro- vided. I would think an overhead charge assessed against all research at the laboratory and designated as the laboratory director's overhead account could be used as a fiscal flywheel to smooth out fluctuations What is your view on the need for such a fiscal flywheel for laboratory direc- tors? What would be necessary to put one into effect? Answer. There are two aspects to the problem Dr. Weinberg describes-flexi- bility of operations for in-house laboratories and smoothness of operations for contractor laboratories when both have multiple sources of funding. In the case of the in-house laboratory, the Bureau believes that the requirement for a fiscal flywheel is minimal. The bulk of in-house laboratory operations for any one agency is usually financed by the parent agency which is responsible for ade- quately supporting these operations. In the case where an in-house laboratory depends upon several program managers whose allocation decisions regarding available resources are based more on programmatic requirements than institu- tional support, the laboratory conceivably may encounter some difficulty in main- taining a constant or fully predictable level of funding. Discretionary funds and reprogramming authority can mimimize the effects of fluctuations which might occur under such circumstances. This likewise dictates that program and budget reviews should include an appropriate institutional review to assure that decisions regarding laboratory support are made in the context of the laboratory's agency-wide relationship. Work performed for other agencies is normally done on a cost reimbursable basis with few problems encountered on transferring funds. Contractor laboratories may have some difficulty in maintaining orderly opera- tions, if they perform work for a number of sponsors. Unanticipated funding de- lays could cause management problems if contingency resources are not available. It is our understanding that management fees have been used in emergency situa- tions. The Bureau believes that many of the benefits of a "fiscal flywheel" for contractor laboratories can be achieved by the sponsoring agency insuring that the laboratory contract incorporate sufficient administrative flexibility and per- mit the director to program his funds to cover such emergencies. Question 10. Section 8 of Ea,ecutive Order 10521 directed agency heads to en- courage and facilitate the sharing with other Federal agencies of major equip- ment and facilities. It also directed that a Federal agency should procure ~major equipment or facilities only after taking suitable steps to ascertain that the need cannot be met adequately from existing inventories of its own or other agencies. To what extent were these provisions superseded by Executive Order 10807 which established the Federal Council? To what extent does Section 8 still apply? PAGENO="0142" 138 Answer. The provisions of section 8 (a) and (b) of Executive Order 1O~21 continue to apply. Only Section 8(c) which specifically applied to the Interde- partmental Committee on Scientific Research and Development was superseded by Executive Order 10807 inasmuch as the ICSRD ceased to exist upon creation of the Federal Council. Question 11. Based on your ecoperienee, what advantages and disadvantages would yow see in an office of Government laboratory management located at the level of or within the Office of Science and Technology? Such an office would be analagous to the present Office of the Assistant Director (Laboratory Manage- nient), in the Department of Defense's Office of Defense Research and Engineer- ing. Answer. The basic premise for suggesting that multi-agency problems and programs including Government-wide utilization of resources be dealt with in the Executive Office of the President (by BOB, OST or a new agency) is that the Executive Office has a broader perspective for considering such matters. This premise may be generally valid, but practical considerations dictate a careful selection of the multi-agency matters in whteh the Executive Office becomes deeply involved. At present the Bureau feels it would be undesirable to establish an office of Government laboratory management in OST or elsewhere in the Executive Office. There are several reasons for the Bureau's position: a. That Government laboratory resources are sufficiently more important than various other resources to be given special treatment in the Executive Office has not yet been convincingly demonstrated. b. The role that an office of Government laboratory management would play vis-a-vis the operating agencies is not at all clear. c. It is very doubtful that such an office could be more effective in improving the utilization of laboratories (taking into account agency needs and funding) than could the agencies themselves. d. If placed in OST, such an office would put OST in an operating role which is inappropriate for a staff agency for the President. Laboratory management and operations should be left to the agencies. e. The proposed office could become another level of decision-making which could inhibit agencies from taking timely action. As stated elsewhere, OST and BOB are now involved in a number of activities dealing with Government laboratory resources. Dr. Hornig has described for the Committee the efforts of the Federal Council's Committee on Federal Labora- tories and other studies undertaken by OST. Perhaps the OST and BOB machinery can be strengtened to deal with interagency laboratory `problems, but in our judg- ment such strengthening can be achieved without creating a special office to deal exclusively with in-house laboratory problems. Question 12. What inventory information about research and development has been collected as specified in part r of Circular A-76? a. To what ea~tent is part 5-d a blanket eaemption for research and development that is available from the laboratories of another department or agency? b. Have tbe review provisions of part 7-c caused any in-house research and development to be transferred to an outside performer? Answer. As stated in the Bureau's testimony, Circular A-TO technically does not exempt any Government commercial or industrial activity, i.e., an activity which is operated and managed by an executive agency and which provides for the Government's own use a product or service that is obtainable from a private source. We also pointed out, however, that decisions to conduct research and de- velopment or have the work performed by private facilities are usually based on factors other than those set forth in Circular A-TO and Circular A-49. These fac- tors include considerations identified in the Bell Report and such basic issues as the need to maintain and enlarge the long-term strength of the Nation's scien- tific resources, both public and private. Information included in the inventories required by section 7 of Circular A-TO generally relates to R&D testing laboratories where the service rendered is commercial or industrial in character. Section 5-d of the Circular permits a Government commercial or industrial activity when the product is obtainable from another Federal agency. To the extent the suitable existing Government R&D facilities and capabilities are available it is expected, in the interest or economy, that such facilities will be used. PAGENO="0143" 139 The Bureau has no information that reviews which are conducted under the provisions of section 7-c have resulted in the transfer of R&D from in-house to private performers. As previously stated, we believe such determinations would generally be made on the basis of considerations extending beyond the policies specified in Circular A-76 for acquiring commercial or industrial products and services for Government use. Question 13. From the standpoint of effective agency management and full use of Government laboratories, what information about Federal laboratories should be collected and by whom? Answer. A good data base to provide adequate management information about Federal laboratories should interrelate the program structure, technical content, appropriations, budget activities, and accounting data so that essential informa- tion can be summarized on either a programmatic or institutional basis and inte- grated into the agency managerial system. Information about laboratories, whether in-house or contractural, should be collected by the sponsoring agency and should be available there for internal program/budget reviews as well as cross-agency reviews by BOB and OST. In general, agencies already have systems in effect for collecting basic management data on their laboratories. We do not feel that the collection and centralization of this data in BOB or OST on a regular basis would be very useful. However, a good data base maintained by the agencies can be very helpful when a particular problem has been identified for study by the Bureau or some other appropriate group. The question of centrally collecting general purpose or inventory-type data has been raised on a number of occasions. At this point we are skeptical that the benefits of collecting such centralized informatioa will match the cost of collecting it, maintaining it, and keeping it current. Unless reasonable use will be made of the information, it will not be worth the effort. Under instruction of the Federal Council for Science and Technology, the Committee on Federal Laboratories is developing a plan for an inventory. Cur- rent agency information systems are being examined to determine the specific information which should be included. The effort will be experimental so that its potential value can be evaluated before proceeding with a full-scale effort. Question 14. The Joint Committee on Atomic Energy published in its hearings on the AEC's anthorizing legislation for FY 1968 an exchange of letters with the Burean concerning Mr. Holifleld's thoughts on the use of existing ABC laboratories for environmental pollution researdh (Part II, pp. 1285-7). He expressed his concern that: we may lose irretrievable lead-time in establishing new organizations and facilities, which will result in wasteful duplication and fail to achieve the desired results. We can and must make optimum use of the qualified people and facilities currently available to us." Answer. The Bureau's reply of January 6, 1967 mentioied plans to make a detailed exploration of the possibilities identified in Mr. Holifield's letter as soon as the then current problems of budget preparation were out of the way. Since then, what has the Bureau of the Budget done to furnish policy guidance to the AEC and other agencies with environinenital pollution responsibilities about possible use of the AEC's existing research and development capabilities? What is the feasibility of the approach proposed by Mr. Holifield? Details about the Atomic Energy Commission's efforts to undertake work for other agencies in the area of environmental pollution have already been described to you by AEC Commissioner Tape in his testimony on April 3, 1968, and in his letter to you of June 17, 1968. Following our January 6, 1967 response to Congressman Holifield, the Bureau explored with the AEC the possibility of conducting particular programs of pollution R&D in the AEC laboratories. Since then, the Bureau has continued to monitor the activities and progress of the AEC on this matter, and w-e have informally advised and encouraged several of the agencies with environmental pollution responsibilities to use the AEC facilities whenever appropriate. The Bureau's efforts have occurred during our normal program and budget review activities. The Bureau has issued no formalized directive or guidance. There are at least two reasons for this. First, AEC laboratories are already rather heavily loaded with R&D projects in atomic energy and the opportunity for establish- ing non-nuclear pollution R&D programs in the laboratories has been limited. Second, we feel that AEC has vigorously pursued the course of action which Congressman Holifield recommended and that progress to date has been quite good. PAGENO="0144" 140 The Bureau belleves that there is continuing merit in Congressman Holifield's recommendation and we plan to continue watching AEO progress and encourag- ing other agencies to make approprIate use of AEC laboratories. Question 15. In your statement you said that Circular A-64 encourages inter- agency shaving of personnel resources. However, you did not discuss the magni- tude of the administrative effort required to effect a transfer of personnel ceiling between agencies. In speaking of requests for adjustments, the Cwcular states: "In the agency's request for adjustment, it is not sufficient merely to ~ust'ify the need for additional employment in a particular bureau or unit. The just~flca- tion should in4icate clearly why the increase cannot be absorbed through an internal adjustment in the agency's ceiling distribution, or why the need cannot be postponed to the ne~vt fiscal yeav." To what ertent do you think this requirement may bias Federal program ad- ministrators away frctn~ directly operated Federal laboratories and toward either contractor operated laboratories which have no personnel ceiling, or toward in4ependent performers? Answer. As of July 1, 1968, all Bureau of the Budget manpower ceilings have been superseded. This action was taken because of the mandatory manpower controls and reductions imposed by Title II of Public Law 90-364. Our comments are therefore addressed to the situation existing prior to July 1, 1968. The section of Circular A-64 which you quoted clearly deals with the type of agency justification required for an increase in employment ceiling as opposed to a transfer of ceiling between agencies for the purpose of sharing personnel re- sources. At any rate, personnel ceilings are one of several management techniques designed to control resources in situations that might not otherwise be subject to effective constraints. PT1. 90-364 pointedly reminds the Executive Branch of this fact. Prior to the enactment of P.L. 90-364, control of personnel ceilings probably has not been as significant a restraint as some have contended. In general, we believe that there has been sufficient latitude in the system to allow the agencies the flexibility they have needed. We doubt that the administrative effort required to accomplish a transfer of ceiling between agencies has in itself interjected any bias in determining whether or not to use directly operated Federal laboratories. Transfers of personnel ceil- ings between agencies have occurred for a variety of purposes. The administrative effort does not appear to have interposed any significant difficulty or dictated a decision to contract the w-ork. However, to the extent that agencies have been unwilling to consider shifting personnel spaces from lower priority activities, or to develop an acceptable personnel justification based on workload, there may have been some decisions to contract the work rather than perform it in-house. Question 16. How does or can the Planning, Programming and Budgeting (PPB) system assist in assuring the goal of full and effective use of Federal laboratories? Does the system address itself specifically to this question? If not, should the system be modified to do so, and in what way? Answer. The PPB system is designed to identify alternative courses of action and the benefits associated with each, to determine criteria for key program- matic and budgetary decisions, and to make the information available to persons with the final responsibility for selecting alternatives. Use of the system is ex- pected to make incremental improvements in the management of Federal programs. The PPB system does not, by itself, assure the full and effective use of Federal laboratories. Since laboratories are considered a category of resources related to specific purposes or programs, PPB does not specifically address the question of most effective utilization of laboratories. Normally, PPB is not addressed to this level of detail. When significant questions on `the choice and use of resources involve laboratories, `those questions can be and are dealt with within the PPB system. In short, the means of accomplishing objectives-selection among alter- native combinations of inputs-are considered in some of the supporting analyses in the program memoranda. The program memorandum is not only concerned with u-hat is to be undertaken, but also `the most cost-effective means for achiev- ing it. The Bureau believes that PPB will contribute to better utilization of Federal facilities, including laboratories, because as program goals are clarified, attention must be given to the means for achieving these goals. Utilization of laboratories should be examined in this context. Thus, we see no need to provide for special treatment of laboratories in the PPB system. We know of no key problem which is concerned solely with the utilization of one or more Federal laboratories. Rather, their utilization must continue to be considered in the broader context of achieving agency programs. PAGENO="0145" 141 Question 17. How many new laboratories are in the planning stages for the ne~it fIve years? Of these, how many are in the newer agencies or resulting from new national programs? TVhat dollar investment? How many Federal laboratories are scheduled for phase-out or closure during this same time period? How many are scheduled for transfer from one agency to another? Answer. A survey of the principal agencies revealed the following with respect to the questions posed, exclusive of cost estimates: a. The Department of Transportation is considering the need for two facili- ties-a Highway Safety Bureau research facility to carry out DOT responsibili- ties under the Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 and a high speed ground transportation test center which may be needed for evaluation and full scale testing of new systems or components being developed. b. The Department of Commerce is considering the need for several building research facilities and a corrosion research laboratory. c. With respect to the Department of Health Education and Welfare: (1) The following major facilities are in the planning stages for the period 1969-1973: NICHD Research Facility Mental Health Child Research Center Neurology-Child Health Facility, Puerto Rico. Environmeiatal Health Sciences Center, Research Triangle, N.C. Neurology-Allergy Virus Facility National Acarine Reference Center, Hamilton, Montana Dental Health Center Addition, San Francisco NIH Animal Center, Phase II NIH Animal Center, Phase III (2) Within the Health Services and Mental Health Administration there are 14 new laboratories in the planning stage, 4 involving newer agencies or new national programs. There are two laboratories scheduled for phase-out. (3) There are two new Food and Drug Administration laboratories in the planning stages for the next five years, neither of which is in a new-er agency or results from new national programs. d. The Department of Defense is planning the consolidation of 10 Army medi- cal laboratories into three major medical centers. The possibility of other DOD consolidations is being studied but no definitive information regarding these is yet available. Several agencies report they are now considering the question of establishing, consolidating and phasing-out laboratories, but any discussion of future plans (including cost estimates) at this time would be most premature. Question. 18. Can yoi~ ecoplain in some detail why there are manpower ceilings in addition to funding ceilings for Federal agencies? Where did the initial re- qnirement stem from and what has been the history of this control? Answer. As stated in our response to question 15 above, we regard personnel ceilings as one of several important management techniques designed to control resources. The amount of funds available to an agency does not necessarily control the number of people employed. To illustrate, in the absence of some manpower controls, agencies could direct program funds to payrolls or delay recruiting until late in the year and thus increase the number of employees the Congress and the President actually provided for. This delayed recruitment could result in agency requests for funds to annualize this increased number of employees in the succeeding year. Thus, manpower ceiling serve as a tool supplementing funds control for more effective and economic use of resources. With the expansion of Federal programs over the past few years, the Congress frequently has expressed anxiety about the number of Federal employees. One expression of this concern has been the monthly publication of employment statistics by the Committee on the Reduction of Non-Essential Expenditures. The clear implication drawn from congressional expressions is that the executive branch should firmly hold employment levels. The Department of Defense has maintained its own system of employment ceilings for a number of years. In 1903, the President imposed personnel ceilings upon all executive branch agencies. Those ceilings, however, have not been rigid or arbitrary, and employment has been permitted to rise as needed to perform the tasks authorized by the Congress-from 2,490,000 in 19~3 to an estimated 2,932,000 in 19~8. Question 19. How are manpower ceilings generally administered? By the BOB? By the agencies? Answer. Again our comments are addressed to the situation existing prior to July 1, 1908. 93-201-G8--------io PAGENO="0146" 142 With the assistance of the agencies, the Bureau establishes manpower ceilings for agencies as a whole. During the budget process, after a thorough-going re- view of planned work programs, a ceiling on the total number of employees and a ceiling on the number of full-time employees in permanen~t positions, for the end of the fiscal year, are established for each agency as a whole. Such ceilings are an extension of the program level decisions reflected in the President's budget. Since the ceilings are established for the agency as a whole, agency heads are permitted complete discretion in administering the allocation of positions among the units of the agency. The employee ceilings which the Bureau imposes are mutable. Agencies have rquested and been grani~ed increases because of changes in work assignment and for other mitigating circumstances, However, since the ceilings are given for the agency as a whole, the agency must demonstrate that an overall increase is required for the agency, i.e., that decreases in offsetting work, program cut- backs or deferrals, effects of congressional action on the budget, etc., have been taken into account. The one exception to the two ceiling system is the Department of Defense. For example, the Bureau established only one ceiling for the Department for FY 1968-a ceiling of 1,248,000 on total employment (this represents about 43 percent of the current Federal civilian workforce). Thus, the Department of Defense has more flexibility in administering ceiling controls than any other Federal agency, if it cares to exercise it. So long as the Department stays within this total ceiling, the Bureau of the Budget does not prescri;be at what level or to what extent the Department chooses to distribute its ceiling controls. Question 20. TVitliin Government we tend to force everything into one pre- scriheci pattern whether it fits well or not. Do you believe that Federal labora- tories operate most efficiently under the same current system of controls over manpower. dollars and facility acquisition as for other types of organization? Is it possible or desirable to tailor a system of controls for creative organizations that might differ significantly from the "standard" control system? TV/tat woald be the advantages? The disadvantages? Cite ecramples. Answer. The opening sentence of your question emphasizes the rigidity inherent in a large, complex, highly-structured, legally~based system of public adminis- tration which characterizes the Federal Government without also alluding to the fiexibilities which must exist if the system is to be viable. The public adminis- trator's objective must he to find fiexibilities in applying general rules and to establish special rules or procedures which meet the requirements of public accountability. Certain general rules exist w-ithin which the entire Federal Government must function. A number of these are established in law. Others reflect procedures required by the Congress and the executive branch in accomplishing programs and in maintaining control and accountability. Manpower limitations are a case in point. Public Law 90-364 directs the Federal Government to return to em- ployment levels of June 30, 1966. No exception has been granted to research and develonment organizations. However, there is room for flexibility in the anplica- tion of this control-which organizations to reduce to a greater or lesser degree. Nevertheless, within the context of implementing the law, a distribution of the ceiling will have to be made, and some form of control will have to `be maintained to assure that it is met. Experience makes it very clear that research management is a specialized area-that some procedures applicable to law and order, procurement, and logistics activities inhibit the effectiveness of a laboratory with its requirement for a creative environment. The Bureau believes it is both desirable and possible through prudent agency administration to tailor the system of controls to the mission and programs of the laboratory within the overall ground rules within which Federal agencies must operate. The basic ingredients for effective research management have been stated many times by thoughtful students and experienced managers. Invariably these are listed as the need for well-defined objectives, choice of important w-ork to do, high level participation of scientific Staff in laboratory management, maxi- mum flexibility in administration, reasonable autonomy within defined ohjec- tives, and insuring that the management of a research activity has the fullest possible command of the resources required to accomplish its tasks. Question 21. The DOD witness proposed the elimination, of manpower controls on cross-agency work similar to the AVG contract laboratories. TV/tat is your reaction to this proposal? If you agree, what action do you propose to take? If you do not agree, what is the basis for your position? PAGENO="0147" 143 Answer. For the present, Public Law 90-364 removes the possibility of elimi- nating manpower controls on cross-agency work. Elimination of these controls even in the absence of the law- would, of course, circumvent the budget process whereby a work level is agreed upon and resources are provided to meet the work level. The Bureau's views on manpower ceilings as one element in overall man- agement controls were stated in response to question 18. However, some additional comments are in order. The Bureau recognizes that a manpower ceiling might be seized upon as an excuse to contract out work, but we do not believe our ceilings prior to enact- ment of Public Law 90-364 have been so restrictive as necessarily to operate against cross-agency utilization of in-house laboratories and facilities. Obviously, any superimposed management control diminishes the laboratory director's lati- tude over his operations. But again, our objective has been to preserve maximum flexibility w-ithiii present manpower allocation policies, principally through agency internal reallocation, through transfer of ceilings between agencies, or by increasing an agency's ceiling. The DOD representative proposes a utopian solution for accommodating the increased demands upon any particular laboratory to perform cross-agency serv- ices w-hen funds are available. Our immediate problem is that relaxation of manpower ceilings would probably lead to higher Federal employment at a time when the mood of the Congress dictates a curtailment. Question 22. Some people believe that man power ceilings for laboratories actu- ally promote waste and inefficiency. They cite industrial practices as an enam pie ivl,crc such a technique is seldom used. If manpower ceilings are an effective man- agement tool. why is it not used for control of contractors? Do you have any plans to apply such controls for contractors, Answ-er. The circumstances under which a contractor operates are not the same as for a subordinate unit of a Government agency. The contractor is responsible for managing his own enterprise. The Government laboratory operates within the general rules and procedures w-hich have been discussed in considerable detail above. It is not a, self-contained, autonomous unit; it must be fully responsive to' the mission and needs of the agency. Within that context, the laboratory's admin- istrative system must be as flexible as' possible so that the laboratory can function to its fullest capacity. We may have to' move more and more toward the industrial approach to attain this objective, but iii the process we will not be any less mind- ful of the elements of cost. When the Government decides to contract for research and development work, contractor costs must be carefully assessed in the selection process. The potential contractor's manpower cost estimates must be carefully evaluated along with all other elements o'f cost. A. sharp rise in employment over w-hat was anticipated at the time of negotiation would certainly be questioned, particularly if a net increase in the contract would result. Nevertheless, internal management decision's must remain wi'th the contractor since he is responsible for performance in accordance with terms of the contract. It should be noted `that some agencies do use manpower ceilings with contracto'r organizations. For exam- ple, NASA has done so for the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and AEC has used man- power ceilings with some of its contractors in the weapons and naval reactors programs. Question 23. It has been argued that there is a lot of unused flewibility and ertennive authority ewisting within the present manpower control system and therefore it is unnecessary to remove current manpower controls. TVouid you enumerate what these flewibilities and authorities are and cite ewamples of how they can be applied at the laboratory level so as to counteract on offset the prob- lenis imposed by the inflewibilities of manpower ceilings. Answer. Prior to' enactment of Public Law 90-364, the principal flexibili'ties were negotiation for a higher overall agency ceiling to accommodate additional w-ork-load, agency internal reallocation of manpower spaces, and interagency transfer of manpower ceiling in the case of cross-agency work. Recognizing that there is now reduced flexibility, agency management at all echelons must be will- ing to utilize what is le'ft to the fullest. For the laboratory director, this means that agency top management should give him as much latitude as possible, within present constraints, to' manage his manpower resources. Mr. DADDARIO. This committee will adjourn until Tuesday next at 10 o'clock in this same place. (Whereupon, at 12 :25 p.m., the committee was adjourned to recon- vene at 10 a.m., Tuesday, April 2, 1968.) PAGENO="0148" PAGENO="0149" UTILIZATION OF FEDERAL LAB ORATORIES TUESDAY, APRIL 2, 1968 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND ASTRONAUTICS, SUBCOMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, RESEARCH, AND DEVELOPMENT. JVa$hington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10 a.m., in room 2325, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Emilio Q. Daddario (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Mr. DADDARIO. This meeting will come to order. Today we begin our second week of hearings on the utilization of Federal laboratories. During our hearings last week, the subcommittee heard from the Office of Science and Technology, the Bureau of the Budget, NASA, and from the directors of both Government-operated and contractor- operated laboratories. The hearings revealed that many of the prob- ]ems identified by the Bell Report in 1962-problems of agency coordi- nation, discretionary funds, personnel, and giving laboratory directors a voice in policy decisions-are still with us today. Although some progress has been made, there does not appear yet to have developed an overall coherent Government policy for the use of Federal laboratories. Our first witnesses this morning are Dr. Donald M. MacArthur, Deputy Director for Research and Technology, Department of De- fense, accompanied by Edward M. Glass, Assistant Director (Labora- tory Management). The Defense Department is the Government's largest supporter of research and development, `and in fiscal year 1969 expects to spend $8.4 billion for this purpose. This amount is twice that which will be spent by NASA, the next largest Federal user, and more than nine times the entire Federal R. & D. budget at the conclusion of World War II. The separate demands of the Army, Navy, and Air Force for re- search and development, `and the changing scientific `and technological nature of these requirements over the course of years have necessitated that the Defense Department `take some unusual `and innovative steps to manage its complex laboratory establishment, `and we expect to hear some of these action~ this morning. Our second witnesses today `are Dr. Leon Jacobs, Deputy Assistnii~t Secretary for Science, Department of Health, Education, `and Welfare, accompanied by Dr. G. Burroughs Mider, Director of Laboratories and Clinics, National Institutes of Health. HEW is `actively engaged on the frontiers `of public health and safety. During the subcommittee's recent hearings on environmental quality, we had `an opportunity to examine `in some `detail the research being sponsored by the National Center for Air Pollution Control, and (145) PAGENO="0150" 146 the work being done by the Public Health Service is well known and is to be commended. Under the provisions of the House passed radiation control bill (H.R. 10790), the Public Health Service will take on additional respon- sibilities for research relating to the effects of radiation upon man. Since the Atomic Energy Oommission and the Department of Defense have supported a substantial amount of this research in the past, it will be important to see how the existing competence of these agencies can be utilized in developing the Department's new program. We are pleased to have you gentlemen here, and we will proceed with Dr. MacArthur and Mr. Glass. (The biographies of Dr. MacArthur and Mr. Glass follow:) DL DONALD M. MACARTHUR Dr. Donald M. MacArthur was born in Detroit, Michigan, in 1931. He re- ceived a B.Sc. (Honors) degree from St. Andrews University, Scotland, in 1954 and a Ph. D. in X-ray Crystallography from Edin~urgh University, in 1957. Afterwards Dr. MacArthur taught for a year at the University of Connecticut. In 1958 he joined 1\Ielpar, a subsidiary of Westinghouse Air Brake. When he left he was Manager of the Chemistry and Life Sciences Research Center. In this position he was responsible for the management and direction of a large number of defense and space programs representing a broad spectrum of dis- ciplines from instrumentation engineering to biology. These programs repre- sented applied research in the physical and life sciences, in addition to develop- ment programs in space instrumentation, life support equipment, chemical and biological detection and warning equipment, and the development of large scale atmospheric diffusion experiments. In February 1966 he accepted a position as Deputy Director (Chemistry and Materials), Defense Research and Engineering. In July 1966 he was designated Deputy Director (Research and Technology), Defense Research and Engineer- ing in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. As Deputy Director (Research and Technology) he is responsible for man- agement of the DoD investment in research and technology relevant to military needs. The programs which he directs cover such diverse fields as rocket and missile propulsion, materials technology, medical and life sciences, social and behavioral sciences, environmental sciences, and chemical technology. He also oversees the 134 DoD RDT&E in-house activities which represent a fixed in- vestment of $17.5 billion with an annual cash flow of $3.4 billion. Primary effort is devoted to policies, and innovating improved management systems to insure that they are organized most effectively to meet current and future military needs. Dr. MacArthur is a member of interagency committees and represents Dr. Foster on the Federal Council for Science and Technology. He w'as a member of the President's task force on the "Technology Gap." EDWARD M. GLASS Edward M. Glass was porn at Providence, Rhode Island in 1917. A graduate of Rhode Island State University, he did work towards a Masters Degree at Virginia Polytechnic Institute. The major portion of his professional career was spent in the Air Force Materials Laboratory at Wright Field, assuming the position of Technical Director in 1958. His professional field of interest began with research and development in fuels and lubricants, subsequently broaden- ing to the entire field of aerospace materials. In 1962 he was appointed a Spe- cial Assistant for Laboratories to the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Research and Development). His current position is the Assistant Director (La~boratory Management), ODDR&E, and is concerned with the policy and means of improving the in-house laboratories of the Department of Defense. He has been active in a number of professional activities including the Amer- ican Society of Lubrication Engineers, the Society of Aerospace Materials and Process Engineers, the gociety of Automotive Engineers and the Materials Advisory Board, National Academy of Sciences. He is also a member of the PAGENO="0151" 147 New York Academy of Science and Vice President of the Aerospace Chapter of the Research Society of America (RESA). Dr. MACARTHUR. Thank you very nmch, Mr. Chairman. I would first like to introduce Mr. Ed Glass who is the Assistant Director for Labo- ratory Management in the Office of the Director of Defense Research and Engineering. I would also like to add that I will be deviating in some places from my prepared statement. STATEMENT OF DR. DONALD M. MacARTHUR, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF DEFENSE RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING, DEPARTMENT OF DE- FENSE, ACCOMPANIED BY EDWARD M. GLASS, ASSISTANT DIREC- TOR, LABORATORY MANAGEMENT Dr. MACARTHUR. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, your hearings on the effective use of Federal laboratories are both timely and pertinent to the interests of the Department of Defense. It is an important question with which we have been concerned for some time. Today I would like to review for you some of the experiences of the Department of Defense and some of the lessons we think we have learned with respect to the questions which you are addressing. CHARACTERISTICS OF DEFENSE LABORATORIES As you know, the Department of Defense has an annual R.D.T. & E. budget of about $8 billion. We employ about 60 percent of the civil service engineers and 35 percent of the civil service scientists in the Federal service. Thus, I believe that our experience in the management of R. & D. activities will be of some value in your discussions and deliberations. We have 79 laboratories. In addition, there are 43 test and evaluation activities which are concerned with the evaluation of developed equip- ment. The fiscal year 1967 R.D.T. & E. obligations for these labora- tories were $1.9 billion, of which $0.9 billion, 47.4 percent, was for actual in-house work as opposed to contract work. These laboratories employ about 72,000 people, of which 25,000 are scientists and engi- neers. Our investment in physical plant and equipment is about $2.2 billion based upon acquisition costs. As you can see, this is quite an investment and we are quite anxious to see that it is managed judiciously and effectively and utilized in an optimum manner. This was a major reason for establishing our Office of Laboratory Management in 1965 which I will discuss later. In some respects, we have addressed many of the same questions-but on a smaller scale-which are before this committee, in order to assure that the capability of all of our laboratories are available for the highest priority needs of the three military departments and the six defense agencies. I am not sure that we can examine laboratories in a meaningful way unless we place them in proper perspective, with respect to the other four types of performers we depend upon in DOD to accomplish our mission. Our laboratories represent about 12 percent of our obliga- tions-industrial firms, 68 percent; colleges and universities, 12 per- PAGENO="0152" 148 cent; nonprofit organizations, 5 percent; and Federal contract research centers, 3 percent. Each of these organizational types has a relatively unique, although not mutually exclusive, role to play in satisfying DOD requirements. We have often asked ourselves the question, Why do we need in- house laboratories? Among the evident reasons underlying their need are- 1. The maintenance of national competence during peacetime, as well as times of conflict, in those areas of technology peculiar to military needs. 2. The necessity for maintaining a continuity of effort, free from commercial pressures and directed toward the conception and evolution of advanced weapon systems. 3. The need for competent in-house skills that can direct, moni- tor, and assess the performance of DOD contractors. 4. The requirement of having available to the military services a fast-reaction capability to solve critical, immediate problems that arise in connection with existing operational weapon systems, or when unexpected combat situations are encountered such as that currently existing in Southeast Asia. DOD ACTIONS TO IMPROVE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF LABORATORIES Many of the others who have testified before t'his subcommittee have highlighted many of the administrative problems of Federal labora- tories. We have had our share of them also. During the past 2 years we have had a concerted effort underway to improve the effectiveness of our in-house laboratories. The problems of our laboratories as we saw them when we started this effort can be stated rather simply: 1. Many laboratories have not been as heavily involved as they should be in the overall weapon planning process and in urgent mili- tary problems. 2. In many cases the laboratory structure was too fragmented to take on meaningful programs in an integrated way. 3. They did not possess the administrative flexibility to respond rapidly to changing needs, the changing state of technology, and changing nature of new tasks. What are the rudiments of our strategy for dealing with these ques- tions? We have attacked these problems, quite successfully I might add, by- (a) Assigning important military missions and weapon plan- ning responsibilities to major laboratories. (b) We are taking some steps and planning orders to restruc- ture fragmented organizations into more cohesive structures and centers with more meaningful missions. (c) We have identified a number of administrative problems which inhibit the effectiveness of defense laboratories and have worked hard to develop solutions for them. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to insert for the record, as tab A* some detailed information on the steps we have taken or which are underway. Mr. DADDARIO. You may, of course, Doctor. *Tab A appears starting on p. l7ic PAGENO="0153" 149 Dr. MACARTHUR. We are very encouraged over the progress we have made on a number of longstanding problems. This task has to be a continuing process of appraisal and action as there really is no finite solution. We hope to continue our rate of improvement and to be able to adjust to our changing patterns and needs. Otherwise we will retrogress. A great deal of our energy is involved in the management of defense activities in support of our three military departments and the defense agencies. There is a continual ebb and flow of new goals and require- ments similar to that for the total Federal establishment. We have been involved for some time with the same basic questions with which you are concerned. Are we using the laboratory capacity we have without regard to service loyalties? What patterns of growth should we permit or foster? How much should we perform in-house? On contract? How should the laboratories be structured? What should their relationships be within their parent service? To other services or defense agencies? I know that we have been able `to develop many use- ful answers to these types of questions, but I will be the first to admit `that we don't `have all of the answers. Within `the DOD we have many examples `of a laboratory perform- ing functions for other services. Here are but a few of a great many examples. The Army's Natick Laboratory has the R. & D. responsibili- ties for food development for the Navy and Air Force. The Army's Harry Diamond Laboratory is providing `the fuzing and arming for the Navy~s Poseidon missile. The Air Force's Materials Laboratory has provided the thermal coatings for the Navy's Transit Satellite. The Army's Frankford Arsenal develops for the Air Force actuating devices for such applications as ejection seats. Some of these `arrangements are traditional, some `are based upon a search by the `customer for competence and still others are motivated by the policy levels within the services. We, within O.D.D.R. & E., also play an important role in this respect. MTe manage the Defense R.D.T. & E. program which determines to a great degree the financial support of laboratories. Financial control provides important lever- age in plac'ing corporate policies into effect. We are also in the main- stream of decisionmaking with respect to capital investments, such as military construction. Facilities are the lifeblood of expanding laboratories and control over `them determines `a laboratory's destiny.' Through authority such as this, we can influence the nature of our laboratory system, the characteristics of individual laboratories and centers and the interaction of `these organizations with other defense organizations. Last year we closed three laboratories and consolidated four others. These actions are part of a continual appraisal of our laboratory sys- tem in terms of the changing pattern of defense needs. Alth'ough we have moved out aggressively in trying to fashion a viable laboratory system, there are some negative aspects also which have caused us some concern and difficulties. For example, several of our attempts to con- solidate fragmented activities required movement of people to differ- ent geographical locations. We have learned `that many people develop deep roots and will not move with their functions. As a result, the DOD has lost some important expertise. In one case not a single professional moved when his laboratory component was moved. On PAGENO="0154" 150 the average about 50 to 60 percent of the professionals prefer to re- main in their current locale. We try to take personnel factors such as this into account in our decisionmaking regarding consolidations. Mr. DADDARIO. Could you provide for the record the names of the three laboratories that were closed, the way in which the others were consolidated, and a little bit of background material? Dr. MACARTHUR. I certainly would be glad to do that. (The information requested is as follows:) LABORATOin~ CoNsoLIDATIoNs AND CLOSURES We have taken the following actions over the past several years to consolidate or eliminate RDT&E activities. In the Army we have approved a long-range plan of all the medical facilities whereby there will be a reduction from 14 to 6. This plan calls for the establishment of three primary centers, an Eastern Medical Center, a Central Medical Center and a Western Medical Center. Consolidation will begin in FY 1970. We have already closed the Army Medical Unit in San Juan, Puerto Rico. Other changes in Army activities include relocation of an explosives group from the Mobility Equipment Research and Development Center at Ft. Belvoir, Virginia, to Picatinny Arsenal, Dover, New Jersey; relocation of a Materials Handling function from Natiek Laboratories, Massachusetts, to the Mobility Equipment R&D Center; and approval for consolidation of Deseret-Dügway into the Deseret Test Center in Utah. There have been extensive consolidations within the Navy. For example, six centers have been established through consolidation of all or parts of a number of Navy laboratories. The Naval Undersea Warfare Center with headquarters in San Diego, California, was created from elements of the Naval Electronics Laboratory (San Diego) and the former Naval Ordnance Test Station (Pasa- dena). The Naval Weapons Center located at China Lake, California, was created from the combination of the Naval Ordnance Test Station (China Lake) and the Naval Ordnance Laboratory, Corona. The Naval Ships Research and Development Center located at Carderock, Maryland, is composed of The David Taylor Model Basin at Carderock, the Marine Engineering Laboratory, Annap- olis, Maryland, and the Mine Defense Laboratory. They were combined to form the Naval Ships R&D Center (Carderock, Maryland). The Naval Air Develop- ment Center (Johnsville, Pennsylvania) is composed of the already established elements at Johnsville, Pennsylvania, plus combinations with the Aerospace Crew Equipment Lab, the Aeronautical Structures Lab, and the Aeronautical Materials Lab of the Naval Air Engineering Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The Aeronautical Engineering Laboratory of the Naval Engineering Center, Philadelphia. has been combined into the newly established Naval Air Propul- sion Test Center in Trenton, New Jersey. Two activities have been deactivated in the Navy: (1) the Naval Air Mine Defense Development Unit, Panama City, Florida; and (2) the Naval Supply R&D Laboratory, Bayonne, New Jersey. Two activities in the Air Force have been closed out. One is the Arctic Aeromedical Laboratory, Ft. Wainwright, Alaska, and the other is the Research and Technology Division of AFSC. Elements of the Research and Technology Division were consolidated in AFSC Headquarters, eliminating one organiza- tional echelon. An additional significant action was the consolidation of several Air Force test activities with elements of the Navy, Army and NASA into national ranges, the Eastern Test Range in Florida, the Western Test Range in California and the White Sands 1~Iissile R.ange in New Mexico. Mr. DADDARIO. Would you also discuss what was the general overall approach to this? What criteria did you establish? What were the standards you established as you looked over these laboratories and made a determination as to which ones ought to be closed and which ones ought to be consolidated? PAGENO="0155" 151 Dr. MACARTHUR. Well, when we evaluate the quality of a laboratory there are many criteria we use. The three services, the Air Force, the Army, and the Navy have advisory groups which periodically review the programs of the laboratories and come up with recom- mendations in terms of whether they are above standards, below standard, fine, mediocre, whatever they might be. We also look at whether they have meaningful missions. Secondly, within the Department of Defense at the D.D.R. & F. level when I come from, we look at programs from a programmatic standpoint, from a technical standpoint, and at that point we look at the contributions the laboratories are making to that program. Thirdly, as you no doubt know, some of our laboratories are involved at only one end of the R. & D. spectrum, research and technology. Other laboratories are involved throughout the whole R. & D. spectrum through engineering development and test and evaluation. Now, one of the criteria we use when a laboratory is involved at the research and technology end of the spectrum is how much of their output over the last few years has been incorporated in some of our systems development programs. In a laboratory that is involved in engineering development, we look at the effectiveness of the systems or hardware they have developed or managed, and, lastly, we look at the individual laboratory direc- tor's independent research program and look at how he has managed his funds, what he has done, where he has invested them, but the real test is how much business he got based on those investments he has made. It really comes down in the end to a number of criteria, but an overriding criteria is mission. Does it have a sense of purpose? Does it have high-quality people, and are they performing well? Mr. DADDARIO. This is an evaluation process that goes on contin- uously? Dr. MACARTHUR. It is a continuing evaluation process. Mr. DADDARIO. Do you find that it works more efficiently in making determinations during time of budget restriction? Dr. MACARTHUR. I certainly think so. I think it can be made to work every effectively. Naturally, other parameters are superimposed upon these conclusions we come to because many of these laboratories perform vital functions in their community, and when we take the next step in trying to phase out activities we run into some roadblocks in terms of the community, and the objections they raise. Mr. DADDARIO. The reason I ask about that is a natural one because when agency funds are short you do then begin to look for places to cut. However, shouldn't we do this at all times and wouldn't we then find ourselves with the laboratories always in a better condition and the quality would remain more constant? Dr. MACARTHUR. Yes. We have to have a program of continual ap- praisal and at the same time we have to remember that in the DOD the amount of money we spend in our in-house laboratories, is only 12 percent of the 8 billion I mentioned. Mr. DADDARTO. That is still a bit of money. Dr. MACARTHUR. Yes, it is $900 million. But coming back to your point, I do believe it is a program of continual appraisal and reevalua- tion and as the defense needs change, we have to look at the mission of PAGENO="0156" 152 the laboratories; are they involved in urgent military problems, and if they are not, we try to either get them involved or if they are not willing to get involved, we do something about it. Mr. DADDARIO. You talk about judgment by peers. Who are they and how do you get them together? Dr. MACARTHUR. There are three-let me address each service. In the Air iForce we have a board of advisers which is a panel of the scien- tific advisory board and they are from the outside. They involve indi- viduals from the industrial world, individuals from the universities, and from nonprofit organizations. In the Navy we have the technical evaluation board which is a part of the Naval Research Advisory Council. Again, all members of this advisory board or technical evaluation group are from outside the Department of Defense. The Army is different in that they have a group which is composed solely of all in-house individuals and they perform an appraisal every 3 years. We call it the triannual survey group. These are the advisory boards I referred to. Mr. DADDARIO. How are the laboratory directors involved in the evaluation, if at all? Dr. MACARTHUR. Well, these advisory boards, they do more than read papers. They actually visit the labs. They talk to the laboratory directors and the key people at the laboratories to see what they are involved in, what they are doing, what their mission is, what they have contributed in the last year, and what they intend to work on in the following years, and why. One of the biggest problems we have been having in the past years was that some of these laboratories weren't involved in important ques- tions. That is one of the things we have been stressing, that they have to get more involved in important military problems. I painted a rather black picture of the problems we found with the laboratories and one might say, well, gee whiz, if they are that bad, we should do away with them all. How have these problems come about? Well, over the last 10 years, the DOD budget has multiplied by a fac- tor of two to three as we have gotten much more involved in complex military systems. Now, it is very difficult for a laboratory to manage an Atlas or a Polaris missile system. It is just too big a job with the r~esult that what has happened is we have set up special project offices and system pro- gram offices in the services that manage these big programs. Now, what result has this had over a period of time? It resulted in the labs just getting out of the mainstream of important problems because the systems offices were going ahead and depending solely on the contractors and they came to the laboratories only when they had a quick-fix problem and they were in trouble or when they wanted them to do long-term research. Now, we, over the last few years, have tried to reverse this trend by getting laboratories involved not only in the long-term problems and the quick-fix prob] ems, but also in the short- to medium-term problems. There is one other aspect that I would like to mention and that is we have, in 1966, created the position of Director of Laboratories. Each service now has a Director of Laboratories and the individual in this position is responsible for appraising labs on a continuing basis PAGENO="0157" 153 and, in fact, these advisory boards work directly with him. They don't actually work with us, but they work with the Director of Laboratories for each service. Mr. DADDARIO. The ways in which you govern these activities are important. You talk about it being 12 percent, but that is about equal to the entire research development budget of the Department of Defense in 1946. So we are really talking about a tremendous growth area., and the importance of the way in which we manage these be- comes more than obvious. Dr. MACARTHUR. You are absolutely right in that, sir, and that is why we feel it has to be a. program of continual reappraisal and spe- cial attention has to be continually paid to the labs to make sure they are viable and potent organizations. Mr. DADDARIO. You mention your laboratory directors for each of the laboratories, do you discuss this morning the use of discretionary funds? Dr. MACARTHUR. Yes. Mr. DADDARIO. Let's keep going then. Dr. MACARTHUR. I don't actually- Mr. DADDARIO. Can we discuss that? Dr. MACARTHUR. Yes. Mr. DADDARIO. `What is your attitude about this, and how does it work? Dr. MAcARTHUR. Well, we started the program of discretionary funds in 1962. I think it is a very important part of our laboratory program. As a rule of thumb we have approximately 3 percent of our total laboratory money in discretionary funds. In general, it differs from service to service. For example, in the Navy it is between 5 and 8 percent. In the Army it is about 3 to 5 percent, and in the Air Force it is a little less. In a way it depends on the flexibility the lab directors have to do work. In many ways the Air Force laboratory directors have more flexibility in financial affairs than the other service laboratories direc- tors, and that is because of the way they are funded. Therefore, the discretionary funds that go to the Air Force is less than the other two services. Mr. DADDARIO. You mean the Air Force would allow each of its lab- oratory directors to have exactly the same amount of discretionary funds, or do you establish a sliding scale mechanism where yo~ allow some to have more authority than others? Dr. MACARTHUR. They use a sliding scale. It is dependent on quality of the laboratory and what they have done the year before. `We pro- vide these discretionary funds, but we don't require any approval be- forehand as to what they `are going to do with them, but we have an after-the-fact appraisal at the end of each year. These funds are dis- tributed by the Assistant Secretary for R. & D. in each service and de- pending on what the labs have done with them the year before and what the productivity has been, that determines to a great degree what they are going to get in the following year. Mr. DADDARTO. You started off on a quality judgment when you initiated the program and then you used basically `a reward system? Dr. MAcARTHUR. That is right. Mr. DADDARIO. How good were you? Did it work out pretty well the way you expected? PAGENO="0158" 154 Dr. MACARTHUR. We had to adjust as we went along and we do think it has worked very well. I think there are many things that have come out of discretionary funds. Many examples which because the labora- tory director had funds that he could use right on the spot when the individual had an idea rather than going through the complicated, tortuous budget process. When a scientist or engineer had an idea that was good and the director funded it, gave him the resources, then we have many examples of things that have come out of the program. Mr. DADDARTO. Could you provide examples of some of those pro- grams? Dr. MACARTHUR. I would be glad to. Mr. DADDARIO. Why don't you give us one that you think would be an outstanding one for the record? Dr. MACARTHUR. An outstanding one has been mentioned before. That was the Sidewinder missile at NOTS. That is an outstanding example of an `individual where if he had followed the rules, I doubt if we would have arrived where we are now, but he was able to some- how get some money and put it in to demonstrate the basic idea which he thought would be very successful, and it was. Another example was the early work on the Walleye which has seen some real success in Southeast Asia. These are two examples. I would be glad to furnish you others for the record. We evaluate all these projects at the end of the year. (The information requested is as follows:) IN-HOUSE INDEPENDENT RESEARCH FUNDS (Il-IIR) The IHIR funds were established as line items in the FY 62 DoD budget as a result of a Secretary of Defense decision on October 14, 1961, as follows: "Depending upon the mission and nature of `the work of the particular lab- oratory, a fraction of the annual laboratory budget shall be set aside for work judged by the laboratory director to be of promise or importance without need of prior approval or review at higher levels. The results of this work shall be reviewed by the Assistant Secretaries for Research and Development of the Military Departments." `~\Thi1e this concept was new for the Army and Air Force, it had been in effect within the Navy for over a decade prior to this time. Listed below are a number of examples of IHIR efforts which have resulted in useful products or applications. In. addi'tion, we have included a comprehensive list of completed IHIR efforts to provide the Subcommittee a better insight into the scope and flavor of this program. ARMY EXAMPLES ~Severe shock The Waiter Reed Army Institute for Research conducted basic studies to find improved methods of treatment of patients in severe refractory shock. It was found that enormous amounts of fluids could be given to patients, when the exact amount is known; and that vasodilators given after adequacy volume addition are not only safe but dramatically effective. At Walter Reed General Hospital during a specified period, the mortality of shock cases with usual treatment was about 700. The mortality, during the same period, with treatment derived from this study, was 120. Laser transm'ttter The U.S. Army Electrical Components Laboratory designed and constructed a laser transmitter, consisting of an arrary of seven injection laser diodes, with a peak power o'utput of 150 watts. The transmitter, when combined with an eight-inch telescope and photomultiplier tube, was tested as a range finder and exhibited a useful range of 500 meters. PAGENO="0159" 155 Large air samples The U.S. Army Biological Laboratories and the U.S. Army Walter Reed Insti- tute for Research jointly demonstrated the feasibility of using a Large Volume Air Sampler (LVAS) to recover small numbers of bacteria and viruses from large air samples. Meningococcal meningitis and respiratory diseases of `adeno- viral origin, in military recruits in barracks and hospitals were studied. Supercharged engines The U.S. Army Mobility Equipment R&D Laboratory conducted studies to determine if greater power and altitude capacity could be obtai!led from 10 and 20 HP military standard engines by utilizing the turbo supercharger principle. This work led to the proposal that a turbocharged "10 HP" engine (20 HP out- put) be used on the CHAPARRAL missile system in an application where the standard 10 HP military engine would not produce the required specific output (HP/PT3). Stratospheric tides The U.S. Army Atmospheric Sciences Laboratory investigated Stratospheric Tides on a Seasonal Basis. Analysis of rocket soundings verified the existence of a significant year-round diurnal oscillation. A qualitative description was made of the phase and amplitude of the oscillation during the summer season. Certain recommendations were postuated on how the tide affects meteorological rocket network climatological data. The discovery of atmospheric tides in the stratosphere has led to new concepts of the atmospheric electrification pro- cess and the origin of large-scale electrical fields in the atmosphere. These findings will have an impact on the photochemistry of the upper atmosphere and the structure of the ionosphere with attendant effects on the propagation of electromagnetic energy. Microwave food preparation systems The U.S. Army Natick Laboratories, in 1965, initiated a study to determine the feasibility of developing an ultra rapid, lightweight food preparation system which would utilize microwaves, thermoelectric units, ultrasonic fuel vaporizers and multipurpose plastic packages which could also function as heating and serving vessels. A two-year study proved the feasibility and overall potential advantages to the military of microwave cooking in the field. As a direct result of this work a development project, in the regular budget, was initiated for the design and construction of a field kitchen and bakery units. Test drug transfer The U.S. Army Medical R&D Laboratory designed and fabricated an accessory kit for the standard hypodermic jet injection devices to permit a quantitative transfer of test drug into the skin intradermally for such tests as T.B., histo- plasmin, etc. Electro-mechanical hand models The U.S. Army Medical Biomechanical Laboratory designed and fabricated six electro-mechanical models of the hand with automatic proportional control of grasp. One hand has been fitted to an amputee. The other five hands have been submitted to New York University and the Veterans Administration. All are now undergoing clinical testing. Ozone concentration The U.S. Army Atmospheric Sciences Laboratory, in 1966, provided to the scientific community the first in situ measurements of the change in ozone con- centration in the atmosphere during a total solar eclipse. The increase in ozone by 100% during total eclipse was abrupt; a sudden decrease in concentration was noted as the sonde emerged from the shadow; and in less than 20 seconds, the ozone had reached its equilibrium value. NAVY EXAMPLES New high-temperature ewpiosives Navy chemists at Naval Ordnance Laboratory (White Oak) have synthesized more than a dozen new and potentially useful explosives that are heat resistant. Several of these have already seen use in military weapons and space vehicles~ and several others are being considered for similar applications. Success in this area is due primarily to extensive fundamental studies of the relationship of PAGENO="0160" 156 molecular structure and content to explosive properties conducted under the Independent Research Program. It is now possible to predict a priori many of the properties of an explosive before it is synthesized. This has led to the synthesis of high-energy materials capable of withstanding temperatures much higher than was previously considered possible. The first two explosives to stem from this program are capable of withstanding temperatures above 500 degrees F. Both have been used in explosive cutting devices in the Gemini space capsule and are contained in the mild detonating fuses and flexible, linear, shaped charges used to separate the crew module from the F-ill aircraft in emergency situations. It is now reported that these systems are capable of lasting the lifetime of the air- craft eliminating the frequent maintenance and replacements required when explosives of lesser temperature capabilities are used. It is estimated that use of these explosives will save the Government nearly $90,000,000 during the life span of the aircraft now on order. Three more, promising, high-temperature explosives have been developed. The first two are able to withstand temperatures 35 to 40 degrees higher. These are currently being screened for applications by the military, NASA, and AEC. Biomolccular variations induced by stress Observations at the Navy Air Development Center (Johnsville) on animals exposed to different lethal stresses such as ionizing radiation and high accelera- tion stress have shown chemical changes in the blood. After these observations on animals, the experiments were extended to humans. Volunteers were subjected to accelerations of from 3 to 41/2 G, sufficiently long to produce grayout or blackout. All the men exposed to this stress showed a significant increase of the phos- phatidyl glycerol level in the blood plasma. Correlations of the control levels of phosphatidyl glycerol with anxiety about the acceleration procedure directed attention to the effects of emotional factors on the chemical changes induced in the blood. As an example of extreme emotional stress, blood samples from schizo- phrenic patients hospitalized for a long time at a psychiatric institute were analyzed and also showed high concentrations of phosphatidyl glycerol accom- panied by changes in the levels of other phospholipids that distinguished the stress in schizophrenia from the physical stress of acceleration. Extension of the study to volunteers who had been deprived of sleep for 36 hours confirmed the previous findings relative to phosphatidyl glycerol and again revealed changes that differentiated this fatigue stress from the others. After these results were made public, the experimental approach was included in a joint Navy, NASA, and Air Force study of combat pilots. Data were taken on Navy carrier pilots flying high-risk, active combat missions during a 22-day line period, near the end of a 7-month deployment. These studies were repeated again when the pilots were returned to the United States to non-combat duty. The concentration levels of phosphatidyl glycerol and other phospholipids again made possible the statistical separation of the combat stressed pilots from normal individuals and from the other stressed populations. After the pilots returned to the United States, the phospholipid levels began to return toward normal, but the reversal was not as complete as was found in acceleration or sleep deprivation. The data obtained with humans coupled with the information found in the tissues of stressed animals suggest that some center of the brain can interpret certain sensory inputs as threats to survival and reacts by mobilizing biochemical factors at a molecular level to meet the threat. Techniques are now being developed so that analyses for these plasma components can be made in the field. It is expected `that the onset of combat fatigue in fighting men may then be anticipated by these procedures. Cartography by computer The time will come when most maps will be printed with the aid of a computer and a cathode-ray printer. Based upon work at the Naval Weapons Laboratory, it will be possible to print in a few seconds a map which now requires days to trace by land. Essential to mapping by cathode-ray printer is a collection of data which contains the geographic coordinates of points on coast lines and bound- aries. There is available at a Navy Laboratory a collection which includes 10,000 points for the United States itself and 8,000 points for the world as a whole. The points were selected to portray the salient features of coast lines and boundaries without exceeding prescribed limitations on accuracy. Once the latitude and longi~ tudes of the points bad been recorded on magnetic tape, it became possible to construct maps by connecting the points in any automatic plotter which is under the control of a digital computer. Any desired mapping transformation may be used in the conversion of geographic coordinates to map cordinates. The data PAGENO="0161" 157 have many applications and have been acquired by a number of agencies. The data are basic to maps in earth sciences where distributions of economic value or population density are presented against a geographic background. They are useful in the preparation of updating of highway and weather maps. In a signifi- cant military application, the data are used by defense commands to display the position and motion of potential targets in relation to coast lines. Such displays constitute an important part of any decision to take countermeasures. In one interesting application the data are used at the Houston Space Craft Control Center to show astronauts jus't how the coast lines on the earth will appear to them when they are in orbit. Soon there will be a need for maps to show how the crators of the moon will appear to astronauts! The data have applications in the Navy in connection with the optimization of the allocation and scheduling of shipping. Currently under consideration is an application to maps which show the paths of the shadows of eclipses of the sun. Another application is in the development of new methods for mapping the earth. Effects of water on bearing fatigue *The presence of water in hydraulic fluids and in lubricating oils has a dele- terious effect on naval machinery. ~nteraction of the water with stressed metal surfaces accelerates failure of bearings and gears. The presence of 0.01 percent dissolved water in the lubricant has caused reductions of 27 to 78 percent in surface fatigue life depending on the applied stress. Independent Research at the Annapolis Division of the Naval Ships R&D Center has led to a possible mechanism for this remarkable phenomenon. It is as follows: Microcracks in the surface of the ball act as capillaries. Waiter in the lubricant at a concentra- tion that permits capillary condensation forms a water-rich phase in the cracks. Aqueous corrosion in the cracks and dynamic stress on the surface then combine to cause the reduced fatigue life. With this undeilatanding of the phenomenon, research has been initiated to find means, to minimize such effects. Delivery of airborne weapons In the past the designer of weapons to be launched from aircraft assumed a specific dive angle, speed, etc. Wind~tunnel tests were made for the assumed conditions to verify the design. However, these tests were not extended to deter- mine the limits at which a given weapon could no longer be safely launched by a given aircraft. Both in experimental flight tests and in combat missions under conditions different from those assumed by the weapon desiigner, improper sepa- ration of weapon and aircraft caused damage `to or loss of the aircraft or failure in delivery of the weapon. The Navy laboratories were called upon to correct each case as it occurred. At the same time, however, they recognized the neces- sity for better design data and for an ability to predict the limits of safe delivery for various combinations of aircraft and weapon's. To enhance prediction capa- bility, all experimental data available have `been collected in a data hank, and computer orograms have been developed for the launch of conventional weapons. In addition to the problems of separation, the current method's of shaping, carrying, and delivering weapons increase the drag of the system significantly and reduce aircraft performance. Accordingly, the feasibility of using unconven- tional shapes which can be carried on the aircraft in a low-drag configuration was explored at the Naval Ships R&D Center (Oarderock). Analytical studies and wind-tunnel tests at subsonic, transonic, and supersonic speeds confirmed that weapons which are rectangular solids can be `carried at a drag level which is a small fraction of that of pres'ent weapons. Static and dynamic wind tunnel tests also established the technical feasibility of aerodynamic stabilization of rectangular solid shapes. With these demonstrations of feasibility and of the potential of these studies to solve many of the problems of stores separation, these develorments have been transferred from TED funding to support by the Naval Air Systems Command. AIR FORCE EXAMPLES La.Qer night photo reconnaissance The potential applications of the laser technology are many and varied. The Laboratory Director's Fund permitted the Air Force Avionics Laboratory to finance an in-house effort in 19~3 to explore the use of lasers as an illuminant for night photography. The narrow beam capability of coherent light can achieve 10 times more illumination per unit area than any other source with the same input power. Moreover it could be essentially a covert means of reconnaissance. 93-201 0-68----11 PAGENO="0162" 158 The ruby laser beam is in the red end of the visible spectrum but the extremely short time duration-a millisecond-and the narrow beam makes it invisible to all except those looking directly either at the target or the source. The use of a neodymium doped glass rod can be fully covert since its burst is in the invisible part of the spectrum. Experiments were conducted with a portable 2 joule ruby laser with associated mirrors, filters, and optics. A variety of subjects ranging from 250 foot slant range to 5000 foot slant range were recorded on 70 mm film using a conventional camera. Weather conditions varied from clear nights with a light ground haze to rain showers with fog and snow showers. Films were evaluated for optimum sensitivity, contrast, and resolution to the 6943-angstrom wavelength energy. Very successful, high resolution, photographs were obtained. Data regarding the optimum film types for use with laser beams have been developed as well as the film processing details. Means of using optics to improve the photographic quality without excessively destroying the narrow characteristics of the laser have been evolved. Radio frequeneif (RF) probe During an in-house investigation of various means, electrical and mechanical, of detecting intermittent faults in equipment, Air Force Aeropropulsion Labora- tory engineers noted that, characteristically, all faulty electronic equipment produced a 24K0 nose signal. Using Laboratory Director's funds, a portable, self-contained probe capable of pinpointing this signal was developed and subsequently field tested by the using commands. The field testing has been extremely successful, and procure- ment data for the. RF-204/u Detector, Radio Frequency Interference, was for- warded to the Air Force Logistics Command. Quick fi~r appUed to F-100 1FF radar antenna problem A quick-fix to a critical Air Force problem in Vietnam was researched and successfully developed in-house by the Air Force Materials Laboraory. 1FF radar antennae on the F-100 were failing after about six hours of aircraft operation from acoustical vibration generated by the plane's own cannon fire. Air Force Materials Laboratory scientists simulated the service failure in the laboratory, and developed a small, low cost, easily attachable prototype viscoelastic damper as a quick-fix. Field evaluation of the damper in Vietnam showed a twelve-fold increase in the life of the radar antennae. A sufficient number of dampers manu- factured in-house by Air Force Materials Laboratory personnel were shipped to completely fit the F-100 fleet in Vietnam. Nitroso terpolymer The deterioration of .elastomeric seals, hose and fluid container linings in contact with nitrogen tetroxide (a high performance oxidizer used in liquid rocket propulsion systems) has posed a difficult problem for which a solution has been sought for several years with little previous success. The Air Force Materials Laboratory effort has resulted in a major materials breakthrough in the development of an elastomeric material resistant jy~ nitrogen tetroxide. This newly developed material .is a nitroso terpolymer (nitroso rubber). In evaluation tests this material has remained intact after total immersion testing in liquid nitrogen tetroxide for 1~ years at 165°F, and is expected to be good indefinitely at 100°F. Under these test conditions, the best commercially available material (a butyl rubber) lasts only 1 hour at 165°F and 7 days at 100°F be- fore it deteriorates. The nitroso terpolymer has passed hardware evaluation tests and has been qualified for use on the Apollo. Because the nitroso terpolymer will not burn in air of oxygen, this material also has other potential uses such as fireproof protective clothing. or, since the nitroso *terpoiymer can also be made in liquid form, as a sprayed-on fireproof coating for spacecraft interiors. F~apersonic turbojet engine study The Air Force Aeropropulsion Laboratory has completed a study effort on a new turbine engine concept-a supersonic combustion non lift type turbojet engine. The study results showed the following: (a) Ratio of engine thrust to in- stalled engine weight (F~/Wt) of 10.2-nearly three times present installations, (b) Installed engine length reduced by about 60% and (c) Installed engine weights reduced by 50%. A further accomplishment of considerable merit is the combination of all rotating compressor and turbine stages in one wheel. PAGENO="0163" 159 Advanced air launched missile propulsion study This Air Force Rocket Propulsion Laboratory (AFRPL) study evaluated the performance of advanced solid, liquid and air-augmented propulsion systems against well defined missile survivability criteria in order to allow a clear impartial comparison. The most striking result was the great increase in low level, high mach number capability which might be attained with air augmented systems. The detailed design studies performed revealed definite areas within the materials, propellants, thrust chamber assembly, pressurization and ex- pulsion technologies which possessed (the most significant growth potential. The ultimate worth of this study can be measured in the positive manner in which it has aided the AFPRL in pointing defense contractors toward the major sig- nificant problems in the air launched propulsion field and the fact that propul- sion requirements from this study have been used directly in defining and im- plementing present AFRPL exploratory development contracts in the air aug- mented rocket and prepackaged liquid, solid and hybrid rocket areas. Oceygen concentrator Tn 1964 the Air Force Flight Dynamics Laboratory undertook an effort to fabricate `and `test an oxygen concentrator module which produces pure oxygen using air `taken from the ambient atmosphere. This system combined with a carbon-dioxide `and water vapor removal unit and recirculation system could replace the high pressure gas storage system presently employed in Air Force Aircraft. The feasibility of the oxygen concentrator concept has been demonstrated to the poin't where it is currently undergoing engineering development. Bandwidth enpansion by redundant transmissions Under this effort, undertaken by the Rome Air Development Center, an ex- perimental spread spectrum anti-jam communications system, using frequency redundancy, was designed; and the breadboard was completed and tested. A theoretical evaluation ~of `the system was compared to the experimental results. The main object of this experimentation was to determine whether or not sig- nificant loss would occur through implementation of the Bandwidth Expansion by Redundant Transmissions (BERT) technique. This effort has provided a significant technique for improvement of stored reference, spread spectrum systems, and has reduced the theory to practice. The technique now is available for incorporation into prototype equipments where system constraints would indicate a benefit `by utilization of this bandwidth expansion system. Mr. DADDARIO. Do you have any estimate th'at you could provide ~for `the record `as to how `you believe time `and money ha's been saved a result of this? Do you make any estimate of that? Dr. MACARTHUR. I would like to think about that a little further. Mr. DADDARTO. If it would be `a difficult thing to do, is your overall judgment that it has saved considerable time? Dr. MACARTHUR. That is right. We have `i'de'a's `and products that have come out that normally wouldn't h'ave come out or if they did it would be at least 2 years `later. There is another thing `that we shouldn't `overlook and that is that it lS a very useful tool to attract scientific talent. If `a scientist knows, that if he has an idea `and that he can go to `work on it `tomorrow rather than waiting for 18 months wh~1e it goes `throu~h the many echelons of review and approval of the Department of Defense, the Bureau of the Budget and Congress is a very important factor in attracting him. A lot of our scientists like to feel that if they have a good idea they can get to work on it right away. Mr. DADDARTO. During the course of these hearings it has been the judgment of all `of the witnesses th'at it adds immeasurably to the quality of these laboratories. Whatever the percentage is, this discre- tionary authority allows the whole laboratory to operate more effi- PAGENO="0164" 160 ciently and the laboratory makes better use of the total funds spent. You could agree with that? Dr. MACARTHUR. I would certainly agree with that. It comes down in the end to `the laboratory leadership. It comes down to the laboratory director himself because he has to make the final judgment on these programs as they are presented ito him by his staff. Where we have a good laboratory director, the program has been very successful. In oases where you don't have `a good l'aiboratory director, it won't be as successful because he is probably supporting ideas that aren't very good. Through after-the-fact evaluation; `the one who does well, should get more money next year. Mr. DADDARIO. Have you come to any judgment over the course of time as to the percentage necessary? You are under some constraint there to spread out beyond these figures apparently because `of your problems with the Gongress. Do you `think the amount is `about right, or do you think you should have more or less? Dr. MACARTHUR. I don't `think we should have less. Whether we should have more, I really don't know. I think it `should be in the ball- park of somewhere between 3 `to 6 percent. I don't think it should be 20 or 25 percent. Looking `at `industrial `analogs which we `h'ave looked at there is even `a very wide variation there, `but, in general, it varies between 3 `and 10 percent for the big corporations. Mr. DADDARIO. As you view the entire laboratory establishment in other agencies, would you `support `as a matter of policy that this should be `a prevailing situation? Would you say that laboratory directors should have such discretionary `authority, taking into consideration that some criteria mechanism to judge the quality of the work must be established? Dr. MACARTHUR. I certainly would wi'th one caveat, provided they have the same problem's that we `have in terms of the bu'dget process and the m'any echelons of review `and `approval. Mr. DADDARIO. Yes, taking that into consideration. Dr. MACARTHUR. Yes, I certainly would. Mr. DADDARIO. How about echelons of review? What i's your view on that? Dr. MACARTHUR. Well, as far as independent research programs are concerned? ` ` Mr. DADDARIO. Yes, do you have a problem because of these layers of review which inhibi't your activities? Dr. MACARTHUR. We certainly have a prob1'em in management of our labs because of many echelons of review because what generally happens is that the laboratory di'rector is given a lot of responsibility many `times, but doesn't have the authority to go with it because `as you go down the echelons of revierw there is `a little `t'aken `away `here and a little bit t'aken `away there. Thi's is one of the `administrative prob'ems I pointed out that we have. We try to delegate as much responsibility t'o the laboratory `director as we can `and `at the same time `appropriate authority to go with it. If `he h'as authority wh'en things go wrong we know where to place the b'ame. Right now it is very difficult to place the `b1ame because many times it pervades the whole process. Mr. DADDARIO. Keith Glennan, who is now president of the Asso- ciated Universities, has said the Federal laboratories should compete PAGENO="0165" 161 for some part of its funds as a way to develop this quality. Do you have any judgment on that? Mr. Glass can pitch in here anytime he wants. Dr. MACARTHUR. We certainly agree on that point. Nothing beats competition. Within our laboratory structure we cover the entire spec- trum from no competition for funds to almost totally competitive. There are thOse which really do not have to compete for customers to keen the laboratory going to those which have become "job shops" for their customers, with few, if any, longer range programs. The optimum is somewhere between these two extremes. Mr. GLASS. We believe that a laboratory should have to compete for at least 25 percent of its funds in order to stay healthy. In the Navy, many Jaboratories have to compete for 80 to 90 percent of their funds from various sponsors. This is considered to be too high a percentage and we now have a program underway to provide most of their research and exploratory levelopment funds on a less competitive basis. On the other hand, within the Air Force, we have a system of "block funding" of laboratories. The Air Force laboratories are not dependent at all upon customers for their support. We feel that if we can inject a greater element of competition here, it will probably create a healthier situation. Mr. DADDARIO. Again, considering the objective being to upgrade the quality of laboratories and keep them there, this kind of makes up for the difference. Mr. GLASS. It couples these laboratories more closely with their customers; the customer has a feeling of responsibility for them, a feeling of using them more effectively also when they have to pay for that service. Mr. DADDARIO. Could you give us an example of why you believe that to be the case? Mr. GLASS. The case of, let's take Dr. McLean's laboratory where a great deal of his money comes from the Navy Systems Command and he can work very closely with a Navy systems command be- cause he is, in essence, their major performer. They will bring him into the planning stages, the discussion stages on new systems early in the game and thereby give the laboratory more direction as to what they should do and give the sponsoring agency a better interface with the laboratory during these initial stages. It also gives a labora- tory an effective way of injecting new ideas into a new program. I think that when a laboratory works for a customer such as a systems command in the Navy or a special project office in the Air Force, they have a tendency to work more effectively and much closer together toward a common goal. Mr. DADDARIO. Are you in agreement with Dr. MacArthur regarding this discretionary authority? Mr. GLASS. Absolutely. Mr. DADDARIO. I think we had better move along. SUPPORT ON NON-DEFENSE AGENCIES Dr. MACARTHUR. The performance of work on a reimbursable basis has been rather significant within the DOD both among the services, as I indicated earlier, and particularly with the AEC and NASA. PAGENO="0166" 162 We interact continually with other Government agencies both on a reimbursable and a nonreimbursable basis. For example, the AEC program includes $849 million for military applications to support our nuclear weapons and naval reactors pro- grams, which represents 35.1 percent of their total budget. AEC laboratories are involved in many of our conventional weapon pro- grams in such fields as explosives research and aspects of personnel armor development. We have had many Defense personnel actively working in AEC facilities and there are many interactions between the Special Weapons Center and the Weapons Laboratory of the Air Force with the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory and Sandia Corp., which are located nearby. We are closely allied with NASA in many aspects of their space and aircraft programs and use each other's ta1ent and unique facilities quite freely. Our national ranges have NASA as a principal customer. They use our unique facilities at Tullahoma and we support a great deal of research in aerodynamics, structures, and propulsion at NASA centers, which is directly utilized by DOD. A number of our systems and subsystems have been adopted by NASA in connection with their launch vehicles and they have developed a number of critical com- ponents for our MOL program. We performed services in fiscal year 1967 for NASA estimated at $400 million. I would like to submit for the record as tab B* a few examples of programs carried out by our laboratories for agencies other than NASA and AEC. How do agencies get together on programs? Like most areas of government activity it depends on aggressive individuals who know their problem and where to go for help. Our job is to let other agencies know what capabilities we have. As an example we publish an annual report which summarizes information on each of our in-house R.D.T. & E. activities.~' These are distributed through the Federal Council on Science and Technology, DDC and the Commerce Clearing House to other agencies. Also each of the services has developed a "technical facility capability file." These assist the people with a problem in locating technical expertise, suitable facilities, and major equipment within DOD. I would venture to say that any individual looking for special capabilities in DOD could locate them with a minimum of two or three telephone calls. I recognize the committee is interested in national policies for use of Federal laboratories. We feel that we have a permissive environ- ment with respect to the reimbursable use of other agencies' labora- tories, and vice versa. We have just reviewed the pertinent laws, Executive orders, and other statements of policies and procedures which we believe represent our guidelines in the full and effective use of Federal laboratories. I would like to insert this review into the record as tab C**. The existing laws and executive instruments are quite permissive and encourage the full utilization of existing facilities and Federal laboratories. The so-called Economy Act of 1932 appears to be key- stone legislation in this respect. Executive Order 10521 is also quite pertinent to the efficient use of Federal equipment and facilities. In addition, there exists frequently general authorization for coopera- *Tab B a~peairs starting on p. 172. **Tab C appears starting on p. 173. PAGENO="0167" 163 tion between a snecific agency and all other agencies. Such is the case with NASA, AEC, FAA, and the National Bureau of Standards. There appear to be some constraints, however, resulting from a decision of the Comptroller General in 1954 concerning the addition of new plant and equipment to accommodate interagency services. While I don't believe tj-iis has affected us seriously, it could be some- what of a deterrent. This question should be examined further. Mr. DADDARIO. Why do you think it would be a deterrent? Dr. MACARTHUR. I believe it could be a deterrent if this finding by the Comptroller General is literally interpreted where we are one agency and a laboratory from another agency could do some of our work but that work requires special equipment and special facilities. This interpretation says that you can't do that. As an example, if I am going to NASA asking one of their labs to do a special job for me because they have special expertise in terms of personnel to do the job or the task, but they have to acquire special equipment or special facilities to do it, I believe the interpretation that the Comptroller General put on it inhibits this. Mr. DADDARIO. You support, as you seem to indicate here, the idea that there should be as much flexibility as possible between the agencies and when you find either personnel or facilities which may be suitable for you to perform some of your mission objectives, that you ought to take advantage of what exists? Dr. MACARTHUR. That is right. Mr. DADDARIO. Your theory is that we have a ruling which, if strictly interpreted, even though promulgated in the first instance to save money, and in the final analysis will not? Dr. MACARTHUR. Yes; but I don't think it has affected us seriously. Mr. DADDARIO. Continue, please. INTERAGENCY TRANSFER OF LABORATORIES AND PROGRAMS Dr. MACARTHUR. We have probably had as much or more experi- ence than most agencies in the interagency transfer of laboratories and programs. I can recall two cases which are quite well known and from which we can gain some insight. A historical case in point is the transfer of fuze R. & D. from the National Bureau of Standards (NBS) to the Department of Defense in 1953. During and after the end of World War II, NBS performed the R. & D. on proximity fuzes under the sponsorship of the military departments. NBS initiated action to have their ordnance division transferred due to the increasing magnitude of ordnance work being performed by the NBS, coupled with the apprehension that "the con- current growth in applied engineering work might detract from the Bureau's main function in the broad areas of standards and standardi- zation." These were considered compelling reasons for transferring the activity to the Department of Defense. This resulted in the cre- ation of the Army's Harry Diamond Laboratory. Thus, we must always be concerned with the balance of agency assignments and outside assignment in a given laboratory because the focus of a laboratory cannot be blurred if it is to remain a viable and productive organization. PAGENO="0168" 164 On the other hand, there are also instances where a laboratory could be transferred from one agency to another when the laboratory mis- sion is no longer considered vital or when a new agency requires a rapid capability to satisfy a new national goal. A case in point is the space program. The Space Act was signed into law on July 29, 1958, and thus NASA was created. The DOD transferred Project Vanguard from ONR to NASA on October 1, 1958, and the Jet Propulsion Labora- tory, on December 3, 1958. On October 21, 1959, President Eisenhower approved a plan submitted by Secretary of Defense McElroy and T. Keith Glennan, Administrator of NASA, to have part of the Army Ballistic Missile Agency transferred to NASA. These two examples certainly represent two of a number of options available to us in assuring the full utilization of laboratories. Some consideration should also be given to a different way of handling the phasing down or closure of a Federal laboratory. When a laboratory has lost its purpose or the priority of its work has diminished or disappeared, we should offer to transfer it to another agency or at least consider assigning to it other agency work if it has retained the required level of quality. I know that some people would have reser- vations about such a step. Their approach would be to close it down because once the laboratory has lost its purpose, it generally loses its best people first. Something can be said on both sides. There is really no magic formula. I believe one must examine this question on a case- by-case basis. TRANSFER OF TECHNOLOGY I also believe that we have a moral, if not a legal responsibility, to assure to the degree possible the transfer of defense-developed tech- nology to other agencies and to new programs. Of course, one of the best technology transfer agents we have is people. Although there are a number of major technology transfer programs within the Government, one of the simplest approaches is to motivate the mobility of people. In fact, I can cite a number of cases to illustrate my point. Dr. E. M. Reilley, the Assistant Director for Research in my office, left us recently to become the Director of Research and Development of the Post Office Department. He brings to that position all of his background in solid state and nuclear `physics, computer technology, electronics and R.. & D. management which he developed both at Fort Monmouth and in O'SD. What is almost as important is that he knows the on-going programs of the DOD and knows the laboratories and the people who can provide knowledge and inputs to important Post Office Department R. & D. problems. In a similar vein, Mr. T. F. Rogers, the former Deputy Director of Electronics and Information Systems in OSD has taken the position of Director of Research and Planning in HIJD. `His experience at the Air Force Cambridge Research Laboratory, Lincoln Laboratory and in OSD will proivde HJJD the benefit of a great deal of available technology and methodology which will be directly applicable to the technical solution of urban development problems. PAGENO="0169" 165 I also know of many other cases of transfers of people at the labora-~ tory level from Defense to other agencies in which they have assisted in the exploitation of Defense-developed technology. Such situations are not limited solely to Government personnel. Contractors of the DOD, industry, nonprofits and universities are excellent sources of expertise and performance for new agencies and new programs also. A number of our Federal contract research centers are being used by civilian agencies to help define some of their problems. Many aero- space companies are actively planning or performing programs utiliz- ing their defense systems and technology background for HEW, HUD, DOT, OEO, et cetera. Others are working in the field of ocean- ography in support of Commerce and Interior needs, applying tech- nology and know-how derived from Defense-supported program. Such technology transfer mechanisms far transcend technology transfer through information centers. As was mentioned last year in DOD testimony before the Subcommittee on Science and Technology of the Senate's Select Committee on Small Business, there is a high degree of mobility from Defense connected industry to nondefense organizations. Our estimate is that this approaches 10,000 scientists and engineers each year. I believe that newer agencies can, with the proper motivation and judicious actions, take full advantage of these natura.l dynamics in the technical work force and even influence them more in the direction of their more urgent needs. Mr. DADDAImI0. You mention people of high competence who move from one department to another and between Government and indus- try and how the knowledge that they have developed can be directly applicable. It appears that when these men work in the Defense De- partment laboratories the development of weapons systems is the im- portant thing, but that they develop a knowledge which, in fact, can be helpful in solving some of our social and economic problems even though this is not fundamentally the Defense Department's business. What do you do about taking advantage of this knowledge that is developed, the social and economic uses to which it can be put, and how to properly utilize it and not let it wander simply because its birth is not given in an agency which can support it? I do get concerned about this because I think the Department of Defense has developed an ability to apply knowledge quicker and to apply technology which could be directed to the solution of many of our other problems. Dr. MACARTHUR. Let me answer that question this way. First of all, let me deal with the work done under Department of Defense sponsorship outside the Department of Defense by the private sector which is 68 percent in private industry. I don't think there is any problem there. When we are talking about defense technology developed by industry which is applicable to the problems that other agencies have in terms of attaining their national goals because the private sector is very competitive, the situation takes care of itself. These nondefense agencies, once they define their problems, the de- fense industries who have the necessary expertise will exploit it to solve the problems. Industry will move quickly because it means more contracts and money for them. PAGENO="0170" 166 Mr. DADDARTO. You are not saying that the marketplace is going to determine those things necessary to solve our prohi ems? Dr. MACARThUR. I would say a great deal of them. Mr. DADDARIO. Yes, I understand that, but the fact. remains that we still have environmental pollution prob'ems and in many instances the technology is available if properly applied to solve these problems. Therefore, the market cannot be relied upon in this particular instance. I do believe there is tremendous commercial advantage, which has not evolved as yet, but the problem can run away from us unless we develop techniques to take care of it. Dr. MACARTHUR. One of the problems is that each agency defines its problem very specifically-what they are looking for. I happen to have come from the defense industry before I came to DOD 2 years ago and what I could see with some of the non-DOD agencies, was that many times they didn't define their problems precisely enough. When the private sector comes in, and they don't have a well-defined problem staring them in the face, then they are not going to invest. It becomes necessary to come up with the answers to the problem. But understand once you have a well-defined problem, you will find that the marketplace will take care of it if the resources are available to put in the R. & D. necessary to solve it. It is a two-way street, to define the problem clearly and to let the private sector know what the prob- lem is and then industry will attack it. Mr. DADDARIO. You can more clearly define the problem, and my question gets back to that particular point. Where do you allow this to grow rather than depress it? Dr. MACARTHUR. I was coming to that point a little later on in that I belive in the long run every agency has to have an in-house R. & D. capability. You just have to have it, if you are going to be most effec- tive, you have to do some of the R. & D. yourself. You cannot solely rely on the~ private sector or other Government agencies. Mr. DADDARTO. Mr. Glass, do you want to say something? Mr. GLASS. I was agreeing with Dr. MacArthur. You need both. You need a very, very strong in-house group in order to help define your problems. I think that is part of the strength we have in the Depart- ment of Defense, the ability to define it both in technical and other terms. Once you do that and work with the industry, acting as sort of the leaders and the coaches of the private sector, you can solve these problems very rapidly together. I think you were right in pointing out the importance of a strong in-house capability in order to capital- 1ZB on the private sector. Mr. DADDARIO. With the flexibility and the authority to do these things? Mr. `GLASS. That is right. Mr. DADDARIO. Do you define within that authority the necessity for discretionary funds and the requirement to compete for funds and this type of thing? Mr. GLASS. That is right. All of these factors are a part of it. Dr. MACARTHUR. When you define technological requirements, it is not just sufficient to say we want som9thing. In air pollution, for example, you want to define what compound you want to monitor, in what concentrations and what response time and, what kind of PAGENO="0171" 167 gadget. That is defining the problem. It is not good enough to say that I want something to monitor air pollution. Mr. DADDARIO. I nnderstand that, but you are talking to a layman in this area. We can judge how you are doing after we take a look at it, and in this particular area our judgment must be that our labora- tories, private and public, are not doing as well as they might. Dr. MACARTHUR. I was coming to a statement which was not in the prepared text. Mr. DADDARIO. Good. Dr. MACARTHUR. Let me address myself for the moment to the prob- lem of personnel ceilings. PERSONNEL CEILINGS-A MAJOR DETERRENT Probably the most serious deterrent to interagency work in R. & D. is the current system of personnel ceilings. Personnel ceilings limit the flexibility available to Federal laboratories. I believe that the elimina- tion of manpower ceilings for cross-agency work would motivate a much greater ut.ility of existing laboratory capabilities and would be a major step forward in achieving the objectives of this subcommittee. I would only establish financial controls but at the same time would insist upon a. meaningful after-the-fact appraisal. I also believe that others are opposed to this concept because they feel that growth would be excessive and the laboratory would lose its focus toward their prime mission. But I believe that growth would be minimal. Mr. DADDARIO. You are talking again about a reward mechanism. You would be- Dr. MACARTHUR. I would remove the manpower ceilings for work that is done internally in an in-house lab for another agency. Mr. DADDARIO. I see. Mr. MOSHER. Refresh my memory on the source of these ceilings. `What ist;he history of these ceilings? Dr. MACARTHUR. I would like Mr. Glass to address himself to that question. Mr. GLASS. Each agency has `a manpower ceililig. I believe they emanate from the Bureau of the Budget. There is a total manpower ceiling established for the Department of Defense. Each echelon of rn'aniagemerut has to `allocate a certain number of spaces or billets for each organizational entity within the Department of Defense. They cannot exceed their ceiling without going to the top, either to obtain readjustmeuts within the Defense Department or ask to request the Bureau of the Budget for additional manpower spaces. If a piece of work comes to the laboratory from the D'epaTt.meilit of Transportation and additiona.I manpower is required the lab cannot immediately take iton unless `he drops some of his defense-related work or obtained addi- t;ional ceiling. He must go up through his thain of command to get the additional manpower. It is `similur to the procedure used for funds. Mr. MOSHER. Dr. MacArthur is objecting to the rigidity of this? Dr. MACARTHUR. I am saying if you have `a laboratory fully oc- cupied performing its `own mission `and everybody is `busy and if they have technological expertise that can be utilized by another `agency when that. `agency c9mes and asks for work to be done, the manpower restrictions that are presently `applied should not be `applied in such PAGENO="0172" 168 cases. A lot of people are against this because they feel that the system would mushroom out of control. I don't personally believe this. I think Oak Ridge is an `example where `agencies other than the AEC have asked Oak Ridge to help them with `some of their problems. I don't think Oak Ridge has grown out of control. Another example is System Development Corporation. which used to `be a nonprofit organization for the Department of Defense, and a few years ago broke away from the Department of Defense at which time 100 percent of their work was for the Department of Defense. Years later over 90 percent of their work is still done for the Depart- ment of Defense `and they are in the private sector. Mr. MOSTIER. What sanction has `Congress given to these manpower ceilings? Have we insisted `on this or have we gone along with this implicitly? Mr. GLASS. I think the feeling of the Congress is there must be man- power controls within the Federal Government. A's long as the execu- tive branch maintains controls `such `as the'se, there `is no need for specific congressional `action-I think that if there were n'o controls exerted by the executive `branch that Congress possibly would insti't~te such controls. Mr. DADDARIO. Recognizing that this is a problem, and th'at the Con- gress does l'ook `at it this way, would you support the idea that rather than to have this as an overall policy that certa~n of them be given this `authority? Mr. GLASS. I think that would be a very good approach. Dr. MACARTHUR. Yes. I think the best ones should be given such authority. Mr. DADDARTO. You two gentlemen are quite candid about this. Everybody else seemsito shy away from it. You both give the indica- tion that this would not be too much of a job. Mr. GLASS. I think we have to do it. Mr. DADDARIO. It might not be pleasant. Dr. MACARTHUR. We have been wrestling with it for sometime. Mr. DADDARIO. You are saying we must develop the proper tech- niques through which quality judgments can be made and give labora- tory directors the opportunity to compete for funds, and give some of them funding limits as you have proposed rather than personnel ceilings. Dr. MACARTHUR. Yes. This is the attack we followed last year in the Department of Defense where we have laboratories which are clearly qualitywise above others. We give them a certain degree of flexibility. We don't give to every laboratory this. This comes back to incentives and awards. The ones who don't get it say, look, we better shape up,~and I think it is a very good system. Mr. DADDARIO. There is no doubt that it would have that effect. Dr. MACARTHUR. Yes. Mr. BROWN. Isn't the process we are talking about similar to, for example, the evaluation `of universities. The universities which have the quality and the capacity `are the ones `that get `the research grants contracts, `and it is not impossible to evaluate where this capacity for excellence exists. Now, at the same time we are seeking to stimulate the development of what we call centers of excellence to improve the quality of our PAGENO="0173" 169 educational institutions. A laboratory is not too distinct or too differ- ent from this, and if it is desirable to do, I am sure that the quality of a laboratory can be changed by a conscious decision to change it by the infusion of new leadership or new talent. Dr. MACARTHUR. We certainly agree to that. I think one of our biggest problems in trying to get new and strong leadership in DOD laboratories for personnel. In Government organizations, it seems to me that the primary objective is to protect the individual's right and the secondary objectives is to the productivity of the organization. In the Wivate sector, it is the reverse. The primary objective is the productivity of the organization, and the secondary consideration is protection of the individual's rights. Now, under the civil service, system it is very difficult to get rid of marginal people, they have to be incompetent before you can "fire" them, and it is very ~difficult to prove that people are incompetent. We are after `a system where we can get rid of marginal people. In striving for this to achieve a higher degree of excellence, this is a very difficult job where the individual's right is protected. Mr. DADDARIO. In one way or another this is a problem that exists everywhere, in industry as well. Many industries have some people who admittedly are incompetent and they keep `them on forever. Dr. MACARTHUR. But they don't have to. Mr. DADDARIO. They don't have to, but they do. Dr. MACARTHUR. I was talking about marginal people. Incompe- tence we can get rid of, but with fair or marginal people, it is very difficult to do anything. And it is the same thing in a university once you have tenure, but in the industrial sector it is a little~ easier if you want to get rid of somebody. You can get rid of them pretty easily if the desire is there. Mr. BROWN. This point you `make is one of the main reasons where a competitive system is better. If it is a profit reward you have to get rid of those things which inhibit the profit ability. Dr. MACARTHUR. I should add that where we have a strong labora- tory director, anybody who is asked to leave `or look for andther job, in 90 percent of the cases they will. In 10 percent of the cases, they won't. They will say, "prove it," and `then you go through various appeal mechanisms, and to get rid of one individual might take 20 percent of your energy for 1 whole year. What you do then is you develop- Mr. DADDARIO. You insulate. Dr. MACARTHUR. That is right. Mr. DADDARIO. Proceed. GUIDELINES FOR INTERAGENCY SUPPORT Dr. MAC,A RTHTJR. I believe, in the long run, if you (as an agency) need an R. & D. capability, to be most effective you have to do some of it yourself-you cannot solely rely on other Government agencies. My reasons are: (1) You need people who have your interests and priorities. (2) You need people whom you can directly control. (3) You need people who are working in, just not watching, the technology in areas you need. PAGENO="0174" 170 (4) You need people who can couple R. & D. results to your mission. When a new agency begins to attack a major national problem, and begins to build the necessary R. & D. capability, it is probably neces- sary for it. to depend primarily on other agencies and private contrac- tors for a few years. But I cannot overemphasize t.he fact that we must exercise consider- able care in assigning nonagency missions to existing labs. In our re- view of our own DOD labs, we found generally that. those which tried "to cover the waterfront" were much less productive and of lower qual- ity than those which were focused toward a well-defined meaningful agency problem. A key objective for our new w-eapon centers is a spe- cifically defined, challenging mission. The question of balance for any single laboratory must be a decision shared by both the laboratory director and his management agency. I really don't think we should atte.mnt to ~ef ~n arbitrary firnire or a range. Each laboratory director must examine his own local situation to determine the level of effort he can perform for other agencies using local criteria to make this decision. In general fOr busy productive laboratories with clear-cut missions, I would~ say the following principle applies to interagency lab sup- port.: The, greater the match between the actual technical work that needs to be performed and the performer's ongoing programs, the more the laboratory can assimilate. Dr. McLean's example of his work for the Bureau of Fisheries on sonar signatures for schools of fish illus- trates this point. For such cases, laboratories might be able to absorb 15 to 20 percent. In specialized test facilities, like computer centers or wind tunnels, the percentage could be much higher depending on the capacity of the facility. On the other hand, we must recognize that each agency will have some labs that are highly specialized; for these, as much as a 10-percent diversification might be unwise or even impossible. In summary, I believe that if the motivation and need are there, people will know or find the capabilities and unique facilities and competence in Federal laboratories. We certainly encourage others to use any of our available capability. The cross-servicing of major pro- grams should be thought out very carefully in advance, however, so that the primary mission of a laboratory is not so diluted that per- formance for either their parent agency or its customer, or both, is not degraded. Modifications to our system for accounting for manpower and manpower ceilings are in need of critical review if we are to make optimum use of our in-house capacity. There are a number of advantages in using existing Federal labora- tories instead of establishing new ones: (1) avoidance of unnecessary duplication; (~) overall reduction in costs; and (3) the ready avail- ability of expertise. There are a number of disadvantages also: (1) dilution of laboratory mission; (2) the lack of close coupling between the performing laboratory and the customer agency; and (3) the resultant lack of R. & D. continuity and experience in the new agency or program. The tradeoff among considerations such as these must be weighed carefully in determining the most appropriate course of action to be taken. PAGENO="0175" 1'Tl THE OFFICE OF LABORATORY MANAGEMENT The progress we have made in. the improvement in the effectiveness of our in-house laboratories stems from four factors. A continual interest of the three Directors of Defense Research and Engineering (York, Brown, and Foster) in the health of laboratories; the sustained recognition of the importance of laboratories by the Secretary of De- fense over the last several years; the support of the past two Directors of the Office of Science and Technology; and finally, the establishment of an Office of Laboratory Management within t.he Office of the Direc- tor of Defense Research and Engineering. Within the services, the establishment of the positions of Director of Laboratories (DOL) has been an important step in improving the quality of our laboratories and in bringing the laboratories into much closer interface with the policy levels. I woujd like to insert in the record as tab D* a brief reiiew of the origins, present functions, and some past accomplishments of the Office of Laboratory Management. Mr. E. M. Glass, the Assistant Director for Laboratory Management, who is with me, will be pleased to answer any questions the subcommittee is interested in asking him concerning his functions and activities. The Office of Laboratory Management is the organizational arm of D.D.R. & E. with respect to in-house laboratories. Its primary pur- pose is to assist the Director of Defense Research and Engineering in the planning and the execution of a positive program which assures that the Defense laboratories of the future play key roles in shaping, carrying out, and administering the complex R.D.T. & E. programs upon which our defense posture depends so heavily. This office is the focal point of the DOD laboratories and has been heavily involved in most of the issues I have discussed today. Thank you. TAB A: DOD ACTIONS To IMPROVE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF DEFENSE LABORATORIES We have established new weapon centers with clear and broad responsibilities over a number of. military problems and functional areas. These centers arid major laboratories have been given important assignments in threat analy~is and development of requirements; planning for future weapons; assessment of vulnerability of proposed major systems; and important roles in the research and development cyéle. Thus the in-house laboratories are beginning to emerge not only as an R&D performer, but an important source of technical judgments and advice to the top level planners and decision makers. Here are several examples: UNDERSEAS WARFARE CENTER Created from NOTS (Pasadena) and elements of the Naval Electronics Labo- ratory, NOTS (China Lake) and an ASW Analysis Group at NOL (White Oak). This Center will be responsible for the over-all ASW systems analyses, hard- ware development for surface s~stems, system integration of air, surface arid sub-surface systems and fleet engineering support. Because of the importance of this area. we are providing for three centers devoted to ASW and associated weaponry. The Naval Air Development Center (Johnsville) has been given re- sponsibility for hardware developmen.t of airborne ASW systems. We intend to combine organizationally the Naval Underwater Weapons Research and Regi- neering Station, Newport, Rhode Island, with the Naval Underwater Sound Laboratory, New London, Connecticut, forming a new center for the development of sub-surface systems. In this fashion, the major ASW systems and hardware responsibilities will be focueed in three principal Navy centers. *Tab D arppears starting on p. 174. PAGENO="0176" 172 SHIPS R&D CENTER The David Taylor Model Basin Marine Engineering Laboratory and the Mine Defense Laboratory have been combined organizationally to create a ships' R&D center. It is responsible for advanced ships concepts, high speed ships, deep ocean vehiéles from research to project formulation. A number of fragmented activities involved in siniilar technologies have been combined into more viable arrangements. For example, an Army Materials and Mechanics Research Center is being created from elements of eight RD'T&E activities. The Secretary has approved a long-range program to consolidate ten of the Army's medical laboratories into three major medical centers. There are, always difficult administrative problems in any large organization. We believed, however, that we had more than our fair share of them. I ha~ve always felt that if we could provide the management of our Defense labora- tories with the same degree of flexibility as is possible in the high technology organizations in the private sector, we could achieve an immediate and sub- stanitial improvement in effectiveness and output. With this model as our goal, we have identified a number of administrative problems and have worked hard to develop solutions for them. A large number of the problems have either been solved or we have implemented a time-phased solution `for them. We have also made a major dent in the unsolved ones. The problems run the entire spectrum from recruitment, career development and training, personnel mobility, com- pensation, to dealing with the marginal employee. We have had a great deal of excellent assistance from the Civil Service Commission in coming to grips with these problems. In addition, we have been concerned with such non-personnel problems as facility modification, support services, procurement, supply and laboratory mai,n- tenance. For example, gr:eater authority ha's been given to Laboratory Directors in the reprogramming of funds and personnel to adjust to changing work situa- tions. Techniques have been developed to foster greater mobility of people among technical organizations to bring the best talent to the problems as they arise. Career development programs have been tailored to meet the specific needs of scientists and engineers. TAB B: SOME EXAMPLES OF INTER-AGENcY COOPERATION Army NIH and the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research jointly staff in Panama the Middle American Research Activity and carry on joint programs in indige- nous diseases. The Postal Department uniforms are designed by Natick together with the research work in `the textiles used in these uniforms. The Army has joint programs with the Department of Agriculture on insecticides and also joint programs between Oivil Defense and Agriculture in fires and control of fires. There are also programs between AEC, Commerce and DoD in the area of irradication of food. There are many, many civil work programs conducted by the Army Corps of Engineers for other agencies. Navy A number of surveys are conducted at Point Barrow by the Navy for other agencies. This is part of an Office of Naval Research (ONR) program: Agency Project U.S. Geological Survey. Gravity Studies. National Science Foundation. Snow Studies. U.S. Geological Survey. Oil Shale. National Institute of Health. Arctic Biology. Federal Aviation Agency. Flight Service. Interior Department. Polar Bear Survey. National Institute of Health. Marine Biological Chemistry. Department of Agriculture. Diseases of the Caribou. Public Health Service. Zoonotic Diseases. Bureau of Standards. Ionospheric Studies. Coast and Geodetic Survey. Geodetic Management Surveys. Other examples of inter-agency cooperation are listed below: National Health Institute-Pays ONR to operate the Tissue Culture at Naval Biological Lab at Okiand, Calif. Interior contributes to an Oceanographic Project of the Navy. PAGENO="0177" 173 Other types of fund transfers: Recently ONR transferred money to Geological Survey for specialized project-Trace Analysis in Water. National Bureau of Standards-transfer of funds to NBS for various research projects for ONR. David Taylor Model Basin-Navy work for Maritime Administration, Coast Guard, private sector, etc., on reimbursable basis. In the shipbuilding business, private industry and Coast Guard-exchange of computer aided ship design. Air Force Work performed for FAA-The Air Force Materials Laboratory performed a huge effort in support of the Super-Sonic Transport (SST), amounting to $3.2 million. The work included such efforts as the following: Screening test program for evaluation of stress corrosion susceptibility of alloys under consideration for skin materials. Laminating Resins. High temperature hydraulic fluids. High temperature seal and sealant materials. Screening tests and evaluation of lubricants for propulsion and secondary power systems. Performance of jet engine fuel's. Fatigue behavior of materials. The Air Force Flight Dynamics Laboratory redesigned the nose cone of the total inflight simulator (TIFS) vehicle in support of the SST program. The Air Force Aeropropulsion Laboratory-Carried out an engine component development program in support of the SST. Defined a suitable jet fuel specification for the SST. Defined a jet lubricant for the SST. Investigated crash fire prevention techniques for the SST, including develop- ment of a high temperature extinguishing agent. The Air Force Weapons Laboratory performed work to determine dose, dose rate and depth, dose patterns of high altitude radiation and its hazard to pilots and passengers. The Aeromedical Research Laboratory performed studies to determine injury patterns arising from the use of different types of restraint harnesses. Work performed for the Food and Drug Administration-The Aeromedical Re- search Laboratory performed studies to evaluate the biological and pathological effects of drugs. Work performed for the Department of Transportation.-The Aeromedical Re- search Laboratory performed work on an anthropometric definition of vehicle safety in which the relationship of size and design of passenger compartments affects safety at impact. Work performed for the National Bureau of ~tandards.-The Aeromedical Re- search Laboratory performed dynamic testing of seat belts. Work performed for the National ~eienee Foundation (NSF) .-The Air Force Cambridge Research Laboratories participated in a cooperative program spon- sored by the NSF in Project Hailswath. The program was concerned with hail- storm modification. The Air Force Cambridge Research Laboratories (AFCRL), participated in a cooperative program for the Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory in Chile, AFCRL funded the 16-inch and 60-inch telescopes and the NSF funded the domes. TAB C: NATIONAL POLICIES FOR THE Usn or FEDEBAL LABORATORIES Much of the legislation which established the function of Department of De- fense and the Military Departments contains language which either permits or fosters the use of services of other agencies. The general authority authorizing agencies to perform work for another agency is the so-called Economy Act which states "any executive department if it is determined by the head of such executive department . . . may place orders with any other such departments . . . for materials, supplies, equipment, work, or services of any kind that such requisitioned federal agency may be in a position to supply or equipped to render and shall promptly pay . . . the esti- mated or actual cost thereof as determined by such department . . as may be requisitioned." (31 U.S.C. 686(a)). In addition. 41 U.S.C. 23 provides "all orders or contracts for work or material or for the manufacture of material pertaining 93-201 O-68-----12 PAGENO="0178" 174 to approved projects heretofore or hereafter placed with government-owned es- tablishments shall be considered as obligations in the same manner as provided for similar orders or contracts with commercial manufacturers or private contractors." Frequently, there exists general authorization for cooperation between a spe- cific agency and all other agencies. For example, NASA by statute may use the services, equipment, personnel and facilities of federal agencies with or without reimbursement and on the similar basis cooperate with agencies in the use of services, equipment and facilities. Each federal agency is also directed to cooper- ate fully with NASA. (42 U.S.C. 2473(6)) AEC may utilize services and person- nel of another agency (42 U.S.C. 2201(f)) and the FAA has similar authority with respect to facilities, equipment and personnel of civilian and military agen- cies. (49 U.S.C. 1343). The National Bureau of Standards is also directed to cooperate with other government agencies in the establishment of standard practices incorporated in codes and specifications. As may be seen, there is both general and specific authority for interdepartmental cooperation to conduct research. As far as executive statements of policy pertaining to the utilization of federal facilities, Executive Order 10521, as amended, dated March 17, 1954 is perhaps the most basic statement concerning the efficient use of federal equipment and facilities: "Sec. 8. To facilitate the efficient use of scientific research equipment and fa- cilities held by Federal agencies: "(a) the head of each such agency engaged in scientific research shall, to the extent practicable, encourage and facilitate the sharing with other Fed- eral agencies of major equipment and facilities; and "(b) a Federal agency shall procure new major equipment or facilities for scientific research purposes only after taking suitable steps to ascertain that the need cannot be met adequately from existing inventories or facilities of its own or of other agencies; and "(c) the Interdepartmental Committee on Scientific Research and De- velopment shall take necessary steps to ensure that each Federal agency engaged directly in scientific research is kept informed of selected major equipment and facilities which could serve the needs of more than one agency. Each Federal agency possessing such equipment and facilities shall main- tain appropriate records to assist other agencies in arranging for their joint use or exchange." In addition, Executive Order 10807, as amended, dated March 13, 1959 creates the Federal Council for Science and Technology which provides as a function of the council the consideration of problems and development in the fields of science and technology including "to achieve more effective utilization of scientific and technological resources and facilities of federal agencies, including the elimina- tion of unnecessary duplication." Finally, the report to the President on Government Contracting for Research and Development dated April 30, 1962 (The Bell Report) also provides a basic statement concerning the role of federal laboratories in the conduct of research and development. The Bell Report has been our most authoritative source of guidance since 1963. TAB D: THE ODDR&E 0n3'ICE OF LABORATORY MANAGEMENT The Office of Laboratory Management was formally established in September of 1965. The functions it assumed at the time of its estnblishment were performed prior to that time on an ad hoc or special arrangement basis. Although concern for the quality and productivity of Defense laboratories goes back many years, great impetus was given to this question in 1961 when the DoD began taking a hard look at its in-house capability. When Mr. McNamara became Secretary of Defense in 1961, he asked 120 ques- tions to provide the basis for the future posture of the Department of Defense. Question 97 was: "Advise me ways in which to improve the operations of the in- house laboratories." To answer this question and to develop solutions to prob- lems that might arise, a task force was set up with the title of "Task 97." Task 97 visited many laboratories, talked to many people, and turned in a report which was endorsed by Mr. MeNamara by his memorandum of 14 October 1961. In this memorandum~, he reiterated the importance of in-house laboratories to furthering the Department of Defense's mission and proposed a number of PAGENO="0179" 175 positive actions to be taken by the Military Departments to upgrade their in-house capabilities. Out of this came- 1. A sensible approach. to taking full and complete advantage of the PL-313 provisions and a more rational approach to compensation rates under this authority. 2. The establishment of a Laboratory Director's Fund for work judged by the laboratory director to be of promise or importance, with only after-the- fact review by higher authority. 3. The pinpointing or responsibilities with the Assistant Secretaries (R&D) of the Military Departments for the health and environment of the in-house laboratories. However, other actions recommended were not implemented as readily. These included: (1) that Department of Defense (DoD) in-house laboratories would be used as a primary means of carrying our Defense Department programs; (2) delegating greater decision-making authority to the laboratory directors; (3) solving the many administrative difficulties that prevented laboratories from being as effective as they should be; and (4) establishing clear lines of technical management and responsibility for each in-house laboratory. Just as Task 97 was completing its report, the Bureau of the Budget began or- ganizing an interdepartmental task force to study the problems of government contracting for R&D. This activity, which must be familiar to most of you, be- came the first broad Executive Branch Policy on R&D activities in the history of this country. This "Bell report," 1 superimposed upon the Department of Defense findings, placed even greater emphasis on taking constructive actions in many areas. In fact, the Bell Report specifically cited this task force's activities as an appropri- ate procedure to follow. On 30 March 1963, the Director of Defense Research and Engineering, recon- stituted "Task 97" as the "Task 97 Action Group," in recognition of the fact that strengthening the in-house laboratories "is not only a matter of study but one of action." Its concept of operations was to establish a core of permanent members, generally six, with the responsibility for its continuing operation. These members were from ODDR&E staff and from the Office of the Assistant Secretaries (R&D) of the Military Departments. Additional members, problem- area specialists, were to be added, depending upon the problem being examined. Also every level of management was represented in all visits to laboratories so that, as a problem was raised, we could follow the problem up the chain of com- mand on the spot and either obtain an immediate solution or find a basis for pin- pointing an individual for action. It also provided a rare opportunity to communi- cate the rationale behind many decisions to the people directly affected-the laboratory personnel. The "Task 97 Action Group" dealt witI~ many administrative problems affecting the creative climate of laboratories. Listed below are several examples of the actions which resu~Ited from the activities of the Group: Important input, based upon specific examples, was provided to the Civil Serv- ice Commission, and thus had direct influence upon many features of the Salary Reform Act of 1962 and subsequent legislation. Some relief was obtained for laboratories in securing foreign periodicals and scientific equipment vis-a-vis the gold-flow problem. Security review of scientific papers was delegated to the laboratory level. New policies relating to air-conditioning equipment or laboratories, treating them the same as any other type of technical equipment, were established. There were more favorable interpretations `of the Government Employees Training Act, 7 July 1958, particularly in the restrictions on the 1-year-in-10 rule. The need for some relief in the rigid manpower ceilings to enhance training and career development was dramatized. This is now represented by central pools of manpower spaces and dollars to support technical training without hamper- ing laboratory operations. Block funding or "core funding' of Air Force laboratories in Research and Exploratory Development. 1 Bureau of the Budget (David E. Bell, Direc.tor)~ Report to the President on Government Contracting for Research and Development, 30 April 1962. PAGENO="0180" 176 special assistant for laboratories During 1964 it became increasingly apparent that the Task Force approach to handling "The Laboratory Problem" had about run its course. A consensus was developing to the effect that the in-house laboratories lacked meaningful prob- lems, management stability and prominence, and recognition, and they also failed to impact at the highest policy levels. While administrative improvements were valuable and should be pursued diligently, they were not considered, in themselves, sufficient to make laboratories effective tools of the organizations they served. A position of "Special Assistant for Laboratories" was created in the Office of the Deputy Director, Research and Technology to assist in planning the future of the DoD laboratories and to develop policies concerning their operations. The functions for this position were stated in the form of a series of questions: 1. On what scientific and technical efforts should the Department of Defense put it greatest effort? Its least? 2. What laboratories are to be expanded or upgraded for the foreseeable futu,re? 3. Are any to be phased out or discontinued? 4. What new laboratories should be created? Or what missions of existing laboratories should be changed significantly? 5. How should the laboratories be organized? 6. How should laboratories interact with other RDT&E performance and the decision-making process? 7. What administrative reforms are needed for laboratories? It is the answers to questions such as these which make it possible to set priorities, to plan laboratories' expansion and construction on an orderly basis and to relate them to programs, money, people, workloads and facilities. As a result of the initial studies recommending new organizational concepts for Defense laboratories, Dr. Brown, then the Director of Defense Research and Engineering, currently the Secretary of the Air Force, formally established the Office of Laboratory Management in 1965. Organizational relations~tips of Defense laboratories I think that we must first establish the relationship between DDR&E and the in-house laboratories before we can discuss functions of the Office of Laboratory Management in a meaningful way. Almost without exception, the in-house laboratories are organizationally integrated into the Service structures, some at high levels, such as the Naval Research Laboratory, others at relatively low levels like the Army's Night Vision Laboratory at Fort Monmouth. None of these laboratories have a direct line relationship with DDR&E. Their financial support is derived from the programs approved by DDR&E but the operation of these laboratories is under the control of the Military Departments. Each of the Military Departments has a Director of~ Laboratories, or equivalent, who is directly responsible for the quality and productivity of his Service's laboratories. Each Director of Laboratories has ready access to his Assistant Secretary (R&D) who sets the over-all RDT&E and laboratory policy for his Service. Because of the important of Service laboratories in carrying out the Defense RDT&E mission and related activities, DDR&E plays a vital role in establishing the policies and objectives for these organizations. These are placed into effect by the Assistant Secretaries (R&D) and the Directors of Laboratories. They also utilize the laboratories as a source of expertise and advice in the decision making process. DDR&E is directly involved in many activities affecting the RDT&E of two or more Services, however. Also, his duties include the "directing, controlling, assign- ing, and reassigning research and engineering activities that the Secretary considers needs centralized management". The area of laboratory management has been designated by the Secretary as requiring DDR&E's attention and concern. Functiong The Office of Laboratory Management is the organizational arm of DDR&E with respect to in-house laboratories. Our primary purpose is to assist DDR&E in the planning and the execution of a positive program which assures that the Defense Laboratories of the future play key roles in shaping, carrying out, and administering the complex RDT&E programs upon which our Defense posture depends so heavily. An important aspect of this is to see that laboratories are intimately involved in the mainstream of urgent Defense needs, providing the PAGENO="0181" 177 solutions to vital problems and offering technical judgments highly relevant to the needs of top level planners and decision-makers. While these words may at first sound much too general to have much meaning, they truly represent the goals and the "job description" for the office. It interacts on a continual basis with the Service Directors of Laboratories and with the Offices of the Assistant Secretaries (R&D). It is considered the "Washington Representative" of the in-house laboratories and it tries to represent their posi- tions and points of view at the corporate level. It is a "champion" for laboratories within the DoD. The sc'ope of activity varies from minutia to major problems directly affecting the productivity of technical organizations. During `the earlier phase of its de- velopment it concentrated on the development of a quantitative data base for laboratories which would give DDR&E insight into current and planned opera- tions of these organizations and to provide a sounder basis for action. Working with our Army counterparts, it assisted in the development and approval of an Army 10-year plan for its laboratories. Its activities in refining the "weapon center concept" helped the Navy develop and place into operation an organiza- tional plan, which we expect will pay many important dividends in the future of the Navy. Its close working relationship with the Air Force has resulted in a number of innovations which have strengthened the Air Force's in-house capabil- ity. Much of its effort is motivational and indirect. An important role is acting as the "conscience" of the R&D community of the DoD, the pre-testers of new ideas and innovations about laboratories. It is the focal point for special studies aimed at improving the productivity, environment and utilization of laboratories. As a result of its recommendations, a number of laboratories has been phased out, consolidated or rejuvenated. It has been the interface with the Civil Service Commission in attempting to set the required personnel climate for technical organizations. It has played an im- portant part in helping to define the role of laboratories in transition of labora- tory-developed systems and equipment from development to production. These are but a few examples of the kinds of activities in which it is involved. We should not leave the impression that the Office of Laboratory Management is the sole source of improvements in our in-house laboratory system, as this is far from the truth. It takes many people and organizations to achieve the goals established for improving the DoD laboratories. Its principal job is to provide the required degree of leadership and "coaching" which will assure that we are going in the right direction and at the proper pace. Progress in the solution of laboratory problems has been gratifying during the past two years. Solutions to problems once thought to be unattainable are on the horizon, or well in band. We seem to have gained a great deal of momentum particularly in the past six months which w-ill have tremendous impact upon our Defense capabilities in the years ahead. It is the job of the Office of Laboratory Management to see that our progress continues. Mr. DADDARIO. Thank you, Dr. MacArthur. It is a very excellent statement and your discussion about it has been extremely helpful. Mr. Brown? Mr. BROWN. How do you distinguish, if you do distinguish, between these two ambiguous terms of basic research and applied research as far as the laboratories are concerned? Dr. MACARTHUR. Sure. Well, basic research, we define it as that research that is carried out to develop new knowledge. Applied research is research that is carried out to solve a problem. Now, though we don't think that research should be carried on for research's sake in the Department of Defense, we do support basic re~ search that is relevant to our needs. That is, we support basic research t.hat develops new knowledge in areas of prime interest to us and so rec,earch can be both basic and relevant. Mr. BROWN. Basic and relevant to a mission? Dr. MACARTHUR. Or a tecimological problem, because in many mis- sion areas we ha:ve technological problems and the only way we caii solve them is by having more basic knowledge in that particular area PAGENO="0182" 178 before you know how to go about solving it. In developing that know]- edge is basic research and it is relevant because it is directed toward getting more information that will help us in solving this te.chnologi~al problem that we have. Mr. BROWN. Have you figured any way of estimating relative levels of effortS or dollars in these two areas? Do you make an effort. to do so for budgetary or planning purposes or anything of that sort? Dr. MACARTHUR. A quantitative measure of how much you should spend in basic research is very difficult, even in the private sector. Let's take the private sector. Private industry which has a good measure of success, a profit-and-loss statement, has been struggling with this problem for many years, and you will find that they haven't come up with a magic formula as to how much they should put in re- search. It is strictly intuitive and to a certain extent based on what they can afford to put in from their profit margin for that year. The way we go about it is we look at each area and get an idea of what the problems are, what the opportunities are and how much we feel is necessary to capitalize on what. we have. I must say it is a qualitative judgment of how much should ba spent in basic research. Mr. BROWN. This would vary from laboratory to laboratory also, I presume? Dr. MACARTHUR. Yes, indeed. Some of our laboratories like NRL do a great deal of basic research, other laboratories do very little basic research. It depends on the mission of the laboratory, it depends on how much they are doing with universities. Mr. BROWN. When you brought up this question of 3 to 6 percent discretionary funds, the thought occurred to me as to whether this could or is used on basic research or whether it is all directed at some developmental type of problem. Dr. MACARTHUR. Well, let me answer that question this way. Al- t.hough the money that we give in discretionary funds comes out of our research budget category we also give the lab director the freedom to spend it on basic, applied, or tecirnological problems. We don't attach any strings to it because in certain cases some of the most successful work-because you can see a product. at the end of the work-comes out of the applied work. On the other hand, some very good scientific work has been done with this type of money. It is up to the individual lab director how he will utilize it. This determination, and its success determines how much he gets the following year. Mr. GLASS. I would say about 30 percent of the dollars are at the very fundamental end of the spectrum, about 70 percent. of these discre- tionary funds are used in the more applied area.. Mr. BROWN. The examples you gave., and t.his is probably good judg- ment in the situation since you are presenting it to Members of the Congress, the examples dealt. with hardware results. Dr. MACARTHUR. That is right, more componentry than funda- mental work. Mr. BROWN. But there are, I suspect, many examples of basic re- search which is difficult to evaluate, and I presume you have the re- sponsibility to evaluate the excellence of new knowledge? Dr. MACARTHUR. The quality of the work. PAGENO="0183" 179 Mr. BROWN. Yes; as well as the hardware results which might develop. Dr. MACARTHUR. That is very true. Hardware innovations that come out of basic research usually come 5 to 10 years later so you have got to wait for a period of time to see what the result of that work is. At the time the work is done, you just have to go on the quality of the work, and its relevance, in general, to DOD's needs. Mr. BROWN. So you consider this factor when you are making your continuing evaluation process? It seems to me it would be rather diffi- cult to look at a man engaged in some fundamental research at the end of a year and say, well, you have not produced any results. Basic re- search does not conform to that kind of a pattern. Dr. MACARTHUR. That is right. On the other hand, any lab director who comes in and says I spent all my discretionary funds on basic research and don't expect any answer for 7 or 8 years; we would not look very kindly on that. Mr. DADDARIO. Mr. Mosher. Mr. MOSHER. No questions. Mr. DADDARIO. We have a series of questions which I will ask you to answer for the record, if I may. Dr. MACARTHUR. I will be very happy to, sir. Mr. DADDARIO. We would like to hear our next witness. We already have extended the time beyond which we had intended, but we appre- ciate your testimony and the comments of Mr. Glass. We will be in touch with you so we can fill out these questions for the record. Dr. MACARTHUR. We will be very happy to. Thank you. QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO DR. DONALD M. MAcARTHUR BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT Question 1. In your testimony you indicate that one reason why industry has not become more involved with national problems such as crime or pollution is that government agencies have not defined the problems precisely enough. What do you propose to remedy this problem? How would you define problems with a large social faet~r involved so that industry could participate? Answer. All mission-oriented agencies should have a supporting R&D pro- grain to improve their capability, to perform their missions more effectively and to define their specific needs. There is a general misconception that supply and demand, and the profit motive, will always lead industry to orient their efforts toward developments that will improve the agencies' operational capability. There are too many important situations where ths type of motivation just did not produce the desired results. In fact, legislative or executive action (or the anticipation thereof) by state and federal governments in areas such as pollu- tion and health compelled industry to take the required action. If industry is to be expected to invest its own resources, the specific technical goals to achieve the broad needs of governmental agencies have to be clearly delineated. These technical goals should include criteria anti specifications for the developed products that will meet the agencies' needs. In the absence of specific technical goals and performance specifications, there is less incentive for industry to invest their own resources because of the high risks involv&j. Industry might, for example, be faced with a situation where they have invested substantial R&D funds to develop a product they think an agency needs, but if the agency has not defined its technical needs, product-development is clearly a high- risk venture. Government agencies do not need to guarantee production except in unique situations. In fact, such guarantees might inhibit long-range innova- tion and short-range competition. But the government must provide both direction and incentive `for private participation. Clearly, the next question `is how to define the technical goals applicable to the complex social problems facing the country today. A "systems approach" can help to define our "operational" needs and the technologies to meet those needs. DoD and NASA have sucessfully developed systems techniques over the years PAGENO="0184" 180 with the help of industry and Federal Contract Research Centers like RAND. Depending on the problem, these analyses require the application of many disciplines, including economics, sociology, physics, chemistry, and the engineer- ing fields, But once these analyses are "complete"-alternatives considered, needs defined, and government departments committed to pursue these needs-industry would have a clear goal, an end point towards which its privately financed research and development efforts might be directed. There are at least two general approaches to defining problems "with a large social factor involved". First, the government systems study teams should include social and behavioral scientists, consider alternative incentives for industrial participation, recognize policy constraiiits within the government by frequent interaction with senior officials, and, most important, should follow- up initial studies with research/evaluation so that the social-technological issues are continuously re-evaluated. Just as we have not yet exploited our industrial- technological capabilities for solving national domestic problems, we do not yet understand fully the limitations on "technological fixes" in many social situations. So social scientists should be involved in a continuing R&D effort. Second, larger industrial firms having plants throughout the country could be encouraged to work directly with local and state governments to "define a problem" in a way that makes it meaningful locally and solvable by the industrial groups available and affected. After such a decentralized analysis, the Federal Government could provide incentives in the `form of tax exemptions on "seed money" for pilot work by `industry, and then could consider the degree to which the "local solution's" could be applied nationally. `Thus, the "large social factor" would `be `introduced and evaluated locally, with industry directly, and without some of the policy constra'ints found at the Federal level. Question No. 2. The Department of Defense has a well established system to rate the performance of its contractors that supply research and development. Would you' please explain what this system is and how it works? To w'hat e~- tent does, or should, the Department use this system `in appraising the work of `its own laboratories? What other approach do you take? Answer. The Contractor Performance Evalua,tion (CPE) progrttm (D~d Directive 5126.38) is a system designed to provide an orderly and uniform techn'ique of determining and recording the effectiveness of contractors in meeting their contractual commitments principally for hardware development and pI~oduction contracts. The program provides a long-term incentive to con- tractors by creating within the Government a "memory" of their performance and means for considering this record in future actions relating to source se- lections and negotiations. CPE reports are prepared by system/project managers for certain defense contracts. (Sec Tab A to this question for sample format.) The first report covers the period from the date of contract award to no later than one year after the award date. Subsequent reports are prepared at intervals of six months and upon completion or termination of the effort. These reports are submitted to the Services' Contractor Performance Evaluation Groups. The reports are re- ~riewed to assure that meaningful time, cost and technical performance data have been clearly and objectively reported. The contractor also reviews the report and makes comments as he desires. The report is then returned to the CPE Group who makes a final review and resolves any mistakes of fact. The CPE Group may also make any independent field investigations that are con- s'idered necessary. The report is then sent to the Defense Documentation Oenter for storage and issue of performance evaluation reports for Source Selection Boards, etc. For those contracts where the end product is new technology or new scien- tific findings, CPE can be utilized, if the Military Departments consider it de- sirable. However, a le:~s formal evaluation of such contracts is generally nfl- lized. This is usually in the form of a subjective appraisal by the project monitor. The CPE System appears to be most suitable for evaluating specific programs for which there are meaningful performance standards and mileposts'. I might add that similar criteria are utilized to evaluate the h1ardware development laboratories, although in a different form. In other words, the CPE System is designed to evaluate performance on a specific well-defined project or pro- gram. Its purpose is not to evaluate over-all organizational effectiveness. Much o'f the work of Defense laboratories is in the areas of long-range re- search and technology. Thus, a system such as CPE would not be generally ap- phcable. One advantage we see in the establishment of nlilitary problem ori- ented weapon centers is that the utility of their output can be measured fairly PAGENO="0185" 181 directly almost on a real-time basis. Practically everyone knows and can measure the tremendous productivity of a NOTS, China Lake. Its output goes directly into the military inventory. On the other hand, the output or product of a research laboratory is much more difficult to assess. Many years may pass before the utilization of new science or technology can be measured meaning- fully. The principal method used for Defense laboratories is peer rating or evalu- at'ion. either by in-house people, those on the outside, or combinations of both. This is only part of the story, however. Program evaluation in terms of need, priority, technical content,, and similar factors probably have a greater bear- ing upon the appraisal of laboratories than direct institutional evaluation. Through program evaluation, one usually makes decisions on resource allocation w-hich ultimately determine the future of that laboratory responsible for the program execution. TAB A-QUESTION No. 2-SAMPLE CPE FORMAT USED FOR TRAINING EVALUATION EVALUATION OF THE EDEN MISSILE CONTRACT The following forms constitute a possible solution to your classroom project. Schedule and technical performance parameters most indicative of total con- tractual performance were selected. Normally, these criteria would have been listed on the evaluation plan. FORM 1441-Contract Brief This form identifies the contract being evaluated and describes in broad terms the ki'nd of development or production being purchased, the technological and stat'e-of4he~art problems involved, and the respective responsibilities of the con- tractor and the Government for furnishing major systems and equipment. On the reverse of this form is space for extended comments. No continuation sheet for the Contract Brief is permitted. FORM 1446-1-Technical Performance This is used to list the items selected for technical evaluation. The original contract commitment, adjusted by modifications and pending changes, but ex- c1u'd~ing performance losses fo'r which `the contractor is responsible, is displayed so as to `show the "net" contractual performance requirements. Actual per- formance is then stated, and the variance between requirement and `accomplish- ment is computed. Known reasons for significant variances should be briefly recorded on the reverse of the form, as w-ell as other entries that require collateral explanation. If the significaace of the parameters selected is not self-evident, it should be briefly explained there. Report no more than 30 technical parameters (15 `are usually enough). FORM 1446-2-~ched'iile Performance This form i~s used to list the items selected for schedule evaluation. The original commitment, adjusted through contract modifications and other changes for which the contractor is not responsible, is compared with the actual delivery or completion date, and the resulting variance l5 `recorded. Schedule goals are expressed as the number of months (Computed `by dividing the number of days by 30) required to deliver an item or complete an event and a're computed from the starting date to the date of actual accomplishment. Residual variances are t'heii expressed as `the number of months late or early. These figures should be rounded to t'he nearest month unless such a variation is critical to the project. Known reasons for variance should be explained on the reverse of the form, as well as other entries that require collateral explanation. If the significance of the parameters selected is not `self-evident, `it should be briefly described there. Report no more than 30 schedule items :or milestone events (15 are usually sufficient). Form 1446-3-Cost Performance This form is used for recording the cost performance of a contractor at the time of evaluation. Since cost data are recorded in the aggregate, specific entries niay require collateral explanation or enlargement to insure an objective evaluation. For example, when performance, schedule and cost incentives in fixed-price-incentive PAGENO="0186" 182 or cost-plus-incentive-fee contracts, as well as value engineering provisions, con- stitute part of the contract price, these elements should be appropriately rec- ognized on the reverse of the form. Also, reasons for significant variations between "net" contractual commitments and "actual" price data should be discussed. Form L~46-4-NarratiVe The major portion of the CPE report is devoted to the recording of factual data on the contractor's performance. In the Narrative, the opinion of the systemjprojec!t manager is invited, since the information requested can only be obtained in this manner. Here also, the system/project manager may briefly explain data presented on other forms. His comments must not conflict with any data reported on DD Forms 1446-i, -2 or -3. No continUatiOn sheets may be used to extend the Narrative. SUFI~IYOFEV~ NAME OF CONTRACTOR EDEN MiSSILE COMPAN'L CONTRACT NUMBER _Th~S142_ Project Name DEIMOS MISSiLE _________ Period 1 May 65 - 10 Oct 67 EVENT NUMBER (1) DESCRIPTION OF EVENT (2) AMOUNT OF ChANGE ~ 3) CATEGORY OF RESPONSIBILITY (4) OF ~IIANGE :i~i REFERENCE DOCUMENTS (6) 1 Gross Mtr ~`t Target- Increase 150 lbs Gov. FIRM Mod. 8 2 Case OD - Increase 2.5 cm Gov. FIRM Mod. 8 3 20th FIgt Test Mtr OD Test Base - Extension 2 months Gov. FIRM Mod. 9 4 Oper Explosive Class Program Plan-ExtensIon 6 months Gov. endIng Mod. 10 5 Cost Increase-Schedule $2.0 M Contractor FIRM Mod. 11 6 Cost I ncrease-Mtr Wt $1.2 M Contractor FIRM Mod. 12 7 Cost increase - Design $2.2 M Gov. FIRM Mod. 13 8 Cost Increase - Design $0.56 M Gov. `ending Mod. 14 PAGENO="0187" 183 CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE * 61~i0~'°0 Eden Missile Company ~Detroit. Michigan REPORT CONTROL SYMBOL 2. :ATE(Ftoot-To) C~T0~FCER DOPERATIONAL SYSTEM REV Mr. George Richards DP000UCTION ~ Missile t~OYcTERMN*L Qffice. Kansas Cit W's~.s~tiri C0R~ENTLTRC0ED It. 005000. co jjMay65 i~2?~t~oE 15 Feb 68 15Feb68 Dec 67~ AND ROTSE tS.MA~oR ENDITED CJ ~ Deimos Missile 654-321 First Stage Motor IS. SRIEP DESCRIPtION (POsit I.. ID poopo... t.ohItUtCgy Ott'Dio.tt): * Completion date estimated from the present rate of progress ~ Estimated final price (including incentive fees) subject to final audit (it .dditioot.t .pso. is ,.qoit.d, oootMo. iso.:... id.) SAME (Tip.) SIGNATURE TITLE DATE DD~. 1446 PAGENO="0188" 184 CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT TECHNICAL PERFORMANCE DD-I &L(SA)699 Eden Missile Company 72- S142 1May65- 10 Oct67 TECHNICAL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR CO MM?TMENT PERFORMANCE L Total Impulse (Minimum) lb se c 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,00(1 Total Impulse (Target) lb se c 1,600,000 1,600,000 1,600,000 1,700, DC 100,000 Total Impulse (Maximum) lb se c 1,700,000 1,700,000 1,700,000 2 Average Thrust (Mean) lb 38,000 38,000 38,030 44,000 6,000 3 Delivered Specific Impulse ~ e 103 100 100 100 0 4 System Mass Fraction -- 0.7000 0.7000 0.7000 0.7090 0.0090 5 Gross Motor Weight (Minimum) lb 4,600 4,600 4,600 Gross Motor Weight (Target) lb 4,900 5,050 5,050 5,000 50 Gross Motor Weight (Maximum) lb 5,200 5,200 5,200 6 Propellant Weight (Mean) lb 4,803 4,800 4,800 4,800 0 7 Case Outside Diameter c m 63.5 66.0 66.0 66.0 0 8 Dosign Acceleration (Minimum) q 8 8 8 Design Acceleration (Target) g 10 10 10 10 0 Design Acceleration (Maximum) c~ 12 12 12 DD ~ 1446-1 PAGENO="0189" 185 CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT SCHEDULE PERFORMANCE REHORrcORrORLsYD~] DD-l &L(SA)699 Eden Missile Company 72- S142 1 May 65- 10 Oct 67 ~~-3.--~ -6- LINE ITEM TO BE DELIVERED . COIMITMENT (ORR. ~ PERFORMANCE ~RIABRBB ~ MEIA*L ~~:::;`~` (E*I.-EAL~~ 1 Program Plan Submitted 5 5 5 8 3 ~ 60 ~ 2. FInal Flight Readiness Motor Model - Specification Submitted 7 7 7 10 3 ~ 43 ~ - 3 R&D FlIght Test Motor Model Final Specification Submitted 10 10 10 13 3 30 - 4 First Flight Test 13 13 13 16 3 `~~R 23 ~ 5 Ship Inert Ground Test Motor #4 22 22 22 23 1 ~ 5 ~R 6 20th Figt. Test Mtr. OD Test Base 23 25 25 24 4 ~ 7 Approve operational transportation - and handling Program Plan 23 23 23 23 0 0 B Ship Inert Ground Test Motor ~5 25 25 25 24 1 ~ 4 ~ 9 Approve Operational E~loslves Classification Program Plan 21 21 27 27 0 0 - 10 Tactical Design Completed 29 29 29 NOT ME~ II Compiet3 Qualification Test 31 31 31 29 2 ~ DDLt~~t 1446-2 PAGENO="0190" 186 CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE COST PERFORMANCE I&LR~W1~ EVALUATION REPORT Eden Missile Company 72 - S142 1 May 65-10 Oct 67 PART A- PERIODIC EVALUATION- OVERRUN/UNDERRUN STATUS TARGET PRICE TOTAL TARGET PRICE VARIANCE (C~t:&~O~s R~spURsibItity) AMOUNT IOVERRUNI UNDERRUN IOVERRUNI UNDERRUN (9ViVioO~.,) RI INAL ---__________ COSSRACTI.IULLV - PENAING S S S S S PART B - PERIODIC EVALU ATION - COST OF WORK WORK PERFORMED TO GATE TOTALS AT COMPLETION VALUE ACTUAL COST (OVERRUN) PLANNED LATEST REVISED S S S S S S PART C - TERMINAL EVALUATION - OVERRUN/UNDERRUN STATUS TARGET PRICE ACTUAL VARI ANCE URIUINAL J~ AS ADJUSTED AMOUNT IDVERRU NI (~f;-~,U UUNSNACVI.IALLR PENUINU 39.2 REIJUAPS s 41.9 Rjjillcn 42.5 J)illion 45.7 Million $ (3.2) Million (7.6) DD~, 1446-3 PAGENO="0191" 187 COST PERFORMANCE (C~nti,,~d) i~~~iar 0~.~Tciroct 671 ~ BLOCK A Target cost 36.0 Target fee 3.24 39.24 use BLOCK C Entry for BLOCK B Plus agreed to fee bearing CCNS including fee use BLOCK E Overrun for Weight Overrun for Schedule PARAMETER Cost Delivery Performance Performance Performance FEE BREAKDOWN TARGET FEE $648, 000 972, 000 648,000 648,000 324,000 $3, 240,000 39.24 .456 2.2 41. 896 ~rr~ 42.456 1.2 2.0 45.656 use 4~r ACTUAL FEE $488, 000 1,188,000 688,000 1,008,000 324,000 $3, 696, 000 125, 000 $3,821,000 BLOCK B Entry in BLOCK A Plus adctt'l incentive fee Plus negot. fee bearing CCNS including fee BLOCK D Entry for BLOCK C Overrun for Weight Overrun for Schedule use 4L896 .560 42.456 42.~ 1.2 2.0 3.2 BLOCK F Entry for BLOCK E 3.2 Entry for BLOCK C 42. 456 Multiply by 100 to get 7.6% Total Impulse Acceleration (fee bearing Mods) additional fee TOTAL FEE PAGENO="0192" 188 V co~TUT~I~E~ NARRATPIE ~Of~9*~ Eden Misslle_~p~ny 72 - S142 1 May 65-10 Oct 67 I. TO PROVIDE A SUMMARY VIEW GIVE YOUR OPINION ON THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS: CONTRACT' IF NOT Ill 5101 CII ASCAIS (`.~., 10(5, .T.h.dCI,, t.*hok~I p.lfoooooIs, ,oqoisod obllg.tIoo.) SIAN IT DEPARTED' 5101515' IllS WEAII POINTS' (OS ?,IICW,.SOO Id bs .oppoS~d by I.oI~oI doS..) No. The Contractor incurred a $1.2 Million overrun due to an extensive redesign program which netted the Contractor $40,000 additional fee over target. Prior to this, the Contractor requested an increase in the target gross motor weIght which was negotiated after presentation of what the Government considered valid arguments for the change. The Contractor incurred a $2.0 Million overrun due to concentrating his overtime on bettering schedule which he did by 60 days. This netted the Contractor $216,000 additional fee above target. While bettering the target schedule on qualification tests, the Contractor Vslipped a significant number of other important milestones. As of this writing, the Contractor has not submitted the tactical design documents which were due 5 October 1967. Strong Points: The Contractor was able to meet or better contractual requirements in the technicalarea. Weak Points: The Contractor apparently could not meet schedule without incurring cost beyond target. He did not meet his cost target although he earned $200,000 over minimum fee on cost. The management status reports were in general ineffective in controlling the program and informing the Government of potential problems. No corrective actions by the Contractor were observed during this period. The Contractor has met his obligations under the `required Clauses". The contract contains a Value Engineering Incentive clause. No VECP's have been submitted or approved. Government costs have not been reduced as a result of the Contractor's V. E. efforts. V (If .ddilIo..I SPOC. I( 55q01?.d ICS1ICIIO CS 0~ 05500( Id.) DD~.1446-4 PAGENO="0193" 189 Question No. 3. On the matter of independent funds for Government labora~- tory directors, we note that the Armed Services Procurement Regulations in Section 15, part ~O5, provides for reimbursement of a contractor's independent research and development effort as a charge to Government-paid overhead. How does this approach compare with DoD's system for providing an allowance for independent research funds to selected DoD laboratory directors? Does the over- all percentage differ? Answer. Independent research and development (IR&D) by definition is "that research and development which is not sponsored by a contract, grant or other arrangement". It corresponds closely to the research and development that all companies must conduct in order to improve their product lines and thereby remain competitive. Accordingly, it has been regarded as a necessary cost of doing business. At least four dis;tinct benefits are derived from IR&D: 1. IR&D is used to develop and demonstrate complete prototypes of techni- cally advanced hardware before a formally recognized military requirement exists. 2. IR&D is used to develop the requisite technology for a known forthcoming military requirement. 3. IR&D is used to upgrade the capabilities of important weapon systems. 4. Technology often precedes military requirements; but as a result of broad advances in technology from IR&D, new capabilities become possible and often give birth to military requirements. IR&D is considered as an overhead cost to Government contracts which is recoverable by the contractor to `the extent that is reasonable. Much of the funds spent by industry in this fashion is above `the amount considered reason- able as an overhead charge. The difference is paid out of company profits. There is no fixed percentage which is allowed for this purpose. It varies from year to year and from company to company. `The purpose and expectations of the in-house laboratory director funds are very similar to the IR&D concept. In both cases, the intent is to keep technical organizations at the forefront of technology so that the best technically con- ceived system.s and weapons will be achievable in a timely manner. Both are predicated on maintaining a high degree of independence and freedom of action at the performing level. Question No. 4. The Subcommittee is aware that many observers of Federal laboratories call for measures to upgrade the quality of their personnel by training, particularly by sending scientists and engineers off to school for mid- career study. Dr. McLean. spoke in support of this concept. On the other hand, we have heard that in some laboratories if a director sends a man off for train- ing, the manpower people withdraw the man's position because he is no longer at the laboratory bench or at the drawing board. What eaperienee have you had with this problem in the administration of DoD's laboratories? Answer. The educational program of a laboratory must compete with all other functions for its resources. During times of budget reductions and manpower retrenchment, the education and training activities of laboratories are also affected by `the over-all environment. By and large, the Defense laboratories have strong programs in work-related educational programs and in continuing education for mid-career study under the Government Employees Training Act. A recent, (March, 1068) survey by the Committee on Federal Laboratories, ~ `Council for Science `&`Technology, indicated a high degree of participa- tion in advanced technical education by DoD laboratories. In certain cases the universities' are brought to the site of the laboratories such as at Huntsville, Alabama for the Army Missile Command and NASA, at China Lake, Califo~rnia, for `the Naval Weapons Center and at Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio, for six Air Force laboratories and other technical groups. This provides a broader technical scope at a much lower cost basis. Unquestionably there have been isolated cases where a manpower space has been withdrawn while an individual has been off for training because of man- power reductions in the organization. However, this is believed, to. be the exception rather than the rule in the Department of Defense. We have also run into the problem where the pressure of the laboratory pro- gram is such that a Laboratory Director is reluctant to send his better, produc- tive people off for educational purposes. To ease this problem somewhat, the Deputy Secretary of Defense established a `Pool of Spaces and Funds for Long- Term Civilian Training" (in excess of 120 days). This pool, which is still in effect, covers the manpower spaces and funds (tuition, salary and related ex- 93-201 O-68-----13 PAGENO="0194" 190 penses) programmed by each of the Military Departments, Defense agencies and OSD. While individuals are at school. the laboratories can and have employed temporary replacements for these individuals. This program gives a laboratory more incentive to release his higher quality people with less impact upon his current program. Question No. 5. We understand that the Air Force $ystems Command has set up a criteria by which they judge the use that Laboratory Director makes of independent research funds. What are these criteria? How (10 they operate? What have been the results? In particular, do Air Force Laboratory Directors feel they are being second-guessed by 5011i('(JflC at h('(tdquai-teI's in the use of these funds? Are there comparable criteria for Navy and Army laboratory direc- tors? If so, what are they? Answer. There is no control by the Air Force Systems Command oil the use which a laboratory director may nmake of independent research funds other thami those dictated by Public Law, ASPR's and Air Force Regulations. The individual laboratory directors, just prior to presenting their work for review to the Assistant Secretary (R&D), do gather and discuss their programs among them- seleves and with the AFSC Director of Laboratories, but not for the purpose of control or for comparison with a set of criteria. To my knowledge there are no criteria used in the Army or Navy. Each situation is judged on individual merit. Question No. 6. The yubeominittee understands that the Nary Department makes use of departmental councils of laboratory directors. Could you tell us about the purpose of such laboratory director councils within the Defense Depart- ments, how they operate, and of what value they have been? Answer. The Navy does have an informal group known as the Navy Laboratory Directors Council, which was revitalized in March, 1967. Membership is restricted to the Commander/Commanding Officer and the Technical Director/Chief Scien- tist at the individual field RDT&E activities. There are three subgroups encom- passing the Northeast, Southern, and Western areas of the continental LT.S. and those activities which lie in those geographical areas. The purpose is to provide a mechanism and an organization w-hereby the Director of Navy Laboratories (DNL) and the RDT&E activities of the Navy can mutually serve to advance the Navy's R&D posture by providing an informal organizational base which will: a. Support DNL communication link with the activities on subject matter requiring mutually considered positions. (This is not to be considered as an intermediate echelon for normal communications.) b. Rapidly disseminate information on non-routine non-recurring events which are of concern to all Navy laboratories, wherein further discussion and clarifica- tions by activities are required. c. Provide laboratory management an idea exchimge mechanism for formu- lating or recommeudirg poPoies cr'cerried w-ith laboratory operations. d. Provide as required by DNL background information for assessment of total laboratory programs. e. Provide an informal communication link amongst the directors of the laboratories. These area groups are each headed by a member laboratory in that area, on a rotational basis, and meet at the discretion of the membership whenever perti- nent matters arise which are of importance to the technical and scientific com- munity. These matters are usually management oriented. As a case in point, effective use has been made in the use of the area council representatives during the formulation of an on-going Career Development Plan for Scientists and Engineers. These personnel represented the total Navy scientific and engineer- ing professional community in their areas and thus were enabled to directly assist and critique the basic elements of the "career plan" during its formulation process. This functioning of the area council representatives greatly reduced the time span required to obtain a feeling of the probable reaction of the research community to the intent and purposes of the "plan". In a similar vein, the Navy also has a large Antisubmarine Warfare R&D Planning Group whose membership is derived from the major in-house and con- tract laboratories engaged heavily in Undersea Warfare work. This was estab- lished April 6, 1966. The group provides an important means of interchange of technical information. More importantly, this group has provided a basis for the genesis and conduct of interlaboratory projects which would be difficult to handle through normal administrative channels. Question No. `7. While the present Laboratories Committee of the Federal Council for Science and Technology is concerned with Government laboratories PAGENO="0195" 191 as such, with the ea~ception of Dr. Astin, its members are not working laboratory directors. What advantages and disadvantages wolAld you anticipate for a small council of Federal laboratory directors that would represent their views at the Ecoecutive Office level for both directly and contractor-operated Federal labora- tories? Answer. With respect to the establishment of a small council of laboratory directors, I believe that there are a number of positive advantages which could result from such an arrangement. The Federal laboratory directors could be broadened by exposure to problems on a national scale. Further, their ideas and inputs could add greater breadth and insight for the activities of the Committee. The representation of contractor-operated laboratories in the Committee is a moot question. There are those who believe that this would not be appropriate. Their motivation, needs, administrative arrangements, problems and relation- ships with their contracting agencies are considered quite different from Federal laboratories. This lack of commonality of specific needs and interest, together with the different framework for contract laboratories, makes their involvement in the Committee's activities of questionable value. On the other hand, there are those who feel that an arrangement such as this might offer many benefits. Both types of organizations could learn from one another. Contract laboratories may have solutions to management problems which seriously concern Federal laboratories, and vice versa. I believe that the Com- mittee on Laboratories should test this suggestion out and determine its utility even if it were only in a limited area. Question No. 8. In what ways are the directors of yoi~r large, multipurpose laboratories kept informed of the scientific and technological content of new or changed Government functions, such as those of the Department of Transporta- tion or the Department of Housing and Urban Development? (a) What incen.tiives are there for your laboratory directors to give thought to such matters in addition to their primary responsibilities to your program? (b) Are DoD laboratory directors authorized to fund research relevant to national problems which may be outside the strict mission objectives of DoD? Answer. I should begin by pointing out that there are few problems in other agencies which do not have Defense relevance. We have strong interests in health, housing, education, training, weather forecasting, oceanography, stand- ardization, criminal investigation, etc., to name a few. We have had a three-year program in gun detection and are involved in riot control measures. With the exception of relatively few areas (e.g., air and water pollution), our broad interests are similar to those in most other agencies. We differ only in specifics. As a natural consequence of these common interests, laboratories keep in- formed of new and emerging national programs. In addition, there is much high level collaboration with other agencies with resultant specific assignments to intlividual laboratories. For example, we participate in the Inter-Agency Corn- mittee on Atmospheric Sciences (ICAS) which involves collaborative efforts in oceanography, meteorology and such specific activities as clear air turbulence. We have participated and have close communication with HUD on an experi- mental housing program. As I mentioned in my testimony, the DoD laboratories work closely with NASA, AEC and DOT in areas of aircraft, space vehicles, nuclear programs, and transportation. Another motivating factor is that our laboratories must keep up-to-date with science and technology which evolve from other agencies' programs also because of their potential use in furthering DoD's mission. Thus a great deal of the responsibility for keeping up with such programs rests with the individual laboratories. The technical directors of these laboratories/centers are expected to maintain close contact with all new Federal and/or commercial work and developments which are related to their mission areas or may impact on their ability to accom- plish their assigned missions, and in most cases do. There are relatively few incentives for our laboratory directors to stimulate work in non-DoD relevant areas, nor in our opinion should there be. Most labora- tories/centers are under heavy pressure by program sponsors to devote all their resources to the execution of agreed programs within the over-all mission of the activity. This pressure is reinforced by the common requirement to use appropriated funds for their intended purpose. While DoD laboratory directors cannot divert mission funds to support pro- grams outside of the DoD mission, the independent research funds provided to laboratories may be used for this purpose. However, the after-the-fact review on the utilization of these funds for such purposes would soon discourage it. PAGENO="0196" 192 DoD laboratory directors can and do take on specific projects for other Gov- ernment agencies on a fund reimburseable basis. In general, the decision to do so rests with the laboratory director, and is shared with his management agency. However, the major constraint here is personnel ceiling. If significant additional manpower is required, it must generally be obtained through the performing agency rather than the agency with the problem. It is for this reason I recom- mend that consideration be given to the elimination of manpower ceilings for cross-agency work. Let me re-emphasize again that we must be careful in assigning non-agency missions to existing laboratories. We m:ust not so dilute their performance that they lose the very focus which made them a quality laboratory. Question No. 9. Based on your experience, what advantages and disadvantages would you see in an office of Government laboratory management located at the level of or withi~n the Office of Science an4 Technology? Such an office would be analagous to the present Office of the Assistant Director (Laboratory Man- agement), in the Department of Defense's Office of Defense Research and Engineering. Answer. In terms of improving the ability of the DoD to accomplish its mission, I can see no advantage in the establishment of such an office in OST. In fact, it would add an additional echelon and would certainly retard our ability to take decisive action in a timely fashion. As far as I can determine, there has been no problem in obtaining the support of other agencies for the priority needs of the DoD. In certain areas the OST has been directly involved in assisting us to achieve our objectives either through studies by PSAC or the FCST. We will and have assisted new agencies in the performance of R&D to support their mission, at least during the early, formative years. The direct assistance of OST is seldom needed since the agencies involved can work out mutually acceptable arrangements with a minimum of difficulty. There may be one function which OST could perform or for which it could provide leadership. When a new agency is established, a new, important pro- gram emerges, or an existing program takes on added importance or priority, OST could appraise their RDT&E needs in terms of existing capability and assist the new program or agency in obtaining the required assistance. I must emphasize, however, that the day-to-day management and the decision- making process must remain with the agency heads who are really the only ones who can assure the proper balance, purpose and priorities of his laboratory structure in relation to the needs of his total mission. Question No. 10. It has been said that within Government we tend to force everything into one prescribed pattern whether it fits well or not. Do you believe that Federal laboratories operate most efficiently under the same current sys- tem of controls over manpower, dollars and facility acquisitions as for other types of organiaztions? Do you believe it is possible or desirable to tailor a sys- tem of controls for creative organization which might differ significantly from the "standard" control system? What would be the advantages? The disadvan- tages? Cite examples. Answer. The evidence is overwhelming that the standard patterns of Gov- ernment operation are unhealthy for laboratories. We must find a way to create a management climate for the Federal laboratories equal to the most progressive, high technology industrial organizations. Virtually every study that has been made of the in-house laboratory system has been critical, in varying degrees, of the management of manpower, facilities, funding and personnel resources. Responsibility over these resources are fragmented among many staff agencies, whose concerns and interests are much broader than merely RDT&E. Within the Government, RDT&E activities are bound too often by practices designed for logistical and operational activities-in contrast to the more gen- erally recognized practices of industrial organizations, which are tailored spe- cifically for the creative, laboratory-type organization. In spite of these constraints, however, we find many successful laboratories which have found a way around the rigidity in the system or have been some- how protected from these patterns. We have also made a great deal of progress within the Federal Personnel System. Many special provisions have been pro- vided to give flexibiltiy with respect to personnel administration. Part of the problem is that a great deal of the flexibility available just isn't being used. Within DoD we have initiated a concerted effort to see that these flexibilities are available to and utilized by the laboratory directors. Comparable increased flexibihties in other resource areas are also needed. PAGENO="0197" 193 Part of the problem in Government is size, coupled with the check and balance system under which we operate. As a former manager of industrial R&D, I was given certain fiuiaiicial and technical objectives to achieve each year, a budget within which I had to operate, and a great deal of authority to carry out techni- cal operations. If I did not meet the objectives, the penalty was spelled out, or at least understood-fired or shelved. The incentives for achieving or exceeding them were also well understood. I was part of a larger organization and therefore had to interact with force and situations outside my own domain. We had a check-and-balance system like the Government's, but I believe we had more emphasis on the "balances" and less on the "checks". I had ready access to the policy level, which is more possi- ble in a smaller organization, and I could always have my day in court. This doesn't mean that I didn't lose a few appeals, but the opportunity to appeal was there. Probably one of my greatest management fiexibilities was that I could niake the hire and fire decisiOns and had the authority to deploy my technical re- sources rapidly to meet new situations. I believe that with the application of many of these same principles to the creative RDT&E functions within Government, we would soon see evidence of in- creased efficiency and effectiveness. The advantages could be in terms of more rapid decision-ma~-ing and lower costs of operations through reduction in super- vi~ory levels, unnecessary reporting, and administrative overhead. A major dis- advantage could be the weakening of the organizational ties between a labo- ratory and its parent agency. Shifting the balance too far toward complete self- determination could tend to isolate a laboratory from the mainstream activities of its parent. However, I am positive that a proper and balanced relationship (Olild be achieved. Question. No. Ii. ~OJiie people believe that manpower ceilings for laboratories act itally promote waste and ~1n.effi.eiency, and they cite industrial practices as an (`rain pie where such a technique is seldom used. Do you believe that manpower (eihngs are or are not an effective management tool? TVhy? Answer. It is difficult to examine a single control in the context of the question asked. The problem generally is the multiplicity of many overlapping controls which seriously impede the optimum allocation of resources. I believe that too little attention has beeii paid to the combined impact of niany individual resource controls upon the effectiveness of an organization. As an example, we recently made a theoretical study° of the impact on operational effectiveness of three overlapping controls which were in effect at the time 1. Control of lmigh~grade positions. 2. Control over average salary. 3. Control over manpower ceilings. In our study, we used indifference curves and maximizing principles of eco- miomw ammalysis to demonstrate how management control over these three factors l)reVellt the line manager from optimizing his organization's effectiveness. For the sake of sinmplicity and clarity, we restricted the analysis to a two-din~en- sional framework, although it can easily be extended to as many dimensions as desired, depending upon the miumber of inputs. The detamls of the analysis are given in a tab to this question. As may be seen, ~`articularly in Figures and S of the Tab A, the general effects of these simul- tmnieous contraints is to reduce the ability of a local line manager to achieve oumtinimn effectiveness and l)roductivity. Further, an important point to remem- ber is that appl'cation of such simultaneous controls cannot increase effectiveness but can only reduce it. Manpow'er controls are really an indirect attempt to control dollars. I would prefer to attack the principal problem directly, rather than indirectly. *Nfcolai, F. A., Management Analysis Note MAM 65-2, ODDR & E, October 1, 1965. PAGENO="0198" 194 THEORETICAL ANAI~YSIS OF IMPACT ON OPERATIONAL EFFECTWENESS BY CONTROL OF HIGH GRADES, AVERAGE SALARY ANI) MANPOWER SPACES Suppose that the professional personnel of an organization (~. g., a laboratory) can be divided into two subsets, the GS-13s and below (GS-13--) and the GS-14s and above (GS-14+). Let A represent the number of GS-13s- and B, the number of GS-14sũ. Further, let u~ assume that the productIvity of a typIcal employee within each grade range can be measured and that overall productivity varies according to the mix of A and B. On this basis, the following diagram (Figure 1) may be con- structed: Figure 1 U2 ~ ~ 4 ~ A2 A3 A The curves labeled 1, 2, 3 and 4 correspond to isoproductivity curves. Thus, line 1 represents the combinations of A and B that yield an equal level of produc- tivity; line 2 represents a higher level of productivity than line 1, and so on. With an input mix of A2, B2, for instance, productivity is E(A2, B2). If A2 is held con- stant and the number of GS-14s+ is raised to B3, then productivity increases; that is, E(A2, B~) >E(A~, B2). Similarly, E(A3, B2) >E(A2, B2). PAGENO="0199" 195 Several other important points about the diagram should be noted: The lowest level of productivity, represented by curve 1, is asymptotic to Bi~i~, which repre- sents the minimum of GS-14s+ that must be hired to reach any positive level of productivity. Moreover, all the curves have a flat, negative slope throughout: The negative slope indicates that both A and B have positive productivity, i. e., there is no negative productivity. The curve's flatness indicates that, in any possible input mix, the GS-14s+ are always more productive than the GS-13s-; that is~, assuming that we seek to maintain the same level of productivity, if B is decreased by 1, we must increase A by more than 1. Also, the isoproductivity curves are convex to the origin: ~ ~ for A~O, B~O). This property depends upon the assumption of diminishing marginal productivity. For example, refer to Figure 2: At point E on curve 1, a decreaseABE in the num- ber of GS-14s+ requires an increase AAE in the number of GS-13s- in order that total productivity remain constant. Figure 2 A However, at point F, where the relative number of GS-14s+ is smaller, the same decrease in the number of GS-14s+ (ABF = ABE) requires a larger increase in the number of GS-13s- (AAF>'L\AE) to keep the total productivity constant. This con- dition does not appear unreasonable, for the GS-14sũ may perform some tasks more efficiently than the GS-13s--. If the curves were concave to the origin, this would be equivalent to making an assumption of increasing marginal productivity; i. e., as the GS-14s+ become relatively fewer, it will take fewer and fewer GS-13s- to replace the same number of GS-14sũ. * * Maximizing Productivity, Given a Budget Constraint Suppose the isoproductivity curves are represented as in Figures 1 and 2. Let ~A = salary (cost) paid a G3-13--; let PB = salary (cost) paid a GS-14+; and let Q the total budget available for salaries. Then, ~A . A ũ ~ B ~ Q. Now, superimpose this linear budget constraint on the productivity contour surface, as in Figure 3. PAGENO="0200" 196 p!1 -A+P .DQ;~-~1- D d.~ A Given Q, we now maximize our productivity by hiring A = Aop, B = B0~, since at this point the budget line reaches-and is tangent to-the highest isoproductivity curve. This method vitally depends on the convex nature of the isoproductivity carves. Effect of Limitation on Number of GS-14s+(B) Let us state the constraint imposed by a limitation on the number of GS-14s+ in tIN following manner: thus, = maximum allowable number of GS-14s+; BŦ=B. Figure 3 A0~ Figure 4 A0~ Wnen B = B1>B~p, the constraint is irrelevant, because, given Q = Qo, the opti- mum mix is A0~, ~p, with effectiveness (productivity) equal to E(Aop, Bop). PAGENO="0201" 197 When B B~ < Bop, and given Q = Q~, the highest productivity is at point (A2, 132). Yet the costs of the two mixes are the same-both fall on the line Pp,.A~P~.B=QQ. V C(A2, ~2) C(A0~, E~~) = Q. V V but V V E(A2, B2) 0, and (S-PB) E(AS1, Bsi). Tkius when the average-salary constraint is not iri~elevant, tiveness in terms of productivity per dollar of cost. - Effect of Control over Total Spaces The statement of this constraint is A + B = N. B _____ it always reduces effec- A+t3fl0 A Once again, when N = N0 the constraint is irrelevant, and when N = Ni it re- duces effectiveness. PAGENO="0203" 199 * . . General }~esult From the preceding examples it becomes apparent that the general effect of these types of control is to diminish the decision space available to the local line manager and thus to make it less probable that he will be able to achieve an optimum level of operation in regard to cost-effectiveness. (See Figure 8.) 0 OB'A', the original decision space, is defined by the single budget constraint. The shaded area represents the reduccd decision space after the three constraints have been drawn. As shown here, the budget constraint has become irrelevant-which may not always be the case. The addition of one or more constraints may or may not reduce the cost- effectiveness of the operation by a large amount. The important point to remember, however, is that such constraints or controls cannot increase effectiveness but can only reduce it. Moreover, it is most unlikely that, by some mystical process, the simultaneous imposition of these controls would force the local manager to make a decision that would have been optimum without them. The major point is that these three controls, which represent indirect attempts to control dollars rather than other resources such as manpower, can only reduce operating effectiveness; they can in no way increase it. Figure 8 PA. Aũ PB . A' A PAGENO="0204" 2. General Method 200 1. Methodology and Outline The indifference curves and maximizing principles of economic analysis are used here to demonstrate how management controls over high grades, average salary and manpower spaces prevent the line manager who is limited to a certain dollar budget from optimizing his organization's effectiveness. For the sake of simplicity and clarity, the analysis is restricted to a two~dimensional framework, although it can easily be extended to as many dimensions as desired, depending on the number of inputs. First, the. general method of optimizing the allocation of resources is dis- cussed, and then the impact of each control is separately analyzed. Suppose that the professional personnel of an organization Ce. g., a laboratory) can be divided into two subsets, the GS-13s and below (GS-13-) and the GS-14s and above (GS-14+). Let A represent the number of GS-13s- and B, the number of GS-14s+. Further, let us assume that the productivity of a typical employee within each grade range can be measured and that overall productivity varies according to the mix of A and B. On this basis, the following diagram (Figure 1) may be con- structed: B Figure I BMI A2 A3 The curves labeled 1, 2, 3 and 4 correspond to isoproductivity curves. Thus, line 1 represents the combinations of A and B that yield an equal level of produc- tivity; line 2 represents a higher level of productivity than line 1, and so on. With an input mix of A2, B2, for instance, productivity is E(A2, B2). If A2 is held con- stant and the number of GS-14s+ is raised to B3, then productivity increases; that is, E(A2,B3)~E(A2, B2). Similarly, E(A3, B2)~E(A2, B2). PAGENO="0205" 201 Several other important points about the diagram should be noted: The lowest level of productivity, represented by curve 1, is asymptotic to Bmin, which repre- sents the minimum of GS-14s+ that must be hired to reach any positive level of productivity. Moreover, all the curves have a flat, negative slope throughout. The negative slope indicates that both A and B have positive productivity, i. e., there is no negative productivity. The curve's flatness, indicates that, in any possible input mix, the GS-14sũ are always more productive than the GS-13s-; that is,, assuming that we seek to maintain the same level of productivity,, if B is decreased by 1, we must increase A by more than 1. Also, the isoproductivity curves are convex to the origin: (-~-<~, -~-~`o for A~O, B?O). This property depends upon the assumption of diminishing marginal productivity. For example, refer to Figure 2: At point E on curve 1, a decrease ~BE in the num- ber of GS-14s+ requires an increase ~AE in the number of GS-13s- in order that total productivity remain constant. Figure 2 B However, at point F, where the relative number of GS-14s+ is smaller, the same decrease in the number of GS-14sũ (~BF = ABE) requires a larger increase in the number of GS-13s-- (AAF>~.AAE) to keep the total productivity constant. This con- dition does not appear unreasonable, for the GS-14s+ may perform some tasks more efficiently than the GS-13s-. If the curves were concave to the origin, this would be equivalent to making an assumption of increasing marginal productivity; i. e., as the GS-14s+ become relatively fewer, it will take fewer and fewer GS-13s - to replace the same number of GS-14s+. 3. Maximizing Productivity, Given a Budget Constraint Suppose the isoproductivity curves are represented as in Figures 1 and 2. Let ~A = salary (cost) paid a GS-13-; let PB = salary (cost) paid a GS-14+; and let Q = the total budget available for salaries. Then, ~A . A + ~B. B ~ Q. Now, superimpose this linear budget constraint on the productivity contour surface, as in Figure 3. PAGENO="0206" 202 Figure 3 Given Q, we now maximize our productivity, by hiring A = A0~, B = Bop, since at this point the budget line reaches-and is tangent to-the highest isoproductivity curve. This method vitally depends on the convex nature of the isoproductivity curves. 3. 1 Effect of Limitation on Number of GS-14s+(B) Let us state the constraint imposed by a limitation on the number of G3-14sũ in the following manner: = maximum allowable number of GS-14s+; thus, B Ŧ= B. B~Q0 A0~ A Figure 4 When B = ~1>Bop, the constraint is irrelevant, because, given Q = ~ the opti- mum mix is A0~, Bop, with effectiveness (productivity) equal to E(Aop, Bop). PAGENO="0207" 203 When B = B2 < Bop, and given Q = Q~,, the highest productivity is at point (A2, B2). Yet the costs of the two mixes are the same-both fall on the line PA . A + ~B. B = Q~. C(A2, B2) = C(Aop, Bop) = but E(A2, B2) 0, and (S-PB) E(ASi, BS1). Thus when the average-salary constraint is not irrelevant, it always reduces effec- tiveness in terms of productivity per dollar of cost. 3.3 Effect of Control over Total Spaces The statement of this constraint is A + B = N. A+BN0 A Once again, when N = N0 the constraint is irrelevant, and when N = N1 It re- duces effectiveness. - SO~PA Slope ~B ~ 51-PA Slope=- rB_Si the constraint is irrelevant. c><>< >< Hydrology Transportation >< Waste disposal >< Power generation and distribution ><><)< Environmental pol- lution and control ><>(>(><>< Laboratory and test facilities Urban planning ><><~ >~ ><~ ><><~ ><~ ~< Urban administration and intergovern- mental relations >(~ )<)<)( Urban renewaland community facilities ~~i >~><: >~` >~: Public safety ><><><~ Earthquakes, floods, etc. >< ><>< )<><>c)< Social and behavioral sciences directed to urban problems -4 2 -4 C,, 2 0) 2 C) C,, 2 -4 2 C,, C) = 2 0 -u 2 -4 C, -4 -4 -v C,) 0 2 -4 -4 PAGENO="0290" 286 ATTACHMENT 3 FEDERAL CouNCIL FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, EXECUTIVE OFFICE BUILDING, Washington, DXL, October 11, 1967. Dr. JOHN S. FOSTER, Jr., Director of Defense Research and Engineering, Washington, DXI. DEAR JOHNNY: The establishment by the Department of Housing and Urban Development of an Office of Urban Technology and Research provides a much needed focal point for the planning and coordination of urban-related research and development undertaken by the Federal Govrenment. I have asked the Director of that Office, Mr. Thomas F. Rogers, to take the lead in identifying research programs throughout the Federal Government which bear upon the following five HUD PPBS categories: Housing Land use and community environment Public facilities and services Assistance to local government in administration Management of urban programs and resources His objective is to ensure that the HUD research program is sensibly related to other programs of common interest and to a-void unnecessary duplication. Of course, your understanding of HUD research plans should make possible refine- ments of program plans within your own and other agencies. Mr. Rogers will communicate with you directly, provide you with a copy of the HUD FY `69 research and development program-budget document, and dis- cuss specific areas of common interest. Your cooperation in this matter is greatly appreciated. Sincerely, DONALD F. HORNIG, Uhairnuin. IDENTICAL LETTERS SENT TO THE FOLLOWING FCST MEMBERS, INFORMATION COPY TO THOMAS F. RoGERs, HUD Dr. John S. Foster, Jr., Director of Defense Research & Engineering 3E1~X~6 The Pentagon, Wash., D.C., 20301 STOP 103 Dr. Leland J. Haworth, Director, National Science Foundation, Wash., D.C. 20550 STOP 19 Dr. John F. Kincaid, Asst. Secy for Science & Techno4ogy, Department of Com- merce, Wash., D.C. 20230 STOP 206 Dr. Philip R. Lee, Asst. Secy for Health & Scientific Affairs, Dept. of Health, Education, and Welfare, Wash., D.C. 20201 STOP 367 Dr. George L. Mehren, Assistant Secretary, Dept. of Agriculture, Wash., D.C. 20250 STOP 209 Dr. Milner B. Schaefer, Science Adviser to the Secretary, Dept. of the Interior, Wash., D.C. 20240 STOP 43 Dr. Glenn T. Seaborg, Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission, Wash., D.C. 20545 STOP 4 Dr. James E. Webb, Administrator, National Aeronautics & Space Administra- tion, Wash., D.C. 20546 STOP 85 Alan S. Boyd, Department of Transportation Mr. ROTJSH. The committee stands adjourned until 10 o'clock to- morrow morthng. (Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., the committee was adjourned, to re- convene at 10 a.m., Thursday, April 4, 1968.) PAGENO="0291" UTILIZATION OF FEDERAL LABORATORIES THURSDAY, APRIL 4, 1968 HousE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND ASTRONAUTICS, SUBCOMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, RESEARCH, AND DEVELOPMENT, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10 a.m., in room 2325, Ra~bum House Office Building, Hon. Emilio Q. Daddario (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Mr. DADDARIO. This meeting will come to order. This morning we change the emphasis of our hearings from the bmad question of the utilization of Federal laboratories to the specific question of how can technology be applied to a national problem such as crime. We are pleased to have as our first witness Dr. Alfred Blumstein, of the Institute of Defense Analysis. Dr. Blum,stein provided the overall direction of the Science and Teohnology Task Force report to the President's Crime Commission, and is perhaps one of the most knowl- edgeable men in this field. Our second witness is Mr. Quinn T'amm, executive director of the International Association of Ohiefs of Police. The association rep- resents some 7,000 independent police departments in the United States and Canada, and we look to it this morning for guidance about `how to best bring about the marriage of tedhnology to police requirements. `Our final witness today is Mr. Joseph M. English, director of Georgetown University's Forensic Sciences Laboratory. Mr. English has worked with NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center and the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology in applying space- and defense- developed technology to the needs of law enforcement officials, and his testimony should add a new dimension to the information already developed by the subcommittee. Will you proceed with your testimony, Dr. Blumstein? Dr. BLUMSTEIN. I have a prepared statement, and if you care to, I can read from it. If you would prefer, I could just submit it and elaborate on some of the major points. Mr. DADDARIO. We would like to have it included in full in the record, and then have you handle the presentation any way you see fit, recognizing that we have to go into session a little early this morning. (Dr. Blumstein's biography follows:) (287) PAGENO="0292" 288 DR. ALFRED BLUMSTEIN Alfred Blumstein is a member of the Research Council of the Institute for Defense Analyses, and is the director of IDA's Office of Urban Research. At IDA, he directed the work of the Science and Technology Task Force of the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice. He had previously been a principal operations analyst with the Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory. In 1963-64 he was a Visiting Associate Professor of Operations Research at Cornell University. Dr. Blumstein is a member of the Board of Directors of MORS, and in 1964-65, he served as President of the Washington Operations Research Council. He is now Chairman of the Cost-Effectiveness Section of ORSA. Dr. Blumstein has conducted and directed operations research studies in the fields of naval operations, air traffic control, counterinsurgency and criminal justice. Dr. Blumstein received the degrees of Bachelor of Engineering Physics from Cornell University, the MA. in statistics from the University of Buffalo, and the Ph.D. in operations research from Cornell University. STATEMENT OF DR. ALFRED BLUMSTEIN, INSTITUTE FOR DEFENSE ANALYSES Dr. BLUMSTEIN. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am honored to have the opportunity to contribute to your delibera- tions concerning the need for research and development in the control of crime, and on the possibilities of using the resources of the Federal laboratories to meet these needs. Although I speak today only as a private individual and not as a representative of any organization, my remarks are based on the in- vestigations I conducted as Director of the Science and Technology Task Force of the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice. It was during that period that I became impressed with both the urgent needs for a research and development program and the im- portant contribution it could make in creating a criminal justice sys- tem that is both more fair and more effective. In my testimony I would like first to demonstrate the urgent need for such a research and development program and the potential im- provements that could result from it. I would then like to indicate some of the requirements for laboratories that will participate in that effort. Need for research and development Our Task Force on Science and Technology was composed largely of scientists and engineers experienced in modern technology, much of it deriving froni work with military weapon systems. We were all amazed at the primitive level of technology with which the criminal justice system is forced to do its job. In general, we were surprised to learn how undercapitalized is the criminal justice system: A $3,000 investment in a police car supports a $100,000 annual patrol operation; over 85 percent of most police budgets are used to pay salaries. Some policemen are forced to stand idle on a street corner even though there may be an emergency nearby simply because they have no portable radios by which headquarters could reach them. Motorized policemen who leave their radio-equipped cars cannot call for help if they are attached because they now have no link to PAGENO="0293" 289 the car's radio. In contrast, many appliance repair companies now maintain continuous radio contact with their repairmen out in the field. The car sent to an emergency is often other than the closest one because the dispatcher does not now know its correct position and availability, a capability that can be provided automatically. In confronting a crime suspect or an unruly citizen, a policeman is forced to choose between a billy and a pistol-the same choice he was offered a century ago. Nonlethal weapons with a longer range than the billy but without a pistol's disabling characteristics are needed. Although most of a patrolman's activities center about his vehicle, most police cars differ only slightly from the car a suburban house- wife uses for her-grocery shoppi,ng.~ Cars designed specifically for police use would include convenithit i~adio controls, cathode ray tube displays, teleprinters, nonlethal weapons, cameras and other evidence collection kits, audio or video recording equipment, and specially de- signed rear compartments for the transport of prisoners. Fingerprints left at the scene of a crime cannot normally be traced to an unknown suspect, partly because the systems used are little dif- ferent from those first introduced at the beginning of this century. New instrumentation techniques, permitting identification by voice, hair, blood, or clothing, are becoming increasingly effective, Unfor- tunately, their high cost and technical complexity have prevented most police departments from using them more widely. Court records are written and rewritten by hand even though many small businessmen use central computers to help maintain their inventories. More generally, computers can be used throughout the system to help in providing immediate access to information needed for solution of specific crimes, for help in making sentencing and correctional de- cisions regarding the roughly 2 million convicted persons each year, and for more efficient management of the more than a half million persons employed by the criminal justice system. Even more important than all these technological needs and oppor- tunities, however, is the fundamental need to discover the impact on crime of the many actions taken to control it. Very little is known to even a rough approximation about how much any prevention, appre- hension, and rehabilitation program will reduce crime. And without such knowledge, how can we intelligently choose among them? Patrol by marked police cars which demonstrate a visible threat to a potential criminal is widely accepted as good police practice, being known as preventive patrol. But it is not clear what kinds of crime such patrol prevents, and how much of each. Nor is it clear under what circumstances patrol in marked police vehicles is more effective than patrol in unmarked vehicles, or whether using police resources in this way is more effective than assigning these same police officers to de- tailed followup investigation on specific crimes or to other kinds of preventive activity. I don't presume to have answers to such questions. However, neither do the most vehement advocates of either side. Only thrpugh a care- fully developed research program will we be able to Identify the factors that give rise to various kinds of criminal behavior and the PAGENO="0294" 290 consequences of each of the many kinds of possible actions that might be taken to control them. The work of our Science and Technology Task Force identified some of the basic questions in a form that now makes them amenable to research. in some of our early discussions, we wondered about what portion of our society is ever arrested. By analysis of various data on arrests and on arrest records we calculated that approximately one-half of the boys in the TJnited States today will be arrested some time in their lives for a nontraffic offense. This estimate may not be exactly correct, and in any event, is not a literal prediction of the future. Rather, it is a projection based on current trends-changes in the future could well reverse these trends. Perhaps even more shocking than the the figures itself, however, is the fact that so fundamental a question had not been explored previously. Furthermore, when the answer to so basic a question is surprising to so many, we can only conclude that much too little is known about what is going on in the criminal justice system. Mr. DADDARIO. How can you predict that this 50-percent figure will hold up if, in fact, you do not know some of the answers to these ques- tions? How do you reach that particular point, and then say we do not know what the problems really are? I don't follow that logic. Dr. BLUMSTEIN. First, let me say that it is not a prediction, but a projection, and I make that distinction. Mr. DADDARIO. Going up to a certain point you take these- Dr. BLtTMSTEIN. If we use current arrest rates rather than projecting their trend-the trend has been increasing-and if we project popula- tion trends into the future, then we can estimate the chance that a boy will be arrested at any age. Mr. DADDARIO. At any rate, the point is that you are arriving at this figure in a statistical way? Dr. BLUMSTEIN. Yes, sir. Mr. DADDARIO. Then, the other problem is getting to the heart of the problem; why this is so? Dr. BLUM5TEIN. That is right. Once the issue becomes one of concern, then you ask why it is so. And no one knows why. Some of the pos- sibilities are derived from increasing urbanization, leading to people having less knowledge of each other, with more frequent resort to a formal system for the resolution of problems. Mr. DADDARIO. If we have better answers to our social and economic problems, and we attack them in the right way, they might have the effect of turning these statistics of yours downward? Dr. BLUMSTEIN. That is right. Mr. DADDARIO. And if not that, 50 percent could perhaps become a low figure? Dr. BLUMSTEIN. That is right. Mr. DADDARIO. it is important that we come to some realization of the nature of these problems. Dr. BLUMSTEIN. We need figures like that to highlight where the critical issues are. For example, it may be that we are spreading the criminal sanction t~ thin and so that when you arrest many people, there maybe less concern about being arrested in the future. One of the things that prevents me from committing crime is the fact that PAGENO="0295" 291 I don't want an arrest record, but once I have an arrest record I might be less concerned about having a second. I don't know, but these are some of the things that have to be considered. We also need such analysis techniques to decide where to invest technological resources so that they can be effectively applied to our bathe objective or reducing crime. To illustrate this, we collected data from Los Angeles on the factors that give rise to apprehension of criminals. We found, as we expected, that rapid police response to a crime call gave rise to more appr~hensions. But we were surprised to find that unless the suspect is caught at the scene of the crime, or is identified by a victim or witness, the chances of ever catching him may be less than 12 percent. We then compared alternative technological means for getting to the crime scene faster: more patrol cars, more telephone clerks `answering citi- zens' calls, car-locator devices to find `the closest patrol cars, and com- puter-assisted command and control systems in the command center. For the conditions of the `hypothetical city we examined, we found that delay could be reduced most inexpensively by the most expensive mvestment: computer automation of the command center, and this needs further development and adaption to particular cities. This was the best `investment to reduce delay, which is correlated with apprehension by the police, which by the theory of deterrence is presumed to reduce crime. Sucih a chain of reasoning `is necessary to make optimum teidhuological choices, and ail the `links in any such chain need consideraible strengthening. Another place such analysis tedhniques can be `beneficial is in the management of the courts. Through a computer simulation of the processing of persons arrested for felonies through the District of Odlunthia court system, we were able to show that the processmg through the grand jury was the critical bottleneck, and to experiment with various possible changes in the operation of that court system- all without disrupting the critical ongoing operations of the court. These very preliminary steps we `have taken in only a few `areas have convinced us that there is a significant contribution to come from a major `research and develo~pment program. And we have not even touched on such areas `as identifying basic causes of crime, treating drug addiction, planning a strategic `attack on organized crime enter- prises, selection and training of criminal justice officials, and many other areas that properly belong in a research and development pro- gram. In view of this potentiai,it is surprising that until the Office of Law Enforcement Assistance was esbaihlished in 1965, the Justice De- partment was the oniy `Oaibinet Department in the Federal Government with no research and devct:opment progam. Need for a Federal role It may very well be that the application of science and technology to criminal justice has been retarded so long as a result of the fragmenta- tion of the criminal justice system. Only a handful of criminal justice agencies are large enough and rich enough to undertake major re- search or equipment development projects on `their own. There may be little incentive for them to do so, since that would probably be an inefficient investment of resources for any one of them. Although the results would benefit all, the innovator alone would have to bear the high cost. Even if the individual agencies independently conducted PAGENO="0296" 292 their own projects, we would probably see many of them pursuing identical questions not knowing of the work and results of the others. Furthermore, there would be little incentive for an individual agency to disseminate the results of its work to other agencies that might be able to use them. This is a typical situation which calls for some centralized stimiņa- tion and coodin'ation. Ideally, this stiould be done by the Federal (3ov- ernment, which would coordinate the work throughout the Nation. The National Crime Commission recommended four mutually sup- porting `approa&es to an R. & D. program. Their program comprised the following elements: (1) Support of an R.D.T. & E. program supporting specific projects at specific operating agencies, univesities, industry, or any other source of technical skill. (2) Establishment of an agency to provide technical assistance to criminal justice agencies as a county agricultural agent does for the farmer. The agency or a related one would also establish common equip- ment standards~ thereby providing some of the advantages of a large market to this highly fragmented one. Mr. DADDARIO. Don't you consider that the FBI presently serves this purpose? Dr. BLUMSTEIN. No, sir; the FBI does not evaluate police radios. They don't establish standards for police radios. For instance, they don't serve as that Bureau of Standards kind of function. They do serve in providing central crime laboratory services. They don't set standards. They don't publish the equivalent of a Consumer's Report. Mr. DADDARIO. What is your view as to that? Should they have been giving this kind .of assistance or do you feel they are doing what they should do? Since this seems to be something that needs to be done, and has been reported by the Crime Commission as being a requirement, why, in fact, haven't law enforcement people whose job it is to analyze these things, come to this assumption on their own? Dr. BLDTMSTEIN. Why hasn't the FBI moved? Mr. DADDARIO. Yes. Dr. BLUMSTEIN. I really couldn't say why the FBI hasn't done it. Mr. DADDARIO. It would appear to me without `analyzing it further that those of us in conrn-iunities throughout the country who support the FBI Academy and the training of local police officers do so `because we believe that these men will have training in techniques that are not available tothem at home. Dr. BLUMSThEN. They will have training in the techniques. Mr. DADDAR1O. But you don't believe that goes far enough? Dr. BLUMSTFJIN. We are talking about a rather specialized technical function, establishment of equipment standards and evaluation of equipment, that a police officer is not normally called upon tie do. It probably would not `be a worthwhile part of the FBI Academy curri- culum to spend very much time on issues like that. It is sort of a service that has to be performed as new equipment conies out and as needs start to crystallize. It is much more technical than operational, but it must have an operational input. It is a service like the Bureau of Standards, like Consumer Reports, like Underwriters. Mr. DADDARIO. I am not saying that the FBI should do it or should not do it. I `am just trying to probe the reason why. It would `appear to PAGENO="0297" \~ 293 me that if these techniques, in fact, could be helpful in solving some of our problems as far as crime is concerned, that it is deplorable that they have not been done. This is not a charge, yet you raise the point. You say it ought not to be done. If it is not done by the people who have the law enforcement responsibility, who is it that should do it? Dr. BLUMSTEIN. The FBI has the prime authority of enforcing the Federal law; in many cases, the enforcement of the Federal law in- volves operating like a local police department. Mr. D~muuo. We are kind of chasing ourselves around. The fact is we are under the assumption, notwithstanding what you are saying, that the FBI can give help. In almost every community of the country we send men to the academy with the expectation that when they come back they will be better able to perform their local duties. Dr. BL1TMSTEIN. That is right. Mr. DADDARIO. What you are saying is that this does not necesssarily happen? Dr. BLUMSTEIN. No. I am saying is that doesn't happen in every respect, and I don't think anyone would expect it to happen in every respect. The FBI is not universally wise and able and can't perform all the functions that might be needed to help local law enforcement. Here is one function that is needed that they have not, in fact, taken a major role in. Mr. DADDARIO. Mr. Brown. Mr. BROWN. Would it be appropriate at this point, because I think this is a very interesting aspect that you bring up, to ask from the appropriate source that the FBI curriculum for training be inserted in the record together with the nature of their crime laboratory facili- ties. I have a feeling that we do not have too much information about this, just how broad their operations are, and I think it is relevant at this point. I have seem many local policemen come back here to training. I have felt that perhaps the greatest problem was that these people were not, by their own training and background, capable of absorbing, for example, concepts of systems analysis or high-level technology with regard to the local police problems. I am interested to know if there is any effort made to do this in the school. Mr. DADDARIO. Mr. Brown, you raise a good point. We will inquire into that. I frankly have been of the opinion that they have been doing a good job and that they have, in fact, been providing some of this kind of technical assistance. (The following information has been furnished by the FBI:) PAGENO="0298" 294 FBI NATIONAL ACADEMY CunRIcuLuM Set forth below is the general curriculum of the twelve weeks' course of train- ing of the FBI National Academy. LAW AND INVESTIGATIONS Criminal law and court procedures Legal Aspects of.Interrogations and Confessions Evidence Federal Civil Rights Statutes Law of Arrest, Search of the Person, Premises and Vehicles, Legal Aspects of Stop, Frisk and Detain and seminar on related legal problems Legal Aspects of Lineups Legal Aspects of Roadblocks Medical-Legal Aspects of Homicide Investigations Police Legislation Police Liability The Constitution and the Bill of Rights The Judge's View of Criminal Law The Law Enforcement Officer and the Courts The Juvenile Court Investigations and case preparation Auto Theft Bank Robbery Bombings Counterfeiting Investigative Aids and Techniques Major Case Investigations Narcotics Sex Crimes Unlawful Flight to Avoid Prosecution POLICE ADMINISTRATION Management and policy Crime Analysis-Prevention, Planning, Allocation and Distribution of Forces Development and Training of Supervisory Personnel Disciplinary Problems Inspections Management of Auxiliary Police Mob and Riot Control-Practional Problems, Police Procedures and Dem- onstration National Crime Information Center Police Budgets Police Management including Administrative Devices and Controls, Selection and Recruitment, Police Cadets, Police Personnel Management, Evalua- tion of Personnel, Supervisory and Executive Development, Decision Mak- ing, Evaluation of Personnel and Practical Problems on Management Matters Police Records Policy and Planning Supervision of Reports Uniform Crime Reports BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES Social psychology Caustive and Psychological Factors in Mob and Riot Control Gaining Support for Law Enforcement Human Relations in Management Nation of Islam Police Ethics Police Techniques in Handling Juveniles Psychology in Law Enforcement The Chief of Police as a Community Leader Relations Between Press and Law Enforcement PAGENO="0299" 295 sociology Communism and Related Movements Criminology Espionage Jurisdiction of Federal Agencies Organized Crime Police and Community Relations Sociology Social Aspects of Crime Education Classroom Orientaticm; Making Notes in Class; Use of Typewriter Dynamics of Instruction Evaluating Results of Training Human Relations in Learning Operating Police Training Schools Research Methods Subsidized Police Training Physical education Physical Training Program Including Defensive Tactics, Judo, Operation of a Physical Training Program Techniques and Mechanics of Arrest Vocational education Firearms Training Public Speaking-Techniques and Practical Work Surveillance Photography Photography in Law Enforcement SCIENCE Biology an4 serology Blood and Body Fluids Hairs and Fibers (Jhomi~try Chemistry in Crime Detection Ide,vtiftcation techniques Document Examinations Identification of Disaster Victims Fingerprint Identification Matters Including Latent Fingerprints T~aboratery techniques and research Organization of FBI Laboratory Soils and Minerals Metals Examinations Firearms, Toolsmarks, Glass Fractures and Explosives Shoe Prints and Tire Examination Physics in Crime Detection and Radiation Hazards FBI LABORATORY In the early ~9~Ø~5 very little use was made of science in law enforcement. Occasionally the FBI called on a scientist to perform a specific examination, but this left much to be desired since most of these men bad neither the facilities to do the work nor the training to intelligently present evidence before a court and jury. FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover realized that most scientific techniques and their application to the examination of physical evidence were outside the realm of most law enforcement officers. He was convinced, however, the tech- nological aid offered by science could become a most valuable parther in the fight against crime and could make available important evidence in a court of law when properly interpreted by a highly qualified expert witness. PAGENO="0300" 296 In the early 1930's Mr. Hoover launched a program to locate scientists whose l~nowledge and experience might be used to guide a new scientific laboratory. On August 1, 1932, purchase of the first equipment for research purposes was approved. One piece of scientific equipment slowly followed another, but this simple collection was far from being a real laboratory. There followed the immense task of staffing the new Laboratory and training its personnel. The FBI Laboratory was officially established on November 24, 1932. Gradually, scientists were recruited from specialized fields such as geology, metallurgy, mechanical engineering, mathematics, and other physical and biological scientists. Today, all Agents and many technicians assigned in the FBI Laboratory have at least one college degree and some hold Ph. D.'s in chemistry, physics, and other sciences. In addition, all have received extensive training in the FBI. The Agents assigned in the Laboratory have attended the same course of training which is received by all new FBI Agents. They also have served some time in one of `the FBI's 58 field offices where they obtained investigative experience before returning to FBI Headquarters to undertake their scientific assignments. Training is a never-ending process for the personnel assigned to the FBI Laboratory. They are in constant touch with other specialists in their field, attend and participate in numerous seminars, and constantly review scientific publications in their field of interest and responsibility. Many of them are continuing their formal education on a part-time basis or taking special courses. The evidence examination work in the FBI Laboratory is highly specialized. For this reason, the Laboratory is divided into sections and units. The units of the Document Section deal with examinations of handwriting, hand printing, typewriting, and forgeries. This Section also makes examinations of fraudulent checks, paper, inks, printing, obliterated writing, indented writing, charred paper, shoe prints, tire treads, photographs, and related matters. The Physics and Chemistry Section is composed of several units which handle examinations involving chemistry, toxicology, firearms, toolmarks, hairs and fibers, blood and other body fluids, metallurgy, petrography, number restoration, glass fractures, spectography, and a wide variety of related matters. The Radio Engineering Section consists of units which design and develop new radio communications equipment for use in the field, set up and maintain a network of radio stations for use in the event of an emergency, and serve in a consulting capacity in a large number of other matters relating to communi- cations. The Cryptanalysis-Translation Section is primarily responsible for examining cipher messages and translating documents encountered during the course of Bureau investigations or referred to the FBI by local law enforcement agencies. In addition to a wide variety of precision scientific equipment, the FBI Laboratory maintains a number of reference collections which are a valuable aid to the scientist. One of these, the National Fraudulent Check File, contains nearly 100,000 specimens of the work of fraudulent check artists. Others include firearms, ammunition, automotive paints, hairs and fibers, tire treads, water- marks, typewriter standards, anonymous letters and bank robbery notes. To insure that the FBI derives the maximum benefits of modern science, FBI Laboratory personnel are in regular contact with other scientists in Govern- ment, educational and private industry laboratories to keep abreast of new techniques and developments which might be applicable to scientific crime detection. Research in the FBI Laboratory also plays a vital role as FBI Labo- ratory personnel strive to develop new information and techniques which will assist the Nation's law enforcement profession maintain law and order. The knowledge and expertise so gained are disseminated through training lectures, scienttific papers, and personal appearances. During its first full year, the fiscal year ending June 30, 1934, the FBI Laboratory made 963 examinations. The number of examinations increased to 2,337 in the next fiscal year. The general acceptance that law enforcement has given to the importance of scientific analysis of evidence is illustrated by the fact that in the fiscal year 1007, some 330,516 examinations were made in the FBI Laboratory. These examinations often are responsible for the conviction of law breakers. Of equal, if not greater, importance is the fact that they fre- quently result in clearing the innocent. The facilities of the FBI Laboratory are available without charge to all duly constituted State, county, and municipal law enforcement agencies of the United States and its territorial possessions. In addition to making examinations of evidence submitted to the Laboratory for examination, the FBI will also PAGENO="0301" 297 FBI LABORATORY EXAMINATIONS MADE FOR NON-FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES FISCAL YEAR 1967 furnish the experts necessary to testify in connection with the results of their examinations in either State or Federal courts, all without cost to the law enforcement agency. Accordingly, the question of whether any such agency makes use of science in its investigations is almost entirely a matter of local option since the facilities and the service are available merely for the asking. Dr. BLUMsITIN. Let me continue then with the third component of this program: (3) Establishment of operations research groups within operating criminal justice agencies. These groups would conduct research on the operating problems of their organizations, and would serve as the technical link between the technically unsophisticated agencies in the criminal justice system and the broader technical community. (4) Creation of a single major research institute to conduct and actually carry out fundamental research in a continuous and coor- dinated way necessary to bring about the major reexamination needed by any system that has remained unchanged for so long. Mr. DADDARIO. Do you contemplate this as being separate and apart from any existing capability that we presently have? Do you support the idea that this should be a brand new research institute? Dr. BLiJMSTEIN. I think it should be a brand new research institute but- Mr. DADDARIO. Under whose guidance? Dr. BLUMSTEIN. I think it should be brand new, but it probably should be created by existing institutions, a multiuniversity consortium appended to something like the Rockefeller Institute, appended per- CANAL ZONE PUERTO RICO 12 HAWAII 337 VIRGIN ISLANDS, U.S.A. 107 TOTAL 73,503 1ji~1 PAGENO="0302" 298 haps to something like the Rand Corp. There are many forms which it could take, but I think it has to begin to assemble a unique collection of resources. Mr. DADDA1U0. Not under the control of the Attorney General's Office and within the jurisdiction of the Justice Department? Dr. BLUMSTEIN. I think it must be outside the Government. Mr. DADDARIO. How then would it relate itself back to the law enforcement people? Dr. BL1mIs~ri~IN. It should be in a major metropolitan center and operated in close coordination with operating criminal systems. It should not be serving under any operating system. It must have the freedom, I think, to really ask the basic questions that the system may find it uncomfortable to have asked if it is part of the system. The operating agencies would get their support from their own operations research groups. I think you need something that is separate and inde- pendent of these operating agencies. Mr. .DADDARIO. Why should anybody feel uncomfortable about this taking into consideration what you have said earlier? When I asked you a question about No. 2 you said that this really is outside of their province, and if it is, then they should not be uncomfortable. The reason I am asking you these questions is to find out whether or not you are critical about what is being done, and I am not able to elicit that from you. This would be extremely important if, in fact, you support this. You say that it should be outside of the present criminal justice activities, and if someone who is presently doing this work would be uncomfortable, then it would not be borne out by the questions I asked you regarding No. 2 would be ~cc4thin that same logical stream of authority. Dr. BLTJMSTEIN. I am sorry. First, very little is being done now in this whole area of research or development. Item No. 2 refers primarily to equipment to support operating agencies. I think that should be very responsive to their needs and very closely linked to the operating problems. Mr. DADDARIO. How can you create equipment to meet the problems you indicate exist and need to be met, without having the research that could lead to the development of the equipment needed? Dr. BLUMSTFIIN. The basic research I am talking about is not tech- nological research. I think the equipment needed in operating police departments is almost all on the shelf somewhere. It is a matter of choosing from what is available and tying it together in the right way. Although there are some exceptions to that, basically the equipment can be made available. It is not that you need basic physical research to provide new physical knowledge to get new equipment. The research that is needed is research into the operations of this system, into social causes of crime, into the impact on crime of the various things done in the name of controlling it. It is not basic physical research that is the critical bind. Item No. ~ is directed much more at research into the criminal justice system, into the process of police resources allocation, and not specifically the research that will lead to better radios. We know how to make the radios. It is a matter of coagulating the market, organizing the demand, and providing the wherewithal to get the radios introduced. PAGENO="0303" 299 These four functions are embodied in title III of the President's Safe Streets and Crime Control Act. The current bill, H.R. 5037, which passed the House on August 9, 1967, calls for the creation within the Department of Justice of a National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice. This agency, modeled in part after the National Institutes of Health, would support both an internal R. & D. program and external contract or grant activity. In addition, the bill calls for the creation of regional institutes serv- ing one or more States and conducting research, development, and trairnng for the prevention or reduction of crime. And these regional institutes would have a much closer relationship to the operating agencies. Mr. DADDA1UO. You conceive of this being regionally motivated rather than an itinerant type of task force which could give help where needed and where required without having to develop within the Federal structure? Dr. BLtTMSTEIN. The regional institutes themselves would end up being itinerant. Even if we had 10 of these, they would have to travel around and provide technical support to the many departments within their area of concern. Mr. DADDARTO. You are not indicating any real rigidity. You are leaning toward the idea that we ought to take the ways and means necessary to get help in these areas? Dr. BLUMSTEIN. That is right. I believe we are now witnessing the first steps by the Federal Gov- ernment to provide major support to State and local governments to help them carry out their own crime control functions. Requirements for new institutioii~ `As these developments occur, we will need many kinds of new insti- tutions to provide the technical support in our efforts to control crime and operate the criminal justice system. New institutions could be used in each of the four points I listed previously. These institutions will take many forms. I will leave it t'o those who have studied Federal laboratories more extensively and deeply than I to fit the functions to individual Federal laboratories where the Federal laboratories seem aippropriate. Of these new kinds of institutions, some will necessarily be attached to operating criminal justice agencies as internal technical or opera- tions research groups. Others will be in a similar technical relation- ship, but as independent consultants, perhaps serving one or many operating agencies. Still others will serve as the National Bureau 0ą Standards, Underwriters' Laboratories, and Consumers' Union serve their respective clientele. Much of the equipment development work would be contracted to industry or other R. & D. organizations. University research centers would be expected to develop a growing competence in specific theo- retical areas of investigation, examining such basic questions as who is deterred from what behavior by what social controls. The basic research institute, in order to bring together the required range of disciplines, and still retain the required mission orientation, would prthaibly have to be created anew, perhaps appended to a multi- university consortium or to an existing `research inStitution of very broad scope. PAGENO="0304" 300 The critical problems to be addressed by all these kinds of institu- tions are generally not those of enormous technical complexity. Two major exceptions to this generalization, where major technological advances are needed, are the problems of developing automatic finger- print recognition systems and nonlethal, noninjurious, but effective police weaponry. Rather than technical, the problems are more often ones of select- mg from a menu already rich in technical possibilities. That selection must take into account the operational needs of operating agencies, the danger of excessive invasion of privacy, as well as the technical characteristics of a new system. Then, there are additional problems in adapting a technical design to an operationally desirable form-human engmneerin~, but in a very broad sense-and finding the best means of incorporating the innovations into regular operations. This last task-of intimate technical adviser-is the kind of role per- formed by the service laiboratories in the Department of Defense. Any organization that is to participate in this process for the criminal justice system must commit itself to a cont:inuing involvement with the problems of crime control, including intimate interaction with the operating system. It must use that system as its laboratory, to collect data, to try out different innovations-always making sure that these do not violate basic rights of privacy, justice, and due process. After both the direct and side effects of an innovation are evaluated, the technical adviser can then identify the next round of innovations, thereby becoming involved in a continuing process of evolutionary improvement. In considering retreading of existing Federal laboratories, many of which are in remote parts of the country, location may be an import- ant consideration. The requirement for direct involvement with the operating system requires that such an organization be close to a major metropolitan area, just as our oceanographic institutes must be on the water and our radio and optical astronomy observatories must be separated from their respective interfering noise sources. The technical skills of the organization must match those called for by the problems. Any institution working on crime control must possess a broad range of technical skills, including computer sciences, electronics, and the physical sciences. It should be especially strong in systems analysis and the social sciences. Mr. DADDARIO. Are you going to give us some advice as to how to rate the cities? Dr. BLTJMSTEIN. I suspect that the process of choosing any location will apply. The resource availability, the opportunity for innovation, the pull of interests reflected in any decision- Mr. DADDARIO. Do you think in this case it might work the other way, that the city might not want to be known as the one where the crime institute is located? Dr. BLUMSTIEIN. I know several cities that would love to have the crime research center located there, cities that are really interested in innovation. I might add that the institution should be prepared to add lawyers and legislators to its staff. Any such laboratory must get the in~ight that we on the Science and Technology Task Force were most fortunate to be able to get PAGENO="0305" 301 from the Crime Commission staff. A separate laboratory will have to get it into their own staff. To the extent that a Federal laboratory can meet these requirements, can establish the close and continuing relationships with the ongoing operations, and is ready and able to recruit the appropriate range of professional skills, to that extent it can make a significant contribution as a Federal laboratory devoted to the problems of crime control. Mr. DADDARIO. Thank you, Dr. Blumstein. Mr. Roush. Mr. ROtTSH. Mr. Chairman, even as a lawyer, I can appreciate the testimony which has been given here today. I am sorry that we are so restricted on time because it happens to be one of my favorite subjects, and it happens to be one of those areas of endeavor that my office has been connected with. But there are just one or two areas I would like to explore. Mr. DADDARIO. May I say this? Recognizing that and understanding that the House is meeting `an hour earlier tod'ay, please ask `all the questions you have, and we will proceed on the `basis that we will have another opportunity to discuss this if necessary. It was never our intention to do it in 1 hour. Mr. ROUSH. At this time I will be as brief as I can. Doctor, I would imagine that there are certain cities in America which are far ahead of other cities in this matter of using innovations and using our technical and scientific skills. Could you identify some of these cities for us? Dr. BLtTMSTEIN. I would certainly rate Los Angeles high. I would certainly rate New York high, with its attempt to introduce a major command and control system. I would certainly rate Chicago with its sophisticated crime laboratory, and I would certainly rate St. Louis with its advanced computer system high, and there are many others. Mr. Rousil. What research is done by the FBI, if anything? Dr. BLIThISTEIN. I would say that the FBI's research is in the crime laboratory itself. And even there, there is not very much of what one would call research. The major part of the FBI's technical activity in the crime laboratory is the provision of additional services. The FBI i's supporting the development of a fingerprint recognition system in its initial phases. The FBI does do some research, which has been challenged by many criminologists, on criminal career data, on the course of development of criminal careers. This research is published in the Uniform Crime Reports. / Although I wouldn't call it research, the FBI has taken the techno- logical lead in developing the National Crime Information Center, which provides police departments around the country with instant access to a national file of stolen cars, wanted persons, and a certain class of stolen property. Mr. ROUSH. I appreciate the FBI and the work `they are doing, ~but I am wondering if as legislators and as people in Government and as citizens if we aren't trapped by the thought that the FBI is doing everything. The feeling that the FBI is the unit in charge of crime control, detection, and what have you in this country. As a result of that, I believe we have neglected this area tremendously. You were very kind, I think, in outlining what the FBI is doing by 93-20i O-68----20 PAGENO="0306" 302 way of research and development. I believe that Congress has given them every penny that they have requested, and I do not believe they have asked for enough. I do not believe the FBI is doing enough in using the modern science and technology in this matter of crime dete~- tion, prevention, and control. I do not want to put you on the spot, but isn't it true that the FBI is very jealous of their prerogatives as the outfit in charge of crime detection and control in this country? Dr. BLUMSTEIN. Let me make a few comments that you stimulate. No. 1, I think, and I think most people in the country would agree, that it would be wrong to expect one Federal agency to do everything about crime control in the United States because of the concern of centralization. So I think we should not look to the FBI to do every- thing. I think we should look to spread some of this around so that you don't have the concern when with one agency controls all aspects of the Federal role with regard to law enforcement. No. 2, I think an agency that is going to be an effective research and development organization must provide a climate in which it can attract very good people. I think some of the issues are illustrated by the problems the Defense Department has had with its service laboratories and their difficulty in recruiting first-rate people. These problems led the Defense Department to go outside to set up nonprofit corporations to create the right working environment in order to at- tract the kind of people they need. This illustrates that the FBI, being basically a police organization, is not likely to be able to attract the best scientific talent that is needed to be applied to this problem. M~ DADDARIO. Mr. Roush. Mr ROUSH. Would it apply to the Justice Department, generally? Dr. BLIThISTEIN. Certainly, but less so. There is always a trade-off between closeness to the problem and closeness to action on one hand and separateness, independence, and the danger of ivory tower think- ing on the other. I think putting the major research effort directly within an operating police agency probably puts you too close to the problem. Setting it up in a very sterile situation out in the mountains somewhere gets you too far from the problem, and the results don't get implemented into action. So I think the kind of compromise that was made in putting into the Justice Department is probably as good as~ a compromise as you could get on this balance of interests. There are still many people who are concerned about it being in less receptive an environment than they might like. Mr. DADDARIO. Mr. Waggonner. Mr. WAGGONNER. It seems that you have been a little bit contradic- tory. You have a criticism of the FBI for being a little bit too cen- tralized, and you yourself have just recommended that this new re- search institute should be a single institute and should be highly centralized. Dr. BLUMSTEIN. Are you referring to item No. 4 in the list? That is a single research institute which might have on the order of 50 to 100 people. It is not a program management operation. It doesn't run thrngs other than its own research program. You need that research institute centralized in order to get a critical mass of scientists work- ing together in a continuous and integrated way on crime problems. You always have some degree of centralization. The one in the research PAGENO="0307" 303 institute is far less centralized than anything that I referred to with regard to the FBI. Mr. WAGGONNER. If you followed that to the ultimate conclusion over in the Department of Defense, there should just be one research agenc~y. Dr. BLUMSTEIN. That is why I don't like to follow things to their ultimate conclusions. I argue very strongly for diversity and for multi- ple opportunities to do things, but to have 40,000 independent oppor- tunities to do things and thereby spread the wealth so thialy so that no one has time or money to do anything is too decentralized. Mr. WAGGONNER. Havmg two institutes for consideration? Dr. BLUMSTEIN. The issue was the one of getting enough of the right, good people together. We would like as many as we can support because the problems are important and complicated enough, but when you have one that is really a great institution, you have a much better chance of bringing together the right kinds of numbers of people. That was the consideration that gave rise to one research institute. Mr. DADDARIO. Mr. Roush. Mr. ROUSH. I have followed, this question rather closely as to what type of institute we need, and I was pleased with your testimony. I was disappointed with the House action in placing this institute under the jurisdiction of the Justice Department. I had introduced a bill proposing that we set up a separate institute patterned somewhat after the National Science Foundation. I gather this would not be entirely what you had in mind either? Is that correct? Dr. BLUMSTEIN. That is correct. My personal view on this- Mr. ROUSH. I might say my reasons were exactly the same reasons that you have given. Dr. BLUMSTEIN. Let me make a distinction between the research institute which is item No. 4 on this list from the Crime Commission, and the National Institute which is a governmental bureaucratic agency. The research institute is an independent research institute such as Brookhaven or the Rockefeller Institute or Rand. It is an organiza- `tion that works at research. The National Institute, which was created m the bill, is an agency that partly runs its own research program, but exists primarily to support research around the country. One could set that up as an independent agency like the NSF. That way, it would have much more freedom. That kind of enviromnent might be more conducive to a more independent research program. `On the other hand, if you are going to set up in the Justice Depart- ment a subsidy program to distribute hundreds of millions of dollars to help local law enforcement in planning, to help new programs get established, to help innovate within the criminal justice system, then I think you gain more by attaching the research arm to that program. It should not be too close and not subservient to the grant program. But by creating them close together, the results of the research can help in the subsidy program, can provide evaluation of the subsidy pro- gram, and can provide guidance where the subsidies should `best be al- located. I would opt for that. Mr. Rousn. I was not thinking in terms of an arm of the Justice Department which would be allocating funds, subsidizing local units. I was thinking in terms of a research. institute. Dr. BLUMSTEIN. For the research institute, I would go even further than yourself and ask that that not be within the Federal Government PAGENO="0308" 304 and actually outside the Federal Government, where with some few exceptions research is much better able to thrive. But I would ask that it be subsidized by the Federal Government. Mr. RousH. This is the thought of how we can best bring the poten- tial of industry into this matter. I think that there is a tremendous potential here, and I would like to cite my own experience as an ex- ample. The President's Crime Commission made a recommendation that we have a uniform telephone number for reporting crime, and I have since gone one step further and proposed that we have one tele- phone number for reporting all emergencies. As a result of this en- deavor, and even more so as a result of the influence of Mr. Loevinger, of the FCC, A.T. & T. has agreed to make available a single emergency telephone number, 911, which will cost A.T. & T. over the next few years in excess of $50 million to install or make the necessary modifi- cation of equipment. This, of course, includes modifying telephones so as to permit an immediate reaching of the operator without the use of a dime. I wonder if we are directing our endeavor toward not only the com- munications industry, but other industries such as the computer indus- try. Is anything being done now, and do you see how we might enhance this endeavor and let these people work on specific problems? Dr. BLUMSTEIN. I think you raise a really basic question that has not yet been adequately addressed. That is the question of how the Federal Government can bring together the needs of these diverse agencies. Even without the Federal Government, how can the needs of these diverse operating agencies' be represented to industry to give them an assurance `of a continuing market to warrant their investment in R. & D. `One of the ways I see this happening, for instance, is through the equipment standards organization which would rep- resent police needs. To a degree, IACP has done some of this, but in a very informal and relatively nonfocused way. Here is a role for some national agency to work with police departments `and, in effect, coalesce their div'erse demands into standard designs, standard re- quirements, which can then be presented to industry. Another role the Federal Government might undertake could be to underwrite the initial production run of certain equipment so that there is a guarantee that the production volume will be large enough to warrant the R. & D. investment and the tooling-up costs. There are many other ways in which the Federal Government can coalesce the demands. It needs far more thinking than it has yet been given. I think Federal agencies, without running police departments, with~ out exerting excessive influence over them, can `bring the police inter- ests together, present them to industry, and then provide feedback on how well the devices `and new systems are performing, so that future installations can be modified appropriately. Mr. DADDARI0. Mr. R'oush. Mr. Rousu. Thank' you. Mr. DADDARIO. Mr. Waggonner. Mr. WA000NNER. You seem to be contradicting yourself. You wound up by saying we need more centralization in answer to Mr. Roush's statement. Dr. BLUMSTEIN. I think the major theme of my presentation has been that we need more coagulation, centralization, of the very dis- PAGENO="0309" 305 parate demands and needs of operating agencies. In no sense do I say we don't need centralization. I am saying we don't need a single centralized control over all State and local law enforcement agencies, and I am sure you would agree with that. Mr. WAGGONNER. The Crime Commission report had to do with the establishment of this research institute. You took the position that it should be independent of the Federal Government. You wound up your statement on page 11 advocating this with a Federal laboratory. How do you explain that contradiction? Dr. BLUMSTEIN. First, `at the end of my statement, where I was talk- ing about Federa{I laboratories, it was not just in the context of the major research institute that I identified `as item No.4. Second, some of the Federal laboratories are, in fact, independent of the Federal Government. Contract agencies like the Jet Propulsion Laboratory are independent of the Federal Government, but are nevertheless classed as Federal laboratories. The discussion at the end of the statement refers to the wide range of `kinds of uses that Federal laboratories might serve in the criminal justice system rather than just as the specific research institute. Mr. WAGGONNER. Would you `agree that somebody will have to make a personal judgment, about how much cenitiraliza'tion we can stand and how much decentralization we ought to have? Dr. BLUM5TEIN. I think there will have to be `a whole sequence `of judgments and decisions that weigh the virtues of bringing interests together against the concern `about excessive centralized control and power. These decisions `are made every day. Mr. WAGGONNER. This single research institute you talk about which should have 50 to 100 people; could you tell me a little more detail about `ho'w you would channel this information into the Federal Gov- ernment. If the Federal Government is going to pay for the operation of this institute, It should receive its findings even' though it is inde- pendent of the Government? Dr. BLUMSTEIN. I think it will be outside the Federal Government. I think the findings will appear as reports. The reports will be dis- seminated not only to the Federal Government but to `other people doing independent research outside the research institute. The find- ings would `be disseminated to operating `agencies so that they could take advantage of them. There is the basic question of what problems they study, which I `suspect `is the question that you `are mudh more directly interested in. The problems that they study must ultimately be of real interest to the Federal Government `and the kin'd of decisions that are to `be made both federally `and locally. Mr. WAGGONNER. How do you propose that the people who partici- pate in the work of this institute be chosen? Who would choose these people? Dr. BLUMSTEIN. The choice would have to be made by the manage- ment of the researcth institute just as staff is hired by any research institute-~on the basis of their technical proficiency `an'd `ability to address the problems. Mr. WAGGONNER. You would agree that part of our problem stems from bad habits in law enforcement? We get into habits that are bad, and we do not recognize them until it is too late. What would you do with these people, give them lifetime contracts or give them PAGENO="0310" 306 work on short-term contracts? Isn't there the danger that these people would just become monoliths themselves and would sooner or later fail to bring forth anything new? You have just a small number of people and in the end you stand the real risk of having these people after a while grow stale themselves? Dr. BLUMSTEIN. I would certainly hope that the environment as created and the management is effective so that the institute attracts good people and provides a continuing healthy environment so that good people stay and those who are not good are weeded out. Mr. WAGGONNEfR. How do you determine what is a good man in this type of law-enforcement work? Dr. BLUM5I']uN. Based on the quality of the research he does. That is the problem of managing research. In my own work, among the people who work with me, I know who is putting out good work and who isn't. There is amazing agreement on who the good guys are and who the not so good guys are. That is not a terribly complicated issue. Mr. WAGGONNER. But that involves personal judgment? Dr. BLUMSTETN. Yes; no question. Mr. WAGGONNER. That is all. Mr. DADDARIO. Mr. Brown? Mr. BROWN. Let me ask you this question. The United States is the wealthiest country in the world and has a standard of living that goes up 5 percent a year. Obviously we are a very affluent society. What simple answer would you give to the question of why our crime rate in almost every category is increasing every year? Dr. BLUMSTEIN. There are no simple answers. Some heroic attempts at providing still inadequate answers took, I believe, nine volumes of the Crime Commission report. There are just so many factors involved. I could start enumerating some of them, but I don't know that it would help very much. Mr. BROWN. Do you think it is a matter that will be solve,cl by more effective law enforcement? Dr. BLUMSTEIN. I think more effective law enforcement will solve some of it. I don't think there is any simple solution. There is a whole range of attacks that need to be used in making it more clear that those who do violate the law will, in fact, be apprehended. More effective law enforcement is a part of it, but only a part. There are much more fundamental issues that we have got to get at. We have got to recognize that what we define as crime is not some- thing that is going to be eliminated. In many respects the price we would have to pay to really eliminate crime is a price that none of us want. I think we have got to view crime as one aspect of an evolving social order that must be viewed in perspective of the things we do and don't want in our lives. Mr. BROWN. I have no other questions. Mr. DADDARTO. Dr. Blumstein, thank you ever so much. Because we are in a little bit of a rush this morning, I hope we might send to you some additional questions for the record? Dr. BLUMSTETN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. DADDARIO. Thank you. PAGENO="0311" 307 QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO DR. ALFRED BLUMSTEIN BY THE SUB- COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT Q. 1. In your testimony you eited certaIn police needs and indicated the tech- nology is now available to meet those needs. What, then, in your opinion, are the reasons why law enforcement agencies are not using the a'vallable technology? A. The reasons for the limited introduction of technology into police operations are multiple and complex. They also differ for different kinds of technology. In- cluded in the reasonnwould be the following: 1. Equipment budgets are typically separate line items in police budgets, so that the cost of additional equipment may appear as a large increase in the equipment budget, even when it would be small compared to the total police budget or com- pared to an appropriately formulated program or functional budget. 2. Many of the smaller police departments do not know about some of the technological possibilities available to them. 3. In many cases, equipment developed for other purposes may require some adaptation to police use; that adaptation may not yet have been done. 4. Many police departments are unable to evaluate among alternative pos- sibilities, and so, end up choosing none. Q. la. In your opinion, why hasn't industry filled the void as it would with normal consumer demands? A. The market is small and fragmented and so selling that market could lead to a high sales cost, per unit sold. Also, the police market is an unknown to most companies and it would require the development of special marketing skills to address that market. In many cases there are some research and/or development costs required and industry may be reluctant to make the required investment as long as the market uncertainty exists. Q. lb. What can be done about these problems? A. Create a coordinated national program to provide proper guidance and incentives to industry to provide the products necessary for the police markets. Provide the information to help police departments learn of currently or p0- tentially available products and help them select from among these products those that best meet their needs. Finally, help them in corporate these innovations effectively into their operations. This program would be supported by actions such as the following: 1. Federal support of research and development. 2. National establishment of equipment standard's and unified requirements. 3. Field evaluation and collection of field reports on performance of new equip- ment and methods. 4. Creation of an information center to disseminate such information to police departments. 5. Creation of an organization with a staff able to provide technical advice and assistance to police departments. 6. Federal underwriting of the initial production run of a new item to guarantee a reasonable market. 7. Creation within the larger police departments of internal technical and operations research functions. These functions would include liaison with external groups which could serve as technical advisors. The external groups could be consulting firms, technical professional societies, or committees of disinterested citizens or industry scientists and engineers. 8. Adoption of program budgeting by police departments. Q. 2. What do you consider to be the three most important needs in law enforce- mont where technology can make the greatest contribution? Why? A. The magnitude of contribution that would result from any particular tech- nological innovation would naturally depend strongly upon the size of the de- partment, the nature of the crime problem it must deal with and the current state of its technological development. For instance, a department that had a major part of its force on foot patrol and unequipped with portable radios could prob- ably benefit most by equipping all its officers immediately with portable radios. Another department, equipped with current model radios, would benefit less from a new generation of radios. If forced to generalize across the nation, however, I would probably rank the technological innovations as follows: 1. The introduction of computers (locally for the larger departments and with a terminal on-line to a remote computer for the smaller ones) for handling the mass of information collected in police operations. Most of this information goes unused because of the difficulty of retrieval `and manipulation. The growing availability PAGENO="0312" 308 of software for police functions will enable the departments, perhaps through a police computer users' organization, to make use of the information both for more effective tracking down of criminals and more efficient use of their resources. 2. Improvement of the police command and control function (housed in the police communications center) through improved design of these facilities for more rapid and complete information transfer, more intelligible display of the current crime or disorder situation, and more rapid and effective dissemination of control orders to the units on patrol. This improvement could make a sig- nificant dent in the 20-50% of response time attributable to delay and process- ing in the communications center. The use of on-line, real time computers could make a significant contribution here but much could be done, even without intro- ducing a computer, through better display of information and reorganization of the functions and facilities. 3. The development of a light-weight low-cost portable police radio so that every police officer can be in continuous contact with headquarters at all times. Q. 3. In your testimony you refer to a new research institute which should be outside of government. What do you consider to be the advantage of having such an institute outside of government? A. In order for such an institute to conduct basic examinations into the causes and nature of crime, and to conduct fundamental re-examination of the criminal justice system, it must be able to recruit the nation's best scientists and their investigations must be free of any responsibility or commitment to current methods of operation. It would be very difficult to recruit these people into the government. Q. 3a. How would it be funded and what would it cost? A. It should be funded by government grant in a manner similar to the fund- ing of the recently created Urban Institute. It should be started by the Justice Department, but it should be free to accept additional funding from other sources. especially foundations. The cost, of course, would depend on the size it reached, but about five million dollars a year or 100 research staff, should be appropriate after about a three-year buildup. Funding should be with a sufficiently long lead time, about three years, to assure continuity of operation. The funding formula might be 100% for the coming year, two-thirds for the second year and one-third for the third year.. Q. 3b. How would the institute disseminate its results to local law enforcement agencies? A. There are a number of mutually complementary methods by which its results would reach implementation. These include the following: 1. Primarily through close liaison among the institute's staff, the staff of regional technical assistance groups, and internal operations research or tech- nical groups in operating departments. 2. Publication and wide dissemination Of its reports directly to law enforce- ment agencies. 3. Maintenance of its results in a central information center. 4. Creation of a new criminal justice research journal to which it would contribute. 5. Distribution of a quarterly publication translating its research results into operational recommendations. Q. 3c. Would such an institute still be necessary if the institute as specified in the Safe Streets Bill is authorized? A. Yes. The National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice called for in the Safe Streets Bill is a governmental agency whose primary func- tion is the dissemination of funds for research and development. While such an agency would be likely to have an internal research component, it could not be expected to be of the quality nor have the independence required in the research institute discussed above. Q. 4. Roughly speaking, what do you estimate it would cost per year to reverse the increasing crime rate, or at least bring it into harmony with the population rate? In what broad field would you apportion these funds (training, operations, research, etc.) and why? A. This seemingly simple question is the best argument for the need for a major national research program. We simply do not know what are the effects on crime of any of the various things we might do to try to control it. Further- more, we do not even know if any degree of additional expenditures on law enforcement would reverse the increasing crime rate without addressing some of the more basic long-term social causes of crime. I wish I could even guess at an answer, but I am unable to. PAGENO="0313" 309 Q. 5. In your opinion, what type of assistance could Federal laboratories now provide to law enforcement agencies or to the Department of Justice? A. This is so broad a question that any general answer would be almost mean- ingless. The number of possible contributions is limitless. All of the technical roles discussed in the Science and Technology Task Force Report, for instance, could possibly be handled by Federal laboratories, although in many cases, in- dnstry, universities or other research institutions might be more appropriate. The important point in my testimony is that a Federal laboratory could either take on a specific project (just as could any other industrial, university, or non- profit research organization) or it could establish a special private relationship with a local, state, regional, or national criminal justice agency or technical support organization. If it were to do the latter, then it would have to make a commitment to become intimately familiar with the operating problems and to hire the appropriate specialists on its technical staff. Q. 6. To what extent should goverament laboratories test and evaluate equip- ment and hardware in order to provide law enforcement agencies with perform- ance information? A. There should be at least one central laboratory that tests and evaluates equipment and hardware for law enforcement agencies. This could well be an existing government laboratory, but it need not necessarily be a government laboratory. Q. 6a. What was the basis for Task Force recommendation that an agency such as the National Bureau of Standards "coordinate the establishment of standards for equipment to be used by criminal justice agencies and to provide those agen- cies technical assistance?" Was the Bureau consulted? Would this function be handled by the institute if the Safe Streets Act is passed? A. The basis for the recommendation for a standards agency derives from the considerations mentioned in answer to Question 1. The needs are as follows: 1, To collect the needs of the dispersed police market and aggregate them into a more cohesive demand, thereby providing better guidance to industry in con- ducting its development. 2. To provide an opportunity for more sophisticated development of standards than would be possible by any single police department. 3. To make the standards reflect police needs rather than only a manufacturer's decision, where that decision may have been dictated more by existing products or by a related but different market. 4. To provide standards to which all manufacturers would adhere, thereby permitting interchangeability of modules, ease of modification, more free choice of suppliers, and larger volumes of identical units (and hence lower unit costs). The National Bureau of Standards was used only as an illustration of an agency that could perform this function; no formal request was made of them, although the possibility was discussed informally with NBS staff members. Responsibility for creating this standards agency would be a responsibility of the National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice called for in the Safe Streets Act. I would not expect, however, that the Institute would per- form this function internally; rather it would probably contract with a govern- ment or private organization. Q. 7. To what extent do Federal policies and scientific and technological mat- ters conflict with law enforcement needs (for example, possible PC/Cl decision on frequency allocations as between television, police or citizens' communications)? A. The most significant Federal technical policy area impacting on police is in the FCC policies with regard to police radio communication problems. These issues are discussed in detail on Pages 29~-33 and Pages 132-136 of the Science and Technology Task Force Report. In addition, there is, of course, significant interaction with much of the research and development performed by the Defense Department (e.g., non-lethal weapons, command and control) since much of the technology resulting from Defense could be applied to police problems. Q. 8. It has been proposed that the directors of Federal laboratories have fu%ds available to them to pursue research relevant to national problems (such as crime) up to the point where proposals could then be submitted to the agency having the primary mission responsibility. What do you see as the advantages and disadvantages of such a coiwept? A. From the viewpoint of crime control, there could only be `advantages to this concept. The Federal laboratories are institutions of considerable technical competence and I would think that if the scientists in them had the opportunity to think about and do some research on the problems of crime control, we would PAGENO="0314" 310 undoubtedly see some significant proposals being generated. I would hope to see some of them working on problems such as fingerprint recognition, the develop- ment of safe and effective non-lethal weapons, police car locators, inexpensive radio scramblers and other technical concepts that may or may not derive directly from their past technical experience. The only disadvantage that I would see in such a concept is that this would be a diversion of resources from the needs of the agencies supporting them. I would hope, however, that this process would result in serving a greater national good. Q. 8a~ How would Federal laboratory personnel be aware of the specific needs of law enforcement agencies? A. The laboratory personnel would become aware of the needs through the normal processes of familiarization. They would meet with law enforcement personnel individually and in groups, they would ride in police cars and observe and participate in the operations directly. They would also, of course, read the reports of the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice. Q. 9. Insurance companies report research and standard setting in an effort to lessen the losses due to fire. Why, in your opinion, hasn't this occurred in the crime field, either with support by insura'ace companies or industrial trade associations? A. I believe that insurance companies should provide greater incentives to people to protect their property. I do not know the exact amount of insurance payment for stolen property, but it is probably not too large since the total value of property other than automobiles reported stolen was $227.1 million in 1966, ac- cording to the FBI's Uniform Crime Report. Thus, since thb insured losses are relatively low, the insurance premiums are relatively low. It is probably dif- ficult for the insurance companies to provide very strong economic incentives for self protection when the rates are very low. There are, however, reductions in insurance rates for various kinds and degrees of self protection. Furthermore, standards are established and administered by Underwriters Laboratories for various kinds of safes and alarm devices. Q. 10. To what artent has the Task Force Report on science and Technology been sent to Federal agencies? A. The Task Force Report was distributed widely, with over 3000 sent free across the nation, and another 12,000 purchased from the Government Printing Office. It has been distributed widely to Federal agencies interested in problems of law enforcement as well as those engaged in related research. Q. lOa. Would it be useful to send the Task Force Report to Federal laboratory directors and request them to match the report's identification of opportunities for research and development with their capabilities? A. Yes. Q. 11. If it were decided to announce a Federal policy calling for positive and energetic cooperation of Federal laboratory directors with law enforcement orga- nizations, would it be desirable to concentrate the resulting relations with naP- tional or reijional organizations of law enforcement qronps. or with individual agencies? Why? What arc the major national and regional organizations? A. The relationship of Federal laboratory directors should be with both na- tional as well as local groups for different purposes. They should relate to the national groups for identification of requirements which exist across the nation and for widespread dissemination of their research findings. For simnie reasons of convenience, however, they should relate closely to the individual agencies in their immediate area so that they can become more intimately familiar with the onerating problems and so that they c.n have a field laboratory for testing under careful supervision and control the results of their investiga- tions. The principal national professional police organization is the Interna- tional Association of Chiefs of Police. The executive director, Mr. Quinn Tamm, would be best able to identify the most useful regional groups. Q. 12. To what ecotent would it be desirable to establish at one of the Federal laboratories a clearinghouse to collect, hold, and send out information about Federal research and devlopment that reasonably relates to problems of law enforcement and crime control? A. Such a clearinghouse is needed now and ~viIl certainly be needed after a Federal research and development nrogram becomes more fully develoned. The National institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice called for `by the Safe Streets Act is `specifically charged with establishing such a clearinghouse. It is not clear, however, that the best place for such a clearirghoiise woii1~ he at a Federal laboratory. It `might well be more desirable to have it housed di- PAGENO="0315" 31.1 rectly within the National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice or with a private contractor experienced in such operations. Q. 12a. If you are familiar withY the NASA Technology Utilization approach and with that of the Office of State Technical Services in the Department of Commerce, please comment upon the possibility of such systems to get informa- tion to law enforcement agencies. Would you suggest other approaches? A. I am not sufficiently familiar with the details of those approaches to com- ment on them directly. I have indicated in my previous answers, `however, that I feel `strongly that an important part of the problem in improving the tech- nology of law enforcement depends critically on the dissemination of the in- formation coming out of industry and the lahoratories and the translation-al- most "hand holding"-to the operating needs of the individual departments. A technical clearinghouse serves only part of the need. There must be people in the loop. These people must be familiar with the technology (which in meet cases is not terribly complicated) and with the operational problem's of police departments. This must become a professional specialization. Some of the larger departments will hire their own. In most cases, however, there will have to be state or regional offices employing these specialists in technology transfer- modeled after the agricultural county agent-who will provide the information link between the technically sophisticated products and reports and the operat- ing needs of the technically unsophisticated police departments. Mr. DADDARIO. Our next witness is Mr. Quinn Tamm. Mr. WAGGONNER. Mr. `Chairman, I do not know how many of the members of the committee are personally acquainted with Mr. Tamm or his background, but I doubt seriously that it would be possible to bring a man before this committee more knowledgeable on this subject. Mr. Tamm is an authority on this subject, and `he is a rather practical man in everything he does. I consider this committee extremely for- tunate to be able to receive his testimony. Mr. DADDARIG. Thank you, Mr. Waggonner. Mr. TAMM. Thank you, Mr. Waggonner. (Mr. Tarum's biography follows:) QUINN TAMM Mr. Quinn Tamm, Executive Director, International Association of Chiefs of Police, Inc., is a native of Seattle, Washington. He received his early education in Butte, Montana, and graduated from the University of Virginia in 1934. Mr. Tamin served in the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Washington, D.C., from 1934 to 1961 in the capacities of Special Agent, Inspector and Assistant Director. At the time of his retirement in January 1961 he was the Assistant Director of the Laboratory Division. Prior to that time he had served as Assist- ant Director of the Identification Division and the Training and Inspection Divi- sion of the FBI. Mr. Tamm is married and the father of two sons. Mr. TAMM. I do have a prepared statement that I would be very pleased to submit to the committee rather th'an to take the committee's time to read the statement which has been given you. Mr. DADDARIO. It may he submitted. You can proceed as you would like. STATEMENT OP QUINN TAMM, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INTERNA- TIONAL ASSOCIATION OP CHIEFS OF POLICE Mr. TAMM. I would just like to cover some of the high spots. I think it might be more productive if I answered some of the questions which you might extend. I think I know some of the answers. I do represent the professional association of law enforcement ad- ministrators of this country. The IACP consists of over 7,000 police PAGENO="0316" 312 administrators, located primarily in this country `and in Canada and in- cludes representatives of 60 of the free world countries, but our mem- bership is concentrated in this country. We are interested in the fact that the Federal Government has shown a decided interest in assisting law enforcement, and we hope that it will be possible to stimulate some practical and some substantial sup- port from the Federaj Government. We are doing things in police work in the same manner in which my grandfather did them 50 years ago. We are patrolling beats. We have had some improvement in communications. We have had some improvement in means of transportation but we have not made prog- ress from the research and development standpoint. We think that there is a wide area in which much progress can be made. There is no other segment of the country or its society which is receiving more attention or more criticism than are the police at the present time. I am not going to be able to tell you anything new or startling. I am just running through this very briefly and then I will be very happy to answer any questions. I was Assistant Director in charge of the FBI Laboratory for many years and I am a confirmed advocate of the marriage of sci- ence to law enforcement. I can assure you that the FBI Laboratory has contributed tremendously to law enforcement and literally thou- sands upon thousands of criminal cases have been brought to successful culmination because of the existence of this Laboratory. At the same time, literally scores of innocent individuals have been exonerated of wrongdoing through the application of science by the FBI Laboratory. In reference to a statement by Congressman Roush and anything further that I may say, let me temper my comments by stating the fact that anything that I say that is not praiseworthy of the FBI Laboratory or any of the FBI functions will be interpreted as criticism. I believe this sincerely. I would be amiss if I didn't say so. FBI Laboratory is not a research laboratory. The tremendous volume of current cases which come to the Laboratory for analysis from the scientific standpoint in order that the cases may be presented in court prohibit the exercising of research facilities or the use of the FBI Laboratory for the intensive type of research that is needed in law enforcement, except in those instances in which the research has de- veloped directly from actually examining of evidence. This is a very simple fact. There are just thousands upon thousands of cases that come in for analysis and for presentation in court. I think that the FBI Laboratory has shown leadership in this type of work. It, incidentally, is supplemented by State laboratories around the country in many of the States. The major cities have their own labora- tories. These are laboratories that are devoted exclusively to the analysis of evidence in current cases pending in court and the research is limited because of the personnel and the funds available. Mr. DADDARIO. Is that how it should be? You say you support the National Institute of Law Enforcement later on in this statement, but should we, in fact, allow this to continue as it is. Recognizing that these limitations do occur, should there be some scientific and research PAGENO="0317" 313 capabilities within the Justice Department so that this work which it is doing could then be done better, or would it be done better? Mr. TAMM. I think it would be done better, and I do support the concept of this National Institute of Justice. Two years ago, in the magazine published by the IACP which 1 edit, I wrote an editorial pointing out the need for the concept which you have, an institute very similar to the National Science Foundation, separated from and supported by Federal funds, but also giving the opportunity to industry to assist in this problem or to foundation grants so that worthwhile research could be conducted in a very, very necessary field. From the practical standpoint of what has gone on as far as the law enforcement and criminal assistant agencies, I feel that the first step in this direction would be the National Institute of Justice, and if it is a part of the Department of Justice, it should be a separate part of the Department of Justice, but it could come under the supervision of the Attorney GeneraL This must be done because we have to have some research capability in law enforcement. Otherwise, we are not going to meet this rising crime problem. Mr. DADDARIO. We are talking about an either/or situation, and I wonder if some experience this committee has had in this area might help, When this subcommittee reviewed the work being done by the National Science Foundation, there was a proposal that it ought to be the only agency in Government really to do basic research. As we examined that, we came to the conclusion that this should not be so, that it should retain that unique function, but that the mission- oriented agencies, and I would certainly put the Justice Department in this area, ought to have a basic research competence of their own in order to develop the quality necessary to do a better job. It seems to me that analogy applies here. If we were to. apply that capa- bility and then develop some other type of institute, we might accom- plish much more than if we separate these functions as has been suggested. Mr. TAMM. I would. agree with you. I feel that there are a couple of basic needs here. For instance, industry has done a tremendous amount of development work. that could be applied to law enforce- ment, but law enforcement has no way of getting access to this. I have talked to a great many people on this subject, and there is a very practical problem that exists as far as industry is concerned; that is the market is limited, and they just aren't about to spend a great deal of money and make a one-shot sale of radios to a police department. They ask how many do you want. If you give every one of them a means c~f radio commurncation when the man leaves the force and there is a turnover in law enforcement, will you buy a new radio or will you give the new man a used one. Mr. RousH. Mr. Chairman? Mr. DADDARIO. Mr. Roush. Mr. Rousu. Mr. Tamm, I have a great appreciation for the FBI. I served as a prosecuting attorney for 4 years, and I have used their lab- oratories. I have used them with great confidence. The point I was trying to make was that when we talk about the national effort in crime control, I believe we are trapped by the thought that the FBI PAGENO="0318" 314' is capable of doing everything and that the FBI is doing everything. This inhibits our efforts in this regard. They are not doing everything, and they are not, within the limits of their jurisdiction, capable of doing everything. I am glad to see that we are finally getting away from this idea and are looking elsewhere for the research and development of new equipment, techniques, and methods. We are also, I believe, coming to the ~int where we are ready to jump into this area of criminal behavior, the use of the social sciences, in our effort to control and prevent crime. The rehabilitation of the criminal i's a very, very important area. The FBI has taken the leadership in many areas, but I might dis- agree that they have exercised as much leadership as they could have in bringing us into new endeavors which would make a major con- tribution to crime control and prevention. Mr. TAMM. I spent 26 years in the FBI. I was in charge of the lab- oratory, I was in charge of training; at one time I was in charge of the identification divisions. I served as assistant director in charge of three divisions. I feel very strongly and have always felt that law enforcement is a local program. It shouldn't be subjected to Federal domination. I could say just send money and I feel I could do the best job of law enforce- ment you ever saw, and I feel this strongly. I am going `to `agree with you completely that there `has been too great a reliance in this area on law enforcement. This is a local prob- lem and local `law enforcement officers are beginning to realize this. We have seen a tremendous change in the last 6 years. Law enforce- ment should be cap'ahle or be `assisted in being self-sufficient in its own community. Law enforcement must relate itself to its own community. We have to reoognize the social changes througth which this country is going. In this regard, we can only do it locally. We need assistance from the Federal Government because of the nature of the tax struc- tures of the cities. I just returned `from `a meeting with what we call our major cities group. It consists of the 26 cities with a population of over 500,000. We meet twi'ce a year. We had 21 of the major cities in this country represented. We have tremendous problems because of the changes that `are `going on in the tax structure of the urban community as to whether there is money enough to meet this iocai problem. We feel that one of the solutions is the assistance of the Federal Government in providing needed fund's, but with certain direction from the police departments themselves. We h'ave relied too crnudh on the FBI laboratories. We have relied too much on the FBI training. This is a problem we have to meet now and I `agree with you completely. Mr. DADDARIO. In the interest of saving time, I think I should file a general disclaimer for the committee and the witnesses. If there is any criticism of the FBI and the `fact that is it is n'ot doing everything, we need not every time we make a recommendation or a statement apologize as a result. Do you have furt~her questions? Mr. RousH. I only wanted to say it `is not just a matter of limitation of funds, but `also'a `limitation of talent. PAGENO="0319" 315 Mr. TAMM. Very de~fIniteiy, sir. The association that I represent at the present time is actively engaged in trying to raise the level of educational background of the law enforcement people of this country. We have been doing this primarily through a Ford Foundation grant that was given to us to stimulate the interest in colleges and universities in police admimstra- tion throughout `the country. When we starbed out with this particular grant from the Ford Foundation 4 years ago, there were 60 e~lleges and universities in this country, including junior colleges, that offered degree progams leading to a degree in police administration. Through `the efforts we have obtained with this grant, there are now some 200 schools, colleges, universities, and junior colleges that are giving courses `within easy reach of law enforcement where the law enforcement officers can attain a college degree. Next, within the 50 States we have .been advocating a minimum educational period and a minimum training period for law enforce- ment officers to be adopted by State legislatures throughout the coun- try to see if we can't raise the standard of law enforcement. I do not tell you that education is the whole answer to this problem. I say that education can contribute a great deal to solving some of the problems of law enforcement. There are 23 States that have a minimum requirement of law en- forcement officers of at least a high school degree and a minimum amount of training before you put this officer out on the street to per- form his duties. We strongly recommend in a period of 7 years' from now that the educational requirement for police officers be a junior college degree, and 10 to 15 years from now a college degree. This is not beyond the realm of possibility. We must bring to the law enforcement agency more expertise and I think the law enforce- ment agency is making a decided effort to do this. Training facilities are extremely important. We have to make more facilities available to educate and train police officers and the better we get them trained the more quickly we are going to conquer crime. Mr. DADDARIO. You say that things ought to be done on a local level, and you use Los Angeles as an example. What it is doing or not doing is not known to the New York Police Department. What makes that so? Why isn't there better coordination since there are now so many associations? Why is there the communications barrier? Mr. TAMM. We are trying to do this now. Actually, no one knows how much research has been done in this country by individtial police departments. As a part of our Ford Foundation grant, we had $25,000 to organize a central clearinghouse for information of this type. The $25,000 over a 4-year period doesn't give a great deal of funds to collect and dis- seminate the material and did not provide an evaluation capability. Research has been accomplished in many fields of police work-such as the very simple problem of one-man patrol versus two-man patrol in a patrol car. There are police associations and police agencies that very staunchly oppose the utilization of one-man patrol because it is considered dangerous. We don't know if it is dangerous or not dangerous. PAGENO="0320" 316 The Chicago Police Department experimented extensively in this particular area and I think ended up with one-man patrol car. There is all this information around the country and we are trying to bring it together. We are limited by funds. My association is supported primarily by membership dues. We probably take in $125,000 a year in mem- bership dues which is not very much money for which we publish a magazme and an annual report but primarily we are supported by grants and by the fact that we have the only staff of its kind in the country. We are a nonprofit organization and Internal Revenue takes that rather seriously so our funds are limited to what we get, but there is a need for research. It is a question of financing. The material is there. Mr. DADDARIO. The limitation here is funding rather than anything else. If you were to take that as `a beginning point, what would you need in money and numbers of people? Mr. TAMM. This is one of the reasons I am interested in the National Institute of Justice. I think it could perform this function. Mr. DADDARIO. The Institute goes far beyond that. You can get to the ultimate point by having something you could accomplish imme- diately at less cost. Could you isolate it? Mr. TAMM. Yes. I am actively trying to raise money from industry right now to finance a project of this type at a million dollars a year. Mr. DADDAIiIO. If that information were made available, you would then have a good idea of where to go from there. Mr. TAMM. Where to start and how good it is. Mr. DADDARIO. Is that your fundamental reason for supporting the National Institute-the idea that it would allow that to `be accom- plished? Mr. TAMM. It would allow th~s to be accomplished; yes, sir. Mr. DADDARIO. Your recommendation, then, is that this be a first step? Mr. TAMM. Yes, very definitely. Mr. DADDARIO. How would you put it together from the standpoint of making it effective? Mr. TAMM. I originally approached this on the `basis of our own association and the fact we do represent and we are in constant con- tact with over 4,000 chiefs of police in this country. We communicate with them by magazine, we communicate with them by a series of meetings conducted around the country, we develop some material for them. We are now developing a crime prevention program which is privately financed, and we have the means and we have the means of communication and we have never had any of our members deny us access to any information whidh they had. My primary job is strictly one of financing a project such as this. I have knocked on the doors of as many industrial concerns as there are in this country, and I have not been able to interest any in the problem of law enforcement up until last year. Now the problem that is facing the police today, the civil disorders, has made industry conscious. Mr. DADDARIO. Are there men who belong to police departments in some of our cities who you would use as the personnel in order to bring this information together? PAGENO="0321" 317 Mr. TAMM. Very definitely, but I also have a staff of my own. We have the only staff of its kind in the country. I have a staff of men representing all types of law enforcement, local, State, county, Fed- eral. We are doing research in the field of highway safety. We are doing research in the field of juvenile delinquency and the police role in this regard. We are doing extensive research in community relations. We do re- organization management surveys of police departments. Every man on the staff has at least one college degree and a minimum of 10 years law enforcement experience, so we have created a basic staff for this type of work. Mr. DADDARIO. The point of local law enforcement is a very valid one, and you have gone to industry to get some help. Mr. TAMM. Yes, sir. Mr. DADDARIO. Have you ever considered the possibility of getting some of the men whom you know to be highly qualified and have the cities support them for a year or 2 years activity participating in this kind of a venture? Mr. TAMM. We have, but there is another factor that enters into this from a practical standpoint. The men that we want in this particular regard are in the upper echelons of local law enforcement agencies. There is a very practical question of them being away a year or 2 years from their own assignment because during that period of time the position of chief or superintendent of police may become availa~ble and they would not be there to take advantage of it. Mr. DADDARIO. This is one of the problems we have in government. But we ought to be able to motivate a career opportunity. Mr. TAMM. My experience has been to get young college trained police officers who have started up the ladder, have had a period of 6 to 12 years in law enforcement. When they get beyond 12 or 14 years in a law enforcement agency. and get involved in a civil service pension, you have trouble attracting them because they hesitate to change their living conditions and move. Most of the police officers are located in the communities in which they were born. This creates a problem, too, but I think we are making progress. The whole law enforcement problem is so tremendous now it is necessary that we realize that we are going to have to do something about it. We are going to have to do something about the image of law enforcement in the community and give the law enforcement agencies the tools to perform the job. Mr. DADDARTO. As we have discussed this this morning, you put a price tag on it of a million dollars a year. Mr. TAMM. As a starter. Mr. DADDARIO. But a start which could lead us properly down this road so that when additional sums are available we would pretty much be able to indicate why these expenditures should be made. Mr. TAMM. That is right. This is a tremendous amount, but it is badly needed. I think some- body is going to have to decide where we are going and what we need. Mr. DADDARTO. Mr. Waggonner? Mr. WAGGONNER. You know I share your approach to local law enforcement; but I wonder, in the eyes of the public, what really 93-201 O-68----21 PAGENO="0322" 318 constitutes local law enforcement. Your approach to the research in- stitute is from the point of view of the IACP. Some people consider not just the local police departments which are municipal in nature to be local law enforcement, but also the county unit of law enforce- ment as well to be local, and, as you are aware, the Safe Streets Act gives certain authority to the States in this regard. How would we meld local law enforcement to include the IACP, the county sheriff's departments, or the National Sheriffs' Associa- tion, and the State police, which exist all over the country, in a way that you could distribute uniformly without a prejudiced or dis- colored point of view whatever an institute would produce that could conceivably be beneficial? For example, would the IACP have access to all the findings of such an institute, the National Sheriffs' Associ- ation have access, and the State police have access, and then let them coordinate at their own level those findings which they could utilize to advantage? Would that be proper? Mr. TAMM. Yes, sir. We represent the State police organizations. There are 49 State police organizations out of the 50 States. Hawaii doesn't have a State police organization. The heads of most of the county police organizations are memberS of IACP. We have some sheriffs as members. The National Sheriffs' Association as you know is very much in existence. They are neighbors of ours. We work ex- tremely close with them. There is going to have to be some formula as far as we can deter- mine to decide how we do or how this money is going to go within a particular State. It would be possible to have grants directly to them, hut that the States themselves must have a plan to, in order to distribute money. Law enforcement operations differ from State to State so the State itself is going to have to set up a plan and an orga- nization as to how they are going to handle these funds. This is proper. The State is going to have to recognize that there are major cities. The State must have a plan and I would say that since this involves Federal funds the plan must be approved by the Federal Government. We again are engaged in some locally financed programs. For in- stance, we just signed a contract with the State of Florida to do a statewide survey as to the relationship of State and-in Florida they have a statewide enforcement bureau-the other law enforcement agencies. We did a survey in Dade County which involves 30 municipalities to see if it wouldn't be practical to evolve a metropolitan system which I think will save money. Mr. WAGGONNER. Governor Kirk is going to try again? Mr. TAMM. Actually, I don't know if Governor Kirk is responsible for this. The newly created law enforcement bureau is the one we have the contract with. Mr. WAGGONNER. The point I am making is we are going to benefit from whatever we do. We can't allow this thing to be a matter of a local pride and jealousy that puts the different associations in con- flict even though they are attempting to accomplish the same thing. This is similar to the problem that different union crafts find them- selves in from time to time when they become jealous of their own prerogatives. PAGENO="0323" 319 Mr. TAMM. I can't say that law enforcement has reached this ulti- mate degree. We do work very closely with the National Sheriffs' Association. We have members of our associations who are sheriffs, some of the largest sheriffs' offices in the country. We do have the problems that we do represent the police adminis- trators. Their wishes are not always consistent with the association that represents the echelons of law enforcement, but we are moving closer and closer together. Mr. RousH. One of the good practical programs of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration is the technology utilization program. I have intimate knowledge of the working of the aerospace research center at Indiana University. Industry tells them their needs and interests, and they in turn gather the information which is the innovations of their laboratories. They are able to supply to an industry a specific technical brief which is of interest to that industry, and I wonder if your organization or the FBI uses this serVice which NASA provides for private industry? Mr. TAMM. I don't know about the FBI. We have been in very close contact with NASA for the last year in discussions of the material that they have available. We had them, at our last annual conference, provide us with material and printed literature that they think might be of assistance to the police. They have been most gracious in the way they have reacted and we are maintaining extremely close contact with them because they have available certain things that law enforcement can use, such as the location of police officers on beats, and keeping track of an automobile. These days when we can track a missile in outer space we ought to be able to keep track of a man who is only two blocks from the police station. This is, I think, going to be very productive and we have been in very close contact with them. Mr. RousH. Thank you. Mr. DADDARIO. We thank you for coming here this morning and be- ing so helpful, I apologize for not being able to question you further, because we dO' believe that will be more helpful. We will be in touch with you with a series of questions, and see if we can work this out for the record. (Mr. Tanim's prepared statement follows:) PREPARED STATEMENT OF QUINN TAMM, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF PotaGE Mr. Chairman and gentleman of the Sub-Committee. I am very pleased to have the opportunity to once again appear before a distinguished Congressional body interested in providing assistance to the law enforcement agencies of this country. Nothing is more gratifying to the 7,000 police executives who make up our Association than the fact that the United States Congress is showing so much concern for the betterment of our police forces and the methods for ac- complishing the police mission. It is redundant, of course, for me to say that no area of the public safety has been more neglected than the nolice insofar as research and development science and technology are concerned. I would be remiss however, if I did not once again re-emphasize this fact. As you know, the police number only about 4~0,O00 in this country, `but there is no other segment of its size in our society whkh is receiving more attention and criticism than are the police. Bearing in mind that the police forces constitute only some 400,000 individuals in our population PAGENO="0324" 320 of 200,000,000, I believe this is an enviable or unenviable position, depending upon one's viewpoint. We should be envied if the attention begets constructive assistance; we shall regard our position as unenviable if the results continue to be nothing but un- helpful, generalized criticism. I am not certain that I can impart anything new or startling to your delibera- tions. I have read the task force report entitled, Science and Technology pre- pared under the auspices of the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice, and find it to be an excellent study and de- lineation of needs and concepts. As you may know, I was Assistant Director in charge of the FBI Laboratory for many years and I am a confirmed advocate of the marriage of science of law enforcement. I can assure you that the FBI Laboratory has contributed tre- mendously to law enforcement and literally thousands upon thousands of criminal cases have been brought to successful culmination because of the exist- ence of this laboratory. At the same time, literally scores of innocent individuals have been exonerated of wrong-doing through the application of science by the FBI Laboratory. I can think of no example more compelling for the marshalling of the resources of other existing Federal laboratories for assistance to the police. At the same time, I am a staunch supporter of the National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice sponsored by Representative James H. Scheuer, House of Representatives, and Senator Edward M. Kennedy in the Senate. The Institute envisioned by these gentlemen and those who support the Bill is, I believe, the proper framework for bringing together the expertise existing in the Federal government. I am not ëertain of the Bill's status at the current time since the latest information I have is that its acceptance or rejection by the United States Congress must depend upon its fate in the Judiciary Com- mittee of the Senate. I fervently hope, however, that this Bill, either by itself or as a part of the Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Assistance Act will become a reality. I feel that there lies submerged in the great massive complexity of our Federal framework a great deal of scientific and technological knowledge which can be applied to law enforcement if there were some way to bring this knowledge to the surface and to the attention of the police executives who could make it work. The Science and Technology Task Force Report made reference to such an insti- tute as I am advocating and said, "The program would create inter-disciplinary teamS of mathematicians, computer scientists, electronic engineers, physicists, biologists, and other natural scientists, and would require psychologists, sociolo- gists, economists, and lawyers on these teams." Let me say parenthetically, that I should also like to see knowledgeable police executtves made a part of these teams. As you gentlemen know only too well, the various professions I have cited have little meaningful dialogue under any corporate banner, `but I am certain that should they be brought together in one institute, law enforcement would benefit immeasurably. I am certain that there must exist devices, weapons, com- munications instrumentation, and other hardware which, because it was not ap- plicable to Viet Nam has been shelved and is gathering dust when it could very well be adapted to more efficient and more humane law enforcement. An institute such as has been proposed would bring to the fore a knowledge and instrumenta- tion which can be of assistance to the police. Please do not ask me for specific examples; I am merely commenting upon what I believe to be a possibility. As any number of authorities and reports have pointed out, we can with radio signals, order an automation to dig a small trench on the moon. At the same time, however, we cannot alter the actions or direction of a flesh and blood policeman through radio contact who may be only two miles from his radio dispatcher unless, of course, the patrolman is still in his vehicle. We can photograph a six- inch rock on the moon under the most adverse conditions, but we cannot photo- graphically detect a night-time intruder in one of our stores. There must be some means and some funds available for the safe-guarding of our citizens' lives and properties when we can perform such awesomely magnificent feats in outer space. I am encouraged that some thinking is going into this, however. I might point out to you that the American Express C~ompany, for instance, is planning a $10,000 a year grant for use by police agencies in research and development projects. As I say, this is highly encouraging. PAGENO="0325" 321 With respect to some of the specific areas of your interest, I am not sufficiently equipped nor knowledgeable enough about existing Federal laboratories to com- ment fully. As far as police thinking is concerned, however, I can provide you with some viewpoints. At IACP headquarters we have a Research and Development Division and the Director of this Division in the last several months has been in touch with a ntimber of the better known Federal agencies whose technical expertise might be applied to police work. This is a rather new venture for us, however, and we have only begun to scratch the surface. To reiterate, we do need and desire the unusual analytical and other technical capabilities of Federal laboratories to supplement the resources of existing crime laboratories. For instance, the Atomic Energy Oommission could provide us with extremely valuable help `through their knowledge of radiation, x-rays, and nu- clear bombardment. It is most important for the police to determine the age of inks, documents, human remains and any number of other physical properties. We need the means to discover contraband on someone's person or in vehicles plying our highways. The government has done a tremendous amount of work in the fields of fabrics, clothing and protective gear which might be applied to police uniforms. This, I believe, has been handled by the Army and Air Force. The Bureau of Standards could be of great assistance in evaluating and testing police equipment such as vehicles and their components. Certainly, any number of Federal agencies have devised equipment and vehicle automotive techniques which could assist police in getting longer life from their vehicles. A police officer is burdened with all kinds of heavy equipment as `he walks his beat. We need an analysis of this equipment to make his burden lighter. Instead of adapting civilian vehicles to police work, we need someone to devise a better car or patrol vehicle which would be particularly helpful to police. We need a means of electronically bringing to a `halt motor vehicles being driven at danger- ously high rates of speed. These are some thoughts that occurred to us when we received this invitation to testify, and I am certain that your deliberations have covered other areas of need. I do believe that we could well use the information centers which some Federal laboratories have established. I believe there is a great need, as I said before, to bring out for the benefit of the police data which must exist in `the Federal government. For instance, I was told privately sometime ago that the Army has been testing the various tear gases being used by police. There is a great deal of concern among police and the public generally as to the possible lasting harm- ful effects of such products as Chemical Mace. We receive inquiries on this con- stantly, but we have neither the means nor the funds to analyze this substance, and therefore, we are unable to allay the fears of police and the public alike. If the Army has information of this type we should like to know what it is since the tear gases are being used throughout the country. I say this is an example of what could ben'efit the police if such information centers were set up. As I have indicated, I believe it is not only feasible but desirable that the capabilities of existing Federal laboratories be used when they coincide with the research needed by police departments. Close working relations could be created among the Federal laboratories and police departments by using the Research and Development Division of the IACP as the conduit. We represent the great majority of the police executives in this country and IAOP is the only organization of its kind in this country. Being non-profit, educational and pro- fessional in character, we would be eligible to fill this role From what I have s'aid already, it is clear that Federal laboratories could `do much to foster the setting ~f standards for police equipment and technical meth- ods and procedures since police agencies in this country are necessarily mdc- pendent un'der our form of government. It `has been the `practice that they experi- ment and adapt equipment and techniques independently. This, of course, is un- economical and unrealistic. One of our main problems is disseminating data about equipment usage and techniques which may have been developed in a single de- partment. The proper approach, of course, would be for a police agency to be selected for a pilot project for the determination of standards and then have this information disseminated properly. Once again I would recommend the ,IACP as the appropriate pipeline for this activity. I believe that once an appropriate institute is established for the marriage of Federal science and police work, funds should he made available to all appro- priate government laboratories for training specialists in scientific and teelmical aspects of police work in order that they might have more kn~wledgeahle research application of existing science to the police establishment. PAGENO="0326" 322 Industry, of course, has a great stake in minimizing crime in this country. The cost of crime, as you know, is some twenty-two billion dollars a year and industry must share a part of this burden both in losses and insurance costs. The problem here, however, is that millions of dollars must sometimes be spent by industry in researching a particular product and devising a prototype. Unfortunately, how- ever, the police market and budget are not sufficient to take advantage of what is devised. Without a suitable market `industry very rightly has little interest in devoting a great deal of research to the needs of police. For example, Congress- man Scheuer arranged an exhibit last year of sophisticated equipment which might be applicable to police work. I saw at the exhibition a device capable of detecting narcotics by their peculiar odor. This detection `could `be accomplished at some distance; in other words, the device could detect narcotics in the attic of a building even though the investigator was not even on the grounds. I do not recall the price tag on this instrument but it was far beyond what any police agency could afford and as a matter of fact, probably the cost would even prohibit use of the device by the Federal Bureau of Narcotics. There must be funds which could bridge this gap and I suppose the only solution would be Federal subsidy of private industry research followed by Federal support for police purchase of the instrumentation developed. Gentlemen, I believe that what you are trying to accomplish is extremely im- portant and is something which should be followed to a logical conclusion. No one needs more help today than the police officer and the innocent citizen lie protects. We are on the verge of being engulfed `by criminality. There i's no greater do- mestic need than to `bring about a reversal of this trend. QUESTIONS SUBMITTEI) TO MR. QUINN TAMM BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, RESEARCH AND DEVE1~OPMENT 1. In his testimony Dr. Blumstein stated: I think the equipment needed in operating police departments is almost all on the shelf somewhere. It is a matter of choosing from what is available and tying it together in the right way. Although there are some ecoceptions to that, basically the equipment can be made available. The research that is needed is resea'rch into the operations of this system, into social causes of crime, into the impact on crime of the various things done in the name of controlling it... We know how to make the radios. It is a matter of coagulating the market, organizing the demand, and providing the `wherewithal to get the radios introduced. (a) Would you agree with that statement? If not, what do you see as the basic needs? (b) If you do not agree, why, isv your opinion, are law enforcement agencies not using the available technology? (c) What can be done about it? (d) Why, in your opinion, hasn't industry filled the void as it would with nor- mal consumer demand~s? 1.. Dr. Blumstein's statement as quoted substantiates my testimony made before your committee on April 4, 1968 in which I said, "I am certain that there must exist devices, weapons, communications instrumentation, and other hardware which, because it was not applicable to Viet Nam has been shelved and is gathering dust when it could very well be adapted to more efficient and more humane law enforcement." However, we must not allow ourselves to be lulled into a feeling of false security. Continued research and advancement is necessary. I support the program advocated in the science and technology task force report of the Presi- dent's Crime Commission which called for an interdisciplinary team of profes- sionals that would be brought together in one institute such as the National In- stitute of Law Enforcement and Criminal lustice, which would provide us with new methodology in our fight against the rising crime rate. Law enforcement agencies are not using the available technology because the instruments that have been developed are not being produced in such quantities as to make the use of these instruments economically feasible for smaller departments. I am sure that there are many underlying reasons which have steered industry away from filling `this void. One very compelling reason is the relatively small market for products that will be used exclusively by law enforcement agencies. 2. In your testimony you refer to the JAUP advocating that ininim1,L~m educa- tional and training requirements be adopted by the state legislatures through- out the country. (a) What minimum educational and training requirements does the IACIP reconvinend? PAGENO="0327" 323 (b) Why do yoi~t consider this necessary? (o) What are the 23 States that harve adopted miovimum requirements? 2. The minimum edueational and training standards recommended by the IAOP are listed on Enclosure #1. Enclosure #2 is a copy of our Model Police Stand- ards (Jonncil Program which details our suggested program. In brief, we consider these standards are the minimum possible that will permit the forces of law en- forcement to cope with the increasing complex social problems of this modern age. A detailed explanation of our position is outlined beginning on page 12 of the August 1967 issue of our POLICE CHIEF magazine, Enclosure #3.* Detailed data on the states having police training legislation are listed on Enclosure #4. MINIMUM EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS Oitizen of United States 21 years of age Background Investigation Fingerprint Record Check (no felony conviction) Medical and Mental Exanitha.tion Oral Interview High School Graduate or Equivalent MINIMUM TRAINING STANDARDS Type Hours To be completed following appointment Recruit 240 12 months. Supervisory Middle management Executive Advanced officers' course 80 100 100 40 Do. Do. Optional. Every 4 years. *~c1~u~s 2 and 3 may be found in the committee files. PAGENO="0328" STATUS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING LEGISLATION IN UNITED STATES AS OF FEBRUARY 1968 V 3 Fixed by commission Government improvement fund_ - - 9 200 (averaging about 400 hours Peace officers training fund (from V in active practice) fines) 9 Fixed by council at 224 hours General fund V (also special course of 1 week in fingerprinting and administration. 12 Fixed by council at 160 hours do M 12 Fixed by police standards Direct appropriation M council at 200 hours. 16 Fixed by board at 160 hours - Local governmental law enforce- V ment fund. 14 Fixed by board at 160 hours - Law enforcement training fund; M $2 from each criminal court cost Up to 6 weeks Local agencies M 10 Fixed by commission at 160 do M hours. 11 240 hours; fixed by council... - State general fund M 11 130 hours 10 percent from general fund to V LEO training fund (assessment on criminal fines). Arkansas Law Enforcement Training Academy. Commission on peace officer stand- ards and training. Departmentof Justice. Colorado Law Enforcement Training Academy, advisory council (acad- emy operates under the super- vision of the Colorado State patrol.) Each agency pays own expenses Municipal police training council. Council may reimburse employing Police standards council. agency for salary and expenses while in school. To local governments that choose Local governmental law enforcement to participate $500, or 3.'~ actual officers' training board. expenses. Fund pays full cost of training Law enfoi~em~nt training board (also advisory council, 4 members). Academy to be constructed at Iowa Law Enforcement Academy Camp Dodge, Iowa. Council. Police training commission (in executive department). Municipal police training council. Michigan Law Enforcement Officers' Training Council. Number State of members Hours of instruction-basic Funded course Mandatory through- or Provides- Name of governing body voluntary Arkansas: Ch. 526, ArkansasStatute (passed 1965) California: Sec. 13500, Penal Code (passed 1959) Colorado: Ch. 263 (passed 1965)~~ Connecticut: Connecticut Statutes ch. 104, sec. 7-294 (passed 1965). Florida (passed 1967) Illinois (passed 1965) Indiana (passed 1967) Iowa: Ch. 80.10, Iowa Statute (passed 1967). Maryland: Sec. 70-A, art 41, Anno- tated Code of Maryland (passed 1966). Massachusetts (passed 1964) Michigan: SB. 30 (passed 1965)__ -- Food, lodging, and expenses during school. Mandatory for reimbursement 50 percent of salary and living ex- penses during school. Each agency or trainee pays $50 toward cost of basic course $15 for special course. Appointing authority pays wages and reasonable expenses. Mandatory for reimbursement to these governmental bodies that choose to apply, 50 percent salary, 50 percent expenses (overnight). PAGENO="0329" Minnesota: Ch. 626.461, Minnesota 15 Fixed by superintendent, State legislation and municipal V State pays tuition, city or county Statute (passed 1959). 80-160, 160-200 (in governments, 7 agencies pays per diem and regular salary. 1968-69). provide training. Mississippi: Sec. 8086-01 et seq. Fixed by academy at 3 weeks_ Law Enforcement Officers Training V Commission of public safety may (passed 1964). Academy fund. maintain a training academy_ Montana: Ch. 52, sec. 75, Code of 9 Academy open 3 weeks during Local agencies V Local agencies pay salaries and ex- Montana (passed 1959). year. penses during training. Nevada: Ch. 216, Nevada revised 5 72 hours set by commission_ - State department of education M Commission has adopted standards statutes (passed 1965). and title 1, Higher Education and required training to be Act of 1965. obtained. New Jersey: 52:178-66 New 9 190 (actual classes exceed State general fund, $260,000 M Departments pay salaries during Jersey Statutes (passed 1961 this) 240 hours, effective requested for 1968-69. training. (v); passed 1965 (m)). Mar. 1, 1968. New York: Sec. 480-484 executive 8 240 hours including 30 State general fund M 1 Payment of training expenses not law, New York State, art. 19F, hours supervised field provided in act. New York Statutes (passed training. 1959). North Dakota: Ch. 12-61, North 9 Dakota Code (passed 1967). Ohio: Sec. 109-71 Ohio Statutes 9 (passed 1966). Oklahoma: (passed 1966) 5 Oregon: Oregon revised statutes 9 1.620, passed 1961 (v), passed 1967 (m). Rhode Island: Ch. 42, sec. 1-25, None V Local agencies pay salaries. No Municipal police school (under Public Laws of Rhode Island tuition. State pays training, superintendent of State police (passed -). at University of Rhode Island). Tennesseo: Ch. 6, sec. 38-801 V Institute charges agencies for cost Tennessee Police Training Institute. Tennessee Statutes (passed 1963). of training expenses. Texas: Senate bill 236 (passed 12 140 hours General fund $67, 356. in V Cities pay cost of training. Commission on law enforcement 1965). officer standards. South Dakota: State government 7 80 hours and 2 days firearms General fund V Advisory commission to assist Training advisory commission. ch. 161, sec. 2 (passed 1966). and 10 hours first-aid. division of criminal investigation. `Cities over 1,000,000 excluded. 2 As to cities over 1,000. Fixed by commission at 160 State general fund, $5,000 per M hours effective 1968. year. 120; set by council Not provided in act M 120 hours Legislative appropriation M Fixed by board at 120 hours - Police standards and training M 2 account in general fund. State appropriation Police officer training advisory board (under superintendent, bureau of criminal apprehension). Mississippi Law Enforcement Officers' Training Academy. Montana Law Enforcement Academy Advisory Board. Peace officers standards and training commission. Police training (in department of law and public safety). Municipal police training council (in office for local government), municipalities pay for ammuni- tion. Professionals get about $20 per session. North Dakota Combined Law Enforcement Council. Peace officers training council (in attorney general's office). Council on law enforcement educa- tion and training. Board on police standards and training. Officer must be certified in order to carry a firearm. Payment of training expenses not provided for in act. Council may provide for tuition or scholarships aid. Board may require certification of existing officers. PAGENO="0330" 326 3. Insurance companies support research and standard setting in an effort to lessen the losses due to fire. Why, in your opinion, hasn't this occurred in the crime field, either with support by insurance companies or industrial trade associations? 3. IACP does receive financial support for its work by insurance interests such as the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety and Prudential Life Insurance Company, industrial trade associations such as the American Trucking Associa- tions and the Automotive Safety Foundation, and various industrial corpora- tions. We were supported in our work in the personnel standards area by a Ford Foundation grant. In relationship to the overall requirement for law enforcement, however, this total support has been modest, and concentrated in IACP. 4. Approwimately how many poUce departments are there in the United States? Does the IAUP have any breakdown on the size of these departments (those under 25 men, those under 50 men, etc.) and the average budget for each size? 4. It is estimated that there are some 40,000 police departments in the United States, 25,000 of which are in communities of less than 1,000 population. The Municipal Yearbook, Library of Congress Catalog Card #34-29121, published by the International City Managers Association, contains a survey which gives data for police departments in cities over 10,000 population. Data on 1,022 police departments are given, including information on the size of the department and the budget for each department. (The data are not summarized.) 5. Conld you describe the work the IAUP is doing with NASA's Office of Tech- nology Utilization? (a) Please submit a list of the 43 areas submitted to NASA where technology could benefit law enforcement requirements. (b) How were these 43 needs identified by the IA(JP? (c) What areas is NASA investigating, and with what result? (d) What does the IAUP plan to do with the information it receives from NASA? 5. IACP staff personnel has had a series of meetings with persons from NASA's Office of Technology Utilization including Mr. George J. Howick its Director. The purpose of these meetings was to identify those areas of technological ad- vancement which may be of importance and use to the law enforcement com- munity. We were asked to provide NASA with a list of areas for examination. Literature searches of the NASA information resources were conducted on the development of extended range personal radio communications and light-weight thermal clothing to eliminate the need for heavy cumbersome clothing. As a result of these searches, two documents were forwarded to us for our review. After reviewing these documents, we will contact manufacturers for the purpose of determining the feasibility of producing a sufficient amount of these items to benefit the law enforcement community. A list of the 43 areas identified is attached as Enclosure #5. (Enclosure 5) MEMORANDUM Date: December 8, 1967. From: Roy MeLaren. Subject: NASA Program Suggestions. To: Ron Smith. Topics proposed for further study are as follows: 1. Real `time display of status and location of patrol cars and other units in the field with automated control programs to permit guided random patrol, possibly eliminating beat constrictions'. 2. Automatic scanning of license plates on vehicles passing particular points, such as major bridge on a controlled access roadway, much as railroad cars are now scanned. The scanning device's output would `be searched by computer; any "hits" would be immediately furnished a control point. 3. Development of extended range personal radio communications, so that each police officer, whether in car or on foot could: a. be contacted individually b. be contacted as a group c. have 3-way voice capability (that is, station to officer, officer to station, and officer to officer). d. direct original messages to discrete addresses 4. Crime and traffic forecasting system similar to techniques used in marketing. 5. Personnel testing techniques which would more concisely indicate pro- motional potential. PAGENO="0331" 327 6. Use of infra-sound at 8 cycles per second as a non-lethal weapon and riot control device. 7. Miniaturized radar to detect persons in fields, woods, buildings and/or houses, coupled with an automatic housing spotlight. 8. Device to automatically record (in printed form) officer assignments and all miscellaneous activities. 9. Miniaturized recorder permitting automatic transmission of reports to central point for typing, with personal radio-data channel. 10. Device to temporarily incapacitate a person without permanent injury. 11. Device to render automobile, scooter, motorcycle and/or helicopter com- pletely silent. 12. Low light viewing devices in a price range which could be afforded and in a configuration which could be handled by police officers. (See No. 7.) 13. TechnIques for use in the examination of physical evidence which exploit neutron activation analysis. 14. System for automated fingerprint identification. 15. Police microwave systems which are designed to do a police communica- tions job with economy foremost in mind. 16. Secure communications at a suitable privacy level for law enforcement. 17. Further exploration of spread spectrum, random access techniques for police communications. 18. Development of high speed facsimile equipment having fingerprint trans- mission definition for use between headquarters and substations. 19. Examination of digital overlay techniques to provide the movement of (lata, etc., over existing radio channels. 20. Miniature transmitters-which can be monitored by a remote station for surveillance (RDF) purposes. 21. Remote visual security scanners (self-contained) for business and other high hazard areas. Such scanners should be sensitive to light and heat, yet not be activated by small animals. For example, scanners would be self-activating and would transmit a picture of an alley behind a series of medical offices to a remote monitor at police headquarters. Patrol personnel could be dispatched and guided by such an instrument. Such scanners could also be mounted on patrol vehicles for use during hours of darkness, thus persons and suspicious vehicles in dark shadows would be quickly located. Such scanners could be installed on rooftops of a group of stores, buildings, or warehouse areas to prevent rooftop burglaries. 22. A computerized library of criminalistic formulas which would be placed in several world-wide locations. Information relative to specific tests and/or pro- cedures would be immediately available. (Data retrieval-information exchange.) 23. A chemical which can be discharged with direction by a police officer that will incapacitate without the undesirable discomforts of liquid tear gas, and which will not require penetration of the skin. (Related to No. 10.) 24. Blood coagulants that can be locally applied to stop arterial bleeding. 25. Small collapsible, lightweight ladders that can be carried in the trunks of police vehicles, which would enable police access to rooftops of buildings. 26. Small lightweight flashlights with powerful adjustable beams variable from pinpoint to flood. (See also No. 12.) 27. Waterproofing materials, yet porous~ to impregnate police uniforms to eliini- nate the need for heavy cumbersome raincoats and boots 28. Lightweight thermal clothing to eliminate need for heavy cumbersome cold weather clothing. 29. Computerized police assignment plans that will designate the most practical quadrant or line cover for any given location in a community. While taking a rob- bery report over the telephone the dispatcher would simply punch in the address of the incident and an assignment cover would be produced in a second. 30. Portable lightweight metal detectors for scanning suspects at a distance on the street for possible concealed weapons. 31. Inexpensive hidden miniature cameras capable of taking sharp photos with available light. These could be placed in strategic locations inside stores and con- nected with a silent alarm. When officers arrived at the scene of a robbery-if the responsible(s) had already left-there would be developed photographs of the suspects waiting for review and transmission. 32. A chemical that could be administered by police officers to reduce shock of severely injured or burned persons to reduce the possibility of death. 33. Development of edor identification techniques so that an individual can be identified through odors lingering at a crime scene. (See No. 38.) PAGENO="0332" 328 34. Highway separators and crash rails of a resilient material or some other substance to replace present crash rails and fencing. 35. Development of TV "instant" reply of crime and traffic scenes so patrol officers, evidence technicians can take pictures used by investigators and labora- tory personnel. (See No. 31.) 36. Back-pack propulsion units for patrol service. 37. Better radar which can calculate the speed of vehicles driving toward police vehicle or crossing in front of a moving police vehicle. 38. Improve senses through physical or chemical processes. a. Vision: better night vision by using infra-red goggles or lenses or taking chemical such as bilberries. b. Hearing: improved and selective hearing discerning various noises such as sonar detectors, identification of certain noises which activate warning devices. c. Smell: improve ability to smell various conditions, burning wood, metal cutting tor~cb, the presence of a person in a building being searched, or even the identity of individuals. (See No. 33.) 39. Vehicle incapacitator: ability to direct a beam at a specific vehicle, causing the engine to stop running. 40. Ability to scan city and identify specific vehicles, their location, ownership, etc. Keep this data for short duration so when a crime is reported, the time and place can be checked to see what vehicles were in the area. 41. A colorless "tagging" material which leaves a subliminal "odor" trail and which may be sprayed upon a fleeing suspect or vehicle. This should remain for a period of two or three days and should permit subliminal odor tracing by instili- mentation. By this manner officers could avoid using deadly force in attempting to apprehend fleeing sub~ects. 42. The development of a cartridge similar to a bullet which may be fired by the officer at a subject. This cartridge would have the effect of causing instant paralysis of the subject. This paralysis should last but a few minutes. (Related to Item 10.) 43. Development of a world-wide data system comparable to N.O.I.O., using such advanced techniques as satellite communications and optional scanning of fingerprints and photographs in support of immigration processing and interna- tional police operations. 6. Based upon your eceperience with running a clearing house on law enforce- ment research, how useful is this concept as you are presently performing it? What advantages and disadvantages do you see in tying such a function to a Federal agency that already is performing a clearing house function for scientific and technical information? 6. We are now witnessing the most wide-spread "information explosion" in our nation's history. The law enforcement profession is feeling the pains of this recent proliferation of research information, and we have found that it is most beneficial to have a central depository and place of dissemination for reference material relative to police science, criminalistics, law enforcement, and police administration. The advantage of this type of specialized clearinghouse is obvious. The researcher only has to inquire of one source for information regarding law enforcement. I see no advantage in tying this information source into the Federal Clearinghouse for Scientific and Technical Information. It does not seem to me that the Clearinghouse can be as responsive to the needs of law enforcement as a specialized law enforcement center. 7. As- we understand the functions of the FBI's laboratory, it is primarily a servicO laboratory devoted to the analysis of evidence and to whatever research and development is needed for its services. To what ecvtent would it be desirable for this laboratory to seek a leadership position in the forensic and police sciences? 7. As I have stated, the FBI laboratory has contributed tremendously to law enforcement and literally thousands upon thousands of criminal cases have been brought to successful culmination because of the existence of this laboratory. At the same time, many individuals have been exonerated of wrong-doings through the application of science by the FBI laboratory. I think this service should~ be expanded. 8. Roughly speaking, what do you estimate it would cost per year to reverse the increasing crime rate, or at least bring it into harmony with the population rate? In what broad fields would you apportion these funds (training, operations, research, etc.) and why? PAGENO="0333" 329 8. It is estimated that our annual crime costs are in excess of $20 billion, and only some $2.4 billion of that cost is for police services. At the same time, the Department of Commerce tells us we, as a nation, spent $28.7 billion on recrea- tion in 1966, and we are averaging over $18 billion per year on research and development, little or none of it for law enforcement. I believe it impossible to give you a definitive estimate on costs per year to reverse the crime rate. I do feel, however, that the funds authorized by Title I of the "Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1967" should provide initial resources towards this end. 0. It has been proposed that the directors 01 Federal laboratories have funds available to pursue research relevant to national problems (such as crime) up to the point where proposals could then be submitted to the agency havinq the pri- mary mission responsibility. What do you see as the advantages and disadvan- tages of such a concept? (a) How would Federal laboratory personnel be aware of the specific needs of law enforcement agencies? 9. I would suggest that it would be quite useful to have funds available for the directors of federal laboratories to pursue research relevant to the reduction of crime. Federal agencies which are geared and structured towards research mat- ters would not have the problems of staffing, and other incidental matters that would be Involved in beginning new research either by police departments or private institutions. I would suggest that the IACP should be the organization through which the specific needs of law enforcement agencies can be identified. Mr. DADDARIO. Even though we are in a rush, I wonder if you could come forward, Mr. English, and in the `$hort `time remaining, give us the highlights of your statement. STATEMENT `OP JOSEPH M. ENGLISH, DIRECTOR OP THE FORENSIC SCIENCES LABORATORY, INSTITUTE `OP CRIMINAL LAW AIfl) PROCEDURE, `GEORGETOWN U~VERSITY Mr. ENGLISH. Thank you, Mr. Ohairm'an. It is certainly an `honor `and a privilege to participate in your dis- cussions concerning Federal Government laboratories which have scientific and technical skills applicable to the forensic sciences, which are the disciplines of `the crime laboratory. The crime laboratory disciplines `include document analysis, firearms and tool-mark iden- tification, bloodstain identification, identification of stains due to other body fluids, `hair an'd fiber analysis, `analyses of paints, glass fragments, soils, dust and `other particulate evidence, extraction `and analysis of drugs and poisons found in biological `specimens, `analysis of inks and dyes, `and others. Unlike many who `have spoken `here before me, whose organiza- tions have long since established enviable records of accomplishment, the National Bureau `of Standards, for instance, which observes its 67th birthday thi's month, `the President's Scientific Advisory Com- mittee, the National Aeronautics and Sp'ace Administration, `and the others, I represent `an installation which is not yet a year `and `a h'alf old. Th'at you of thi's subcommittee of the Congress should `have sought us out is gratifying. If I may, I would like t'o explain what the Forensic Sciences Laboratory is. The laboratory came into existence on October 19, 1966, a's a result of the combined' effort of the Ford Foun'd'ation `and Georgetown University. This effort produced the Institute of Criminal Law and Procedure, of which the F'oren'sic Sci'ences Laboratory is a part. PAGENO="0334" 330 The laboratory is based in the Law and Medical Centers of george- town University and is involved with much of the remainder of the university complex. The laboratory has undertaken three missions. These are concerned with (1) identifying that research product in the hard sciences and in technology which has application to the unsolved problems of the forensic sciences, (2) dissemination of this knowledge as well as of the best current procedures through training and education `as well as pt~blicatioii, and (3) providing of service in cases which relate to research interest and in which injustice may otherwise be likely to occur. The identification and application of new knowledge in medical, biochemical, toxicological, nuclear, and space science research which ha's not or has inadequately found its way into the crime laboratory appear to be the `aspects of the laboratory's work which is of prmcipai interest to this subcommittee in its present investigation. I shall, therefore, concentrate on these. Many such scientific advances do exist, advances which are not being used by crime laboratory experts. Advances frequently are not used by police laboratories for a number of reasons: 1. The people doing the research have not been trying to solve police problems, hence extension of scientific investigation oriented to the solving of problems of identification as to source is not undertaken. 2. The police `are not aware of new knowledge in the sciences which may be of help to them and are not `trained to use it. 3. Researchers in t'he `h'ard sciences are not aware of the needs of the crime laboratory or lack familiarity with the current state of the art in the forensic sciences; for example, `an intimate ac- quaintance with the procedures of handwriting identification may help a computer software specialist introduce a new element of precision to this field. Lacking this familiarity, there m'ay be a tendency toward overly complex solutions to this and comparable problems. 4. The community as a whole has not devoted, much conscious attention to the needs of the crime laboratory disciplines. On this last-mentioned point, it would not surprise me to find that no one of the directors `of the federally run research and develop- ment operations really knows of the needs of the forensic sciences. To illustrate, the National Register of S'~ientific and Technical Personnel does not identify forensic scientists as su'ch. A list of over 50 currently active scientific specialists in the forensic sciences was searched `against the National Register. Of the more than 50 names, indluding many outstanding men in this field, only seven were found to appear in the Register under any category. Obviously, there is little awareness that the field exists at al'l on the part of that segment of the scientific community which maintains rapport with the Federal Government's efforts in the sciences. The same is true `among the private foundations, where there is no tradi- tion of support `for the forensic sciences. It would appear that in exploring the research and development potential for the `forensic sciences of existing Federal laboratories, PAGENO="0335" 331 care must be observed to avoid considering solutions before first becom- ing fully appraised of the nature and extent of the problem. You ask what my experience has been in obtaining collaboration and assistance from Government laboratories which have scientific and technical skills applicable to forensic analysis. Since, initially, the efforts of the laboratory were concentrated on the exploration of the capabilities of Georgetown University and those of private and local government facilities and talent, it has beeii only relatively recently that investigation of the Federal Government's scientific capabilities has been undertaken. Those contacts which have been effected with Federal agencies have been very fruitful. The National Aeronautics and Space Administra- tion has been engaged in highly advanced studies in instrument anal- yses `for moon and planetary surface investigations which have special importance for the analysis of particulate evidence on the mother planet. NASA-Goddard Space Flight Center scientists of the Laboratory for Theoretical Studies there also have been doing some very signifi- cant work in the area of experimental design development and evalu- ation and the development of mathematical procedures to correct for machine and transmission induced degradation c~f analytical data. Also, their work in X-ray fluorescence and other analytical procedures have been very interesting. Further, work at NASA-Goddard in telem- etry of instrument readout and its significance in terms of the needs of police investigating officers at the crime scene show exciting possi- bilities to farseeing people in police work. However, NASA-Goddard cannot spend from its budget any funds to develop these obvious potential breakthroughs in crime control. Georgetown can afford it with its Ford funds to supply only a tiny por- tion of the total funds needed to develop the promise of this work into actual hardware and know-how for police. Explorations by the Forensic Sciences Laboratory `at the Harry Diamond Ordnance Laboratory, the Armed Forces Institute of Path- ology, and `other Federal scientific facilities as well `as many private laboratory facilities have resulted in much assistance and encourage- ment during the discussions which have taken place. However, discussion does not produce hardware. Nor does it educate and train police laboratory experts in its use. In `my investigations so far, I have yet to find any Federal labora- tory facility, and I must interject `at this point that I have just begun this phnse, I have yet to come upon a facility which had fund's it could commit to the work necessary to develop the promise of work already done so that it would be useful `as a police `aid or a police `crime labora- tory aid. Unfettered fund's in significant amounts `at the disposal of the directors of Federal laboratory facilities may help matters. But I `am not at `all `certain that they will in view of the mission orientation which i's so evident in the Federal Government establishments `as re- flecsted in the testimony of others who have preceded me here, `and in view `of the almost total lack of awareness throughout the American community, public and p'rivate sectors alike, that there is `such a thing as `scientific crime `detection and `control `a's `a `legitimate `area for re- search effort and support. PAGENO="0336" 332 A policy statement may well help insofar as the application of Federal laboratory cap:aJhuli'ties to the forensic sciences is concerned. I certainly believe one is long overdue. I believe also that positive encouragement on the part of Government to stimulate Federal lab- oratory directors to commit funds in this direction is long overdue. Obviously there are details and implications which must be studied before such `a statement can be issued and implemented. The `study of these details `and of the implications should be undertaken forthwith. Such a study should take into consideration all potential interrela- tionships-Government and local, Government and university, `Gov- ernment `and police, police and university, and others `and should examine into management an'd other organizational `aspects of in- suring maximum benefits to the Nation from research efforts expended. The desirability of a Federal laboratory's establishing within `its existing information system a clearinghouse or information center on research and development relating to crime control `an'd the improved administration of justice depends upon a `number of considerations. Certainly a clearinghouse for this type of information is badly needed. So i's training in the use of the needed information badly needed. The `agency eventually charged with t'his responsibility will have to perform a function similar to those of the Education Research Information Center in the TJ.S. Office of Education, the Communica- ble Diseases Center, the Armed Forces Technical Information Agen- cy, and Medlars. The `operations of these `organizations whi~h have `had salutary influences on educational, technological, and medical :research an'd the application of the product of research efforts in education, technology, and medicine should provide important guidance for the establishment of such `a center. Whether there is an existing `agency capable `of taking on this func- tion, I am not prepared to say `at this time, but let us find out `and let us get going. `Crime, like time `an'd tide, is not standing `still. Mr. DADDAmO. Thank you very much, Mr. English. You pointed out that there are in certain of our national labora- tories significant information which, if utilized, could be of tremen- dous help. Questions of jurisdiction and funding have been discussed in these hearings, `and if this information could `be made known we should be `able t'o take `advantage of it. Mr. ENGLISH. `That is right. `Mr. DADDARIO. We felt `that this was so. It `h'as `been indicated in a few places that it is, `and you give us additional `information about it. Your testimony i's very `significant `because `obviously if information is obtained, even thoug~h it is `a byproduct of a mission-oriented labora- tory, we ough't `to be able to handle it and to take `advantage of it. This is one of the objective's o'f this committee. I apologize that we `have to leave because you have `some very im- portant information, and I `hope that `we might get in touch with you with some further questions for the record. Mr. ENGLISH. Certainly; yes sir. Mr. DADDARIO. We would `like to `probe `into this further because it is extremely helpful. PAGENO="0337" 333 QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO MR. JOSEPH M. ENGLISH BY THE SUB- COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 1. It has been proposed that the directors of Federal laboratories have funds available to pursue research relevant to national problems (such as crime) up to the point where proposals could then be submitted to the agency having the primary nvission responsibility. What do you see as the advantages and dis- advantages of such a concept? (a) How would Federal laboratory personnel be aware of the specific needs of law enforcement agencies? 1. The providing of uncommitted funds which would be available to directors of Federal laboratories to pursue research relevant to National problems, such as crime, up to the point where proposals could be submitted to the agency having primary responsi~bility would appear to offer a number of advantages. It should speed the transfer to the forensic sciences of new knowledge and technology from the many disciplines represented in these laboratories. Disadvantages are not ~apparent at this point in time. However, problems are predictable. These for the most part would be problems of management. (a) Federal laboratory personnel could ~e made aware of the specific needs of the Forensic Sciences in several ways. One possible way would be to institute a Joint Congressional Science and Technology Utilization group. Such a group should keep Federal laboratory personnel aware of the needs of law enforcement agencies and in turn should keep law enforcement agencies acquainted with new developments in the sciences. An example of a Federal agency which has already demonstrated a concern that their research product serve the broader National needs is the Technology Utilization Division of NASA. NASA utilization teams have been organized for specific areas of possi~ble application of NASA-developed technology. To insure optimum screening of the total Government research com- munity, a liaison team designed for this purpose would appear to be essential. The team, I believe, should be based in the Legislative branch. The necessary funding of specific undertakings, I ~elieve, should be managed by this group with the aid of an advisory panel drawn from among the outstanding people in the Forensic Sciences as well as from among those in pertinent scientific disciplines and the Law Enforcement profession. To attempt to operate without such a utilization team presents serious problems. First, at this point in time, there does not appear to be a realistic base for budgeting the amounts which should be awarded to each of the many participating agencies. Second, making this the concern of all research facilities means that we make it the prime concern of none. On the other hand, the existence of funds which a Federal research agency might court and the leverage provided by the utilization group's Congressional base would tend `to form a powerful combination which, in my opinion, would bring results far more quickly and efficiently in dealing with agencies of the Executive Branch than another Executive agency created for this purpose is likely to be able to accomplish. The function of such `a Congressional group would be distinct from that of the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA) and the Institute of Criminal Justice (ICJ), whose responsibilities are far broader, involve distri~bu- tion of information and support to police throughout the Nation. The LEAA and the ICJ would `be keenly interested consumers of the output resulting from the Congressional group's activities within the Government research community. 2. In your testimony you indicate that certain work in government laboratories could contribute to the forensic sciences but this would require that the labora- tory directors have funds in significant amounts at their disposal to pursue this work. Would you cite specific ewampies of the work you arc referring to and how much money you csti~niate would be required to carry the work forward? 2. Examples of work in Government research laboratories which could con- tribute to the Forensic Sciences include the following areas of scientific investi- gation which have been supported by the Atomic Energy Commission, the Department of Defense, NASA and others. Work with radio isotopes and nuclear generators for use in chemical analysis, such as: alphas excitation X-ray fluorescence systems, portable neutron gen- erators and californium as a source of thermal neutrons which may bring neutron activation analysis within reach of more police department crime laboratories. Advanced detector systems employing advanced solid state detectors and light weight, highly reliable, low power multi-channel analyzers, as well as the miniaturized ion sputterhig source mass spectrograph as additional tools for analysis of physical, including small particle evidence. 93~-2O1 O-68----22 PAGENO="0338" 334 Advanced computer methods including on-line real time data analysis, pat- tern recognition, data handling-acquisition, compression and transmission systems; techniques developed for the transmission and denoising of transmitted television images as a means of speeding the transmission and utilization of evidentiary data and many possible in-laboratory applications such as advanced scanning and digitizing as a means of extracting data from handwriting and hand printing. Advanced technology in electron probe microanalysis for the analysis of extremely small areas, which instrumentation should be within reach of larger crime laboratories. The starlight scope image intensification system for assistance in observing illegal activity taking place under cover of darkness. These devices reportedly were in use in Viet Nam more than two years ago and may constitute a type of the hardware on the shelf which Dr. Blumstein referred to. Advanced medical research and technology in blood analysis for parameters of genetic and environmental origin. Work being done in the development of methods of interpretation and man- agement of information as a basis for decision making under stress as a means of reducing the subjectivity of the process of evaluating evidentiary findings as well as a possible tool in riot management. For the benefits of work in the above areas to be effectively introduced into the main stream of the Forensic Scienëes, several things are necessary. These are: (1) Extension of development work oriented to the special needs of the Forensic Sciences, (2) Better rapport between the Forensic Sciences and ongoing research in related fields, and (3) Greatly increased public awareness of the needs and their im- portance. To extend the development work and increase the inter-discipline dialogue, especially the first, obviously funds are needed. A Congressional group, such as described, could if properly staffed, produce dramatic results with a budget of $150 thousand for the first year of operation, including within that total $50 thousand general administrative costs and $100 thousand in unfettered funds for developmental research. The second year budget would more nearly approximate the normal operating budget; which would approximate $500 thousand annually, of which about $100 thousand would cover general administrative costs and $400 thousand would be available in unfettered funds for developmental research. Funding for the design and production of hardware based on new knowledge from this source would logically fall within the purview of the LEAA. 3. As we understand the functions of the FBI's laboratory, it is primarily a service laboratory devoted to the analysis of evidence and to whatever research and development is needed for its services. To what es~tent would it be desirable for this laboratory to seek a leadership position in the forensic and police sciences? 3. The FBI Laboratory already holds a position of leadership among the Nation's crime laboratories and from this vantage point has contributed and is contributing substantial benefits to Law Enforcement. As to whether the FBI Laboratory does or should undertake to assume responsibility for the work of other crime laboratories involves a complex of considerations, such as those bearing on delegated mission, those pertaining to recent legislation, the extent of Federal objectives, etc. Any contemplated change should be carefully examined in this light. 4. What work is being performed by Georgetown's Forensic ~cienees Laboratory and what is planned for the future? (a) How does this differ from the work being performed at the FBI Laboratory? 4. The Forensic Sciences Laboratory of Georgetown University's Institute of Criminal Law and Procedure is engaged, within the limits of its own resources, in applying and investigating the application of the analytical techniques used in medical research and in basic research in the physical sciences to the extraction of parameters from handwritten ballpen ink lines which parameters are or may be useful in determining possible sources of the ink and in developing information relative to its possible maximum age. The Laboratory is building a bank of the data it is acquiring. The technology which has been developed in the Laboratory has been made available to the Nation's forensic science laboratories, the dye industry, the ballpen ink industry and others. The Laboratory has provided assistance in this PAGENO="0339" ~335 field when requested and when the request appeared to have merit. Such requests have come from crime laboratory experts, the medical and legal communities and the balipen industry. In addition, a great deal of interest has been manifested by the dye industry. The Laboratory has encouraged and supported research and the publishing of scientific papers and panel discussions at this year's meetings of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences; The American Chemical Society, Middle-Atlantic Region; the Second National Symposium on Law Enforcement Science and Technology and will present a paper before this year's meeting of the Interna- tional Association for Identification. These papers and panel discussions treat the advances made in the Laboratory in handwriting identification, in non-destructive analysis of ballpen ink as well as the possible utilization of modern computer technology, alpha excited X-ray fluorescence and other space science developments in article physics and image clarification in the Forensic Sciences. The Laboratory is assembling a national register of Forensic Science talent. Active investigation is under way to identify areas of medical research which hold promise for relieving some of the more critical needs of the Forensic Sciences. These include the problems of making more specific and more reliable determinations of source of certain categories of physical evidence than is now possible, such as: bloodstains, hairs and handwriting. Highly qualified medical researchers have been identified and their interest stimulated in these directions. These individuals constitute a resources uniquely qualified to attack the problems referred to and are prepared to capitalize upon and extend an impressive body of medical research developed technology as soon as funds are available. (a) The Forensic Sciences Laboratory differs from the FBI Laboratory in that the Forensic Sciences Laboratory's principal purpose is to provide and develop an academic base for the Forensic Sciences. PROPOsED FoRENsIc SCIENcEs CENTER THE PROBLEM There are serious and growing needs in the administration of justice which relate to the courts' increasing dependence upon the expertise of the Nation's crime laboratories. This dependence has been intensified as a consequence of the law's increasing recognition of the inherent limitations of confessions and needs within the crime laboratory milieu. These factors, detailed in the professional studies listed in the footnotes * below may be summarized as follows: 1. Significant numbers of laboratory experts lack adequate education and train- ing. Particularly lacking are means and programs for continuing education and updating in their fields. 2. Certification requirements for expert witnesses are nonexistent in most forensic science disciplines. 3. Discoveries in other disciplines, such as the biological and medical sciences, industrial technology, engineering, space sciences, nuclear science and others, have found their way into the crime laboratory only to a very limited extent. For example, none of the vast new knowledge of blood factors learned since 1902 has been applied to the problems, of identification of dried blood strains. What is known concerning the organic composition of hair has not been applied to the identification of source of hair evidence. 4. Many working in crime laboratories cannot keep up to date on newer meth- ods. Standardization of testing methods and dissemination of these methods are either nonexistent or inadequate for the profession as a whole. * 1Presiident's Commission on Law En~orcenient and Administration of Justice, Report- The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society (1967). 2 Task Force on Science and Technology, President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, Task Force Report: Science and Technology (1967). 2 Methods Committee, American Academy of Forensic Sciences, Study No. 7-Bloodstains (1965) ; Report on IlairExaminations (1963); Study on Inflammables (195k). ~ American Academy of Forensic Sciences, Confidential Report to Document Examinera (1966). 5Criminalistics Section, American Academy of Forensic Sciences, Report on Drugs and Examinations (1961) ; Results of Study No. 3-Firearms (1961). PAGENO="0340" 336 5. Libraries of analytical data are badly needed. These data banks would greatly assist in the analysis, evalution of analytical results and their interpreta- tion as to specificity of source of evidentiary material. 43. There is no tradition of support for crime laboratory facilities in many communities. This lack of a tradition of support for the crime laboratory and its disciplines-the Forensic Sciences-likewise extends into the private sector. PROPOSED ATTACK ON THE PROBLEM Unlike other disciplines and other important areas of public affairs, the forensic sciences have not enjoyed the presence of a "critical mass" which could actively engage itself in a sustained program to overcome inadequacies and meet needs. Unlike the other major professions, the forensic sciences are dependent upon an extremely tenuous relationship with the academic community. What also has been lacking is a special service mechanism which could ac- commodate all those initiatives which must be applied to solve the problem. In the absence of such an agency, the forensic sciences have not been able to gather their resources and bring them to bear to provide solutions. The Forensic Sciences Laboratory of Georgetown University has devoted a year to study of the problem, of various options for solution, and of the design of recommended programs to produce immediate and sustained improvements through the most efficient utilization of resources. To take the positive steps necessary to solution, it is proposed herein to launch a center for. the forensic sciences as an integral part of the University complex. The proposed center would provide a university base for the forensic sciences and also serve as a model for similar activities at other universities throughout the nation. Programs to which the new center would address itself are as follows: Continning Education.-Post secondary course areas would be offered with special emphasis on the needs of presently practicing laboratory experts as follows: a. Forensic Toxicology b. Forensic Serology c. Forensic Pathology d~ Forensic Crystallography e. Hair and Fiber Analysis f. Forensic Ballistics g. Several specialized areas of Document Analysis, such as ink analysis by spectrophotofluorometry, advanced study in handwriting identification, the graphic arts, typography. h. Several specialized areas of Instrument Analysis, such as: Neutron Activa- tion Analysis, Ion Sputtering Source Mass Spectroscopy, X-ray Fluorescence Spectroscopy, Emission Spectroscopy, Infrared-visible-ultraviolet Speetropho- tometry, Gas Chromatography, Thin Layer Chromatography, Electron Spin Resonance and others. i. Experimental design techniques and statistical evaluation methods and their application to laboratory procedures. Certification for Ewpert Witnesses.-Certification standards for expert wit- nesses in 10 delineated areas of practice will be developed. Stndies to Apply New Knowledge.-Investigation by the Georgetown Uni- versity Forensic Sciences Laboratory into priority needs and the consensus of the profession pinpoint the following areas as critically in need of the bene- fits of advances which are known in related basic science fields. Fortunately, these problem areas are particularly amenable to solution by application of the unique resources of personnel and facilities found to exist in the University complex and the community, and these resources can be applied to the studies at once: Hair Identification by Organic Composition.-Three categories of organic composition of human hair will be studied: (a) Characteristic fat or "lipid" composition; (b) Pigmentation pattern or "melanin" composition; (c) Drug content of melanin pigments. Dried Blood Identification by Adaptation of Wet Blood Characteristics.-De- spite extensive advances in wet blood research, forensic specialists in blood- stain identification are as yet unable to extend beyond the basic ABO grouping to take advantage of these advances. Immediate studies by individuals espe- cially equipped to do so at the University and elsewhere can be undertaken in the following areas: PAGENO="0341" 337 (a) Extension of ABO and variations in hemoglobin content, enzymatic content of the red cell, white cell shapes, serum proteins; (b) Factors on gamma globulin molecules; and (c) Factors on white blood cells (tissue antigens)~ Handwriting Mensuration System.-The application of modern technology in order to permit a more detailed and objective examination of handwriting for such things as identity, and psysiological and psychological pathogenesis of the writer can be undertaken immediately. Ballpoint Ink Dating.-The dating of bailpen writing is important because of the high incidence of embezzlement, fraud, forgery, and other crimes in- volving writing. There are no means for dating ballpen writings. The 1. U. Forensic Sciences Laboratory enjoys a leading position in this area as a con- sequence of its work in ink analysis by thin layer chromatography and spec- trophotofluorometry. Dating studies would be a natural outgrowth of the previous work and can be undertaken immediately. Jllonographs.-To provide means for the gathering, coordinating, and dis- seminating of information to promote a higher mean level of expertise among widely dispersed laboratories and experts by communicating advances, new methodologies and new and improved techniques and procedures, working handbooks will be prepared and disseminated in the following areas: Compilation of drug levels in fatal and nonfatal poisonings (reported levels found by workers in the field) Identification of Narcotics from Biological Specimens, such as: blood, urine and tissues (methodology); Hair and fiber identification; Analysis of dried bloodstains (best present procedures); Current developments in Firearms Identification; Microscopic Characteristics of commonly encountered minerals and other substances in incendiary cases, burglaries, etc. Public Information and Education~-ExcePt for the leading role of the FBI, local communities and the public at large do not have sophisticated appre- ciation of the vital needs of the crime laboratory in the administration of justice. The proposed center would serve as a focal point for news media, in the support of an informed public awareness of the crime laboratory. The public concerned includes the general citizenry and special constituencies such as: judges, prosecution and defense attorneys, legislators, students, and others. 5. Insurance companies support research and standard setting in an effort to lessen the losses due to fire. Why, in your opinion, hasn't this occurred in the crime field, either with support by insurance companies or industrial trade associations? 5. The ravages of fire and disease have long been recognized as resulting from controllable conditions. Whereas, the ravages of crime have been largely hidden from view, with the result that it has only been in recent years that there has been any widespread public awareness that serious problems do exist in this field. 6. In his testimony Dr. Blumstein .stated: I think the equipment needed in operating police departments is almost all on the shelf somewhere. It is a matter of choosing from what is available and tying it together in the right way. Although there are sonic eziceptions to that, basically the equipment can be made available. . . The research that is needed is research into the operations of this system, into social causes of crime, into the impact on crime of the various things done in the name of coiitrolling it. . . . We know how to make the radios. It is a matter of coagulating the market, organizing the demand, and providing the wherewithal to get the radios introduced. (a) Would you agree with that statement? If not, what do you see as the basic needs? (b) If you do not agree, why, in your opinion, are law enforcement agencies not using the available technology? (c) What can be done about it? (d) Why, in your opinion, hasn't industry filled the void as it would with normal consumer demands? 6. (a) Ooncerning Dr. B*hunstein's com~nents, it seems to me that he is talking about police enforcement equipment, such as, radios. Moreover, his observations concerning research seem to be directed solely toward research into police operations and conditions conducive to crime. PAGENO="0342" 338 What seems to have been grossly ignored is the crime laboratory area.- detection and identification. This is where updated technology is critically important. (b) Much technology needs to be extended and specifically engineered for crime laboratory use. Much of it is in fields with which police experts have limited familiarity and, further, extensive training is needed in order that crime labora- tory personnel be able to obtain the maximum benefits from the technology and new knowledge which wifi be increasingly available to them if they are prepared for it. (c) Important education and training programs must be undertaken to attract more people of high competence into the field. Salaries will have to become com- petitive with those in other areas which employ scientific talent. The possibility of draft deferment for young men contemplating careers in the field should re- ceive serious consideration. Programs to update present crime laboratory per- sonnel must be undertaken. Qualification standards for experts should be devel- oped as should standards for laboratory procedures for testing and evaluating results of tests in: bloodstain analysis; extraction and identification of poisons including narcotics and other drugs from biological specimens; drug level de- terminations; hair and fiber identification; firearms and tool mark identification; properties of common substances including residues of combustibles and the optical properties of organic and inorganic materials in general. (d) Why industry hasn't filled the void as it would be expected to with normal consumer demands obviously is conjectural. For one thing, the public has a key role here. By and large, the public has not been aware of the tech- nological needs of the crime laboratory. This may account for the absence of demand and the low response on the part of industry to develop and market improved laboratory procedures. When one considers that there are only 40 crime laboratories of varying degrees of capability among the 151 American cities with populations* of 100 thousand or more, the industry's reluctance to invest in developing products for such a limited market becomes somewhat understandable. The fact that the citizenry of the remaining 111 cities with no local crime laboratory facilities tolerates such a situation and the fact that the citizens of a number of the 40 cities whose police have only rudimentary local laboratory facilities permit the condition to continue is an interesting, commentary on the effectiveness of our mass media, which have emphasized the strengths of the crime laboratory until even sophisticates labor under a vague notion that all the problems have been solved. Mr. DADDARIO. This committee will adjourn to the call of the Chair. (Whereupon, ait 12:13 p.m., the committee was adjourned `to the call of the Chair.) PAGENO="0343" APPENDIX A (BELL REPORT) REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT ON GOVERNMENT CONTRACTING FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, APRIL 30, 1962 EXECUTIVE O~'IcE OF THE PRESIDENT, BUREAU OF THE BUDGET, Wa.shington, D.C., Apr11 30, 1962. DEAR Mit. PRESIDENT: As requested by your letter of Juiy 31, 1961, we have reviewed the experience of the Government in using con- tracts with private institutions and enterprises to obtain research and development work needed for public purposes. The attached report presents our findings and conclusions. Without attempting to summarize the complete report, we include in this letter a few of our most significant conclusions, as follows: 1. Federally-financed research and development work has been in- creasing at a phenomenal rate-from 100 million dollars per year in the late 1930's to over 10 billion dollars per year at present, with the bulk of the increase coming since 1950. Over 80 percent of such work is conducted today through non-Federal institutions rather than through direct Federal operations. The growth and size of this work, and the heavy reliance on non-Federal organizations to carry it out, have had a striking impact on the Nation's universities and its indus- tries, and have given rise to the establishment of new kinds of pro- fessional and technical organizations. At present the system for conducting Federal research and development work can best be de- scribed as a highly complex partnership among various kinds of public and private agencies, related in large part by contractual agencies. While many improvements are needed in the conduct of research and development work, and in the contracting systems used, it is our fundamental conclusion that it is in the national interest for the Government to continue to rely heavily on contracts with non-Federal institutions to accomplish scientific and technical work needed for public purposes. A partnership among public and private agencies is the best way in our society to enlist the Nation's resources and achieve the most rapid progress. 2. The basic purposes to be served by Federal research and develop- ment programs are public purposes, considered by the President and the Congress to be of sufficient national importance to warrant the expenditure of public funds. The management and control of such (339) PAGENO="0344" 340 programs must be firmly in the hands of full-time Government offi- cials clearly responsible to the President and the Congress. With programs of the size and complexity now common, this reqUires that the Government have on its staff exceptionally strong and able execu- tives, scientists, and engineers, fully qualified to weigh the views and advice of technical specialists, to make policy decisions concerning the types of work to be undertaken, when, by whom, and at what cost, to supervise the execution of work undertaken, and to evaluate the results. At the present time we consider that one of the most serious obsta- cles to the recruitment and retention of first-class scientists, admrnis- trators, and engineers in the Government service is the serious dis- parity between governmental and private compensation for comparable work. We cannot stress too strongly the importance of rectifying this situation, through Congressional enactment of civilian pay reform legislation as you have recommended. 3. Given proper arrangements to maintain management control in the hands of Government officials, federally-financed research and development work can be accomplished through several different means: direct governmental operations of laboratories and other in- stallations; operation of Government-owned facilities by contractors; grants and contracts with universities; contracts with not-for-profit corporations or with profit corporations. Choices among these means should be made on the basis of relative efficiency and effectiveness in accomplishing the desired work, with due regard to the need to main- tain and enlarge the long-term strength of the Nation's scientific re- sources, both public and private. In addition, the rapid expansion of the use of Government contracts,. in a field where twenty-five years ago they were relatively rare, has brought to the fore a number of different types of possible conflicts of interests, and these should be avoided in assigning research and development work. Clear-cut standards exist with respect to some of these potential conflict-of-interest situations-as is the case with re- spect to persons in private life acting as advisers and consultants to &overnment, which was covered in your memorandum of February 9, 1962. Some other standards are now widely accepted-for example, the undesirability of permitting a firm which holds a contract for technical advisory services to seek a contract to develop or to supply any major item with respect to which the firm has advised the Gov- ernment. Still other standards are needed, and we recommend that you request the head of each department and agency which does a significari~t amount of contracting for research and development to develop, in consultation with the Attorney General, clear-cut codes of conduct, to provide standards and criteria to guide the public officials and private persons and organizations engaged in research and devel- opment activities. 4. We have identified a number of ways in which the contracting system can and should be improved, including: -providing more incentives for reducing costs and improving performance; -Improving our ability to evaluate the quality of research and development work; -giving more attention to feasibility studies and the develop- ment of specifications prior to inviting private proposals for PAGENO="0345" 341 major systems development, thus reducing "brochuresmanship" with its heavy waste of scarce talent. We have carefully considered the question Whether standards should be applied to salaries and related benefits paid by research and de- velopment contractors doing work for the Government. We believe it is desirable to do so in those cases in which the system of letting contracts does not result in cost control through competition. We be- lieve the basic standard to be applied should be essentialy the same as the standard you recently recommended to the Congress with re- spect to. FederaJ employees-namely, comparability with salaries and related benefits paid to persons doing similar work in the private economy. Insofar as a comparability standard cannot be applied- as would be the case with. respect to the very to~ jobs in an organ- ization, for example-we would make it the personal responsibility of the head of the contracting agency to make Sure that reasonable limits are applied. 5. Finally, we consider that in recent years there has been a seri- ous trend toward eroding the competence of the Government's re- search and development establishments-in part owing to the keen competition `for scarce talent which has come from Government con- tractors. We believe it to be highly important to improve this situa- tion-not by setting artificial or arbitrary limits on Government con- tractors but by .sharply improving the working environment within the Government, in *order to attract and hold first-class scientists and technicians. In our judgment, the most important improvements that are needed within Government are: -to ensure that governmental researôh and development estab- lishments are assigned significant and challenging work; -to simplify management controls, eliminate unnecessary echel- ons of review and supervision, and give to laboratory directors more authority to command resources arid make administra- tive decisions; and -to raise salaries, particularly in the higher grades, in order to provide greater comparability with salaries available in pri- vate activities. Action is under way along the first two lines-some of it begun as the result of our review. Only the Congress can act on the third aspect of the problem, and we strongly hope it will do so promptly. * * * * * In preparing this report, we have benefited from comments and suggestions by the Attorney General, the Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, Labor, and Health, Education and Welfare, and the Ad- PAGENO="0346" 342 * ministrator, Federal Aviation Agency, and they concur in general with our findings and conclusions. ROBERT S. MONAMARA, Secretary of Defense. JAMES E. WEBB, Administrator, National Aeronaiutics and Space Administration. JOHN W. MAGY, Jr. Chairman, Civil Service Coln4mission. Dr. GLENN T. SEABORG, Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission. Dr. ALAN T. WATERMAN, Director, Natianal Science Foundation. JEROME B. WIESNER, Special Assistant to the President for Science and Technology. DAVID E. BELL, Director,Bureau of the Budget. Foiu~woiw This report has been prepared in response to the President's letter of July 31, 1961, to the Director of the Bureau of the Budget, asking for a review of the use of Government contracts with private institu- tions and enterprises to obtain scientific and technical work needed for public purposes. Such contracts have been used extensively since the end of World War II to provide for the operation and management of research and development facilities and programs, for analytical studies and ad- visory services, and for technical supervision of complex systems, as well as for the conduct of research and development projects. As the President noted in his letter, there is a consensus that the use of contracts is appropriate in many cases. At the same time, a number of important issues have been raised, including the appro- priate extent of reliance on contractors, the comparative salaries paid by contractors and the Government, the effect of extensive contracting on the Government's own research and development capabilities, and the extent to which contracts may have been used to avoid limitations which exist on direct Federal operations. Accordingly, the President asked that the review focus on: -criteria that should be used in determining whether to perform a function through a contractor or through direct Federal operations; -actions needed to increase the Government's ability to review contractor operations and to perform scientific and technical work; and -policies which should be followed by the Government in obtain- ing maximum efficiency from contractor operations and in re- viewing contractor performance and costs (including standards for salaries, fees, and other items). The President requested the following officials to participate in the study: The Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, the Chairman of the Civil Service Commission, the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Adminis- tration, and the Special Assistant to the President for Science and PAGENO="0347" 343 Technology. The Director of the National Science Foundation was also invited to participate. In making the review requested by the President, a great deal of material was available from hearings and reports of the Senate and House Committees on Appropriations, Armed Services, Judiciary, and Government Operations, the House Committees on Post Office and Civil Service and on Science and Astronautics, the second Hoover Commission, and various governmental and private studies. In ad- dition, information was obtained: -by questionnaires to which ten Federal agencies and seventy-one * Government field installations, universities, and contract estab- lishments responded; and -by interviews conducted at twenty-eight Government field in- stallations and non-Federal establishments, and with a number of agency headquarters officials. These data were obtained and analyzed with respect to major policy implications by an indepartmental staff group which included repre- sentatives of each of the officials whom the President asked to par- ticipate in the review. This report presents a summary analysis and recommendations growing out of this review. It is organized in four parts: 1. Statement of major issues 2. Considerations in deciding whether to contract out research and development work 3. Proposals for improving policies and practices applying to research and development contracting 4. Proposals for improving the Government's ability to carry out research and development work directly. In addition, there are attached to the report the following annexes intended to present additional supporting information:1 1. Letter from the President to the Director of the Budget of. July 31, 1961 2. Summary information concerning respondents to Bureau of the Budget questionnaire and organizations interviewed 3. Special analysis on Federal research and development pro- grams, reprinted from the Federal Budget for fiscal year 1963 4. Summary information concerning the distribution of na- tional research and development funds, activities, and personnel 5. Summary of information obtained regarding salaries and related benefits and turnover of personnel 6. Annotated bibliography on Federal contracting-out of re- search and development. PART 1 STATEMENT OF MAJOR ISSUES Policy questions relating to Government contracting for research and development* must be considered in the perspective of the phe- 1 Annexes 2 through 6 referred to are omitted from this reprint. *Note on terminology: The term "research and development" is used in this report in the sense in which it is used in the Federal Budget-that is, it means the conduct of activ- ities intended to obtain new knowledge or to apply existing knowledge to new uses. The Department of Defense uses the term "research, development, test, and evaluation," which is a somewhat fuller but more cumbersome term for the same concept. In this repor.t the shorter term is used for convenience. For a summary of all Federal activities of this type, see Annex 3, "Federal Research and Development Programs," reprinted from The Budget of the United ~5tates Government for Fiscal Year 1963. PAGENO="0348" 344 nomenal growth, diversity, and change in Federal activities in this field. Federa~ research and deve~opm1ent activities and their impact Prior to World War IT, the total Federal research and develop- ment program is estimated to have cost annually about 100 million dollars. In fiscal year 1950, total Federal research and development expenditures were about 1.1 billion dollars. In the fiscal year 1963, the total is expected to reach 12.4 billion dollars. The fundamental reason for this growth in expenditures has been the importance of scientific and technical work to the achievement of major public purposes. Since World War II the national defense ef- fort has rested more and more on the search for new technology. Our military posture has come to depend less on production capacity in being and more on the race for shorter lead times in the development and deployment of new weapons systems and of counter-measures against similar systems in the hands of potential enemies. The Defense Department alone is expected to spend 7.1 billion dollars on research and development in fiscal 1963, and the Atomic Energy `Commission another 1.4 billion dollars. Aside from the national defense, science and technology are of in- creasing significance to many other Federal programs. The Nation's effort in non-military space exploration-which is virtually entirely a research and development effort-is growing extremely rapidly; the National Aeronautics and Space Administration is expected to spend 2.4 billion dollars in fiscal 1963, and additional sums, related to the national space program will be spent by the Department of Commerce and other agencies. Moreover, scientific and technological efforts are of major significance in agriculture, health, natural resources, and many other Federal programs. The end of this period of rapid growth is not yet in sight. Public purposes will continue to require larger and larger scientific and technological efforts for as far ahead as we can see. The increase in Federal expenditures for research and development has had an enormous impact on the Nation's scientific and technical resources. It is not too much to say that the major initiative and re- sponsibility for promoting and financing research and development have in many important areas been shifted from private enterprise (including academic as well as business institutions) to the Federal Government. Prior to World War II, the great bulk of the Nation's `research achievements occurred with little support from Federal funds_although there were notable exceptions, such as in the field of agriculture. Today it is estimated by the National Science Founda- tion `that the Federal Budget finances about 65 per cent of `the total national expenditure for research and development. Moreover, the Federal share is rising. Federal financing, however, does not necessarily imply Federal operation. As the Federal research and development effort has risen, there has been a steady reduction in the proportion conducted through direct Federal operations. Today about 80 per cent of Federal expendi- tures for research and development are made through non-Federal institutions. Furthermore, while a major finding of this report is that the Government's capabilities for direct operations in research and development need to be substantially strengthened, there is no doubt PAGENO="0349" 345 that the Government must continue to rely on the private sector for the major share of the scientific and technical work which it requires. The effects of the extraordinary increase in Federal expenditures for research and development, and the increasing reliance on the pri- vate sector to perform such work, have been very far reaching. The impact on private industry has been striking. In the past the Government utilized profit-making industry mainly for production engineering and the manufacture of final products-not for research and development. industries with which it dealt in securing the bulk of its equipment were primarily the traditional large manufacturers for the civilian economy-such as the automotive, machinery, ship- building, steel, and oil industries-which relied on the Government for only a portion, usually a minority, of their sales and revenues. In the current scientific age, the older industries have declined in prom- inence in the advanced equipment area and newer research and de- velopment-oriented industries have come to the fore-such as those dealing in aircraft, rockets, electronics, and atomic energy. There are significant differences between these newer industries and others. While the older industries were organized along mass-produc- tion principles, and used large numbers of production workers, the newer ones show roughly a one-to-one ratio between production workers and scientist-engineers. Moreover, the proportion of produc- tion workers is steadily declining. Between 1954 and 1959, production workers in the aircraft industry declined 17 per cent while engineers and scientists increased 96 per cent. Also, while the average ratio of research and development expenditures to sales in all industry is about 3 per cent, the advanced weapons industry averages about 20 per cent and the aerospace industry averages about 31 per cent. But the most striking difference is the reliance of the newer indus. tries almost entirely on Government sales for thcir business. In 1958, a reasonably representative year, in an older industry, the automotive industry, military sales ranged from 5 per cent for General Motors to 15 per cent for Chrysler. In the same year in the aircraft industry, military sales ranged from a low of 67 per cent for Beech Aircraft to a high of 99.2 per cent for The Martin Company. The present situation, therefore, is one in which a large group of economically significant and teclmol'ogically advanced industries de- pend for their existence and growth not on the open competitive market of traditional economic theory, but on sales only to the United States Government. And, moreover, companies in these industries have the strongest incentives to seek contracts for research and development work which will give them both the know-how and the preferred posi- tion to seek laster follow-on production contracts. The rapid increase in Federal research and development expendi- tures has had striking effects on other institutions in our society apart from private industry. There has been a major impact on the universities. The Nation has always depended largely on the universities for carrying out funda- mental research. As such work has become more important to Govern- ment and more expensive, an increasing share-particularly in the physical and life sciences and engineering-has been supported by Federal funds. The total impact on a university can be sizeable. Well over half of the research budgets of such universities as Harvard, PAGENO="0350" 346 Brown, Columbia, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford, California Institute of Technology, University of Illinois, New York University, and Princeton, for illustration, is supportetd by Federal funds. New institutional arrangements have been established in many cases, related to but organized separately from the universities, in order to respond to the needs of the Federal Government. Thus, the Lincoln Laboratory of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology was estab- lished by contract with the Air Force to supply research and develop- ment services and to establish systems concepts for the continental air defense, and similarly the Jet Propulsion Laboratory was estab- lished at the California Institute of Technology to conduct research on rocket propulsion for the Department of the Army and later to supply space craft design and systems engineering services to the National Aeronautics and `Space Administration. In addition, other research institutions-such as the `Stanford Research Institute-which were established to conduct research on contract for private or public customers, now do a major share of their business with the Federal Government. In addition to altering the traditional patterns of organization of private industry and the universities, the rise in Federal research and development expenditures has resulted in the creation of entirely new kinds of organizations. One kind of organization is typified by the RAND Corporation, established immediately after World War II, to provide operations research and other analytical services by contract to the Air Force. A number of similar organizations have been established since, more or less modeled on RAND, to provide similar services to other govern- mental agencies. A second new kind of organization is the private corporation, gen- erally not-for-profit but sometimes profit, created to furnish the Gov- ernment with "systems engineering and technical direction" and other professional services. The Aerospace Corporation, the MITRE Cor- poration, the Systems Development Corporation, and the Planning Research Corporation are illustrations. A third new organizational arrangement was pioneered by the Office of Scientific Research and Development during World War II and used by the Atomic Energy Commission, which took over the wartime atomic energy laboratories and added others-all consisting of facili- ties and equipment owned by the Government but operated under contract by private organizations, either industrial companies or universities. Apart from their impact on the institutions of our society, Federal needs in research and development `are placing critical demands on `the national pool of scientific and engineering taient. The National Sci- ence Foundation points out that the country's supply :~f scientists and engineers is increasing at the fairly stable rate of 6 per cent annually, while the number engaged in research and development activities is grow4ng at about 10 per cent each year. Accordingly, the task of devel- oping our manpower resources in sufficient quality and quantity to keep pace with the expanding research `and development effort is a matter of great urgency. The competition for scientists and engineers is becoming keener all the time and requires urgent attention to the PAGENO="0351" 34,7 expansion of education and training, and to the efficient use of the sci- entific and technical personnel we have now. Questions and issues considered in this report The dynamic character of the Nation's research and development ef- forts, as summarized in the preceding paragraphs, has given rise to a number of criticisms and points of concern. For example, concern has been expressed that the Government's ability to perform essential management functions has diminished because of an increasing de- pendence on contractors to determine policies of a technical nature and to exercise the type of management functions which Government itself should perform. Some have criticised the new not-for-profit con- tractors, performing systems engineering and technical direction work for the Government, on the grounds that they are intruding on tradi- tional functions performed by competitive industry. Some concern has been expressed that universities are undertaking research and development programs of a nature and size which may interfere with their traditional educational functions. The cost-reimbursement type of contracts the Government uses, particularly with respect to research and development work on weapons and space systems, have been crit- icized as providing insufficient incentives to keep costs down and insure effective performance. Criticism has been leveled against relying so heavily on contractors to perform research and development work as simply a device for circumventing civil service rules and regulations. Finally, the developments of recent years have inevitably blurred the traditional dividing lines between the public and private sectors of our Nation. A number of profound questions affecting the structure of our society are raised by our inability to apply the classical dis- tinctions between what is public and what is private. For example, should a corporation created to provide services to Government and receiving 100 per cent of its financial support from Government be considered a "public" or a "private" agency? In what sense is a busi- ness corporation doing nearly 100 per cent of its business with the Government engaged in "free enterprise"? In light of these criticisms and concerns, an appraisal of the experi- ence in using contracts to accomplish the Government's research and. development purposes is evidently timely. We have not, however, in the course of the present review attempted to treat the fundamental phil- osophical issues indicated in the preceding paragraph. We accept as desirable the present high degree of interdependence and collaboration between Government and private institutions. We believe the present intermingling of the public and private sectors is in the national in- terest because it affords the largest oppportunity for initiative and the competition of ideas from all elements of the technical community. Consequently, it is our judgment that the present complex partner- ship between Government and private institutions should continue. On these assumptions, the present report is intended to deal with the practical question: what should the Government do to make the part- nership work better in the public interest and with maximum effec- tiveness and economy? We deal principally with three aspects of this main question. There is first the question, what aspects of the research and develop- ment effort should be contracted out? This question falls into two PAGENO="0352" 348 parts. One part relates to those crucial powers to manage and control governmental activities which must be retained in the hands of public officials directly answerable to the President and Congress. Are we in danger of contracting out such powers to private organizations? If so, what should be done about it? The other part of this question relates to activities which do not have to be carried out by Goverument officials, but on which there is an option: they may be accomplished either by direct Government operations or by contract with non-Federal institutions. What are the criteria that should guide this choice? And if a private institution is chosen, what are the criteria for choice as among universities, not-for- profit corporations, profit corporations, or other possible contractors? The second question we deal with is what standards and criteria should govern contract terms in cases where research and development is contracted out. For example, to what extent is competition effective in ensuring efficient performance at low cost, and when-if at all- must special rules be established to control fees, salaries paid, and other elements of contractor cost? The third question we deal with is how we can maintain strong research and development institutions as direct Government opera- tions. How can we prevent the best of the Government's research scien- tists, engineers, and administrators from being drained off to private institutions as a result of higher private salaries and superior private working enviromnents, and how can we attract an adequate number of the most talented new college graduates to a career in Government service? These questions are treated in the sections which follow. PART 2 CONSIDERATIONS IN DECIDING WHETHER TO CONTRACT OUT RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT WORK `Genera]izations about criterin for contracting out research and de- velopment work must be reached with caution, in view o~f the wide variety of different circumstances which must be covered. A great many Government agencies are involved. The Department of Defense, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the Atomic Energy Commission provide the bulk of Federal financing hut a dozen or more agencies also play significant roles. ~Most Federal research and `development work is closely related to the specifio~ purpose of the agency concerned-to the creation of new weapons systems for the Department of Defense, for example, or the exploration of new types of atomic power reactors for the Atomic Energy Commission. But a significant portion ~f the research financed by the Federal Government is aimed at more general targets: to enlarge the national supply of highly trained scientists, for example, as is the case with some programs of the National Science Foundation. And even the most "mission-oriented" agencies have often found it desirable to make available for basic research to advance the funda- mental state of knowledge in fields that are relevant to their missions. Both the Department of Defense and the AEC, for example, make sub- stantial funds available for fundamental research, not related to any specific item of equipment or other end product. PAGENO="0353" 349 A great many different kinds of activity are involved, which have been classified by some under five headings: (1) fundamental research (2) supporting research or exploratory development (3) feasibility studies, operations analysis, and technical advice (4) development and engineering of products, processes, or systems (5) tests and evaluation activities. The lines between many of the activities listed are necessarily uncer- tain. Nevertheless, it is clear that "research and development" is a phrase that covers a considerable number of different kinds of activity. Finally, there have been distinct historical developments affecting the different Government agencies. Souse agencies, for example, have a tradition of relying primarily on direct Government operations of laboratories-others have precisely the opposite tradition of relying primarily on contracting for the operation of such installations. Against this background of diversity in several dimensions we have asked what criteria should `be. used in deciding whether or not to con- tract out any given research and development task? In outline, our judgment on this question runs as follows: There are certain functions which should under no circumstances be contracted out. The nsanagement and control of the Federal research and development effort. must be firmly in the hands of full-time Gov- ernment officials clearly responsible to the President and the Congress. Subject to this principle, many kinds of arrangements-including both direct Federal operations and the various patterns of contracting now- in use-can and should be used to mobilize the talent and facilities needed to carry out the Federal research and development effort. Not all arrangements however are equally suitable for all purposes and under all circumstances, and discrinsinating choices must be macIc among them by the Government agencies having research and develop- meat responsjb~hties. These choices should be based primarily on two considerations: (I) Getting the job done effectively and efficiently, with due regard to the long-term strength of the Nation's scientific and technical resources, and (2) Avoiding assignments of work which would create inherent conflicts of interest. Each of these judgments is elaborated below: Strengthc:~ing the ability of the Government to manage and control resea2ch and development pro grums We regard it as axiomatic that policy decisions respecting the Gov- ernment's research and development programs-decisions concerning the types of work to be undertaken, when, by whom, and at what cost- must be made by full-time Government officials clearly responsible to the President and to the Congress. Furthermore, such officials must be in a position to supervise the execution of work undertaken, and to evaluate the results. These are basic functions of management which cannot be transferred to any contractor if we are to have proper accountability for the performance of public functions and `for the use of public funds. To say this does not imply that detailed administration of each research and development task must be kept in the hands of top public 93-201--GS-----23. PAGENO="0354" 350 officials. Indeed, quite the contrary is true, and an appropriate cielega- tion of responsibility-either to subordinate public officials or by con- tract to private persons or organizations-for the detailed administra- tion of research and development work is essential to its efficient execution. It is not always easy to draw the line distinguishing essential man- agement and control responsibilities which should not be delegated to private contractors (or, indeed, to governmental research organiza- tions such as laboratories) from those which can and should be so assigned. Recognizing this difficulty, it nevertheless seems to be the case that in recent years there have been instances-particularly in thc Department of Defense-where we have come dangerously close te permitting contract employees to exercise functions which belong with top Govermuent management officials. Insofar as this has been true, we believe it is being rectified. Government agencies are now keerdy aware of this problem and have taken steps to retain function s essen- tial to the performance of their responsibility under the law. It is not enough, of course, to recognize that governmental managers must retain top management functions and not contract them out. Jr. order to perform those functions effectively, they must be themseive~ competent to make the required management decisions and, in addi- tion, have access to all necessary technical advice. Three conclusions follow: First, where management decisions are based substantially on tech- nical judgments, qualified executives, who can properly utilize the advice of technical consultants, from both inside and outside the Gov- ernment, are needed to perform them. There must be sufficient tech- nical competence within the Government so that outside technical advice does not become de facto technical decision-making. In many instances the executives making the decisions can and should have strong scientific backgrounds. In others, it is possible to have non- scientists so long as they are capable of understanding the tecimical issues involved and have otherwise appropriate administrative ex- perience. By and large, we believe it is necessary for the agencies concerned to give increased stress to the need to bring into governmental service as administrators men with scientific or engineering understanding, and during the development of Government career executives, to give many of them the opportunity, through appropriate training and ex- perience, to strengthen their appreciation and understanding of sci- entific and technical matters. Correspondingly, scientists and engineers should be encouraged and guided to obtain, through appropriate training and experience, a broader understanding of management and public policy matters. The average governmental administrator in the years to come will be dealing with issues having larger and larger scientific and technical content, and his training and experience, both before he enters Government service and after he has joined, should reflect this fact. At the present time, we are strongly persuaded that one of the most serious obstacles to acquiring and maintaining the managerial com- petence which the Government needs for its research and development programs is the discrepancy between governmental and private com- pensation for comparable work. This obstacle has been growing in- PAGENO="0355" 351 creasingly serious in recent years as increases in Federal pay have been concentrated primarily at the lower end of the pay scale-resulting in the anomalous situation that many officials of Goverument responsible for administerrng maior elements of Federal research and develop- ment programs are paid substantially smaller salaries than personnel of universities, of business corporations, or of not-for-profit organiza- tions who carry out subordinate aspects of those research and develop- rnent programs. We cannot stress too strongly the importance of recti- fying this situation, and hope the Congress will take at this session the action which the President has recommended to reform Federal civilian pay scales. Second, it is necessary for even the best qualified governmental man- agers to obtain technica.l advice from specialists. Such tecimical advice can be obtained from men within the Government or those outside. When it is obtained from persons outside of Government, speeial problems of potential conflict of interest are raised which were dealt with in the President's recent memorandum entitled "Preventing Conflicts of Interest on the Part of Advisers and Consultants to the Government." We believe it highly important for the Government to he. able to turn to technical advice from its own establishment as well as from outside sources. One major source of this technical knowledge is the Government-operated laboratory or research installation and, as is made clear later in this report, we believe major improvements are needed at the present time in the management and staffing of these in- stallations. A strong base of technical knowledge should be continually maintained within the Government service and available for advice to top management. Third, we need to be particularly sensitive to the cumulative effects of contracting out Government work. A series of actions to contract out important activities, each wholly justified when considered on its own merits, may i~hen taken together begin to erode the Government's ability to manage its research and development programs. These must be a high degree of awareness of this danger on the part of all govern- mental officials concerned. Particular attention must be given to strengthening the Government's ability to provide effective technical supervision in the letting and carrying out of contracts, and to develop- ing more adequate measures for performance evaluation. Determining the assignment of research and development work As indicated above, we consider it necessary and desirable to use a variety of arrangements to obtain the scientific and technical services needed to accomplish public purposes. Such arrangements include: di- rect governmental operations through laboratories or other installa- tions; operation of Government-owned facilities by contractors; grants and contracts with universities and entities associated with universities; contracts with not-for-profit corporations wholly or largely devoted to performing work for Government; and contracts with private business corporations. We also feel that innovation is still needed in these matters, and each agency should be encouraged to seek new and better arrangements to accomplish its purposes. Choices among available arrangements should be based primarily on two factors: PAGENO="0356" 352 -relative effectiveness and efficiency, and -avoidance of conflicts of interest. Relative effectiveness and efficiency In `selecting recipients, whether public or private, for research and development assignments, the basic rule (apart from the conflict-of- interest problem) should be to assign the job where it can be done most effectively and efficiently~ with clue regard to the strengthening of in- stitutional resources as well as to the immediate execution of proj ects. This criterion `does not, in our judgment, lead to a conclusion that certain kinds of work should be assigned only to certain kinds of in- stitutions. Too much depends on individual competence, historical evo- lution, and other special circumstances to permit any such simple rule to hold. However, it seems clear that some types of facilities have na- tural advantages which should be made use of. Thus: Direct Federal operations, such as the governmental laboratory, enjoy a close and contmuing relationship to the agency they serve which permits maximum responsiveness to the needs of that agency and a maxinnim sense of sharing the mission of the agency. Such oper- ations accordingly have a natural advantage in conducting research, feasibility studies, developmental and analytical work, user tests and evaluations which directly support the management functions of the agency. Furthermore, an agency-operated research and development installation may provide a useful source of technical management per- sonnel for its sponsor. At the present time we consider that the laboratories and other f a- cihties available to Government are operating under certain import- ant handicaps which should be removed if these facilities are to sup- port properly the Federal research and development effort. These matters are discussed at some length in part 4 of this report. Colleges and universities have a long tradition in basic research. The process of graduate education and basic research have long been closely associated, and reinforce each other in many ways. This unique intellectual environment has proven to be highly conducive to success- ful undirected and creative research by highly skilled specialists. Such research is not amenable to management control by adherence to firm schedules, well-defined objectives, or pre-cletermined methods of work. In the colleges and universities graduate education and basic research constitute an effective means of introducing future research workers to their fields in direct association with experienced peoile in those fields, and in an atmosphere of active research work. Applied research appro- priate to the universities is that which broadly advances the state of the art. University-associated research centers are well suited to basic or applied research for which the facilities are so large and expensive that the research acquires the character of a major program best carried out in an entity apart from theregular academic organization. Research in such centers often benefits frcin the `active participation of university scientists. At the same time the sponsoring university (and sometimes other, cooperating universities) benefits from increased opportunities for research by its facilities and graduate students. Not-for profit organizations (other than universities and contractor- operator Government facilities), if strongly led, can provide a degree of independence, both from Government and from the commercial mar- PAGENO="0357" 353 ket, which may make them~ particularly useful as a source of objective analytical advice and technical services. These organizations have on occasion provided an imporEant means for establishing a. competent research organization for a particular task more rapidly than could have been possible within the less flexible administrative requirements of the Government. Uontractor-o22era.ted Government facilities appear to be effective, in some instances, in securing competent. scientific and technical personnel to perform research and development work where very complex and costly facilities are required and the Government desires to maintain control of those facilities. Under such arrangements, it has been pos- sible for the Government to retain most of the controls inherent in direct Federal operations, while at the same time gaining many of the advantages of flexibility with respect to staffing, organizations, and management, which are inherent iii university and industrial operations. Operatian.s in the profit sector of the economy have special advan- tages when large and complex arrays of resources needed for advanced development and pre-production work must be marshalled quickly. If the contracting system is such as to provide appropriate incentives, operations for profit can have advantages in spurring efficiency, reduc- ing costs, and speeding accomplishments. (It is plain that not. all oper- ations in this sector, have resulted in low costs or rapid and efficient performance; we regard this as a. major problem for the contracting system and discuss it further in part 3 of this r~port.) Contractors in the profit sector may have the advantage of drawing on resources developed to satisfy commercial as well as governmental customers which adds to the flexibility of procurement., and may permit resources to be phased in and out of Government work on demand. The preceding paragraphs have stressed the advantages of these different types of organization. There are disadvantages relating to each type which must also be taken into account. Universities, for example, are not orclinarly qualified-nor would they wish-to under- take maj or system.s engineering contracts. We repeat that the advantages-and disadvantages-noted above do not mean that these different types of arrangements should be given areas of monopoly on different kinds of work. There are, by common agreement, considerable advantages derived from the present divers- ity of operations. It permits great flexibility in establishing and direct- mg filfierent kinds of facilities and units, and in meeting the need for managing different kinds of jobs. Comparison of operations among these various types of organizations helps provide yardsticks for evaluating performance. Morover, this diversity helps provide many sources of ideas and of the critic~ `m9lysis of ide'~s, on which scientific uid technical piogress depend. Indeed, we believe that some research (in contrast to develop- ment) should be undertaken by most types of organizations. Basic and applied research activities related to the mission of the organiza- tion help to provide a better intellectual environment in which to carry out development work. They also assist greatly in recruiting high quality research staff. . In addition to the desirability of making use of th~ natural areas of `td\ antage w ithin this diversity of arrangements, there is one addi PAGENO="0358" 354 tional point we would stress. Activities closely related to governmen- tal managerial decisions (such as those in support of contractor selec- tion), or to activities inherently governmental (such as regulatory functions, or technical activities directly bound up with military operations), are likely to call for a direct Federal capability and to be less successfully handled by contract. Conflicts of interest There are at least three aspects of the conflict-of-interest problem which arise in connection with governmental research and develop- ment work. First, there are problems relating to private individuals who serve simultaneously as governmental consultants and as officers, directors, or employees of private organizations with which the Government has a contractual relationship. Many of these individuals are among the Nation's most capable people in the research and development. field, and can be of very great assistance to Government agencies. The problems arising in their case with respect to potential conflicts of interest have been dealt with in the President's memorandum of February 9, referred to earlier in this report. The essential standard set out in that memorandum was that no individual serving as an adviser or consultant should render advice on an issue whose outcome would have a direct and predictable effect on the interests of the private organization which he serves. To this end the President asked that arrangements be made whereby each adviser and consultant would disclose the full extent of his private interests, and the responsible Government officials would undertake to make sure that conflict-of- interest situations are avoided. Second, there is a significant tendency to have on the boards of trustees and directors of the major universities, not-for-profit and profit establishments engaged in Federal research and development work, representatives of other institutions involved in such work. Such interlocking directorships may serve to reinforce and strengthen the overall management of private organizations which are heavily financed by the Government. Certainly it is in the public interest that organizations on whom so much reliance is placed for accomplishing public purposes should be controlled by the most responsible, mature, and knowledgeable men available in the Nation. However, we see the clear possibility of conflict-of-interest situations developing through such common directorships that might be harmful to the public inter- est. Members of governing boards of private business enterprises, uni- versities, or other organizations which advise the Government with respect to research and development activities are often simultaneously members of governing boards of organizations which receive or may receive contracts or grants from the Government for research, devel- opment, or production work. Unless these board members also serve as consultants to the Government, present conflict-of-interest laws do not apply. The spirit, if not the letter, of the standards of conduct for Government advisers set forth in the President's memorandum, in our judgment, can and should provide guidance to boards and their members with respect to the interrelationships among universities, not- for-profit organizations, and business corporations where Government business is involved. Some boards of trustees and directors have already taken action along these lines. PAGENO="0359" 355 Beyond this, however, there is a third type of problem which re- quires consideration: this might be described as potential conflicts of interest relating to organizations rather than to individuals. It arises in several forms-not all of which by any means are yet fully under- stood. Indeed, in this area of potential conflicts of interest relating to individuals and organizations in the research and development field, we are in an early stage of developing accepted standards of conduct- unlike other fields, such as the law or medicine, where there are long- established standards of conduct. One form of organizational conflict of interest relates to the distinc- tion between organizations providing professional services (e.g., tech- nical advice) and those providing manufactured products. A conflict of interest could arise, for example, if a private corporation received a contract to provide technical advice and guidance with respect to a weapons system for which that same private corporation later sought a development or production contract, or for which it sought to develop or supply a key subsystem or component. It is clear that such conflict- of-interest situations can arise whether or not the profit motive is present. The managers of the not-for-profit institutions have neces- sarily a strong interest in the continuation and success of such institu- tions, and `it is part of good management of Federal research and development programs to avoid placing any contractor-whether profit or nonprofit-in a position where a conflict of interest could clearly exist. Another kind of issue `is raised by the question whether an organiza- tion which has been established to provide services to a Government agency should be permitted to seek contracts with other Government agencies-or with non-Government customers. The question has arisen particularly with respect to not-for-profit organizations established to provide professional services. This `is not a clear consensus on this question among Government officials and officers of the organizations in question. We have con- sidered the question far enough to have the following tentative views: In the case of organizations in the area of operations and policy research (such, for example, as the Rand Corporation), the principal advantages they have to offer are the deta~hed quality and objectivity of their work. Here, too close control by any Government agency may tend to limit objectivity. Organizations of this kind should not be discouraged from dealing with a variety of clients, both in and out of Government. Oii the other hand, a number of the organizations which have been established to provide systems engineering and technical direction (such, for example, as Aerospace Corporation) are at least for the time being of value principally as they act as agents of a single client. In time, as programs change and new requirements arise, it may be pos- sible and desiraible for such organizations also to achieve a fully inde- pendent financial basis, resting on multiple clients, but this would seem more likely to be a later rather than an earlier development. Enough `has been said to indicate that this general area of conflict of interest with respect to research and development work is turning up new kinds of questions and all the answers have not yet been found. We believe it important to continue to work toward setting forth standards of conduct, as was done by the President in his February memorandum. PAGENO="0360" 356 We recommend that the President instruct each department and agency head, in consultation `with the Attorney General, to proceed to develop as much `of a code of conduct `for individuals and organizations in the research and development `field as circumstances now permit. Finally, we would note that `beyond any `formal standards, we `cannot escape the `necessity of relying on t'he sensitive `conscience of officials in the Government and in private organizations to make sure that appro- priate standards are continually maintained. PART 3 PROPOSALS FOR IMPROVING POLICIES AND PRACTICES APPLYING TO RESEARCIl AND DEVELOPMENT CONTRACTING During the course of this review, a number of suggestions arose which we believe to indicate desirable improvements in the Govern- ment's policies and practices applying to research and development contracting. Improving the Government's Oornpetence as a "Sophisticated Buyer" In `order for the contracting system to work effectively, the first re- quirement is for the Government to be a sophisticated buyer-that is, to know what it wants and how to get it. Mention has already `been made of the requirements this places on governmental management officials. At this point four additional suggestions are made. 1. In the case of many large systems development projects, it has been the practice to invite private corporations to submit' proposals to undertake research and development, work-relating to a new mis- sile System, for example, or a new aircraft system. Such proposals are often invited before usable and realistic specifications of ~he system have beeii worked out in sufficient detail. As a consequence, highly elab- orate, independent, and expensive studies are often undertaken by the would-be contractors in the course of submitting `their proposals. This is a very costly method of `obtaining competitive proposals, and it un- necessarily consumes large amounts of the best creative talent this country possesses, both on the preparation of the proposals `and their evaluation. Delivery time pressures may necessitate inviting proposals before specifications are completed, but we believe this practice can and `should be substantially curtailed. This would mean in many instances, improving the Government's ability to. accomplish feasibility studies, or letting special contracts for that purpose, before inviting proposals. In either event, it would require the acceptance of a greater degree of responsibility by Govern- ment managers for making preliminary decisions prior to inviting pri- vate proposals. We believe the gains from such a change would be substantial in the avoidance of unnecessary aiid wasteful use of scarce scientific and technical personnel as well as heavy costs to the private contractors concerned-costs which in most cases are passed on to the Government. `2. We believe there is a great deal of work to be done to improve the Government's ability to supervise and to evaluate the conduct of re- search and development efforts-whether undertaken through public or private facilities. We do not have nearly ei~ougli understanding as yet of how to know whether we are getting a good product for our PAGENO="0361" 357 money, whether research and development work is being competently managed, or how to select the more competent from the less competent as between research and development establishments. \~Then inadequate technical criteria exist, there is a tendency to sub- stitute conformity with administrative and fiscal procedures for eval- nation of substantive performance. What is required is more exchange of information between agencies on their practices in contractor evalua- tion and on their experience with these practices. A continuing forum should be provided for such exchange. It is possible also that some cen- tral and fairly formal means of reporting methods and experience and recording them permanently should be established. We recommend that the Director of the new Office of Science and Technology, when established, be asked to study the possibility of establishing such a forum and the best means for providing information regarding eval- uation practices. 3. Wi4h the tremendous proliferation of research and development operations `and associated facilities in recent years, it `has become diffi- cult for the Government officials who arrange for such work `to be done to be aware of all the facilities and manpower that are available. To maintain a complete and continuous roster of manpower, equip- ment and organizations, sensitive to month-by-month changes, would undoubtedly be too costly in terms of its value. Nevertheless, we believe that an organized attempt should be made `to improve the current inventory of information on the scientific and technical resources of the country. We recommend that the National Science Foundation consider ways and means of improving the avail- ability of such information for use `by `all concerned in public `and private `activities. 4. In addition, the expansion of the Nation's research and develop- ment effort has multiplied the difficulties `of communication `among researchers engaged `on related projects `at `separate facilities, both pubhi'c and private. It `is clear `that additional steps `should be taken to further efforts `to improve the `system for `the exchange `of information in the field of `science and technology. At present `a Panel on Scientific Information of the President's Sci- ence Advisory Committee is `at work on thi's subject. We expect `that its report will be followed by full-scale planning for the establishment of a more effective technical information exchange system, to support `the `needs `of `the operating scientists `and the engineer. Improving arrangements with the private sector types of contracts The principal type of `contract for resear'ch `and development work which is made with private industry is `the cost-plus-fixed-fee con- tract. Such contracts `have been u'sed in `this `area because of `the inherent difficulty of establishing precise objectives for the work `to be done and `of making costs estimates ahead of time. At the same time, this type `of contract has well-known disadv'an- t'ages. it provides little or no incentive f'or private managers to reduce costs or `otherwise increase efficiency. Indeed, the cost-pius-fixed-fee contract, in combination with strong pressures from governmental managers to `accomplish work on `a rapid `time schedule, probably pro- vides incentives for raising rather `than for reducing costs. If a `corpora- tion is judged `in terms `of whether `it accomplishes a result by `a given deadline rather `than :by whether it accomplishes that result `a't minimum PAGENO="0362" 358 cost, it will naturally pay less `attention to costs `and more attention to speed of accomplishment. On the other hand, where there is no given deadline, the cost-plus-fixed-fee contract may serve to prolong the research and development work and induce `the contractor `to delay completion. Consequently, we believe it to be desirable to replace cost-plus- fixed-fee contracting with fixed price contracting wherever that is feasi'bl&-as it should be in the procurement of some late-stage devel- opment, test work, and services. Where it is judged that cost reim- bursement must `be retained as the contracting principle, it should be possible in many instances to include an incentive arrangement under which the fee would not `be fixed, but would vary according to a predetermined `standard which would relate larger fees to lower costs, superior performance, and shorter delivery times. There is am- ple evidence to prove that if adequate incentives are given by rewards for outstanding performance, both time and money can be saved. Where the nature of the task permits, it may `be desirable to include in the contract penalty provisions for inadequate performance. Finally, if neither fixed-price nor incentive-type contracts are pos- sible, it is still necessary for Government managers to insist on con- sideration being given to lower cost, as well as better products and shorter delivery times-and to include previous performance as one element in evaluating different contractors and the desirability of awarding them subsequent contracts. Contract administration The written contract itself, however well done, is only one aspect of the situation. The administration of a contract requires as much care and effort as the preparation of the contract itself. This is par- ticularly important with respect to changes in system characteristics, for these changes often `become the mechanism for justifying cost overruns. Other factors of importance in contract administration are fixing authority and responsibility in both Government and industry, excessive reporting requirements, `and `an all-too-frequent lack of pre- arranged milestones for auditing purposes. Reimbursable costs Concern has been expressed because of significant differences among the various agencies in policies regarding which costs are eligible for reimbursement-notably with respect `to some of the indirect costs. These differences are now `being reviewed by the Bureau of the Budget with the cooperation of the Department of Defense, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Atomic Energy `Commis- sion, and the General Services Administration. Arrangements with universities With respect `to universities, Government agencies share responsi- bility for seeing that research and development financed at univer- sities does not weaken these institutions or distort their functions which are so vital to the national interest. Government agencies use `both grants and contracts in financing research at universities, but in our judgment the grant has proved to be a simpler and more desirable device for Federal financing of fundamental research, where it is in the interest of `the Government PAGENO="0363" 359 not to exercise close control over the objectives and direction of re- search. Since all relevant Government agencies are now empowered to use grants instead of contracts in supporting basic research, the wider use of this authority should be encouraged. Apart from this matter, three othe.rs seem worthy of comment. `One arises from the extensive use of contracts (or grants) for specific `and precisely identified projects. Often there is a tendency to believe that in providing support `for a single specific project the chance of finding a solution to a problem is being maximized. In reality, however, less `specific support often would permit more effec- tive research in broad areas of science, or in interdisciplinary fields, and provide greater freedom in drawing in more scien'tists to partici- pate in the work that is undertaken. Universities, too, often find proj - ect support cumbersome and awkward. A particular professor may be working on several projects financed by several Government `agencies and must make `arbitrary decisions in `allocating expenses to a par- ticular project. It thus appears both possible and desirable to move in the direction of using grants to support broader programs, or to support the more general `activities of an institution, rather than to tie each `allocation of funds to a specific project. A. number of Govern- ment agen'cies have been moving in this d'irection and it would be desirable to expand the use of such forms of support as experience warrants. At the same time, it would not, in our judgment, be appropriate to place major reliance on the instituti'onal grant, since the major pur- pose of makino grants in most cases is to assure that `the university personnel `and ~acilities concerned will be devoted to pursuing specific courses of inquiry. A second problem associated with the support of research at uni- versities is whether the Government should pay all costs, including indirect expenses or "overhead," associated with work financed by the Government. We believe this matter involves two related but distinct questions, which should be separated in considering the appropriate policy to `be followed. 1. We `believe `there is no question that, in `those cases in which it is desirable for the Government to pay the entire cost `of work done at a university, the `Government should pay for allowable indirect as well as direct costs. To do otherwise would `be discriminatory against universities in comparison wi'th other kinds of institutions. F'or pur- poses of financial and accounting simplicity, in those cases where grants are used, and it is desirable for `the Government to pay all allowable costs, it may be possible to work out a uniform `or average percentage figure which could `be regarded as covering in'direct costs. 2. We believe there are many cases in which it is neither necessary nor desirable for the Government to pay all the costs of the work to be `done.. In many fields of research, `a university may gain a great deal from having `the research in question done on its campus, with the participation of its faculty and students, and may `be able `and willing to share in the costs, either through its regular funds or through rais- ing `additional funds from foundations, alumni, or `by other means. The extent and degree of cost-sh'aring can and should vary among dif- ferent agencies and programs, and we are not prepared at this time to suggest any uniform standards-except the negative one that it PAGENO="0364" 30 would be plainly illogical to require that the university uniformly provide its share through the payment of all or a part of the indirect costs. Only in the exceptional case would this turn out to be the best basis for determining the appropriate sharing of costs. A third problem relates to the means for furnishing major capital assets for research at universities (such as a major building or a major piece of equipment. Such as a linear accelerator, synchrotron, or large computer). In most cases, it will be preferable to finance such facilities by a sepa~ate grant (or contract), which will ensure that careful at- tention is given to the long-term value of the asset and to the estab- lishment of appropriate arrangements for managing and maintain- ing it. Arrajements with respect to not-f or-pro fit organirations other than universities It ha~ been the practice in contracting for research and development work with such organizations to cover all allow-able costs and, in acldi- tion, to provide what is commonly called a~ "fee." The reason for pay- ing a "fee" to not-for-profit organizations is quite different from the reason for paying a fee to profit-making contractors and therefore the term "fee" is misleading. The profit-making contractor is engaged in business for profit. 1-us profit and the return to his shareholders or investors can only come from the fee. In the case of the not-for-profit organizations, there are no shareholders, but there are two sound reasons to justify payment of a "development" or "general support" allow-ance to such organizations. One is that such allowances provide some degree of operational stability and flexibility to organizations w-hich otherwise would be very tightly bound to the precise limitations of cost financing of specific tasks; the allowances can be used to even out variations in the income of the organization resulting from variations in the level of contract work. A second justification is that most not-for-profit organi- zations must conduct some independent, self-initiated research if the are to obtain and hold highly competent scientists and engineers. Such staff members, it is argued, will only be attracted if they can share, to some extent., in independently directed research efforts. We consider that both of these arguments have merit and, in con- sequence~ support the continuation of these payments. iBoth arguments represent incentives to maintain the cohesiveness andi the quality of the organization, which is in the interest of the Government. They should underlie the thinking of the Government representatives who nego- tiate contracts with not-for-profit organizations. But the amount of the "fee" or allowance in each instance must. still be determined b~ bargaining between Government and contractor, in accordance ~vith the independent relationship that is essential to successful contracting. An imprntsnt anestion 1el'~tln2' to not foi piofit olganw'Ltlons other than universities, concerns facilities and equipment. In our judgment, the normal rule should be that where facilities and equip- ment are require.d to perforn-i research and development work desired by the Government, the Government should either provicTe the facili- ties and equipment, or cover their cost as part of the contract. This is the rule relating to profit organizations and would hold in general for not-for-profit organizations-but there are two special problems with respect tO the lattar. PAGENO="0365" 361 First, we believe it is generally not desirable to furnish funds through "fees" for the purpose of enabling a contractor to acquire maj or capital assets. On the other hand, the `Govei~hment should not attempt to dictate what a contractor does with his "fee", provided it has been established on a sound and equitable basis, and if a contractor chooses to use part of his "fee'to acqune facilities for use in his self initiated research, we. would see no o.bj ection. Second, we would think it equitable, where the Government has pro- vided facilities, funds to obtain facilities, `substantial working capital, or other resources to a contractor, it should, upon dissolution of the or- ganization, be entitled to a first claim upon..such resources. This would seem to he a matter which should be governed, insofar as possible, by the terms of the contract-or in the case of any newly established or- ganizations, should be provided in the provisions of its charter. Salaries and related benefits In addition to the question of fees and allowances, there has been a great deal of concern over the salaries and related benefits received by persons employed on federally financed research and development work in private institutions, particularly persons employed in not- for-prOfit establishments doing work exclusively for the Government. Controls have been suggested or urged by congressional committees and others to make sure that there is no excessive expenditure of public funds and to minimize the undesirable competitive effect on the Fed- eral careei' service. We agree that where the contracting system does riot provide built- in controls (for example, through competitive bidding). attention should "be paid to the reasonableness of contractors' sal aries and re- lated benefits, and contractors should be reimbursed only for, reason- able compensation costs. `. . ` The key question is how to decide what `is reasonable and appro- priate compensation. lYe believe the basic standard for reimbursement of salaries and related benefits should be one of' comparability to com- pensation of persons doing similar work in the private' economy. `The President recently proposed to the Congress that the lay for Federal civilian employees should be b'ased on the concept of reasonablecom- parability with employees doing similar work in the private' econonry. lYe believe this to be a sound principle which can be applied in the present circumstances as well. Application of this comparability principles may require some spe- c~ai compensation surveys (perhaps made by the Bureau of Labor Statistics), which can and should be arranged for as necessary. Fur- thermore, there will undoubtedly be cases in which' comparable data are difficult to obtain-as, for example, with respect to top management jobs. In such cases tire specific approval of tire head of tire Government contracting agency or his designee should be required. In view of tire inherent coniplexity and sensitivity of this subject, we suggest that special administrative arrangements should be estab- lished in each agency. Contract policies respecting salaries and related benefits in each contracting agency should be controlled by an official reporting directly to the head of the agency (in the Department of De- fense, to assure uniformity of treatment, by an official reporting di- rectly to tire Secretary of Defense), and salaries above a certain'level- say $25,000-should require the personal approval of that official. PAGENO="0366" 362 PART 4 PROPOSALS FOR IMPROVING THE GOVERNMENT'S ABILITY TO CARRY OUT RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES DIRECTLY Based on the evidence acquired in the course of this review, we be- lieve there is no doubt that the effects of the substantial increase in con- tracting out Federal research and development work on the Govern- ment's own ability to execute research and development work have been deleterious. The effects of the sharp rise in contracting out have included the following. First, contractors have often been able to provide a superior working environment for their scientists and engineers-better sal- aries, better facilities, better administrative support-making con- tracting operations attractive alternatives to Federal work. Second, it has often seemed that contractors have been given the more signifi- cant and more interesting work assignments, leaving Government research and development establishments with routine missions and static programs which do not attract the best talent. Third, additional burdens have often been placed on Government research establishments to assist in evaluating the work of increasing numbers of contractors and to train and educate less skilled contractor personnel-without ad- ding to the total staff and thus detracting from the direct research work which appeals to the most competent personnel. Fourth, scien- tists in contracting institutions have often had freedom to move "out- side of channels" in the Government hierarchy and to participate in program determination and technical advice at the highest levels- freedom frequently not available to the Government's own scientists. Finally, one of the most serious aspects of the contracting out process has been that it has provided an alternative to correcting the deficien- cies in the Government's own operations. In consequence, for some time there has been a serious trend toward the reduction of the competence of Government research and develop- ment establishments. Recently a number of significant actions have been started which are intended to reverse this trend. We point par- ticularly to the strong leadership being given within the Defense Department by the Director of Defense Research and Engineering, in striving to raise the capabilities of the Department's laboratories and other research and development facilities. Nevertheless, we believe the situation is still serious and that major efforts are required. We consider it a most important objective for the Government to maintain first-class facilities and equipment of its `own to carry out research and development work. This observation applies not only to the newer research and development agencies but equally to the older agencies such as Commerce, Interior and Agriculture. No matter how heavily the Government relies on private contract- ing, it should never lose a strong internal competence in research and development. By maintaining such competence it can be sure of being able to make the difficult but extraordinarily important program deci- sions which rest on scientific and technical judgments. Moreover, the Government's research facilities are a significant source of manage- ment personnel. Major steps seem to us to be necessary in the following matters: PAGENO="0367" 363 1. It is generally recognized that having significant and challeng- ing work to do is the most important element in establishing a suc- cessful research and development organization. It is suggested that responsibility should be assigned in each department and agency to the Assistant Secretary for Research and Development or his equiva- lent to make sure that assignments to governmental research facili- ties are such as to attract and hold first-class men. Furthermore, arrangements should be made to call on Government laboratory and development center personnel to a larger extent for technical advice and participation in broad program and management decisions-in contrast to the predominant use of outside advisers. 2. The evidence is compelling that managerial arrangements for many Government-operated research and development facilities are cumbersome and awkward. Several improvements are needed in many instances, including -delegating to research laboratory directors more authority to make program and personnel decisions, to control funds, and otherwise to command the resources which are necessary to carry out the mission of the installation. -providing the research laboratory director a discretionary al- lotment of funds, to be available for projects of his choosing, and for the results of which he is to be responsible; -eliminating where possible excess layers or echelons of super- visory management, and insuring that technical, administrative, and fiscal reviews be conducted concurrently and in coordinated fashion; and -making laboratory research assignments in the form of a few major items with a reasonable degree of continuity rather than a multiplicity of small narrowly specified `tasks; this will put responsibility for detailed definition of the work to be done at the laboratory level where it belongs. To carry out these improvements will require careful and detailed analysis of the different situations in different agencies. Above all, it will require the energetic direction of top officials in each agency. Plans have already been developed for joint teams of Civil Service Commission and Department of Defense research and manpower per- sonnel to visit nine Defense laboratories during April and May 1962, in order to analyze precisely what administrative restrictions exist that hamper research effectiveness. In this fashion, those unwarranted limitations that can be eliminated by executive action can be identified as distinguished from those that may require legislative change. 3. Salary limitations, as already mentioned, in our opinion play a major role in preventing the Government from obtaining or retaining highly competent men and women. Largely because of the lack of com- parable salaries, the Government is not now and has not for at least the past 10 years been able to attract or retain its share of such critically necessary people as: recently graduated, highly recommended Ph.D's in mathematics and physics; recent B.S./M.S. scientific and engineer- ing graduates in the upper 25 percent of their classes at top-ranked universities; good experienced, weapons systems engineers and missile, space, and electronic specialists at intermediate and senior levels; and senior-level laboratory directors, scientific managers, and administra- tors. This obstacle will be substantially overcome if the Congress ap- PAGENO="0368" 364 proves the President's rečommendation to establish a standard of comparability with private pay levels for higher professional and tech- nical jobs in the Federal service. 4. A special problem in the Defense Department is the relationship between uniformed and civilianpersonnei. This is a difficult and sensi- tive problem of which the Department of Defense is well aware. We do not attempt in this report to propose detailed solutions, but we do sug- gest thatcertain principles are becoming evident as a result of the ex- perience of recent years. It seems clear, for example, that the military services will have in- creasing need for substantial numbers of officers who have extensive scientific and technical training and experience. Such officers bring first-hand knowledge of operational conditions and requirements to research and development installations and, in turn, learn about the state of the art and the feasible applications of technology to military operations. The military officer is needed to communicate the needs of the user, to prepare the operational forces for new equipment, to plan for the use of developing equipment, and later to install it and super- vise its use. All of the above roles suggest that when military personnel are used in research and development activities, they should perform as "tech- nical men" rather than "military men" except when there is a need for their military skills. Military command and direction become impor- tant only as one moves from the research end of the spectrum into the area where operational considerations l)redomlflate. Both at middle management and policy levels, a well-balanced mixture of military and civilian personnel may be most advantageous in programs designed to meet mihitar~ needs. In research, there are many instances in which the existence of mili- tary supervision, and the decreased opportunities for advancement be- cause of military occupancy of top jobs, are among the principal rea- sons why the Defense Department has had difficulty in attracting ou~t- stand~ng civilian scientists and engineers. On the other hand, there are examples within the Department of cases in which enlightened I)olicles of civil-military relationships have dlrawn on the strengths of each and produced excellent results. In such instances, the military headI of the laboratory has usually concentrated on administrative problems and the civilian technical director has had complete control of technical programs. Military officers should not be substituted for civilians iii the direc- tion and management of research and development unless they are technically qualified and their military background is directly needled and applicable. In the course of the next year, the Department of Defense intends to give consideration to the delineation of those research and develop- ment installations in which operational considerations are predomi- nant and those installations in which scientific and teclmical considera- tions are predominant. Having done so, the assignment of military offi- cers to head the former type of installation, and civilians (or equally qualified military officers) to head the latter will be encouraged. Fur- thermore, when military personnel are assigned to work in civilian- directed installations on the basis of their technical abilities, it is in- PAGENO="0369" 365 tended that they should be free of the usual rotation-of-duty require- ments and not have separate lines of reporting. 5. In addition to the recommendations above, we have given con- sideration to the possible establishment of a new kind of Government research and development establishment, which might be called a Gov- ernment Institute. Such an Institute would provide a means for re- producing within the Government structure some of the more positive attributes of the nonprofit corporation. Each Institute would be created pursuant to authority granted by the Congress and be subject to the supervision of a Cabinet officer or agency head. It would, however, as a separate corporate entity directly managed by its own Board of Re- gents, enjoy a considerable degree of independence in the conduct of its internal affairs. An Institute would have authority to operate its own career nieri~ system, as the Tennessee Valley Authority does. would be able to establish a compensation system based on the corn- para.bility principle, and would have broad authority to use funds and to acquire and dispose of property. The objective of establishing such an instrumentality would be to achieve in the administration of certain research and development programs the kind of flexibility which has been obtained by Govern- ment corporations while retaining, as was done with the Government corporation, effective public accountability and control. We regard idea as promising and recommend that the Bureau of the Budget study it further, in cooperation with some of the agencies hav- ing major research and development programs. It may well prove to ~e a useful additional means for carrying out governmental research aiid development efforts. 6. It would seem, based on the results of this review, that it would be possible and desirable to make more use of existing governmental facilities and avoid the creation of duplicate facilities. This is not as easy a problem as it might seem. It is ordinarily necessary for a labora- tory, if it is to provide strong and competent facilities, to have a major mission and a major source of funding. This will limit the extent to which it is possible to make such facilities available for the work of other agencies. Nevertheless, in some cases and to some extent it is clearly possible to do this and a continuing scrutiny is necessary in order to make sure that the facilities which the Government has are used to their fullest extent. 7. Finally, together with the better use of existing facilities, the Government must also make better use of its existing scientific and engineering personnel. This implies not only a careful watch over work assignments, but also a continual upgrading of the capabilities of Fed- eral personnel through education and training. At the present time, technology is changing so rapidly that on-the-job scientists and engi- neers find themselves out of date after a decade or so out of the uni- versity. To remedy this, the Government must strengthen its educa- tional program for its own personnel, to the extent of sending them back to the university for about an academic year every decade. This program, necessary as it is, will only become attractive if the employee is ensured job security on his return from school and if his parent organization is allowed to carry him on its personnel roster. 93-201-OS----24 PAGENO="0370" 366 ANNEX 1 THE WHITE HOUSE, J'uZy 31, 1961. Honorable DAVID E. BELL, Director, Bureau of the Budget, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. BELL: Since the end of World War II, the Federal Gov- ernment has been making extensive use of contracts with private in- stitutions and enterprises to provide for the operation and manage- ment of research and development facilities and programs, for analyti- cal studies and advisory services, and for technical supervision of weapons systems and other programs administered on a systems basis. Through such contracts the Government has been able to accomplish scientific and tecimical work essential to urgent public purposes. In part, the use of such contracts has been made necessary by the Government's entry into new fields, such as atomic energy, missile development and space exploration, and the need for talents and serv- ices not previously employed. In part, the use of contracts has also been induced by the recommendations of the second Hoover Commis- sion and other groups that the Government terminate activities which could better be performed for it by private enterprise. Present Federal policies with respect to contracting-out Government actvities are out- lined generally in Bureau of the Budget Circular No. A-49, "Use of management and operating contracts", and Bureau of the Budget Bulletin No. 60-2, "Commercial-industrial activities of the Govern- ment providing products or services for governmental use". After a decade or more of experience with such contracts, I think it would be desirable to review the effectiveness of this means of accom- plishing the Government's purposes. Some of the questions that require review have been posed recently in studies and reports by several com- mittees of Congress. I would like to have you undertake, with the assistance and cooperation of the other Federal officials most con- cerned, a review of the experience with respect to the types of con- tracts mentioned above. I am requesting the following officials to participate in the study: the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, the Chairman of the United States Civil Service Commission, the Administrator of the National Aero- nautics and Space Administration, and the Special Assistant to the President for Science and Technology. The product of the review should be recommendations to guide future executive branch action. While there is a consensus that the use of contracts is essential and appropriate to carry on certain types of Federal operations, it also appears that use of the contract device has been made necessary in part by the limitations which exist with respect to direct Federal operations. I would like to have you explore the circumstances and conditions under which contractor operations provide the most effective means for accomplishing the Government's objectives in the areas under review. I would also like to have full consideration given to the limitations which make direct Federal operations difficult, and to the development of proposals for adjust- ments and new concepts in direct Federal operations which would provide the Government with greater flexibility in determining PAGENO="0371" 367 whether the public interest would best be served by the use of con- tractor or direct Government operations. The review should focus on the following matters: (1) the effect of the use of contractors on direct Federal operations, the Federal per- sonnel system, and the Government's own capabilities, including the capability to review contractor operations and carry on scientific and technical work in areas where the contract device has not been used, and policies and actions needed to increase the Government's capabilities in these respects; (2) the policies, if any, that the Gov- ernment should follow in controlling the salaries and fringe bene- fits of personnel working under a contract, and the appointment, management and dismissal of such personnel; (3) the criteria to be used in determining whether to perform a service or function through a contractor or through direct Federal operations, including any special considerations to be given to the nature of the contractor and his relationship to production contractors; (4) the policies which should apply in selecting contractors, including the organization of institutions for the sole purpose of entering into contracts with the Government; (5) the means for reviewing and supervising contractor operations, and for achieving maximum efficiency in such operations; and (6) the policies which should apply with respect to contractor fees and cost reimbursement practices on items such as overhead, facilities and equipment, and advertising. The results of the review should be available not later than December 1. Sincerely, JOHN F. KENNEDY. PAGENO="0372" APPENDIX B EXECUTIVE ORDER No. 10521 March 19, 1954, 1~ F. R. 1499 ADMINISTRATION OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH BY AGENCIES OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT Whereas. the security and welfare of the United States depend increasingly upon the advancement of knowledge in the sciences; and Whereas useful applications of science to defense, humanitarian, and other purposes in the Nation require a strong foundation in basic scientific knowledge and trained scientific manpower; and Whereas the administration of. Federal scientific research programs affecting institutions of learning must be consistentwith the preserva- tion of the strength, vitality, and independence of higher education in the United States; and Whereas, in order to conserve fiscal and manpower resources, it is necessary that Federal scientific research programs be administered with all practicable efficiency and economy; and Whereas the National Science Foundation has been established by law for the purpose, among others, of developing and encouraging the pursuit of an appropriate and effective national policy for the pro- motion of basic research and education in the sciences: Now, therefore, by virtue of the authority vested in me as Presi- dent of the United States, it is hereby ordered as foflows: SECTION 1. The National Science Foundation (hereinafter referred to as the Foundation) shall from time to time recommend to the. Presi- dent policies for the Federal Government which will strengthen the national scientific effort and furnish guidance toward defining the responsibilities of the Federal Government in the conduct and support of sci~ntiflc research. SEC. 2. The Foundation shall continue to make comprehensive studies and recommendations regarding' the Nation's scientific re- search effort and its resources for scientiflc activities, including f a- cilities and scientific personnel, and its foreseeable scientific needs, with particular attention to the extent of the Federal Government's ac- tivities and the resulting effects upon trained scientific personnel. In making such studies, the Foundation ~h~Ii make full use of existing sources of information and research facilities within the Federal Government.. Suc. 3. The Foundation, in concert with each Federal agency con- cerned, shall review the scientific research programs and activities of the Federal Government in order, aniong other purposes, to formulate methods for strengthening the administration of such programs and (368) PAGENO="0373" 369 activities by the responsible agencies, and to study areas of basic re- search where gaps or undesirable overlapping of support may exist, and shall recommend to the heads of agencies concernmg the Support given to basic research. SEC. 4. As now or hereafter authorized or permitted by law, the Foundation shall be increasingly responsible for providing support by the Federal Government for general-purpose basic research through contracts and grants. The conduct and support by other Federal agen- cies of basic research in arms which are closely related to their mis- sions is recognized as important and c[esirable, especially in response to current national needs, and shall continue. SEC. 5. The Foundation, in consultation with educational institu- tions, the heads of Federal agencies, and the Commissioner of Eclu- cation of the T)epartment of I-Iealth, Education, and Welfare, shall study the effects upon educational institutions of Federal policies and administration of contracts and grants for scientific research and de- velopment, and shall recommend policies and procedures which will promote the attainment of general national research objectives and realization of the research needs of Federal agencies while safeguard- ing the strength and independence of the Nation's institutions of learning. SEC. 6. The head of each Federal agency engaged in scientific re- search shall make certain that effective executive, organizational, and fiscal practices exist to ensure (a) that the Foundation is consulted on policies concerning the support of basic research, (b) that `al?pioved scientific research programs conducted by the agency are reviewed continuously in order to preserve priorities in research efforts and to adjust programs to meet changing conditions without imposing un- necessary `added burdens on budgetary and other resources, (c) that applied research and development shall be undertaken with sufficient consideration of the underlying basic research a.nd such other factors as relative urgency, project costs, and availability of manpower and facilities, and (d) that, subject to considerations of security and ap- plicable law, adequate dissemination shall he made within the Federal Government of reports on the nature and progress of research projects as an aid to the efficiency and economy of the overall Federal scientific research program. SEc. 7. Federal agencies supporting or engaging in scientific research shall, with the assistance of the Foundation, cooperate in an effort to improve the methods of classification and reporting of scien- tific research projects and activities, subj oct to the requirements of security of information. SEC. 8. To facilitate the efficient use of scientific research equipment and facilities held by Federal agencies: (a) the `head of each such agency engaged in scientific research shall, to the extent practicable, encourage `and facilitate the sharing with other Federal agencies of major equipment and facilities; (b) a Federal agency shall procure new maj or equipment or facili- ties for scientific research purposes only after taking suitable steps to ascertain that the need cannot be met adequately from existing inven- tories or facilities of its own or of other agencies; and (e) the Interdepartmental Committee on Scientific Research and Development shall take necessary steps to ensure that each Federal PAGENO="0374" 370 agency engaged directly in scientific research is kept informed of selected major equipment and facilities which could serve the needs of more than one agency. Each Federal agency possessing such equip- ment and facilities shall maintain appropriate records to assist other agencies in arranging for their joint use or exchange. SEc. 9. The heads of the respective Federal agencies shall make such reports concerning activities within the purview of this order as may be required by the President. DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER. THE Wrni~ HotTsE, March 17, 1954. PAGENO="0375" APPENDIX C EXECUTIVE ORDER No. 10807 March 17, 1959, 24 P.R. 1897 FEDERAL COUNCIL FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY Whereas science and technology are essential resources for the security and welfare of the United States; and Whereas Federal programs in science and technology will advance our security, health, and economic welfare and the quality of education in the United States; and Whereas closer cooperation among Federal agencies will facilitate the resolution of common problems in science and technology, promote a greater measure of coordination, and otherwise improve the planning and management of Federal programs in these fields: Now, therefore, by virtue of the authority vested in me as President of the United States, it is hereby ordered as follows: SECTION 1. Establishment of Council. (a) There is hereby estab- lished the Federal Council for Science and Teclmology (hereinafter referred to as the Council). (b) The Council shall be composed of the following-designated members: (1) the Special Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, (2) one representative of each of the following-named departments, who shall be designated by the Secretary of the Depart- ment concerned and shall be an official of the Department of policy rank: the Departments of Defense, the Interior, Agriculture, Com- merce. and Health, Education, and Welfare, (3) the Director of the National Science Foundation, (4) the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and (5) a repre- sentative of the Atomic Energy Commission, who shall be the Chair- man of the Commission or another member of the Commission desig- nated `by the Chairman. A representative of the Secretary of State designated by the `Secretary and a representative of the Director of the Bureau of the Budget designated by the Director may attend meetings of the Council as observers. (c) The Chairman of the Council (hereinafter referred to as the Chairman) `shall be designated by the President from time to time from among the members thereof. The Chairman may make provision for another member of the Council, with the consent `of such member, to act temporarily as Chairman. (d) The Ohairman (1) may request the head of any Federal agency not named in section 2(b) of `this order to designate a representative to participate in meetings or parts of meetings of the Council concerned (371) PAGENO="0376" 372 with matters of substantial interest to the agency, and (2) may invite other persons `to attend meetings of the Council. (e) The Council shall meet at the call of the Chairman. SEC. 2. Functions of Council. (a) T'he Council shall consider prob- lems and developments in the fields of science and technology and re- lated activities affecting more than one Federal agency or concerning the over-all advancement of the Nation's science and technology, and shall recommend policies `and other measures (1) to provide more ef- fective planning and administration of Federal `scientific and tech- nological programs, (2) to identify research needs including areas of research requiring `additional emphasis, (3) to `achieve more effective utilization of the scientific and technological resources and facilities of Federal `agencies, including the elimination of unnecessary duplica- tion, and (4) to further international cooperation in science and tech- nology. In developing such policies and measures the Council, after consulting, when considered appropriate by the Chairman, the Na- tional Academy of Sciences, the President's Science Advisory Commit- tee, and other organizations, shall consider (i) the effects of Federal research and development policies and program's on non-Federal pro- grams and institutions, (ii) long-range program plans designed to meet the scientific and technological needs of the Federal Government, including manpower and capital requirements, and (iii) the effects of non-Federal programs in `science `and technology upon Federal re- search and development policies and programs. (b) The Council shall consider and recommend measures for the effective implementat~on of Federal policies concerning the a cimims- tration and conduct of Federal programs in science and technology. (c) The Council shall perform such other related duties as shall be assigned, consonant with law, by the President or by the Chairman. (cl) The Chairman shall, from time to time, submit to the President such of the Council's recommendations or reports as require `the atten- tion of the President by reason of their importance or character. Sec. 3. Agency assistance to Council. (a) For the purpose of ef- fectuating this order, each Federal agency represented on the Council shall furnish necessary assistance to the Council in consonance with section 214 of the act `of May 3, 1945, 59 Stat. 134 (31 U.S.C. 691). Such assistance may include (1) detailing employees to the Council to perform such `functions, `consistent with the purposes of this order, as the Chairman may assign to them, and (2) undeiituking, upon request of the Chairman, such special studies for the Council as come within the functions herein assigned to the Council. (h) Upon request of the Chairman, the heads of Federal `agencies shall, so far as practicable, provide the Council with information and reports relating to the scientific and technological activities of the re- spective agencies. SEC. 4. Standing committees and panels. For the purpose of conduct- ing studies and making reports as directed by the Chairman, `standing committees and panels of the Council may be established in consonance with the provisions of `section 214 of the act of May 3, 1945, 59 St'at. 134 (31 U.S.C. 691). At least one such standing committee shall be `com- posed of a scientist-administrators representing Federal agencies, shall provide `a forum for consideration of common administrative policies and procedures relating to Federal research and development activities PAGENO="0377" and for formulation of recommendations thereon, and shall perform such other related functions as may be. assigned to it by the Chairman of the Council. SEC. 5. Security procedures. The Chairman shall establish proce- dures to insure the security of classified information used by or in. the custody of the Council or employees under its jurisdiction. SEC. 6. Other orders; construction of orders. (a) Executive Order No. 9912 of December 24, 1947, entitled "Establishing the interdepart- mental Committee on Scientific Research and Development," is hereby revoked. (b) Executive Order No. 10521 of March 17, 1954, entitled "Admin- istration of Scientific Research by Agencies of the Federal Govern- ment," is hereby amended: (1) By substituting for section 1 thereof the following: "SECTION 1. The National Science Foundation (hereinafter referred to as the Foundation) shall from time to time recommend to the Presi- dent policies for the promotion and support of basic research and edu- cation in the sciences, including policies with respect to furnishing guidance toward defining the responsibilities of the Federal Govern- ment in the conduct and support of basic scientific research." (2) By inserting before the words "scientific research programs and activities" in section 3 thereof the word "basic". (3) (i) By adding the word "and" at the end of paragraph (a) of section 8 thereof, (ii) by deleting the semicolon and the word "and" at the end of paragraph (b) of section 8 and inserting in lieu thereof a period, and (iii) by revoking paragraph (c) of section 8. (4) By adding at the end of the order a new section 10 reading as follows: "SEC. 10. The National Science Foundation shall provide leadership in the effective coordination of the scientific information activities of the Federal Government with a view to improving the availability and dissemination of scientific information. Federal agencies shall coop- erate with and assist the National Science Foundation in the perform- aiice of this function, to the extent permitted by law." (c) The provisions of Executive Order No. 10521, as hereby amended, shall not limit the functions of the Council under this order. The provisions of this order shall not limit the functions of any Fed- eral agency or officer under Executive Order No. 10521, as hereby amended. (cI) The Council shall be advisory to the President. and to the heads of Federal agencies represented on the Council; accordingly, this order shall not be construed as subjecting any agency, officer, or function to control by the Council. DWIGHT D. EIsENHowER. THE WHITE HOUSE, Marc/i 13, 1969. PAGENO="0378" APPENDIX P [Circular No. A-64 (Revised) I EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, BUREAU OF THE BUDGET, Washington, D.C., June p28, 1965. Subject: Position management systems and employment ceilings. To the Heads of Executive Departments and establishments: 1. Purpose. This Circular (a) establishes criteria for the operation of an effective position management system, and (b) sets forth in- formation on the concepts and procedures to be followed with regard to employment ceilings, their observance, and related reporting to the Bureau of the Budget. Effective July 31, 1965, this revised Circular replaces Circular No. A-64 dated March 31, 1964, as amended by Transmittal Memorandum No. 1 of January 5, 1965. 2. Polic'q. Consistent with the policy of reducing Government costs (see Bureau of the Budget Circular No. A-44, Revised, March 29, 1965), the President expects each agency head to pursue vigorously the efforts of his agency to achieve lower employment levels and increased productivity through tighter management, aggressive man- power utilization programs, simplification of procedures, and strip- ping work to essentials; and to assure strict observance of the employment ceilings. 3. Position management. a. Each department and agency will develop and maintain a posi- tion management system designed to assure that the work is organized and assigned among positions in a manner which will serve mission needs most effectively and economically. As used in this Circular, position management includes the evaluation of the need for posi- tions and required skills and knowledge; and the organization, grouping and assignment of duties and responsibilities among all positions. The position structure should be designed to utilize the most effective work processes, equipment, procedures, methods and techniques. The position management system should be designed to identify, prevent and eliminate such common faults as unnecessary organiza- tional fragmentation, excessive layering, excessive use of deputies, assistants to, and special assistants, improper design of jobs, out- moded work methods, and improper distribution of manpower re- sources. b. A position management system should be developed which is best adapted to the needs of a particular agency or program. Provision normally should be made in each position management system, how- ever, for the following key elements: (374) PAGENO="0379" 375 (1) Assignment of responsibility. Responsibility for work organi- zation and position management should be explicitly assigned to line managers at appropriate levels in the organization. (2) Utilization of total staff resources. In carrying out their re- sponsibilities, line managers should utilize budget, planning, manage- ment analysis, personnel, and other special staff in the development and continuing operation of an effective position management sys- tem in the organization. it is especially important that the work of the different staff elements be coordinated and mutually supporting. (3) Position authorization and enploynnent controls. A position authorization and employment control procedure should be estab- lished to assure that existing and proposed work organization and. staffing arrangements meet the requirements of good position man- agement. Such a procedure must have as its basis adequate records, not only to identify the numbers of employees, but to identify posi- tively the types of employment which are covered by the attached statement of definitions. The procedure must ensure that (a) employment requirements are kept under continuous review, (b) positions authorized are limited to those that can be financed from available funds, (c) year-end em- ployment does not exceed the approved ceiling, and (d) employment is not permitted to reach a point at any time during the year which would require reduction-in-force or other disruptive or uneconomical actions to get within the approved ceiling by year-end. The requirements for the authorized position structure should be determined principally through the budget process, but also through the use of such t.ools as work measurement, work standards, produc- tivity analysis, and manpower and workload reporting. An adequate position authorization and employment control system should provide control over total employment as well as over full-time employment in permanent positions. (4) Vacancy control. Before any vacancy is filled, a review should be made to determine whether the duties of the position can be elimi- nated, assigned to other positions, or modified to permit performance at a lower grade. (5) Posifrion reclassification.. Before any position is reclassified, the organizational work pattern should be thoroughly reviewed to ascer- tain the necessity for assigning responsibilities as high as the grade being proposed. Approval should be withheld unless the review indi- cates that such action is clearly consistent with the aims of effective and economical accomplishment of the agency mission. (6) Approval of organi~ational changes.. Each proposed change of organization or position structure should be reviewed and approved as appropriate from the standpoint of work design, occupational dis- .tribution, grade distribution, manpower requirements, and costs. (7) Interagency sharing of personnel resources. Efforts to achieve effective manpower utilization should include the exploration of possi- ble arrangements with other agencies for the sharing of personnel resources to meet certain nonrecurring needs or to take care of con- tinuing housekeeping or administrative services. This type of arrange- ment could be advantageous for small offices, in Washington or in the field, but may be also applicable to specialized work in larger offices, PAGENO="0380" 376 particularly where other agencies are better equipped to perform such services more effectively and economically. (8) Reporting. The position management system should provide complete, accurate, reliable, and timely information on numbers of en'iployees to meet central reporting requirements of the Civil Serv- ice Commission and the Bureau of the Budget as well as periodic reports for the use of the agency in reviewing the effectiveness of the system. The reports should provide essential data for effective analysis by the agency head and upon request by the Bureau of the Budget, the Civil Service Commission, and the Congress. While the frequency of central reporting will vary from agency to agency, the system should make it possible to provide management, either periodically or upon request, with the following information: (a) The number of positions authorized under the position manage- ment system, by employment category and grade. (See Attachment A for definitions of employment categories.) (b) The number of occupied positions, by employment category and grade. (c) Any new arrangements entered into for the provision of services by contract. (d) An analysis and explanation of any significant changes in the position structure, together with an analysis of any longer-term trends indicated. (9) Special reviews. When budget reviews, internal management appraisals, quarterly reports, or other available data indicate that an organization may not be achieving effective position management, action should be initiated to identify the reasons and bring about changes in personnel, organization structure, management piactices~ or work processes to achieve improvement. c. Assessments of the effectiveness of its position management sys tem should be made by the department or agency itself, and will he made by the Bureau of the Budget as part of if.s continuing surveil- lance of agency programs, by the Civil Service. Commission in its inspection of position classification, and as a l)art of the joint reviews of management and manpower utilization conducted by the Bureau of the Budget, the Civil Service Commission, and the agencies under review. 4. System and nature of employment ceilings. a. Maximum allowable employment figures ("employment ceilings") are determined by the President at the time of the annual budget re- view, both for the end of the fiscal year then in progress and for the end of the succeeding fiscal year. b. Each year the employment ceilings applicable to the year in progress are intended to be absolute limits as of the end of the fiscal year, consistent with the employment reportable to the Civil Service Commission on the Standard Form 113 series, and in accordance with this Circular. c. Generally, employment ceilings reflect budget proposals and assumptions with regard to workload, efficiency, proposed new leg- islation, interagency reimbursable arrangements, and other special financing methods. Employment included for proposed legislation, or for carrying out proposed supplemental appropriations, must be re- PAGENO="0381" 377 served until the additional funds become available by congressional action. Employment under estimated reimbursable arrangements must also be reserved until such arrangements have been negotiated. d. Any decision to substitute the use of service contracts for direct employment, or t.o change the proportionate use of full-time (perma- nent or temporary), part-time, or intermittent employment must be based on considerations of effectiveness and economy in administering Federal programs, and must not be used as a device to avoid com- pliance with the ceilings. 5. Adjustments to empio~~ment ceilings. Under normal circmnstances it would be expected that requests for revisions in employment ceilings for the current year in progress would be considered by the Bureau of the Budget during the examination of agency budget submissions for the following year. In the case of unusual or emergency situations, requests for revisions may be submitted at other times. Revisions to employment ceilings will be considered only when congressional action on the budget request, or on supplemental requests or budget amendments transmitted after the budget, or any develop- ment subsequent to the establishment of the ceilings dearly requires a material change in the number of positions. In the agency's request for an adjustment, it is not sufficient: merely to justify the need for additional employment in a part.icula.r bureau or unit. The justification should indicate clearly why the increase cannot be absorbed through an internal adjustment in the agency's ceiling distribution, or why the need cannot be postponed to the next fiscal year. All requests for adjustments in ceilings will be brought to the Presi- dent's attention througl~ the Bureau of the Budget. 6. I?epoi't of violations. It is tIme responsibility of each agency head to insure that the end-of-year employment is kept withhm the approved ceilings. In exceptional situations where the end-of-year employment exceeds an approved ceiling, the agency head will be responsible for the preparatjon of a report containing: a. An explanation of the factors which caused employment to exceed the ceiling; b. A s1~atement describing the specific weaknesses in the agency's employment control system which permitted the violation to occur and the action taken to prevent recurrence of such violations; and c. A schedule showing by bureau, the agency's distribution of the estai)lishe.d ceiling and the corresponding numbers of employees at the end of the year. An original and two copies of the report described above will be submitted to the Bureau of the Budget no later than the 20th of the month following the end of the fiscal year. CHARLES L. SCHULTZE, Director. Attachment. DEF~NITJONS OF EMPLOYMENT CATEGORIES Note that the three types of employment are the equivalent of those set forth in the Federal Personnel Manual, Chapter 292. The employ~ mont categories used in the Civil Service Commission Monthly Re PAGENO="0382" 378 port of Federal Civilian Employment (Standard Form 113-A) are consistent with these definitions. 1. A full-time employee is one who is regularly scheduled to work the number of hours and days required by the administrative work- week for his employment group or class. (Most full-time employees have an administrative workweek of 5 days of 8 hours each). Such employees may occupy either of two types of positions. a. A permanent position-one which has been established with- out time limit, or for a limited period of a year or more, or which, in any event, has been occupied for a year or more (regardless of the intent when it was established). h. A temporary position-one which has been established for a limited period of less than a year a.nd which has not been occu- pied for more than a year. 2. A part-time employee is one who is regularly employed on a pre- scheduled tour of duty which is less than the specified hours or days of work for full-time employees in the same group or class. 3. An intermittent employee is one who is employed on an irregular or occasional basis, with hours or days of work not on a prearranged schedule, and with compensation only for the time actually employed or for services actually rendered. PAGENO="0383" APPENDIX E [Circular No. A-76 (Revised)] ExECUTIvIi OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, BUREAU OF THE BUDGET, Wc'~shington, D.C., August 30,1967. Transmittal Memorandum No.1. Subject: Policies for acquiring commercial or industrial products and services for Government use. To the Heads of Executive Departments and Establishments: Transmitted herewith is a revision of Bureau of the Budget Circu- lar A-76 dated March 3, 1966. It is issue.d to clarify some provisions of the earlier Circular and to lessen the burden of work by the agencies in implementing its provisions. A brief summary of the changes is attached. There is no change in the Government's general policy of relying upon the private enterprise system to supply its needs, except where it is in the national interest for the Government to provide directly the products and services it uses. We intend to keep the provisions of the Circular under continuing review. We anticipate that further changes will be desirable in light of experience gained from implementing the Circular's provisions, including the required reviews of existing Government commercial or industrial activities to be completed by June 30, 1968. We intend to give special attention to the adequacy of the guidelines contained in the Circular for such matters as coniparativ~ cost analyses; the cir- cumstances under which cost differentials in favor of private enter- prise are appropriate; and the use of contracts involving support services that require minimal capital investment. We welcome your suggestions. PHILLIP S. HUGHES, Acting Director. Attachments. EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, BUREAU OF THE BUDGET, Washington, D.C., August 30,1967. Subject: Policies for acquiring commercial or industrial products and services for Government use. To the Heads of Executive Departments and Establishments: 1. Purpose. This Circular replaces Bureau of the Budget Circular A-76 issued March 3, 1966. It is issued to clarify some provisions of the earlier Circular and to lessen the burden of work by the agencies in implementing its provisions. The basic policies to be applied by executive agencies in determining whether commercial and industrial products and services used by the Government `are to be provided by (379) PAGENO="0384" 380 private suppliers or by the Government itself are the same as those contained in Circular A-76 dated March 3, 1966. 2. Policy. The guidelines in this Circular are in furtherance of the Government's general policy of relying on the private enterprise sys- tem to supply its needs. In some instances, however, it is in the national interest for the Gov- ernment to provide directly the products and services it uses. These circumstances are set forth in paragraph 5 of this Circular. No executive agency will initiate a "new start" or continue the op- eration of an existing "Government commercial or industrial activity" except as specifically required by law or as provided in this Circular. 3. Definitions. For purposes of this Circular: a. A "new start" is a newly established Government commercial or industrial activity involving additional capital investment of $25,000 or more or additional annual costs of production of $50,000 or more. A reactivation, expansion, modernization or replacement of an activ- ity involving additional capital investment of $50,000 or more or adcli- tional annual costs of production of $100,000 or more are, for purposes of this Circular, also regarded as "new starts." Consolidation of two or more activities without increasing the overall total amount of prod- ucts or services provided is not a "new start." b. A Government commercial or industrial activity is one which is operated and managed by an executive agciwy and which provides for the Government's own use a. prothict or service that is obtainable from a private source. The term does not include a Government-owned con- tractor-operated activity. c. A private eom~merckil source is a. private business concern which rov~des a commercial or industrial product or service required by agencies and which is located in the United States, its territories and possessions, the District of Columbia., or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. 4. Scope. This Circular is applicable to commercial and industrial products and services used b executive agencies, except that it: a.. 1~Tjfl not be used as authority to enter into contracts if such au- thority does not otherwise. exist nor will it be used to justify departure from any law or regulation, including regulations of the Civil Service Commission or other appropriate authority, nor will it be used for the purpose of avoiding established salary or personnel limitations. b. Does not alter the existing requirement that executive agencies will perform for themselves t.hose basic functions of management which they must perform in order to retain essential control over the conduct of their programs. These functions include selection and direction of Government employees, assignment of organizational re- sponsibilities, planning of programs, establishment of performance goals and priorities, and evaluation of performance. c. Does not apply to managerial advisory services such as those normally provided by an office of general counsel, a management and organization staff, or a systems analysis unit. Advisory assistance in areas such as these may be provided either by Government staff orga- nizations or from private sources as deemed appropriate by executive agencies. d. Does not apply to products or services which are provided to the public. (But an executive agency which provides a product or service PAGENO="0385" 381 to the public should apply the provisions of this Circular with respect to any commercial or industrial products or services which it uses.) e. Does not apply to products or services obtained from other Federal agencies which are authorized or required by law to furnish them. f. Should not be applied when its application would be inconsistent with the terms of any treaty or international agreement. 5. Circumstances under which the Government may provide a com- mercial or industrial product or service for its own use. A Government commercial or industrial activity may be authorized only under one or more of the following conditions: a. Procurement of a product or service from a commercial source would disrupt or materially delay an agency's program. The fact that a commercial or industrial activity is classified or is related to an agen- cy's basic program is not an adequate reason for starting or continuing a Government activity, but a Government agency may provide a prod- uct or service for its own use if a review conducted and documented as provided in paragraph 7 establishes that reliance upon a commercial source will disrupt or materially delay the successful accomplishment of its program. b. It is necessary for the Government to conduct a commercial or in- dustrial activity for purposes of combat support or for individual and unit retraining of military personnel or to maintain or strengthen mobilization readiness. c. A satisfactory commercial source is not available and cannot be developed in time to provide a product or service when it is needed. Agencies' efforts to find satisfactory commercial sources should be supplemented as appropriate by obtaining assistance from the Gen- eral Services and Small Business Administrations or the Business and Defense Services Administration. Urgency of a requirement is not an adequate reason for starting or continuing a Government commer- cial or industrial activity unless there is evidence that commercial sources are not able and the Government is able to provide a product or service when needed. d. The product or service is available from another Federal agency. Excess property available from other Federal agencies should be used in preference to new procurement as provided by the Federal Property and administrative Services Act of 1949, and related regulations. Property which has not been reported excess also may be provided by other Federal agencies and unused plant and production capacity of other agencies may be utilized. In such instances, the agency sup- plying a product or service to another agency is responsible for com- pliance with this Circular. The fact that a product or service is being provided to another agency does not by itself justify a Government commercial or industrial activity. e. Procurement of the product or service from a commercial source will result ~n higher cost to the Government. A Government com- mercial activity may be authorized if a comparative cost analysis prepared as provided in this Circular indicates that the Government can provide or is providing a product or service at a cost lower than if the product or service were obtained from commercial sources. However, disadvantages of starting or continuing Government activities must be carefully weighed. Government ownership and 93-201--OS----25 PAGENO="0386" 382 operation of facilities usually involve removal or withholding of property from tax rolls, reduction of revenues from income and other taxes, and diversion of management attention from the Government's primary program objectives. Losses also may occur due to such factors as obsolescence of plant and equipment and unanticipated reductions in the Government's requirements for a product or service. Govern- ment commercial activities should not be started or continued for reasons involving comparative costs unless savings are sufficient to justify the assumption of these and similar risks and uncertainties: 6. Cost comparisons. A decision to rely upon a Government activity for reasons involving relative costs must be supported by a compara- tive cost analysis which will disclose as accurately as possible the dif- ference between the cost which the Government is incurring or will incur under each alternative. Commercial sources should be relied upon without incurring the delay and expense of conducting cost comparison studies for products or services estimated to cost the Government less than $50,000 per year. However, if there is reason to believe that inadequate competition or other factors are causing commercial prices to be unreasonable, a cost comparison study will be directed by the agency head or by his designee even if it is estimated that the Government will spend less than $50,000 per year for the product or service. A Government activ- ity should not be authorized on the basis of such a comparison study, however, unless reasonable efforts to obtain satisfactory prices from existing commercial sources or to develop other commercial sources are unsuccessful. Cost comparison studies also should be made before deciding to rely upon a commercial source when terms of contracts will cause the Government to finance directly or indirectly more than $50,000 for cost of facilities and equipment to be constructed to Government specifications. Cost comparison studies should also be made in other cases if there is reason to believe that savings can be realized by the Government providing for its own needs. Such studies will not be made, however, if in-house provision of the product or service, or commercial procurement thereof, is clearly justified in accordance with other provisions of this Circular. The determination as to whether to purchase or to lease equipment or to construct buildings or acquire their use under lease-construction arrangements involves a determination of the difference in costs under the alternatives, and the principles set forth in this Circular should be applied to the extent relevant in making such determinations. a. Costs of obtaining products or services from commercial sources should include amounts paid directly to suppliers, transportation charges, and expenses of preparing bid invitations, evaluating bids, and negotiating, awarding, and managing contracts. Costs of materials furnished by the Government to contractors, appropriate charges for Government-owned equipment and facilities used by contractors and costs due to incentive or premium provisions in contracts also should be included. If discontinuance of a Government commercial or indus- trial activity will cause a facility being retained by the Government for mobilization or other reasons to be placed in a standby status, the costs of preparing and maintaining the facility as standby also should be included. Similarly, if such a discontinua.nce is expected to result PAGENO="0387" 383 in premature retirement of Government employees which will cause a significant increase in retirement costs to the Government, such in- creased cost should be added to the cost of procurement from commer- cial sources. Costs of obtaining products or services from commercial sources should be documented and organized for comparison with costs of obtaining the product or service from a Government activity. b. For purposes of economy and simplicity in making cost compari- son studies, generally agreed costs that would tend to be the same un- der either alternative need not be measured and included (for ex- ample, bid and award costs and operating costs under lease-purchase alternatives). c. Costs of obtaining products or services from Government activities should include all costs which would be incurred if a product or serv- ice were provided by the Government and which woulld not be in- curred if the product or service were obtained from a commercial source. The objectives should be to compute, as realistically as possible, the incremental or additional cost that would be incurred by the Gov- ernment under the alternatives under consideration. In making such determinations it is important that recognition be given to the full amount of additional or incremental direct and indirect cost to be in- curred in providing the products or services required. Under this gen- eral principle, the following costs should be included, considering the circumstances of each case: (1) Personal services and benefits. Include costs of all elements of compensation and allowance for both military and civilian personnel, including the full cost to the Government of retirement systems, calcu- late.d on a normal cost basis, Social Security taxes where applicable, em- ployees' insurance, health, and medical plans, (including services avail- able from Government military or civilian medical facilities), living allowances, uniforms, leave, termination and separation allowances, travel and moving expenses, and claims paid through the Bureau of Employees' Compensation. (2) Materials, supplies, and utilities services. Include costs of sup- plies and materials used in providing a product or service and costs of transportation, storage, handling, custody, and protection of property, and costs of electric power, gas, water, and communications services. (3) Maintenance and repair. Include costs of maintaining and re- pairing structures and equipment which are used in providing a prod- uct or service. (4) Damage or loss of property. Include costs of uninsured losses due to fire or other hazard, costs of insurance premiums and costs of settling loss and damage claims. (5) Federal taxes. Include income and other Federal tax revenues (except Social Security taxes) received from corporation or other business entities (but not from individual stockholders) if a product or service is obtained through commercial channels. Estimates of corporate income for these purposes should be based upon the earnings experience of the industry, if available, but if such data are not avail- able. The Quarterly Financial Report of Manufacturing Corporation, published by the Federal Trade Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission may be consulted. Assistance of the appropriate Government regulatory agencies may be obtained in estimating taxes for regulated industries. PAGENO="0388" 384 (6) Depreciation. Compute depreciation as a cost for any new or additional facilities or equipment which will be required if a Gov- ernment activity is started or continued. Depreciation will not be allocated for facilities and equipment acquired by the Government before the cost comparison study is started. However, if reliance upon a commercial source will cause Government-owned equipment or f a- cilities to become available for other Federal use or for disposal as surplus, the cost comparison analysis should include as a cost of the Government activity, an appropriate amount based upon the estimated current market value of such equipment or facilities. The Internal Rev- enue Service publication, Depreciation Guidelines and Rules may be used in computing depreciation. However, rates contained in this publication are maximums to be used oniy for reference purposes and only when more specific depreciation data are not available. Ac- celerated depreciation rates permitted in some instances by the In- ternal Revenue Service will no~ be used. In computing the deprecia- tion cost of new or additional facilities or equipment to be acquired if a Government activity is started or continued and in determining comparative costs under lease-purchase alternatives, appropriate rec- ognition should be given to estimated residual or salvage values of the facilities or equipment. (7) Interest. Compute interest for any new or additional capital to be invested based upon the average rate of yield for long-term Treas- ury bonds as shown in the current monthly Treasury Bulletin. The method of computation should provide for reduction in the capital investment to which interest is applied over the useful life of the asset on a straight-line basis. (8) Indirect costs. Include any additional indirect costs incurred re- sulting from a Government activity for such activities as management and supervision, budgeting, accounting, personnel, legal and other applicable services. 7. Adrnini~tering the policy. a. Inventory. Each agency will compile and maintain an inventory of its commercial or industrial activities having an annual output of products or services costing $50,000 or more or a capital investment of $25,000 or more. In addition to such general descriptive information as may be appropriate, the inventory should include for each activity the amount of the Government's capital investment, the amount pa;id annually for the products or services involved, and the basis upon which the activity is being continued under the provisions of this Circular. The general descriptive information needed for identifying each activity should have been included in the inventory by June 30, 1966. Other information needed to complete the inventory should be added as reviews required in paragraphs 7.b. and c. are completed. b. "New starts." (1) A "new start" should not be initiated until possibilities of obtaining the product or service from commercial sources have been explored and not until it is approved by the agency head or by an assistant secretary or official of equivalent rank on the basis of factual justification for establishing the activity under the provisions of this Circular. (2) If statutory authority and funds for construction are required before a "new start" can be initiated, the actions to be taken under PAGENO="0389" 385 this Circular should be completed before the agency's budget request is submitted to the Bureau of the Budget. Instructions concerning data to be submitted in support of such budget requests will be included in annual revisions of Bureau of the Budget Circular No. A-li. (3) A "new start" should not be proposed for reasons involving comparative costs unless savings are sufficient to outweigh uncertain- ties and risks of unanticipated losses involved in Government activities. The amount of savings required as justification for a "new start" will vary depending on individual circumstances. Substantial savings should be required as justification if a large new or additional capital investment is involved or if there are possibilities of early obsolescence or uncertainties regarding maintenance and production costs, prices and future Government requirements. Justification may be based on smaller anticipated savings if little or no capital investment is in- volved, if chances for obsolescence are minimal, and if reliable in- formation is available concerning production costs, commercial prices and Government requirements. While no precise standard is perseribed in view of these varying circumstances a "new start" ordinarily should not be approved unless costs of a Government activity will be at least 10 percent less than costs of obtaining the product or service from commercial sources. It is emphasized that 10 percent is not intended to be a fixed figure. A decision to reject a proposed "new start" for comparative cost reasons should be reconsidered if actual bids or proposals indicate that commercial prices will be higher than were estimated in the cost comparison study. (4) When a "new start" begins to operate it should be included in an agency's inventory of commercial and industrial activities. c. Existing Government activities. (1) A systematic review of existing commercial or industrial activi- ties (including previously approved "new starts" which have been in operation for at least 18 months) should be maintained in each agency under the direction of the agency head or the person designated by him as provided in paragraph 8. The agency head or his designee may exempt designated activities if he decides that such reviews are not warranted in specific instances. Activities not so exempted should be reviewed at least once before June 30, 1968. More frequent reviews of selected activities should be scheduled as deemed advisable. Activities remaining in the inventory after June 30, 1968, should be scheduled for at least one additional followup review during each three-year period but this requirement may be waived by the agency head or his designee if he concludes that such further review is not warranted. (2) Reviews should be organized in such a manner as to ascertain whether continued operation of Government commercial activities is in accordance with the provisions of this Circular. Reviews should in- clude information concerning availability from commercial sources of products or services involved and feasibility of using commercial sources in lieu of existing Government activities. (3) An activity should be continued for reasons of comparative costs only if a comparative cost analysis indicates that savings result- ing from continuation of the activity are at least sufficient to outweigh the disadvantages of Government commercial and industrial activities. PAGENO="0390" 386 No specific standard or guideline is prescribed for deciding whether savings are sufficient to justify continuation of an existing Govern- ment commercial activity and each activity should be evaluated on the basis of the applicable circumstances. (4) A report of each review should be prepared. A decision to con- tinue an activity should be approved by an assistant secretary or offi-. cial of equivalent rank and the basis for the decision should appear in the inventory record for the activity. Activities not so approved should be discontinued. Reasonable adjustments in the timing of such actions may be made, however, in order to alleviate economic disloca- tions and personal hardships to affected career personnel. 8. Implementation. Each agency is responsible for making the pro- visions of this Circular effective by issuing appropriate implementing instructions and by providing adequate management support and procedures for review and followup to assure that the instructions are placed in effect. A copy of the implementing instructions issued by each agency will be furnished to the Bureau of the Budget. If overall responsibility for these actions is delegated by the agency head, it should be `assigned to a senior official reporting directly to the agency head. If legislation is needed in order to carry out the purposes of this Circular, agencies should prepare necessary legislative proposals for review in accordance with Bureau of the Budget Circular No. A-iD. 9. Effective date. This Circular is effective on October 2, 1967. PHILLIP S. 1-IUGHEs, Acting Director. SUMMARY OF CHANGES IN BUREAU OF THE BUDGET CIRCULAR NO. A-76 AS REVISED AUGUST 19 G 7 Paragraph 3-Definitions 3.a. The definition for a "new start" has been split as between (a) a newly established Government commercial or industrial activity and (b) a reactivation, expansion, modernization, or replacement of an activity. These separate definitions have been provided so that different dollar limitations on capital investment and annual cost of production may be applied. There is no change in the dollar limitations applicable to newly established Government commercial or industrial activities. But the dollar limitations have been doubled for the category of "new starts" that are a reactivation, expansion, modernization, or re- placement of an activity. The change is necessary in order to avoid applying the "new start" procedures to routine adjustments for han- dling existing workload. For example, the replacement of a single machine tool at a shipyard may easily add capital cost of more than $25,000, or the addition of only 10 employees at relatively low grades would add more than $50,000 per year to production cost. This type of change occurs several times a year at a large facility and, under the terms of the earlier Circular A-76, each such change would have to be treated as a "new start" with a detailed cost study and a special approval. 3.b. The definition of a Government commercial or industrial activ- lty has been clarified. The earlier Circular, by definition, excluded a PAGENO="0391" 387 Government-owned-contractor-operated activity but the wording was not entirely clear. The change made clarifies the fact that a Govern- ment-owned-contractor-operated activity is not to be regarded as a Government commercial or industrial activity for purposes of the Circular. Paragraph 4-Scope 4.c. The words "professional staff' that were contained in the earlier Circular have been eliminated. Paragraph 4.c. is intended to exempt various kinds of staff advisory services which are so intimately related to the processes of top management and control of Government pro- grams that the general provisions of A-76 favoring reliance upon commercial sources should not be applicable. The term "professional staff" was so broad that it could be interpreted to apply to a large variety of services which are commercially available and which are not necessarily related intimately to top management and control of Government programs. The change will clarify the meaning of this subparagraph. Paragraph 6-Cost comparisons A change is made in the third unnumbered paragraph to make clear that if there is reason to believe savings can be realized by the Govern- ment providing for its own need~, cost comparison studies should be made before deciding to rely upon a commercial source. However, the changed wording also makes it clear that cost studies will not be re- quired if in-house provision of the product or service, or commercial procurement thereof, is clearly justified in accordance with other pro- visions of the Circular. A new unnumbered paragraph has been added to provide guidelines for applying provisions of the Circular to purchase vs lease of equip- ment, `and to construction of buildings vs acquisition under lease-con- struction arrangements. The paragraph requires a determination of the difference in costs under the alternatives, and application of the principles set forth in the Circular in making judgments in these areas. 6.a. A sentence has been added providing that if discontinuance of a Government commercial or industrial activity will result in premature retirement of Government employees, and will cause a significant in- crease in retirement costs to the Government, such increased costs should be added to the cost of procurement from commercial sources. 6.b. This is `a new `subparagraph. It provides that costs which would tend to be `the same for both Government `and industry need not be measured and included in comparative cost analyses (for example, bid and `award costs and operating costs under lease-purchase alternatives). T'he change is made in the interest of economy and simplicity in mak- ing cost comparisons. 6.c. (Paragraph 6.b. in the earlier Circular). A sentence has been added to clarify the fact that the incremental method of costing is to be employed and to emphasize the importance of a realistic recog- nition of `all such additional or incremental costs. 6.c.(1). (Paragraph 6.b.(l) in the earlier Circular). Some addi- tional wording ha's been `added to clarify, in connection with personal services and benefits, that the full cost to the Government of retire- ment systems `should be included. PAGENO="0392" 388 6.c. (6). (Paragraph 6.b.(6) in the earlier Circular). A sentence has been added to make clear that appropriate recognition should be given to estimated residual or salvage value of facilities or equipment in computmg depreciation. 6.c. (7). (Paragraph 6.b. (7) in the earlier Circular). This para- graph has been rewritten to provide that the computation of interest for any new or additional capital to be invested will be based upon the average rate of yield for long-term Treasury bonds as shown in the current monthly Treasury Bulletin. Also, the method of computa- tion suggested would provide for reduction in the capital investment to which interest is applied as the asset is depreciated. The purpose of the change is to clarify the rate and source of interest to be charged and to provide guidance as to the principal to which it is to be applied. The suggested rate is a readily available measure of the current cost of money to the Government and the provision for reducing the bal- ance to which interest is applied is considered reasonable because the interest cost should not go on indefinitely. 6.c. (8). (Paragraph 6.b. (8) in the earlier Circular). A change in wording has been made to clarify that Government costs should in- clude any additional indirect costs incurred for such activities as man- agement and supervision, budgeting, accounting, personnel, legal and other applicable services. Pa~zgraph 7-Adrnini~tering the po~icy 7.b. (3). Tn the past there has been some misunderstanding about the ~ost differential in favor of private enterprise due to uncertainties relal ing to Government production costs, equipment obsolescence, and other factors, including the amount of capital investment in- volved. A sentence has been added to clarify the fact that the ten per cent cost differential in favor of private enterprise, mentioned in this subparagraph, is not intended to be a fixed figure. The differential may be more or less than ten percent, depending upon the circumstances in each individual case. Paragraph 8-Implementation A sentence has been added requiring agencies to furnish the Bureau of the Budget with a copy of their implementing instructions. PAGENO="0393" APPENDIX F AEC POLLUTION REsEARCIT CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, JOINT COMMITTEE ON ATo~IIo ENERGY, November 15, 1966. Mr. CHARLES L. SOHULTZE, Director, Bureau of the Budget, TVas/iington, D.C. DEAR Mn. SOHULTZE: I am writing to discuss the overall pollution of our environment, which President Johnson has described as "one of the most pervasive problems of our society." I also wish to offer some suggestions concerning use of existing facilities to help resolve this critical problem affecting our Nation and the entire world. Month by month the degree of concern over pollution, within the scientific community and the public at large, becomes more intense. Clearly, it is the responsibility of the Federal Government to furnish dynamic leadership in planning and conducting a long-term program to deal with this matter. In this connection, I have reviewed and been impressed by last November's report of the Environmental Pollution Panel of the President's Science Advisory Committee. On several occasions I have publicly called attention to some of the Panel's most significant conclusions. One of these conclusions is that an urgent need exists to provide additional trained personnel, with adequate facilities, to launch the required broadscale attack on the manifold causes of environmental pollution. While I generally agree with this view, I am concerned that we may lose irretrievable lead-time in establishing new organizations and facilities, which will result in wasteful duplication and fail to achieve the desired results. We can and must make the optimum use of the qualified people and facilities currently available to us. For more than two decades, the Federal Government has supported a vast program of research and development including the construc- tion of expensive laboratories and other scientific establishments. These plants are furnished with the most advanced equipment. Thou- sands of scientists and engineers have been trained at Federal expense, and there exist in this country a number of highly skilled organizations which we have built up and supported in order to devote their ener- gies to the attainment of various national research and development objectives. My efforts on the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy and the Government Operations Committee have convinced me of the critical need for making better use of these Federal research establish- ments in solving the dilemma of environmental pollution, particularly as it relates to urban desigii. This needs t.o be done in order to maximize (389) PAGENO="0394" 390 our scientific and technological progress and to achieve the best allo- cation of scarce resources. As a specific example I call your attention to the federally-sup- ported atomic energy research laboratories. Unquestionably, these f a- cilities represent a national asset of incomparable value. The plants themselves are outstanding in their quality and diversity. They are staffed by outstanding people, expert in both the physical and life sci- ences. The systems type approach which they have applied to problems of the magnitude and complexity of development of nuclear energy for peaceful and military purposes especially qualifies these organiza- tions for coping with the Herculean tasks which must be accomplished in order to safeguard our environment against pollution. Moreover, and very importantly, these organizations have had perhaps the most extensive experience in many of the programs which must be pursued now with great vigor, such as measurements of pollution, studies of its effects, and analysis of waste disposal methods. I have discussed this matter with Atomic Energy Commission Chair- man Glenn Seaborg, and have requested him to consider carefully the capabilities of our atomic energy facilities to contribute to the national effort to abate pollution. I am also bringing this to your personal attention because of your position of responsibility concerning the overall programs of Executive Agencies. I hope you will specifically review this subject with Dr. Seaborg to determine how best to utilize these outstanding laboratories. Your efforts to assure that available resources are used wherever possible are of the utmost importance in promoting an effective, timely and economical Federal approach to this problem. You can be assured of my support in these efforts. I believe it is of vital importance that the matters I have discussed be given full and early consideration. Accordingly, I would appreciate an opportunity to talk with you about them as soon as our mutual schedules permit. With kindest regards, Sincerely, CHET HOLIFIELD, Chairman. ExEcUTIvE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, BUREAU OF THE BUDGET, Washington, D.C., January 6, 1967. Hon. CHET HOLIFIELD, Chairman, Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, Congress of the United States, Washington, D.C. DEAR CHET: I write in belated response to your letters of Novem- ber 14 and 15 concerning the problems of pollution control research and development, with specific reference to the possible use of AEC facilities and to certain aspects of procurement practices among the agencies involved. We have discussed this matter in a preliminary way with AEC, and we plan to make a more detailed exploration into the possibilities iden- tified in your November 15 letter as soon as the current problems of budget preparation are out of the way. PAGENO="0395" 3~1 I cert~ainly share your concern that air and water pollution rep- resents a very serious national problem and that we should give careful thought to the means and methods to be pursuant in the years immediately ahead in our efforts to cope with this problem. I, too, hope, that we will be able to get together to talk about these matters. When the budget is out of the way I would like to arrange a time to meet with you. CHARLES L. SCHULTZE, Director. PAGENO="0396" APPENDIX G THE "KILLIAN COMMITTEE" REPORT, NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, 1964 In 1964 a Committee on Utilization of Scientific and Engineering Manpower of the National Academy of Sciences made its report, "To- ward Better Utilization of Scientific and Engineering Talent: A Pro- gram for Action." Chaired by James R. Killian, Jr., of Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the committee undertook the study in response to a recommendation to President Kennedy by Jerome Wiesner, his special assistant for science and technology. Chapter III of this report had to do with utilization of manpower and the Federal Government. The 12 recommendations made and discussed in that chapter bear more or less directly upon the utilization of Government laboratories. The text of chapter III as follows: REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON UTILIZATION OF SCIENTIFIC AND ENGINEERING MANPOWER TOWARD BETTER UTILIzATIoN OF SCIENTIFIC AND ENGINEERING TALENT-A Puo- GRAM FOR ACTION PREFACE Suggestions that a study be undertaken to examine the utilization of scientists and engineers in the United States originated in the President's Science Advisory Committee and in the Federal Council for Science and Technology. As early as 1959, both bodies had expressed a need for such a review and had taken first steps toward initiating a study. In 1961, in response to a recommendation to President Kennedy by Jerome Wiesner, his Special Assistant for Science and Technology, the President ap- proved the undertaking of a study on utilization, together with a review of requirements for the development of scientists and engineers between now and 1970. This latter review, it was agreed, should be undertaken by the President's Science Advisory Committee. The study of utilization, it was felt, could best be conducted through a non- governmental body and supported from private sources. The National Academy of Sciences was requested to appoint a committee to make such a study, and to secure the necessary funds. The Academy agreed and in 1962 appointed the Committee on Utilization of Scientific and Engineering Manpower; and, in response to a proposal from the Academy, the Ford Foundation made a grant to finance the Committee's work. This report reflects the views of the Com- mittee, based on its two years of study. The Committee expresses its gratitude for the subvention of the Ford Founda- tion and for the generous conditions governing its use. The Committee has been supported by an able staff: Marvin Adelson, Executive Director, on leave from System Development Corporation; for various periods, Vincent P. Rock, on leave from the Institute for Defense Analyses; Arnold Nemore; Ernest Mosbaek; Allen 0. Gamble; and John Dickson. UTILIZATION AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT The federal government influences the deployment and utilization of scientific and engineering manpower in three principal ways. (1) At the policy level, it (392) PAGENO="0397" 393 initiates major programs requiring a heavy investment of scientific and engi- neering talent. (2) In implementing its programs it purchases a major share of the nation's research and development effort, and of its end products. (3) It directly employs many scientists and engineers. In addition, the federal government is the largest supplier of information about scientists and engineers, and about the activities, such as research and development, in which they engage. As the initiator of major national programs, over the past 15 years the government has determined the deployment of hundreds of thousands of scien- tists and engineers, its decision to invest heavily in the development of missiles and of other advanced weapons systems, and more recently its decision to carry through the manned lunar project by 1970, are together largely responsible for the high proportion of scientists and engineers now engaged more or less directly in national security and space efforts. Through contracts and grants, the government has an indirect but powerful influence on the utilization of a large fraction of the nation's scientific and engineering manpower employed by industry and the universities. This influ- ence is exerted by the government in its definitions of work to be funded, its selection of the institutions where the work will be done and the individuals who will do it, in the conditions it writes into contracts and grants under which work will be performed, and in the skill and intelligence with which the work is supervised by government scientists, engineers, and administrators. Finally, the government directly employs more than 120 thousand scientists and engineers, of whom one third are engaged in research and development. The following series of recommendations is intended to help the government improve its performance in each of these roles. THE GOVERNMENT AS AN INITIATOR OF MAJOR PROGRAMS 1. Before the government reaches a decision to undertake a great technological program (e.g., the lunar landing or the supersonic transport projects), it should make a careful assessment of the impact of the decision on the deployment and utilization of scientists and engineers. In view of the way in which certain government decisions have radically altered the pattern of deployment of scientists and engineers in recent years, it might be supposed that major decisions had been preceded by careful studies of their probable impact on the market for scientific and engineering manpower, and, more broadly, of their effect on the general direction of scientific and technological effort in the United States. Yet, so far as we can learn, no adequate studies of the impact of these decisions were in fact made before the decisions were taken. Indeed, meaningful studies probably could not have been made, partly because the information on which to base them was not available. 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. When these requirements are large, the government should make an estimate of what the resulting redeployment of `the nation's manpower is likely to cost in money and in scientific `and engi- neering manpower diverted from other objectives. Such calculations and estimates are difficult to obtain. At the present time, many different units of the federal government are involved in the collection, analysis, and publication of information on scientific and technical personnel. Even though considerable progress has been made toward the coordination of these disparate activities, officials at the top levels of the government still lack the kind of coordinated information they need if they are to assess accurately the impact their `decisions are likely to have on the deployment and utilization of scientific and engineering manpower. 2. Responsibility should be assigned to a unit within the Executive Office of the President for (a) stimulating and coordinating planning by federal depart- ments and agencies with respect to scientific and engineering manpower; (`b) promoting research, both inside and outside government, that is likely to facili- tate such planning and the solution of manpower problems; and (c) taking the lead in developing an integrated program for the continuing collection and analysis of information, relevant for operating and policy purposes, on scientific and engineering manpower. While the Committee does not recommend a specific location for this unit in the Executive Office, it notes the feasibility of placing it in the Office of Science and Technology. PAGENO="0398" 394 Executive Office leadership and coordination are clearly essential, both to assess the impact of major decisions and to promote continuing improvement in the utilization of scientists and engineers. The Committee does not propose that the collection of information about scientific and engineering manpower be accomplished by a single agency; centralization of this kind, in fact, is to be avoided. It does propose that the data now being collected from various sources be made more compatible. In some areas, additional data must be obtained. In support of this objective, extensive and continuing analysis is needed to ensure that information related to scientific and engineering manpower is both adequate and useful for making major decisions in all sectors, and especially in the federal government. Another task of Executive leadership should be to strengthen research in the field of scientific and engineering manpower. A considerable increase in expendi- tures for development of organized information would yield a high return in better utilization of scientists and engineers. Particularly urgent is the need for research that will identify and help to resolve certain critical problems. For example, convertibility and occupational mobility of scientists and engineers critically affect their utilization; yet there is little useful information on this subject. The machinery and the precise arrangements required for the development of an integrated federal policy on all manpower are not the proper concern of this Committee. Nevertheless, it sees an acute need for a continuing assessment of the total impact of government policies and activities on the development and utilization of manpower in the United States. The Committee is encouraged by the recent establishment by the President of a cabinet-level Committee on Man- power. THE GOVERNMENT AS PURCHASER 3. Each department and agency charged with major scientific or engineering activities should assign to one of its top officials responsibility for improving the utilization of civilian scientists and engineers, both those the agency employs and those whose work it finances. The duties of that official should include: (a) participating in government-wide scientific and engineering manpower planning activities; (b) bringing to the attention of his colleagues the implications, in terms of scientific and engineering manpower, of proposed new programs; (c) assessing the impact on manpower of cancellation, curtailment, or alteration of major programs; (d) analyzing the influence of various management practices and policies on the effectiveness with which scientific and engineering manpower is utilized; (e) providing for the collection and analysis of the information he needs to meet his other responsibilities. Specifically, the Committee recommends that an official be assigned these responsibilities in the Department of Defense in order to improve the utilization of civilian scientists and engineers working on defense programs both within and without the department. Decisions made within the departments and agencies of the government are of key importance in determining how effectively a very large proportion of the nation's scientific and engineering manpower outside the government is utilized. At the present time, the direct attention paid to the utilization of scientific and engineering manpower varies widely from agency to agency. The National Aero- nautics and Space Administration, for example, as required by statute, has actively sought and organized information on the numbers and kinds of scientific and engineering personnel that are involved in its programs, including those em- ployed by its contractors. The Department of Defense has very little `information of this kind. It has, however, actively examined the impact of various manage- ment policies and practices on project effectiveness, although not directly on utilization of manpower. Responsibility for efficient use of scientific and engineer- ing manpower tends to be widely diffused within most agencies, and is regarded by most program managers as incidental to other `tasks. If this responsibility is to be fulfilled effectively, it must be made the principal concern of designated of- ficials at the highest level of department arid agency management. 4. The Department of Defense, the National Aeronautics arid Space Adminis- tration, the Federal Aviation Agency, the Atomic Energy Commission, and other agencies with major technological programs should continue to place great em- phasis on improving the management of major projects by assigning to these projects identifiably top-quality managers with both technical and administra- tive skills, and giving them authority, responsibility, and resources necessary for successful completion of projects. PAGENO="0399" 395 We particularly commend measures already taken to give both military and civilian personnel special training in project management ; to form project teams that cut across conventional organizational lines; to use formal management tech- niques for the better coordination of complex programs; and to increase the tech- nical competence of government project-management teams by encouraging them to draw on the resources of industrial contractors, non-profit companies, and uni- versities. More than half of all scientists and engineers employed by private industry in research and development are working on projects financed and supervised by the federal government. The effectiveness of their efforts depends in very large degree upon the skill with which the government manages these projects. A single unwise decision in the fixing of design objectives may delay by a year the develop- ment of a space vehicle or a weapons system, and add a thousand, man-years of scientific and engineering effort to its cost. Conversely, an alert and technically competent project-management team can effect enormous savings in time and ef- fort by skillfully coordinating the activities of contractors working on different but related phases of a major space or weapons system. It appears that the successful development of two particular weapons systems, for which the Committee had case studies prepared, can be traced in part to skill- ful management for both the government and industry by strong project offices. Many large government research and development projects have in fact been handled most competently. But we believe that the quality of management could be substantially improved by wider use of techniques such as those recommended above and by recognition and rew:ard of exceptional work. It would be improved further by the passage of legislation raising the salaries of scientists and engi- neers in the upper civil service grades, from whose ranks the members of project- management teams are in large part recruited. The military services~ also, need to give more attention to the development and retention of this kind of engineer- manager in their officer corps. 5. Government agencies responsible for development programs should continue to place great emphasis on accurate estimates of their cost and feasibility, and on the use of multi-phase contracts. The Committee is impressed by evidence of the government's growing skill in estimating the cost of projected programs, and in determining their techno- logical feasibility before large amounts of money and manpower have been committed. The government is also to be commended for increased use of multi- phase contracting, a system under which several companies, chosen in competi- tion, are awarded contracts calling for preliminary study and task definition. The company that performs best in this early and relatively inexpensive phase is then awarded a development contract. One of the several advantages of multi-phase contracting is that it tends to reduce the number of prospective contractors sub- mitting major proposals for a development program, thus reducing the invest- n1ent of scientific and engineering talent in the preparation of proposals. 6. In development programs, the use of fixed-price and incentive contracts in- stead of cost-plus-fixed-fee contracts is to be commended. Great care must be taken by government agencies to establish meaningful and realistic performance criteria. In general, the Committee favors the increasing use of fixed-price and incen- tive contracts for development work. It is clear that the payment of higher fees to contractors whose performance is superior is likely to result in over-all improve- ment in the efficiency with which scarce technical talent is utilized in government- financed research and development programs. There is a danger, however, in overemphasizing objective performance criteria in contracts, in such a way that a company's profits become related to the achievement of goals irrelevant to the central objective for which its services are secured. For example, early opera- tional capability and low cost are usually desirable characteristics for military systems. But if the need is for a highly dependable back-up to a system already in the field, care must be taken lest a premium paid for speed of contractor per- formance~ or an undue penalty for a cost overrun, divert attention and effort from the primary goal of reliability. 7. The Committee commends federal contracting agencies in the fields of defense and space for their increasing ability to act at an early stage to cancel, curtail or materially alter major programs that do not appear to be worth their cost. Because of the necessarily speculative nature of development, it may often prove impossible to reach a desired goal by continuing to move along a particular line, or to reach it soon enough at an acceptable cost. Significant reductions in waste PAGENO="0400" 396 of money as well as manpower can be achieved if responsible government organi- zations are alert to the desirability of terminating or drastically modifying projects, or even entire programs, whenever there is convincing evidence of probable failure. Carefully considered action to terminate or redirect a program under such conditions is more often a sign of strength than a sign of weakness in the government's research and development management, and should be so interpreted by Congress and the public. Such action can be an important means of conserving scarce scientific and engineering manpower. 8. Federal departments and agencies should work with industry to develop plans and programs for minimizing the dislocation and consequent malutilization of scientists and engineers as a result of program cancellation or redirection. Early cancellation or curtailment of major programs will not, by itself, improve utilization of scientific and engineering personnel unless the personnel inactivated by these decisions can go to work on other productive activities immediately. If they are thrown out of employment by the cancellation, or assigned to busy- work projects, their usefulness is actually reduced, of course, although money may be saved by reduced need for materials and facilities. As noted at the beginning of this report, scientists and engineers can play a key role in creating new opportunities for the nation. If the burden of defense lightens, they should be involved in the conversion of defense industry to other national objectives or to civilian purposes. If their potential is to be utilized productively, cooperative action will be needed to facilitate the transition. Pro- visions are required to enable existing defense industrial contractors more readily to utilize their scientists and engineers in diversifying and transforming the enterprise. Incentives to facilitate the formation of new enterprises, based on the capabilities of creative groups wishing to apply technology with which they are familiar to the civilian economy, will also be of value. It would be in the national interest if, during the periods of transition, attrac- tive opportunities could be provided for individual scientists and engineers to replenish and augment their professional value through education and training, possibly at university centers as well as within the organizations in which they work. The Committee recognizes that these objectives *are difficult to achieve, and hastens to express its view that programs designed to minimize dislocation should not involve coercive methods that would curtail the freedom of indi- viduals or encroach upon the proper prerogatives of responsible free enterprise. 9. Federal support of contractor-initiated technical effort by government indus- trial contractors should be maintained at a substantial level. Incentives should be developed for encouraging corporate managements to emphasize quality and continuity, and to orient work toward long-run objectives. Companies engaged in research and development or production under govern- ment contract are usually permitted to devote some portion of their total effort to what has been called independent research and development, or, as it has more recently been designated, contractor-initiated technical effort. Its objectives are, as a rule, defined only in general terms, and it is treated as a recognized business cost. Independent research and development has provided scientists and engineers employed by industrial contractors the opportunity to develop advanced concepts that, in many cases, have been of great value to the govern- ment. In the current efforts to strengthen government contracting procedures, it would be unfortunate if government funding in this area were to be eliminated or even substantially reduced. While the Committee recognizes the need for limits on government funding for this purpose, it believes that the public interest would be better served by an increase than by a decrease in current allowances. The government should seek to develop incentives to encourage the most ef- fective use of the manpower supported by the funds it supplies. While detailed government controls over the specific activities of individual contractors are not desirable, a periodic review by responsible and competent technical people would be useful to determine whether the results of independent research and development effort are commensurate with its cost. THE GOVERNMENT AS EMPLOYER 10. Greater emphasis should be placed on assuring a high level of professional competence in the federal scientific establishment. In support of this objective, the administration proposals for higher salaries at the upper levels of government service should be promptly enacted by the Congress. PAGENO="0401" 397 Since World War II, the government's large and important scientific estab- lishment has had continuing difficulty competing with industry and the univer- sities for the services of talented scientists and engineers. Many groups, both inside and outside the government, have studied this problem and made recom- mendations. A number of the recommendations have now been adopted, and the government's competitive position is consequently stronger today than at any time in the past 18 years. But, as Table 1 shows, the salaries paid to scientists and engineers at the upper levels of government career service are far below those prevailing at comparable levels in private industry. The discrepancy is even greater in the top policy positions. Ironically, the government is often in the position of reimbursing a contractor for salaries the contractor has paid to scientists and engineers that are very much higher than the salaries the govern- ment can pay its own employees. Enactment of pending legislation authorizing higher salaries at the upper levels of government service would improve the government's competitive position. Table 1.-Comparison of top Government career salaries with those in priivate business for comparable work Corresponding levels in private Federal Government: business GS-16 $16,000 to $18,000 $20, 000 to $30, 000 GS-17 $18,000 to $20,000 $27, 500 to ~37, 500 GS-18 $20,000 $32, 500 to $45, 000 Source: The Competition for Quality, vol. 1 Federal Council for Science and Technology, 1962. (The Federal Government salaries listed here reflect upward revisions enacted since. that report.) Raising salaries is only one of several measures that must be taken if the government is to attract and retain its fair share of the nation's best scientific and engineering talent. Managers of some federal laboratories should strengthen their recruiting programs, particularly at colleges and universities. The govern-V ment should also take more positive steps to provide scientists and engineers employed in federal laboratories with a wider variety of opportunities for con- tinuing their education and developing their professional competence. These opportunities should include work in private industry, at other government establishments, and at universities, and they should be available to scientists and engineers at reasonable intervals throughout their professional careers. Federal laboratories and agencies should also encourage their scientists and engineers to participate in activities of professional societies. The personnel of these establishments have not always had the opportunity to participate on study groups and advisory panels, and in scientific missions representing the United States. They should be called upon more than they are now, and their participa- tion should be encouraged by their employers. They have much to contribute. As part of its study, the Committee had case studies made for it on the utiliza- tion of scientific and engineering manpower in the development of two military systems-Titan II and the Naval Tactical Data System. The first such compre- hensive studies so far made, they highlighted the superior opportunities for advanced technical study that are given to military officers, in contrast with rela- tively meager opportunities available for civilian employees. 11. The U.S. Civil Service Commission should take the lead in working with government departments and agencies to improve the working environment of scientists and engineers employed by the federal government. It should also help to foster improved forecasting of their future requirements for scientific and engineering personnel. Although improved utilization of scientific and engineering manpower is pri- marily the responsibility of agency and departmental managers, there is need for action that will cut across departmental lines. The Civil Service Commission should assist the individual agencies in their planning of how many scientists and engineers-of what types-the government is likely to require in the future. The Civil Service Commission should, in addition, carefully review govern- ment personnel policies to determine which ones have or can have a significant effect on the environment in which research and development is carried out in government laboratories. Where changes in such policies seem advisable, au- thority to make them should be promptly sought. At the same time, the commis- sion should aid and encourage agency heads and laboratory directors fully to use all existing authority to improve working environments. 93-201 0-68-26 PAGENO="0402" 398 12. The Department of Defense, the Atomic Energy Commission, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Commerce, and other government departments and agencies should periodically review the mis- sions and programs of the mission-oriented research laboratories they finance in full, both those they operate directly and those operated under contract, in order to make sure (a) that their resources continue to serve high-priority national needs and objectives, (b) that the arrangements for their management and loca- tion provide them maximum opportunity to be strong and creative, and (c) that their programs and administrative arrangements are compatible with the objec- tives of the institutions with which they may be linked. The Committee suggests that the resources of the President's Science Advisory Committee could be called upon in conducting these reviews and in arriving at decisions. The great national research centers financed by the government utilize large numbers of scientists and engineers. The missions of some of them, especially of those related to defense, have changed since their establishment. It is important that their present and future missions be clear-cut and of high priority, and that their use of scientists and engineers be unmistakably in the national interest. In maintaining these major concentrations of manpower, the government has a special responsibility to appraise them in terms of both their contributions to urgent government needs and their impact on the over-all utilization of scientists and engineers, taking into consideration the needs of the private sector of the economy. New ways to manage and house the large research laboratories of the federal government are needed. Some laboratories can be handled directly by the govern- ment, others by industry, by universities, and by non-profit corporations. It may be necessary to handle some of them in new ways. In the long future, it will probably be wise not to expect universities to manage such establishments unless there is no alternative for the government. PAGENO="0403" 399 APPENDIX H Department of Defense IN-HOUSE LABORATORIES Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force 31 October 1966 Engineering Office of the Director of Defense Research and Washington, D. C. PAGENO="0404" 400 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE IN-HOUSE LABORATORIES Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force Office of the Director of Defense Research and Engineering Washington, D.C. 20301 ~31 October 1966 PAGENO="0405" 401 MEMBERSHIP Defense Science Board Task Force on Department of Defense In-House Laboratories Dr. Leonard S. Sheingold, Chairman Vice-President Sylvania Electronic Systems * Dr. Launor F. Carter Vice-President - Research * Systems Development Corporation Dr. Martin Goland President Southwest Research Institute Mr. John Golden Department of State Center for Overseas Analyses Dr. O.G. Haywood President Huyck Corporation 1]. PAGENO="0406" 402 OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF DEFENSE RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING WASHINGTON, D. C. 2O3O~ 7 November 1966 TO: THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE THROUGH: THE DIRECTOR OF DEFENSE RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING The Defense Science Board herewith submits its report on Depart- ment of Defense in-house laboratories and recommends it for your consideration. This report is the outcome of a study made by a task force of the Board, under the chairmanship of Dr. Leonard S. Sheingold, in response to a request by Dr. Foster. Dr. Sheingold is willing to assist you and Dr. Foster in preparing for any action that you deem appropriate pursuant to the findings and recommendations. I wish to thank him and the other task force members for their able and perceptive conduct of this review. Chairman Defense Science Board 1.11 PAGENO="0407" 403 OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF DEFENSE RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING WASHINGTON, D. C. 20301 31 October 1966 MEMORANDUM FOR CHAIRMAN, DEFENSE SCIENCE BOARD SUBJECT: Department of Defense In-House Laboratories Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force The Defense Science Board Task Force on In-House Laboratories sub- mits herewith its final report dealing with proposed management actions to make more effective use of the DoD technical laboratories. The Task Force concentrated on the laboratories' contributions to the development and acquisition of military operational systems and equip- ments to determine the necessary steps to be taken to improve the effectiveness of the laboratories in high-priority research and develop- ment areas. Since it is the most recent of a number of reports involving in-house laboratories issued during the past several years, this report contains a summary of those previous activities most pertinent to the DSB effort. Basically, an attempt was made to determine the laboratories' involve- ment in the current DoD RDT&E programs; and it is indicated that, although the in-house activities cover a very broad spectrum, there are some areas in which the laboratories are scarcely involved, such as ballistic-missile systems development. On the other hand, the labor- atories' participation in conventional-warfare matters appears to be the basis for an important mission area that will exist for many years. Previous committees have recommended that the Military Departments establish mission-oriented laboratories or weapon centers. This re- port defines such a weapon center and discusses some of the relative advantages and disadvantages in its establishment. One of the more significant actions taken by the Departments in the last few years was the establishment of the position of Director of Laboratories. The critical nature of this high-ranking position and the opportunities it offers for the future management of the in-house laboratories are considered in some detail. V PAGENO="0408" 404 The report also deals with some issues of long standing, such as military versus civilian management, personnel policies and allocation of resources. The report contains three specific recommendations. The first involves a marked increase in the in-house laboratories1 participation in the weapon-systems planning process. The second concerns a proposal for the establishment of the first weapon center; and the third relates to the solution of the administrative problems associated with providing the necessary resources for effective planning and management of the laboratories. Leonard S. Sheingold, Chairman Task Force on rn-House Laboratories vi PAGENO="0409" 405 CONT ENTS Page Membership, Defense Science Board Task Force on Department of Defense In-House Laboratories ii Memoranda of Transmittal iii 1. Introduction 2. Background 3. The Laboratories' Contributions to the Defense RDT&E Program 4. Role of the In-House Laboratories in Developing Ballistic-Missile Systems 7 5. The Concept of Weapon Centers 8 6. Director of Laboratories . 11 7. Military Versus Civilian Management 13 8. Personnel Policies 15 9. Resources Management 16 10. Recommendations 17 10. 1 Participation of Laboratories in Weapon- System Planning 17 10.2 Weapon Centers 18 10. 3 Authority of Laboratory Directors 18 vii PAGENO="0410" 406 1. INTRODUCTION The Secretary of Defens.e has often stated as a matter of policy the need for competent and creative in-house technical laboratories. Among the evident reasons underlying this need are: (1) the mainten- ance of national competence during peacetime, as well as times of con- flict, in those areas of technology peculiar to military needs; (Z) the necessity for maintaining a continuity of effort, free from commercial pressures and directed toward the conception and evolution of advanced weapon systems; (3) the need for competent in-house skills that can monitor and assess the accomplishments of DoD contractors; and (4) the requirement of having available to the Military Services a fast- reaction capability to solve critical, immediate problems that arise in connection with existing operational weapon systems, or when unex- pected combat situations are encountered such as that currently existing in Southeast Asia. In recent years, increased attention has been given by the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) and the Military Departments to the management problems associated with in-house technical efforts. Con- structive progress -particularly regarding salaries, working conditions, personnel administration, flexibility of funding, ease of obtaining labor- atory instrumentation, etc. -has been made, especially during the past four years. Nevertheless, there remain many critical and fundamental problems relating to laboratory mission areas and to the relevancy of the laboratories' programs to providing our military forces with superior weapons, equipment, training and techniques. There is a growing awareness that the many innovations during the past years in weapon-system planning, organization and management have had a profound impact on the in-house laboratories, and have given rise to a number of questions regarding their future operations. The Defense Science Board (DSB) Task Force on In-House Labor- atories held its first meeting on 9 February 1966 and determined that it would: (3rn) Examine how the laboratories contribute to the development and acquisition of military operational systems and equip- ments. (2) Determine the feasibility of establishing weapon centers or lead laboratories, as previously recommended by the Director of Defense Research and Engineering (DDR&E). PAGENO="0411" 407 (3) Consider alternate approaches for improving the effective- ness of the laboratories. (4) Formulate recommendations for future actions by the DDR&E. The approach selected was to schedule a series of meetings to examine how the Military Departments consider the laboratories have contributed-or are expected to contribute-to important military pro- grams. Three subsequent meetings were held to obtain an assessment of laboratory contributions to strategic systems (9 March 1966), weaponry for general-purpose forces (l4April 1966), and specific Vietnam warfare requirements (27 May 1966). During the meetings, the Task Force was apprised of one very familiar problem, largely administrative, relating to personnel, facilities and financial management. Specifically, laboratory managers have considerable difficulty in planning and .managing their laboratories because manpower, :facilities and funding are handled by three separate OSD offices. In this regard, the Task Force observed that the DDR&E has inadeqt~āte authority over all the resources required for efficient laboratory planning and management. As a result, the Task Force concluded that the assigned authorities and responsibilities of the DDR&E need further examination. A separate pertinent recom- mendation has therefore been included in this report. 2. BACKGROUND The basic policies on research and development (R&D) activities were established by.a memorandum from the Secretary of Defense dated 14 October 1961 and by the Bell Report' of April 1962. Both policy statements reaffirmed the need for stronger in-house organiza- tions to spearhead the Defense research, development, test and evalu- ation (RDT&E) programs, and established both broad and specific~ objectives to be met:. All three Military Departments subsequently issued implementing policies concerned with strengthening their in- house activities. The DDR&E continued to maintain surveillance over the program structure of the in-house laboratories during the period 1961-1966. In 1964, a study group in the Office of the DDR&E was established to 1Bureau of the Budget (David E. Bell, Director), Report to the President on Government Contracting for Research and Development, 30 April 1962, Document No. 94, 87th Congress, Zd Session. 2 PAGENO="0412" 408 reexamine the total in-house laboratory structure. It concluded that, although much progress had been made since 1961, these improvements were evolutionary rather than revolutionary and did not produce any necessary fundamental changes. The Plan for the Operation and Management of the Principal DoD In-House Laboratories2 was issued in November 1964. The salient features of the plan were: (1) A proposed reorientation of the larger Defense laboratories toward military problem areas or military missions, e. g., antisubmarine warfare (ASW), battlefield communications, air-to-ground warfare, etc. (2) A proposed elimination of echelons between the Departments' Assistant Secretaries (R&D) and the principal mission- oriented laboratories through the establishment of a new technical line-management structure headed by,~ Director of Laboratories with requisite authority to provide the proper R&D environment for the Defense establishment. (3) A proposal that laboratories encompass the full spectrum of activities (basic research through operational development) with respect to a military problem area. They would be given (a) greater local authority over decisions in the areas of research and exploratory and advanced development and (b) greater re~sponsibility for providing technical assistance and advice, in the areas of engineering and operational de- velopment, to weapon-system development and acquisition organizations. On 20 November 1964, the Secretary of Defense forwarded this plan to the Military Departments, and asked that they work closely with the DDR&E and the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Administration) in planning the detailed implementation of `some such plan in each of the military departments." During 1965 there was considerable ex- change of ideas and detailed study of approaches that were compatible with the mode of operation of each Department. In June 1964, the President's Science Advisor, Dr. D. Hornig, established the President's Science Advisory Committee (PSAC) Panel on U. S. Government In-House Laboratories to ascertain ways of 2Office of the Secretary of Defense, Plan for the Operation and Management of the Principal DoD In-House Laboratories, 16 November 1964. 3 PAGENO="0413" 409 increasing the total effectiveness of the Federal Government's laboratories. Because of the size of the RDT&E base system in the Department ofDefense (DoD), particular attention was given to the Defense laboratories. The PSAC Panel's report is not yet available, but it is expected to consider many-of the same basic questions covered in previous reports. Shortly after Dr. Foster succeeded Dr. Brown in October 1965, he initiated action to determine the status of the DoD laboratory ques- tion. After a series of meetings with the Departments' Assistant Secretaries (R&D), he forwarded to them a memorandum, dated 7 November 1965, which emphasized the urgent need to develop a com- prehensive plan for the development of the DoD in-house laboratories. He has asked the Military Departments to: (1) Develop a list of five to ten top-priority military R&D - problem areas needing urgent and continuing attention for the next ten years (e. g., amphibious warfare, limited war- fare, air-to-ground warfare). (Z) Determine which of the problem areas developed are the most suitable for lead or systems laboratories or technical centers; indicate any necessary construction at the lead sites and subsequent phase-outs of other sites. (3) Outline the main functions that should be considered for per- formance in the lead DoD laboratories or technical centers. (4) State what additional authorities or steps are required to make the new laboratories as effective as possible. - Dr. Foster received preliminary, responses from the Departments and has held a number of meetings with them to determine the most appropriate action to take. In addition, he established a Defense Science Board Task Force to assist in the evaluation of these Service inputs and possibly to provide suggestions for appropriate alternatives. On 10 May 1966, Dr. Foster convened a special group, composed of the Chairman of the PSAC Panel on Government In-House Laboratories, the Chairman of the PSAC Panel on Government Personnel, the Chair- man of the DSB Task Force on In-House Laboratories, the Military Departments' Directors of Laboratories, and the Air Force Special Assistant for Laboratories. It. is Dr. ~ intention to meet periodically with this group to discuss specific plans of action to improve the DoD laboratories. - - 4 PAGENO="0414" 410 3. THE LABORATORIES' CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE DEFENSE RDT&E PROGRAM In general, the DoD laboratories engage in a very broad spectrum of activities. The Task Force considered it important to gain some understanding of the laboratories' direct involvement with the develop- ment and acquisition of operational hardware for our modern military forces. With this understanding, even if only qualitative, it should be possible to identify critical problem areas that require management attention. The present system by which important military systems are developed and produced consists of at least the following three basic steps: (1) A firm requirement is established, usually after much dis- cussion between the Departments and OSD; systems studies are made, concepts are evaluated, and funds are allocated. (2) A program-management organization is then established within an appropriate Service systems command. (3) After competitive bidding, a substantial contract is awarded to an industrial concern for large-scale system development and production. The program-management system is a highly efficient arrange- ment for evaluating the performance of contractors on well-defined major programs. In general, the laboratories' personnel are involved in providing important services to the system/project office (SPO). Prior to an award, specifications are prepared for bid solicitations, special studies are conducted, and consulting support to the SPO is provided. Laboratories' specialists usually participate in the source- selection process. After the award is made, the DoD laboratories' involvement is substantially decreased, particularly if a tight incentive contract has been negotiated. Occasionally, if a contract is in difficulty because of technical-feasibility problems, in-house laboratories are asked to examine the problem areas, make recommendations, and subsequently contribute. The DoD laboratories provide supporting services to the SPOs; they provide supporting services to the organizations responsible for establishing requirements; they provide supporting services to opera- tional commands. The level and quality of their support are usually difficult to evaluate,~ since there is little available data that can be interpreted meaningfully. 5 PAGENO="0415" 411 Although the SPO-industry team arrangement is the management mechanism by which most of the costly and sophisticated weapon sys- tems are acquired, a good percentage of R&D for subsystems and com- ponents is handled directly by the laboratories. Most of these systems developments involve contracts with industry, although some of them are actually carried out by in-house laboratory engineers. Also, some of these developments-f uzes, air-to-surface missiles, munitions, etc. -result in working models that are subsequently turned over to industry for production. Of the three Services, the Army and the Navy do a substantial amount of in-house development, whereas the Air Force does considerably less. Virtually all production is accomplished by industry. The tremendous variation in the percentage of in-house develop- ment efforts of the various Service laboratories is quite understandable because of fundamental differences in their management approaches. For example, the Air Force has decided to rely almost exclusively on the SPO-industry team, whereas both the Navy and the Army consider a hybrid arrangement, which includes some laboratory developments, to be effective. All the Services' technical organizations, however, do have prime responsibility in one area-they establish projects and provide contractual support for a large university and industrial base to advance technology for future weapon-system developments. The funding re- quested in FY 1967 for these efforts was $407 million for R&D category 6. 1, research, and $1. 063 billion for 6. Z, exploratory development. The funds expended in these areas are divided among a multitude of small contracts or projects covering a number of technical disci- plines. The Task Force concluded that the relevancy of the 6. land 6. Z laboratory programs could be increased substantially if the laboratories were given an opportunity to define and work on significant military systems problems. This could be done by increasing the participation of the in-house technical specialists in systems analyses, systems syntheses, establishment of requirements, SPO managem ent, and other important functions relating to weapon-system research and de- velopment-particularly if high-level planners would depend more on the laboratories' special~sts for technical judgments in significant RDT&E matters. 6 PAGENO="0416" 412 4. ROLE OF THE IN-HOUSE LABORATORIES IN DEVELOPING BALLISTIC-MISSILE SYSTEMS In analyzing the proper role of the DoD's in-house laboratories, the Task Force reviewed their involvement in developing strategic weapon systems, weaponry for general warfare, and developments for special types of warfare such as that in Southeast Asia. Strategic weapon systems and, in particular, ballistic-missile systems received the Task Force's close attention. The growth of a very substantial industrial competence in the development of strategic weapons, which has continued at a high level during peacetime, places this area in a special situation. In this matter, there is general agreement that engineering and production should continue to be concentrated primarily in private industry, but there are different views on whether the in-house laboratories should participate fully in the advanced development of strategic weapons. There are those, particularly in the Air Force, who feel that industry should perform this function along with a special not-for-profit organ- ization that has been established to provide the Government with tech- nical and management assistance. In any event, up to the present time the development of large strategic missile systems for the three Military Services has been carried on largely outside the structure of the in-house laboratories. The Task Force recognizes that the development pattern used in the area of strategic weapons has been quite successful. The combina- tion of a strong industrial (or nonprofit) contractor and a qualified pro- gram office appears to be the accepted approach for developing major strategic n-~Issile systems such as Minuteman, Poseidon and Nike X. If it is assumed that, duringthe next few years, there will be no fundamental changes in the way strategic missile systems are developed or procured, there still remain some issues involving the laboratories that must be resolved. They include the participation of the labor- atories in long-range planning for strategic systems to ensure that the laboratories' R&D efforts relating to future strategic systems are sig- nificant and pertinent. The laboratories may also have the important function of troubleshooting and updating operational strategic systems. Clearly, there is need for a better understanding-and better mission statements- concerning the laboratories' participation in activities in- volving strategic weapon systems. 7 PAGENO="0417" 413 5. THE CONCEPT OF WEAPON CENTERS It has been recommended by the Office of the DDR&E that the Military Departments seriously consider the establishment of large weapon centers, each embracing a broadly conceived technical pro- gram concentrated on a particular military problem area associated with general-purpose warfare. Whereas in most cases the Services' in-house RDT&E competence in a given mission-ASW, for example- is now spread among many laboratories at numerous geographic loca- tions, the weapon-center concept would draw these varied strengths together and unite them in a single comprehensive technical team. In effect the weapon center would bea project-oriented applied labor- atory in which there would be continuous mission-discipline interaction. The establishment of a weapon center could result in (1) the elimination of laboratories that are marginal with respect to either competence or size and (Z) a consolidation of interests. It should be emphasized that, while the weapon-center concept is one possible aid toward achieving R&D effectiveness, it is by no means a necessary requirement for a successful program. Other fac- tor s - technical management, personnel policies, financial management, etc. -are of at least equal importance in determining the effectiveness of in-house efforts. There appears to be considerable variation in the willingness of the Services to plan for the establishment of weapon centers. The Navy and the Army now have some mission-oriented laboratories in which a number of actual developments are carried on by Government engineers. The Air Force laboratories, on the other hand, are organ- ized on the basis of technology areas If there is a lack of enthusiasm for new centers, it is partially owing to the many organizational changes in the past few years and to the feeling that concentration on making the present system work better by examining new management approaches would result in more progress. The Task Force believes, however, that the establishment of weapon (-systems) centers is a good concept for long-range planning, since it provides an opportunity to combine in-house resources in order to work more directly and effectively on critical military prob- lems. 8 93-201 0 - 68 - 27 PAGENO="0418" 414 Although it is not possible to present a detailed description of a typical weapon center, some of its important characteristics can be defined as follows: (1) It would be oriented toward a military mission ora military problem. (2) The number of professional scientists and engineers would be of the order of 1, 000 or more, so as to achieve a `critical mass." (3) The weapon center, which may have more than one geo- graphical location, would be a self-contained organization in that it would perform research and development with feasibility models as the end product. These models should be capable of demonstrating proof of function in a military situation.. (4) The director of the center would have direct control over all the resources required, such as funding, manpower and facilitie~; and he would report at a sufficiently hig~i level that echelon "layering" would be minimum. (5) About 70 percent of the professional personnel would be devoted to creative in-house engineering. Although con- tracts would be awarded, the fundamental development engineering would be accomplished within the center. (6) The weapons center's specialists would participate in the determination of military requirements associated with its mis s ion. (7) The center would be involved in the initial procurement of equipments and would provid~ support to the procurement agency when large-scale production is achieved. (8) The overall performance of the center would be critically evaluated on a periodic basis to guarantee that the center is a competitive organization with high performance stan- dards and achievements. 9 PAGENO="0419" 415 The advantages of creating a weapon center by combining the capabilities of certain laboratories already engaged in component or subsystem developments are the following: (1) It would enable concentration on the identification and solution of critical military problems. (2) It would provide opportunities for Government engineers to work more effectively on important military problems, and would help to better orient specialists responsible for' areas of technical disciplines. (3) Clear responsibility would be delegated to the weapon center. (4) The combined mission- discipline approach would enable the center to serve as a quick-reaction facility andto be particularly responsive to war needs. (5) There would be opportunity to arrive at optimum solutions to problems independently of technical-specialty biases. (The systems approach could be more readily applied.) (6) It would be much easier to evaluate the center's perform- ance, because end products that are clearly the responsi- bility of the center could be tested and evaluated. There are also some disadvantages: (1) Penalties in the form of cost, political effects, time delays, personnel attrition, etc., may be excessive because of a fundamental change in organizational concept. (2) There could be difficulties in arriving at acceptable mission statements. (3) There could be a tendency toward monopoly and overpro- tection. (4) In the event that one or more weapon' centers were created, there would still bea requirement for a management sys- tem to handle technical specialties. A logical approach to the practical planning of a weapon center would be for each Military Department to examine its laboratories with 10 PAGENO="0420" 416 a view to determining which ones concentrate on developing subsystems in-house rather than depend upon industry. Both the Navy and the Army have some in-house development programs, particularly in the areas of fuzes, projectiles and tactical missiles, while in the Air Force, be- cause of its different management philosophy, in-house development activities are kept at a minimum. The next step would be to match existing development capabilities to a warfare area of real military interest. An example of a suitable weapon center for the Navy would be an ASW-Surface Systems Development Center which would cover the spectrum of systems anal- ysis and concepts, research, engineering development, prototype de- velopment, initial procurement and development testing. An action of this type should encourage original contributions to ASW systems by personnel of the in-house laboratories. In planning future weapon centers, the tremendous competence that has been established in our industrial base must be recognized. Work by Government engineers in the centers should be directed toward areas in which a competence already exists and could logically be extended. The Task Force cOncluded that a plan for establishing the first weapon center should be prepared as a priority item. Furtheri~ore, the center should be devoted to some major aspect of the ASW problem because of that area's importance and outstanding in-house engineering capabilities that now exist in the Navy. 6. DIRECTOR OF LABORATORIES In addition to the weapon-center approach, there will always be a need for laboratories organized on a technical-discipline basis. It is important that these laboratories are represented at a high policy- making level to ensure that individual laboratory programs are based upon an understanding of important military needs. Only four years ago, the Air Force examined its many labor- atories and decided to group its resources in eight technical organiza- tions. In addition, a systems engineering group was created to do systems engineering and to provide technical direction for aeronautical systems. The laboratories were given division status (Research and Technology Division-RTD) under Major General Marvin C. Demler, reporting to the Commander, Air Force Systems Command (AFSC). 11 PAGENO="0421" 417 Similarly, the Army and the Navy have regrouped their technical resources during the past two years. General Besson, Commander, Army Materiel Command (AMC), recently appointed a Director of Laboratories, Dr. Jay Tol Thomas, who has line authority over the central AMC laboratories. The Navy established a new position, Director of Navy Laboratories, reporting to the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (R&D), to which Dr. Gerald Johnson was appointed. In the last few months, the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (R&D) created a new position in his office, Special Assistant for Laboratories, and appointed Dr. William Lehman to serve in that capacity. The Task Force observed that the status and reporting position of the ranking technical managers in each Military Department have been increased substantially during the past few months. This step alone should have a beneficial effect on the morale and contribution of the in-house laboratories' personnel, since it is clear evidence that the laboratories are sufficiently important to warrant high-ranking posi- tions. Each of these directors now has an opportunity to provide the important interaction between high-level decision-makers and the tech- nical specialists in the laboratories. Every effort must now be made to give the three Departmental Directors of Laboratories the support necessary for better utilization of the laboratories' resources. With the direct assistance of the DDR&E, the Directors of Laboratories should concentrate on using in- house technical specialists to- (1) understand and define overall systems problems, particu- larly in tactical-warfare areas; (2) work jointly with military planners to define crucial military requirements, based upon a critical assessment of existing and predicted technology; (3) provide, within the assigned mission area, military and technical concepts that could serve as justification for the Departments' long-range programs in research and ex- ploratory development; (4) conduct sufficient technical work in-house to ensure that specifications for weapon systems can be developed with confidence; and (5) provide a limited amount of consulting support to special project offices when a commitment is made to undertake a major program development. 12 PAGENO="0422" 418 If each Department's Director of Laboratories is fully, accepted as a member of the top-level management team, the mission-discipline interaction should be substantially improved, and the laboratories' personnel should couple more effectively with- (1) the military users (requirements); (2) special program offices and major contractors that handle the management of critical weapon-system developments; (3) nonprofit organizations, of which some provide special studies for the higher echelons and others are responsible for roles in systems engineering and technical direction; (4) the technical community at large which provides aavanced technology for future weapon systems; and (5) organizations responsible for testing and evaluating existing military systems to determine how they perform and what improvements can be made. The Task Force concluded that the frequent meetings now being conducted by the DDR&E with the Directors of Laboratories should be continued indefinitely. The resultant dialogue creates the mutual understanding that is required to improve the laboratories' responsive- ness to important present and future military requirements. 7. MILITARY VERSUS CIVILIAN MANAGEMENT Below the level of Director of Laboratories are the laboratory managers who have line responsibility for their organizations' activities. In previous examinations of the in-house laboratories, the problem of military versus civilian leadership has been considered critical. `it is generally conceded that competent management of a military in-house laboratory requi~res a sound knowledge of the military prob- lems encountered in actual field and combat situations. This has been the leading argument for maintaining military management control of the Defense laboratories. Nevertheless, in a carefully planned program, it is not out of the question to have civilian personneLwho are thoroughly versed in military affairs from a quite practical viewpoint. It is as possible for civilians to understand the military environment as it is for military personnel to be trained in technical areas. . . 13 PAGENO="0423" 419 * It would appear that, for the future, there will be available a certain number of military personnel who are entirely competent to direct in-house laboratories. In addition to their military training, they must have technical education and training, as well as direct ex- perience in research and development.3 Also, as has already been noted, civilian personnel can most certainly be trained to direct pro- grams in military operations. It might be said that both classes of individuals have similar training and backgrounds, but the military personnel are more heavily indoctrinated in combat matters, while the balance of training in the case of civilians is heavier on the technical and theoretical side. It appears that every director of an in-house laboratory should be chosen on the basis of capability, especially his ability to challenge and stimulate his staff, and regardless of military or civilian status. Only in this way can both civilians and military personnel be afforded the same opportunity for professional advancement. The idea has often been suggested that, if a laboratory director is military, his deputy should be civilian, and vice-versa. This is a satisfactory management approach in view of the increasingly technological complexion of modern weapon systems. It has also been suggested that, if the emphasis is on in-house development, the director should be a civilian engineering manager. On the other hand, if the emphasis is on contractual activi- ties, the director should be a technical military officer. These remarks are directed toward research and development. As military systems move into test and evaluation, there is little difference of opinion on the conclusion that military management should prevail. One final point regarding the selection of individual laboratory directors: A deliberate attempt should be made to avoid appointing to key laboratory management positions military officers who are pre- paring to retire. Similarly, under no circumstances should a civil servant be allowed to assume the leadership of a laboratory primarily because of longevity of service. Above all, the tenure of office should be of sufficient duration to indicate clearly that the director himself has had a real impact on laboratory operations. 3Office of the Director of Defense Research and Engineering, Technical Military Personnel, Report of the Defense Science Board Subcommittee, 9 September 1965. 14 PAGENO="0424" 420 8. PERSONNEL POLICIES Perhaps the most serious problem standing in the way of effective in-house laboratory work is that of achieving flexibility in handling laboratory personnel. It is generally agreed that, if the management of DoD in-house laboratories could handle personnel with the same degree of flexibility as is possible in comparable industrial organiza- tions, an Immediate and substantial improvement in laboratory effec- tiveness would be realized. The problems standing in the way of flexibility in personnel mat- ters are too~well known to require elaboration here. Foremost among them are the rigidity of job assignment, the difficulty of reassignment to new duties, and the conflict between available funds and spaces. These circumstances are a result of civil-service regulations, in addition to what appears tO be an unduly rigid interpretation of civil- service policies by the top management of DoD and the Military Depart- ments. The latter point is not certain, since civil-service regulations may indeed be as inflexible as the Departments believe them to be, but there are some indications that the Departments are not taking advan- tage of all the flexibility that current civil-service regulations permit. In any event, no matter how the result is achieved, it is abso- lutely essential that substantially more flexibility be allowed laboratory management in handling their personnel than is now permitted. If the laboratories are to operate at the expected high level of efficiency and competence, they must have The same degree of control over their staffs that agencies outside the Government have. It should be recognized that many of the civil-service regulations are the consequence of a system designed in past years when the Government was not faced with major scientific and technical problems. Today, Government salaries are much improved; moreover, the Government is the largest national employer of professional personnel. It is fair to say, therefore, that a drastic revision of personnel policies relating to scientific and technical professionals is not only in order but necessary for the future. If the Government cannot employ and reward highly skilled pro- fessional people with the same flexibility that industry currently practices, the Government cannot expect an equal measure of per- formance by its technical teams. There appears to be no question that this is one of the major impediments to improved efficiency on the part of the in-house laboratories, and DoD management should give this problem its concentrated attention. 15 PAGENO="0425" 421 The point has already been made that there is some difference of opinion regarding the handicaps that current regulations impose on the management of in-house personnel. In order to help resolve this and allied questions, it would be useful to initiate studies that include the examination of a number of case histories in which personnel difficulties have been encountered. While each case history can be reported under the cloak of anonymity, each should be a detailed study of an actual situation, with a careful analysis of the input at all man- agemer~t levels. Following such detailed studies, recommendations can be drawn up regarding the proper direction of future action. It should be remarked that some studies of this kind have been conducted in the past, but they have usually been incidental to studies with a broader purpose and have not concentrated adequately on a detailed examination of personnel management procedures. Moreover, none have brought forth a specific and constructive plan of action to resolve the known problems. 9. RESOURCES MANAGEMENT In addition to their mission orientation, the laboratories must have sufficient flexibility to react when there is an urgent national need. There have been too many times in the past (ballistic missiles, ASW system studies, etc.) when problems have arisen on which the immediate support of in-house laboratories could have been used. One of the main reasons given for not using the Government's technical specialists is the lack of flexibility in their response. Virtually every study that has been made of the in-house labor- atory system has been critical, in varying degrees, of the combined management of manpower, facilities, funding and personnel resources. At present, each of these is managed differently at practically all levels within the Military Departments. The Task Force believes that the management of resources and the responsibilities for policy, pro- cedures and regulations pertaining to their use are fragmented among many staff agencies, whose concerns and interests are broader than merely RDT&E. In too many cases, RDT&E activities are bound by practices designed for logistical and operational activities-in contrast to the more generally recognized practices of industrial organizations, which are tailored specifically for the creative, laboratory-type organ- ization. As a result, the operation and future planning of the labor- atories depend upon a diffuse, high-level management structure with divided control and authority over resources and their use. The Task Force concluded that the systems approach could well be applied to the administration of the DoD laboratories. 16 PAGENO="0426" 422 10. RECOMMENDATIONS 10. 1 Participation of Laboratories in Weapon-System Planning The Task Force urges that an intensive program be established to sharply increase the direct involvement of the in-house laboratories in high-priority RDT&E activities. Their involvement must include: technical evaluation of operational equipment, participation in the generating of requirements, systems analyses and syntheses, interaction with the SPO-industry team, and planning for future weapon systems. The success of a program of this type, which will depend heavily on the Departmental Directors of Laboratories, should drastically in- crease the participation of key laboratory personnel in the weapon- system decision proáess. As a result, the technological program (R&D categories 6. 1, 6. 2 and 6. 3) should be more directly focused on critical military needs. (1) Recommendation: The Task Force recommends that, by 1 January 1967, each Military Department prepare plans for action that will markedly increase the participation of its laboratories in planning for weapon systems. Some suggested approaches are: (a) Establish ad hoc systems groups to help define important technical problems in specific areas of military concern. (b) Create systems teams of laboratory personnel to define threats and determine the vulnerability of proposed major weapon systems. (c) Have the laboratories examine current 6. 1 and 6. 2 programs and recommend which specific ones should be heavily supported in FY 1968 or 1969, based on the relevancy of technical accomplishments to military needs. The Task Force suggests that, in recognition of the Departments' individual differences in mission and management approach, the DDR&E permit them broad latitude in responding to this first recommendation. 17 PAGENO="0427" 423 10. 2 Weapon Centers The combining of laboratory resources into a new weapon center is a promising management approach toward improving the mission- discipline interface. A single weapon center should be established on a priority basis and should serve as an example for the establishment of others if experience warrants such action. (2) Recommendation: The Task Force recommends that, by 1 January 1967, the Navy conduct the required planning for estab- lishing the first weapon center. The planning should depend heavily upon the unique in-house engineering competence that exists in one or more of the Navy laboratories, and the center's mission should be related to a significant part of the ASW problem. 10. 3 Authority of Laboratory Directors The Task Force's final recommendation involves the problem of providing each laboratory director with adequate resources for the effective planning and management of his organization. This particular problem must be faced squarely at the OSD level. (3) Recommendation: The Task Force recommends that an OSD committee be established to determine the steps that are neces- sary to provide laboratory directors with appropriate controls over facilities, manpower and funding resources. The' committee `should include the Director of Defense Research and Engineering as chair- man, the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Installations and Logistics), the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Manpower) and the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Administration). 18 PAGENO="0428" APPENDIX I DoD LABORATORIES IN THE FUTURE (By E. M. Glass, Assistant Director, Laboratory Management) Management Analysis Memorandum 67-3 of the Office for Laboratory Manage- inent, Office of the Director of Defense Research and Engineering, Washington, D.C. 20301 FOREWORD This paper Was presented on 19 October 19G7 at a National Security Indus- trial Asso~iaJtion R&D Syrnposftum, of whldh the theme was "National R&D for the 1970's." The intent of the paper was to summarize the pa~st actions taken with respect to the Department of Defense (DoD) laboratories and to predict the future role and characteristics of those organizations. INTRODUCTION Kettering once remarked, "We should all be concerned with the future be- cause we w~ffl have to spend the rest of our lives there." Playing the rdle of a prophet, however, can be both stimulating and frustrating, pleasure and pain, but, as Horace W'al~oie said, "Prognostics do not always prove prophesies, at least the Wis~st prophets make sure of the eveiris first." I intend to take this aidvice seriously. Before we can really examine the future of our laboratories, we must first make some assumptions concerning the future role of the Department of Defense, the organization which they serve. We must assume that the international scene will undoui~tedly continue tO require that our nutional objectives have the strong support of military power; that our major objedti'ves will be both to maintain an "assured deStrudtion" capalbility and an effedtive deterrent to limited wars; and and that we will require a fiexilbie capability that can rOact rapidly to the coun- ter4moves of our adversaries or take immedIate advantage of new advances in Science and technology. Finally, in order to meet these defense needs, new technology, techn:iqu~s, wOalponis and systems will be required, tog~ther with a greater degree of interaction between technology and operations. DEFENSE-SUPPORTED INSTITUTIONS In order to maintain our most flexible and imaginative defense posture, the Department of Defense must utilize every conceFs~aJble resource, capability and contribution it can possibly motivate, attract or support. This requires the com- petence and contributions of all types of institiiitions-industry, university, nOn- profit end in~house organi~atioat. Ehch of these institutional forms has a rela- tively unique, although not mutually exclusive role to play. Each is an impor- tant, interretated, synergetic subsystem whose products of new knowledge, de- signs and weaponry are the first-line technological defense against foreseOahle thrOats. In terms of level of support for these organizations (FY 1966 obligations), industrial organi~ations receive about 60 percent of the RDT&E (research, development, test and evaluation) appropriation; educa:tional institutions, about 12 percent; nonprofit organizations, .approximlately 5 percent; and in-house organizations, Slightly above 20 percent. Although the dynamics of Defense RDT&E activities will result in many programmatic changes, it is not clear thalt there Will be miajor shifts in the relative balance of support for these in~titutions. ROLE AND DEFINITION OF LABORATORIES Probably no class of in~titutions has been studied and analyzed, praised and criticized, organized and reorganized to Ithe degree that has been the lot of the Defense in-house laboratories. This is an area in which everyone fancies (424) PAGENO="0429" 425 himself an expert, but areas of agreement seem to be difficult t& r~a~h. This lack of donsensus may be due in part to the "bllr~d-nien-'and-the-elephant" syndrome. Each study grenp se~s only a portion of the total labora~bory system, dither be- caixse of sp~ci'al interests or the lack of an adequate finiskrn of just wh~t a laboratory Is. Their impoi~ant contributions to m:ilitary technology and w~aponry over the yeats also attest to the variety of activities of the Defense laboratories. These indlude such developments ns the Siddwinder and `Shrike missiles, thermal batteries, proximity fuzes, fluid amplifiers, caiseless ammunition, irradiated foods and the heart pump. With respect to the more immediate needs of South- east Asia, contributions such as antimalarial drugs, defollants, night vision de- Vices, the 175mm artillery sy~tem, frozen blood ai~d antipersonnel weapons such as the "Gtavel" mine have added signifidantly to our defense ca~abill~ty. A popular notion of a laboratory is a place enclOsed by four walls and popu- lated by men and women in white cents. This is obviously a too narrow and restrictive definition. In fields such as oceanography, deep `submergence, tar- restria.l sciences and atmospheric physics, the natural environments provide the setting for R&D environments. The broad-ranging facilities now required to carry out sophisticated resdareh and development in support of defense and space activities have given new dimensions and properties `to the term "labora- tory." In the case of the Defense laboratories, they seem to be involved in almost the entire spectrum of RDT&E activities, ranging from the more fundamental end of the spectrum, as represented by the Air Force's Cambridge Research Labors- tories, through the technology-oriented organizations such as the Fort Monmouth Electronics Laboratories and, finally, encompassing such development organiza- tions `as the Naval Ordnance Test Station (NOTS) at China Lake-now the Naval Weapons Center-and the Naval Ordnance Laboratory at White Oak. However, test and evaluation centers like the Army's Dugway Proving Ground, the Navy's Patuxent River Air Test Station or the National Test Ranges are generally excluded from our definition. Because of the heterogeneity of these organizations and thdir varying interrela- tionships, it is not easy to come up wi.th a simple and meaningful definition. The same difficulty applies to defining the role of the Defense laboratories. Many attempts have been made to delineate the roles of these organizations and the reasons underlying the need for them. Because technology has become the life blood of the Military Departments, laboratories in the Department of Defense are necessary for many purposes, examples of which are: (1) The maintenance of national competence during peacetime, as well as times of conflict, in those areas of technology peculiar to military needs; (2) The necessity for maintaining a continuity of effort, free from commercial pressures and directed toward the conception and evolution of advanced weapon systems; (3) The need for competent in-house skills that can monitor and assess the accomplishments of DoD contractors; and (4) The requirement of having available to the Military Service a fast-reaction capability to solve critical immediate problems that arise in connection with existing operational weapon systems, or when unexpected combat situations are encountered such as that currently existing in Southeast Asia. BACKGROUND During the 1960s, there has been consistent high-level emphasis within the Government on improving the effectiveness of the in-house laboratories in carry- ing out the roles discussed above. Many of you are quite familiar with the Bell Report, the DoD Task 97 report and the "Competition for Quality" reports of 1961 and 1962. During the years immediately following the issuance of these reports, increased attention was given :to the solution of management and aclmin- istra.tive problems that had seriously hindered the effectiveness of these organi- zations. Constructive progress was made, particularly with respect to working conditions, salaries, facilities, personnel administration, flexibility of funding, ease of obtaining laboratory equipment, etc. Beginning about 1964, a consensus was developing to the effec:t that the in-house laboratories lacked meaningful problems, management stability and prominence, and recognition, and they also failed to impact at the highest policy levels. While administrative improvements were valuable and should be pursued diligently, PAGENO="0430" 426 they were not considered, in themselves, sufficient to make laboratories effective tools of the organizations they served. During the later part of 1964, there evolved a new concept designed to produce fundamental changes in the DoD in-house lab- oratories which included the following salient features: (1) A proposed reorientation of the larger Defense laboratories toward military problem areas of military missions (e.g., antisubmarine warfare (ASW), battle- field communications, air-to-ground warfare, etc.). (2) A proposed elimination of echelons between the Military Departments' Assistant Secretaries (Research and Development) and the principal mission- oriented laboratories through the establishment of a new technical line manage- ment structure headed by a Director of Laboratories with requisite authority to provide the proper R&D environment for the Defense establishment. (3) A proposal that laboratories encompass the full spectrum of activities (basic research through operational systems development) with respect to a military problem area. They would be given (a) greater local authority over decisions in the areas of research and exploratory and advanced developmen:t; and (b) greater responsibility for, providing technical assistance and advice-in the areas of engineering and operational systems development-to weapon-system development and acquisition organizations. During 1965 and early 1966, each of the Military Departments embarked upon many studies in response to this new concept. They examined many approaches and alternatives, seeking means that were responsive to the DoD objectives, yet were compatible with their own history, traditions and methods of operation. It was during this time period that the Army and the Navy established positions of "Director of Laboratories." The Air Force also created the position of Special Assistant for Laboratories at the Assistant Secretary level to give high-level sup- port to its Research and Technology Division, its Aerospace Medical Division and its Office of Aerospace Research. Within the Army `and the Navy, this was ac- companied by some regrouping of technical resources. This elevation of status and reporting level of these ranking technical managers provided the laboratories with new opportunities for important interactions between high-level decision makers and the technical specialists within the laboratories. Shortly after Dr. John S. Foster, Jr., assumed the position of Director of De- fense Research and Engineering, he asked the Defense Science Board to examine the progress that had been in strengthening the Defense laboratories and to develop specific action plans for those aspects requiring additional strengthening. As a result of these studies, `a unified effort was developed to increase the labora- tories' involvement in urgent military problems and to continue the long-standing effort to eliminate the major administrative difficulties that still impaired the efficiency of laboratories. These actions, currently under way, will determine the characteristics and roles of the Defense laboratories for many years to come. However, these changes will not be carried out in one massive reorganization or restructuring, but rather in well-thought-out steps over the next five years or so. THE FUTURE It is clear that the future success of the Defense effort will depend more and more on scientific, technological and engineering excellence. Flexible arrange- ment,s will have to be devised to permit all of the Defense-supported institutions to respond rapidly to changing needs, the changing state of technology and the changing nature of new tasks. As a result of this dynamic environment, we will see many fundamental changes in the in-house laboratory structure of `the 1970s. Although many of the laboratories we now have will continue in their existing forms, there should emerge a number of new "weapon centers" created through the elimination or consolidation of existing technical organizations. These centers will be fashioned to embrace a broadly conceived technical pro- gram which concentrates on a particular military problem or warfare area, such as underseas warfare, air-to-ground warfare, battlefield communications, etc. Thus, they will be project-oriented centers with continuous mission-discipline interactions. The strength of these organizations will be the mix of scientists, technologists and engineers, working in a closely related way on an important set of common problems. Although each center will be tailored specifically to meet the needs of its assigned military warfare area `and accordingly will have many unique features, there will be a `commonality of important characteristics that will apply to all. Each center will be oriented toward a military mission or a military problem. It will employ on the order of 1000 or more professional scientists and engineers. PAGENO="0431" 427 Although it may have more than one geographical location, the weapon center would be a self-contained organization in that it would perform research and development, with feasibility models as an important product. About 70 percent of the center's professionals would be devoted to creative in-house engineering. Although contracts would be awarded, the fundamental development engineering would be accomplished within the center. The center's specialists would participate in the determination of military requirements associated with its mission; would be involved in the initial procurement of equipments; and would provide support to the procurement agency when large- scale production is achieved. The director of `the center would have direct control over all the resources, required, such as funding, manpower and facilities, and he would report at a sufficiently high level that he could ensure the required "R&D environment" and could participate readily in important policy decisions. The overall performance of the center would be critically evaluated periodically to guarantee that `the center is a competitive organization with high performance standards and achievements. To this end, the Navy has recently taken a series of steps to consolidate and realign a number of existing organizations, creating centers of critical site that will deal with the problems of major Navy systems and subsystems. Examples of actions already taken are as follows: The David Taylor Model Basin and the Marine Engineering Laboratory have been combined to form the Naval Ship R&D Center, with the responsibility for advanced ship concepts. NOTS (Pasadena), segments of the Navy Electronics Laboratory, and several other smaller Navy elements have been administratively combined into the Naval Undersea Warfare Center. NOTS (China Lake) and the Naval Ordnance Laboratory (Corona) have been unified into the Naval Weapons Center, with broad responsibilities for air-to-air and air-to-ground warfare. The Army has developed a long-range plan to consolidate many of its medical, materials and technology-oriented organizations. In addition, two weapon-center- like organizations are under study-an Air Mobility Center and a weapon center with broad responsibilities in the area of gun systems, fire-control systems and related subsystems. The Air Force has under consideration the desirability `of combining a number of activities to create an Armament Weapon Center concerned with conventional air munitions. I don't want to leave the impression that there is complete unanimity on the weapon-center concept, for that is not the case. Advocates are sure that the creation of this type of organization would bring enormous benefits to the DoD. They see new opportunities for optimum concentration on the `identification and solution of critical military problems. The combined mission-discipline approach would enable the center to serve as a quick-reaction facility and to be particularly responsive during crises or war. Such an arrangement is believed to enhance the systems approach and would provide a better basis to arrive at optimum solutions to problems independently of technical-specialty bias, and in addition would orient researchers and technologists toward more meaningful and productive areas of work. Finally, a center's performance would be much easier to assess, because its end products could be tested and evaluated. Those who oppose this concept see penalties in the form of cost, time delays, personnel attrition, etc., because of this fundamental change in organizational philosophy. Considerable duplication of effort is foreseen because of the com- monality of technical disciplines to many military problem areas, unless a man- agement system is created to minimize this. Further, there would be a tendency toward monopoly or overprotection under such an arrangement. In planning future centers of this type, recognition must also be given to the tremendous competence that has been created within our industrial base, and means to continue to exploit this competence must be an inherent part of the weapon-center concept. Work by the in-house scientists and engineers should be directed toward areas in which in-house competence already exists or could logically be extended. In any event, the Defense laboratories of the future, regardless of their mode of operation, will become fully accepted members of the top-level management team and, in addition to their more traditional functions, will take on expanding roles to: PAGENO="0432" 428 (1) understand and define overall system problems; - (2) work jointly with military planners to define crucial military require- ments, based upon critical assessment of existing and predicted technology; (3) provide, within assigned mission areas, military and technical concepts that could serve as the basis for the Department's long-range programs in research and exploratory development; (4) conduct sufficient technical work in-house to ensure that specifications for systems can be developed with confidence, and serve in the evaluation, assistance and day-to-day direction of the work of other organizations engaged in systems or technology development; and (5) furnish consulting support to project managers when a commitment is made to undertake a major program development. Another basic change that will come during the not-too-distant future will involve the flexibility in the personnel policies for laboratory scientists and engineers. Many of us believe that, if the management of in-house laboratories could handle personnel with the same degree of flexibility as is possible in com- parable industrial organizations, an immediate and substantial improvement in laboratory effectiveness would be realized. Part of the problem may be due to the unduly restrictive interpretations of civil service policies and regulations by the Military Departments. In this con- nection, Dr. Foster and Mr. John Macy, Chairman of the Civil Service Commis- sion, have joined forces to determine how to apply the full flexibilities under the civil service system to the personnel administration of the Defense laboratories. This is preliminary to a more complete examination of the legislation governing the policies that are permissible. Basic legislative changes designed to create the proper personnel environment for creative R&D organizations are expected to be the rule rather than the exception in the 1970s. SUMMARY The Defense labOratories of the future will play key roles with respect to shaping and administering the complex research, development, test and evalua- tion (RDT&E) program upon which our defense posture depends so heavily. These organizations will be completely involved in the mainstream of urgent defense needs, providing the solutions to vital problems, and offering technical judgments highly relevant to the needs of top-level planners and decision makers. The creation of the new positions of Directors of Laboratories was a first and important step in this direction because of their close interface with the policy level. This was followed by the creation of selected new weapon centers, whose missions will provide a direct correlation with important military problems and functions, should enhance the traditional role of in-house laboratories, and should further strengthen the bond with, and the interplay between, the in-house technical community and other institutional forms. The total number of Defense laboratories will tend to become smaller because of consolidations and the creation of new weapon centers; however, the relative balance of funding among the various institutional forms will probably remain essentially as it is today. The emphasis for Defense laboratories will be on quality rather than quantity, and the current manning of the total structure will probably not change sig- nificantly, during the next decade, except for unforeseen deficiencies or crises. Thus it becomes even more important that our laboratories be purposefully staffed and directed and appraised critically in a timely fashion. Laboratories that have become obsolete through loss or dilution of mission, or unproductive owing to stagnation or marginal leadership, must and will be revitalized, phased down or eliminated. An important ingredient of this will result from the optimum availability of personnel and management flexibility at the laboratory director's level. If current trends persist, broad recognition will be given to the premise that the creative work performed by scientists and engineers is quite different from that of other professions, disciplines and employees. Therefore, the management techniques and environment must be responsive to these important differences. As a result, public laws, policies and regulations within the next decade will result in new personnel and management flexibility that will minimize differences between Government laboratories and non-Government organizations. PAGENO="0433" 429 Finally, one of the most important roles that the laboratories of the future will be increasingly called upon to play is their contribution to the technical definition of crucial military requirements and the consequent translation of these military requirements into technological goals and experimental prototypes, including much heavier involvement in planning for new weapon systems. It is this role in which laboratories can interact almost universally with the military planners, the operational forces, and all the other non-Governmental institutions that make the realization of our Defense goals possible. REFERENCES 1. Brown, Harold. "Imaginative and Flexible. Thinking," The Airman, USAF, XI, 9, September 1967. 2. Report to the President on Government Contracting for Research and Develop- ment. (The Bell Report.) Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, Document No. 94, 87th Congress, 2nd Session, 30 April1962. 3. Foster, John. S., Jr. "Remarks to the Fifth Army Science Conference at West Paint, New York," Policy ~9tatements on~ the Defense In-House Laboratories. Washington, D.C.: Office of the Director of Defense Research and Engineer- ing, 1 July 1966, MAM 66-2. 4. . In-House Rc~D in National Defense. Keynote address at the Thirteenth Annual Air Force Science and Engineering Symposium. Washington, D.C.: Office of the Director of Defense Research and Engineering, 27 September 1966, MAM 66-2, Supplement 2. 5. Johnson, Gerald W. "The Navy Laboratory Structure." Lecture at the Armed Forces Staff College, 22 May 1967. 6. Larsen, Finn J. "Role of the Military Laboratory," Policy ~Statements on the Defense In-House Laboratories. Address before the Aerospace and. Science Technology Branch, Scientific Research Society of America. Washington, D.C.: Office of the Director of Defense Research and Engineering, 1 July 1966, MAM 66-2. 7. MacArthur, Donald M. "The Challenges to the In-House Laboratories." Re- marks at the Air Force Aerospace Medical Division, Brooks Air Force Base, Texas, 30 September 1966. 8. Ind~ustry-Government RctD Laboratories. Proceedings of NSIA-RADAC (Na- tional Security Industrial Association, R&D Committee), 1 November 1966, Washington, D.C. 9. Department of Defense In-House Laboratories. Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force. Washington, D.C.: Office of the Director of Defense Research and Engineering, 31 October 1966. 10. Plan for the Operation and Management of the Principal DoD In-House Laboratories. Washington, D.C.: Office of the Secretary of Defense, 16 Nov~mh~r 1964. 93-201 O-68-----28 PAGENO="0434" APPENDIX J Noms ON THE ECONOMY ACT OP 1932 (Warren H. Donnelly, Science Policy Research Division, Legislative Reference Service, the Library of Congress) The Economy Act of 1932 1 permits any executive department or independent establishment of the Government to place orders with other parts of the executive branch for materials, supplies, equipment, work, or services of any kind that the requisitioned agency may be able to supply if (1) funds are available, and (2) it is determined by the head of the requisitioning department to be "in the interest of the Government to do so." 2~AJthough the notion of cost is not defined, it is further provided "that if such work or services can be as con- veniently or more cheaply performed by private agencies such work shall be let by competitive bid to such private agencies." Several inter- pretations of this act have resulted from decisions by the Comptroller General: (1) The indefinite loan of equipment among agencies which might result in transfer without reimbursement was prohibited; (2) authority to procure services and supplies from other agencies rather than from commercial sources because of lower cost was re- garded as permissive rather than mandatory; (3) payment of actual cost is required ~ including charges for depreciation.6 A relevant decision of the Comptroller General holds that a per- forming agency should be in a position to supply what is needed without adding new plant and equipment.T Directly related to this concept was an unpublished decision, made in July 1954, that the Economy Act did not contemplate that one agency would acquire, even with its own funds, substantial equipment for the, sole purpose of being able to supply services to other agencies, nor that it would request other agencies to support the construction of facilities.8 131 U.S.C. 686 (47 Stat. 417) Public Law 72-212. `31 U.S.C. 686(a). `38 C.G. 334. ~37CG 16. `22 CO. 74. 6 38 CO. 784. 733 CO. 565. `Unpublished Comptroller General decision B-119486, dated July 23, 1954. (430) PAGENO="0435" 431 APPENDIX K SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS IN THE FEDERAL PERSONNEL SYSTEM h~~; U.S. CIVIL. SERVICE COMMISSION 1968 PAGENO="0436" 432 "The power of the sun is in our hands. From this day forward there will be no excuses." -President Lyndon B. Johnson February 10, 1966 To the Federal Scientist and Engineer: President Johnson's statement to the recipients of the National Medal of Science for 1965 was a call that went far beyond the scientific and technical programs of this Nation. Today many of the best of the generation for whom there will be no excuses are working in Government laboratories. Here they must be both scientists and public servants. Neither role diminishes or compromises the other; indeed, it is because these two roles are so complementary that I am confident our Government laboratories can continue to attract men and women of the quality that disdains excuses. The Civil Service Commission and the heads of the employing agencies are exerting every effort to insure that Government research and development programs are staffed by such people. The Federal personnel system can make its full contribution to this effort, however, only if the special features and fiexibilities of the system are widely understood and fully exploited. This pamphlet is an attempt to make sure that such understanding is widespread in the Federal scientific and technical community. I think many managers whop read it will realize they have a freer hand in personnel management than they supposed. I urge you to seek the advice and assistance of your personnel officer, and that of his staff specialists, on how best to use these flexibilities in meeting your own particular needs. JOHN W. MACY, Jr. Chairman, U.S. Civil Service Commission PAGENO="0437" 433 THE SPECIAL FEATURES of the FEDERAL PERSONNEL SYSTEM OF INTEREST TO THE SCIENTIST AND ENGINEER PAGENO="0438" PAGENO="0439" 435 STAFFING FOR EFFECTIVE PERFORMANCE A primary objective of Federal personnel administration is to enable managers to carry out their missions and programs effectively. Therefore, the personnel function must operate as a part of the total management function rather than as an end in itself. To insure that this relationship exists, agency heads are responsible for determining the appropriate pattern of organization for personnel management most suited to the needs of the agency. The Commission does urge agency heads to delegate their personnel management authorities to subordinate management officials as near the work levels as possible. Most Federal departments and agencies operate under the civil service merit system, which emphasizes the following principles: * Wide publicity for employment opportunities. * Equal consideration of all qualified applicants. * Qualification standards related to the work to be done. * Selection from among the best qualified. Many features of the Federal personnel system apply equally to all agencies and to the many, diverse occupational groups, from clerical to professional, found in the Federal service. Generally, however, there is enough discretion within the broad framework of statute and regulation to allow agencies to develop personnel programs to meet the needs of special groups such as scientists and engineers. To insure sound planning before recruitment is started, managers should determine the staffing pattern that promises full achievement of the mission or project to be undertaken. This staffing pattern should include forecasts of the numbers of em- ployees needed, the qualifications they must have, and the expected duration of their assignments. Once this advance planning is completed, active recruitment can begin. PAGENO="0440" 436 A VARIETY OF RECRUITMENT PROCEDURES The Federal manager has many methods to choose from in deciding how to fill a specific vacancy. Ordinarily, when well-qualified candidates are available within his department or agency, he may decide to fill the job by promotion or by reassign- ment. If well-qualified candidates are available elsewhere, however, he may decide to hire an employee from some other Federal department or agency, rehire a former Federal employee, or recruit someone who has not previously worked for the Government. If the decision is to recruit someone from outside the agency, the following methods and tools are available for use by Federal managers: * The Interagency Board System. Applicants file with interagency boards of examiners that are designated to maintain lists of eligibles for engineering and scientific positions. These lAB's then serve as a central source of qualified applicants for Federal agencies. By informing other JAB's of shortages that may develop the interagency board network can refer applications anywhere in the system where a need develops. In order to provide an open-competitive vehicle for processing applications, examination announcements are no longer issued for specific occupations, such as chemist, or mathematician. Most examination announcements now cover a broad range of occupations and are open for receipt of applications on a continuous basis. Agency recruiters would be wise to check with the appropriate inter- agency board of examiners to determine if qualified applicants are available before initiating new recruiting efforts when a vacancy develops, or staff increases are anticipated. * Selective Certification. A technique called "selective certification" may be used whereby only those candidates who meet the particular requirements of a specific position are referred to the agency. For example, this technique may be used to fill positions where experience in two or more fields is desired or where experience in a specific subspecialty of a field is desired. To insure an input of high-quality applicants into the examination process, a well- planned and vigorous recruiting drive is necessary. The following "tools of the trade" will help: * Advertising Vacancies. Paid advertisements may be used to publicize vacancies in shortage category positions. Such advertisements may be placed in any publi- - cation including professional and trade journals, college newspapers, and general circulation newspapers, which the agency considers appropriate. PAGENO="0441" 437 * Using Various Employment Services. In addition to the State employment services, agencies may use nonprofit professionally sponsored employment services to recruit for professional scientific or engineering positions without the prior approval of the Civil Service Commission. In using these services, each agency must pay the employment service any fees charged for placement. Agencies may not use an employment service that discriminates because of race, creed, color, sex, or national origin. * Hiring On-the-Spot. Federal officials sometimes complain that industry makes immediate offers to good candidates while the Government may take weeks. Actually, agency recruiters, in cooperation with the Civil Service Commission, can arrange to make on-the-spot offers to candidates for scientific and engineering positions using one of the three plans described below. Agency agrees to appoint all qualified candidates including those certified by the Commission. Competitors may be rated eligible or ineligible. Numerical ratings are not required. If it becomes impossible to appoint all eligibles under consideration, selection must be made in accordance with veterans preference. Agency is unable to appoint all qualified candidates. All qualified candidates are given numerical ratings. Appointing officer may appoint any candidate with an eligible rating with- out immediate regard to order on the register. The register muse be reconstituted at least once a month to insure com- pliance with the `~rule of three' and veterans preference. Civil Service Commission has determined that candidates are in critically shore supply. Each position concerned is common to two or more Federal agencies. Agencies may appoint any qualified candidate without either a prior commitment to hire all eligibles as in Plan A, or a periodic reconstitution of registers as in Plan B. Other approaches are available for hiring on-the-spot. For example, in reccnt years the Commission has made increasing use of what has become known as the `quality approach" to direct recruiting. The quality approach recognizes that in practically all occupations there is a shortage of the best qualified eligibles. By determining in advance what the shortage level is for a particular occupation, it is possible for an examining office to authorize agencies to hire on-the-spot for career-conditional appointment any eligible whose rating is above the pre- determined level. In some cases when there is' an examination open, an agency representative may be authorized to recruit, test, and hire candidates whose ratings are sufficiently high to place them in the best qualified group. PAGENO="0442" 438 * Making Offers Early. Offers of appointment may be made to prospective college graduates well in advance of graduation. Security clearances and necessary paper work can then be completed while the individual selected is still in school. * Paying Travel Expenses to First Post of Duty. In filling shortage category positions, as listed by the Civil Service Commission, agencies may pay the travel and moving costs of new appointees and of student trainees promoted to a higher grade upon completion of college work. * Appointing Without Examination. Appointments to positions established under P.L. 313, may be made without competitive examination. However, the qualifi- cations of individuals selected for such positions must be approved by the Civil Service Commission. In addition, the Civil Service Commission may authorize, in exceptional cases, appointment to other positions in the competitive service without examination. Such authority may be granted when qualified persons are so few, or the salary or duties are such, that it would not be in the interest of good administration to fill the vacancy by the normal open-competitive process. Former Federal employees who have acquired career status may be reappointed without competitive examination to any position for which they may qualify. PAGENO="0443" 439 SUPERIOR ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT For scientific and engineering positions which do not require prior experience, can- didates who have earned a college degree within the most recent two years and who meet criteria of superior academic achievement can qualify for higher grades than those for which they would otherwise be eligible. The table below provides the criteria for each grade and indicates for the higher grades the kinds of positions which may be filled by candidates with such qualifications. Grade Degree Criteria Upper 25% of his class; or B' average or better; or "B+" (3.5) average or better in applicable major field; or ~`S ` U BAPUEI nD's VII LUIS Elected to Phi Beta Kappa, Sigma Xi, or a national honor- ary subject-matter scholastic society; or Scored 600 or better on an appropriate Area Test or Ad- vanced Test in the Graduate Record Examination. Note.' The grade averages may be based on completed courses at the time of application or the last two years of the undergraduate curriculum. PAGENO="0444" 440 GS9 MASTER'S Ranks in the upper quarter of all Master's degree graduates DEGREE in his field. G511 MASTER'S DEGREE Minimum of two years study required by university for the degree; and Ranks in the upper quarter of all graduates in his field with this same type of Master's degree. Positions involve research, creativity, or advanced scientific work. GS-12 Ph D DEGREE Ranks in the upper half of all Ph. D. degree graduates in Positions involve research or exploratory development. Moreover, candidates for research and development positions at any level who have made a significant creative contribution can qualify for one additional grade above the one for which their experience and training would normally qualify them. However, a candidate who achieves a higher grade on the basis of the criteria in the table above cannot qualify for an additional higher grade based on a significant creative contribution. PAGENO="0445" 441 SOME APPOINTMENT OPTIONS FOR MEETING PROJECT NEEDS For scientific projects of limited duration (four years or less), career types of staffing may not be appropriate. In such cases the Commission's regulations provide for two types of appointments, in addition to the usual temporary appointments: TERM APPOINTMENT A "term appointment" is a temporary appointment used to meet "project" requirements. Such appointments may be made where the employment on a project will be for more than one year but less than four years. In some instances this authority may be useful in appointing visiting scientists, engineers, and college faculty members. Characteristics of this appointment include: * Prior Civil Service Commission authorization is required. * Appointment outside the register may be made in the absence of adequate registers. * Appointment from a register does not confįr competitive status. * Appointees are eligible for within-grade increases in salary. PAGENO="0446" 442 * Appointees are entitled to annual and sick leave benefits. * Group Life Insurance and Health Benefits are available, if desired. * Civil Service Retirement is not afforded. * Reassignments and promotions within a project are authorized. * First year of service is a trial period. * After completion of the trial period, appointees are covered by the reduction- in-force regulations until termination of the "project" and have the same protections against adverse action as career employees. ONE YEAR APPOINTMENT A "one-year appointment" is a temporary appointment, not to exceed one year, of college faculty members to positions of a scientific, professional, analytical, employee development, or instructional nature. Characteristics of this appoint- ment include: * Civil Service Commission approval is not required. * Appointments may be made without regard to registers. * Appointees are entitled to annual and sick leave benefits. * Group Life Insurance, Health Benefits, and Civil Service Retirement benefits are not afforded. * Reassignments, promotions, and transfers are not authorized. * Trial period is not required. In addition to enabling agencies to meet temporary staffing needs, the appointments described above may, by providing concrete experience in Government activities, encourage well-qualified persons to consider career type appointments. PAGENO="0447" 443 THE FEDERAL PAY SYSTEM Since 1962 the Federal service has had a modernized pay policy and pay system. Its most important feature is a basic policy for determining pay levels: THE POLICY Federal Salary Rates Shall Be Comparable With Private Enterprise Salary Rates for the Same Levels of Work." Each year the Bureau of Labor Statistics makes a survey of salary rates in private enterprise for many jobs that are the same in Government and industry. Included in the survey are jobs in chemistry and engineering, from junior levels to the levels of research leadership and program~ supervision. The survey yields national average salaries that are directly comparable with Federal salaries in the scale up to and including GS-15. On the basis of these comparisons, the President submits to Congress any salary recommendations he feels are justified. THE PAY SYSTEM Several special features help the Federal service compete in the labor market and stimulate high-quality performance * Recognizing the Quality of Performance. Two related steps give the manager additional control over the pay of staff members: * An extra within-grade increase, in addition to the regular one, can be awarded once a year for high-quality performance. * The regular within-grade increase may be given only if the employee's per- formance is of an acceptable level of competence; thus the marginal worker can no longer qualify for such an increase. PAGENO="0448" 444 * Special Salary Rates. Authority to increase salary rates for shortage category jobs allows the Commission to raise the entire range of rates within the grade when necessary to meet private-enterprise salaries in shortage occupations. Such increases may be authorized on a nationwide, regional, or locality basis. They are subject to review once a year. This authority is now being widely, used for professional engineering, scientific, and medical positions. * Special Recruitment Salary Rates for Individuals With Superior Qualifications. For. positions in grade GS-11 and above, the Commission has authority to give con- sideration to an individual candidate's existing salary, unusually high or unique qualifications, or a special need of the Government for his services, and to permit his appointment at a rate above the minimum rate of the appropriate grade. One major use of this authority is to recruit persons with doctorates. Promotion Increases. The minimum amount of additional salary an employee receives upon promotion is the equivalent of two within-grade increases. (Where there is no scheduled rate in the higher grade which is at least two steps above the previous rate, the employee receives the maximum salary for the grade or keeps his existing rate, whichever is higher.) * Structural Features. The internal structure of the General Schedule has been improved significantly. For example, it now provides for: * Regular and meaningful salary differences between grades. * Uniform and meaningful rate ranges at most grades. (For grades up to GS-15, ranges are about 30% of the minimum rate of the grade.) * Uniform and meaningful within-grade increases, with nine increases avail- able at most grades, each amounting to about 3.3 percent of the entry rate. * Absence of Numerical Restrictions on Top Grades for Certain Occupations. Professional engineering positions primarily concerned with research and development and professional positions in the physical and natural sciences and medicine are not subject to the numerical limitations covering positions at GS-16, 17, and 18. Thus agencies may recommend to the Commission as many such positions in these grades as duties and responsibilities warrant. PAGENO="0449" 445 RELATIONSHIP OF POSITION CLASSIFICATION TO QUALITY STAFFING A close relationship must exist between the function of classifying a position and the function of filling it with a well-qualified person. In recent years the Commis- sion and the agencies have made much progress in bringing these two vital functions into a harmonious relationship. The following tools and techniques for relating the job and the man are available to enhance the development of a high-quality staff: IMPACT OF THE MAN Federal jobs are classified on a basis of duties, responsibilities, and qualifications required. The system recognizes, particularly in R&D and many other profes- sional positions, that the qualifications and abilities of an outstanding incumbent will attract greater responsibilities to him to the point where a higher grade may be justified. Some classification standards make specific reference to this factor and provide specific guidance for its consideration; the lack of such reference in a standard, however, does not mean that it is not present. TWO TRACK SYSTEM Positions may be classified at the higher grade levels, without requiring super- visory or administrative responsibilities, on the basis of individual research effort and required professional qualifications. Thus, the junior scientist can choose the ~track" most suited to his talents, whether as an individual researcher or as a scientific administrator, and prepare himself accordingly. 93-201 0 - 68 - 29 PAGENO="0450" 446 TAILORING JOBS-NOT MEN Almost all research positions and, in some cases, other types of positions can be tailored to the qualifications of candidates. For example, if an outstanding candidate is over-qualified for a given vacancy the agency can, after determining the level for which the candidate is qualified, either establish a new position at that grade level or, if possible, expand the duties and responsibilities of the vacant position so that it is classifiable at that grade level. INTERDISCIPLINARY POSITIONS Interdisciplinary positions are positions which involve work in two or more professional fields and which may be filled by persons qualified in any of the pertinent disciplines. A vacant interdisciplinary position may, without re- writing the position description, be reclassified to the occupational series fitting the qualifications of a particular candidate. MOBILITY BETWEEN DISCIPLINES The Commission has modified the basic education requirements for professional scientific and engineering positions so that employees may move easily from one subject matter emphasis to another in their jobs. A panel of professionally qualified examiners may exercise professional knowledge and judgment in evaluating the qualifications of scientiSts and engineers whose completed education does not fully satisfy specified dourse requirements, but whose experience and education clearly demonstrate possession of the knowledges and abilities required for professional work in a given occupation. PAGENO="0451" 447 RELATIONSHIP OF POSITION CLASSIFICATION TO PERSONNEL DETAILS AND ORGANIZATIONAL PATTERNS DETAILS The classification and qualification system allows management to "detail" an employee from his current job to another one of higher or lower grade or laterally to one for which he does not meet the regular requirements. Details may be made for periods of up to six months without Commission approval or for longer periods with the approval of the Commission. They are useful for making emergency assignments and they are particularly valuable in training and developing employees. For example: * An employee may be detailed to another type of position or another agency for the purpose of cross training. * An employee may be detailed to a higher level position for the purpose of developing and reinforcing higher skills or for determining ability to perform at that level. * An employee may be detailed to an understudy type position. Details of the latter two types should be made in accordance with the agency's merit promotion program. If the individual selected for the detail performs according to expectations, he may then be promoted to the position without again invoking the procedures of the merit promotion program. PAGENO="0452" 448 ORGANIZATIONAL PATTERNS The classification system does not control the type of organizational pattern, the numbers of employees to be used, or the shape of individual positions. These are all completely under management's control, within mission and budget limitations. Thus, the manager may decide to have a `flat" or a "narrow" form of organization, and to divide the work among many specialists or to use a generalist approach. The classification system is neutral towards these decisions and stands ready to reflect whatever job structure management designs. Congress has made the Commission responsible for insuring that the numerical limitation imposed on non-scientific and non-research and development engi- neering positions in grades GS-16, 17, and 18 are not exceeded, Other than this the Commission does not control the total number of positions, or the number of positions at any particular grade level, established in an agency. This is a responsibility of management, for only the agency management has the broad authority to determine how work is to be organized and what duties and responsibilities are to be assigned to any given employee. In addition, the Commission, in delegating authority for personnel administra- tion, does not normally specify the level to which agency heads must or may redelegate this authority, nor does the commission prescribe an agency's organi- zation for personnel administration. Although the Commission urges, at every opportunity, the redelegation of authority to levels as close to the work level as possible, agency officials are free to redelegate as much or as little of their authority as they feel is necessary or appropriate to the successful accomplish- ment of agency objectives, The fact that discretionary areas, broad at the national level, have a disquieting habit of appearing narrow at the laboratory level has been commented on by Chairman Macy in these words: `I am constantly amazed when I find that a certain discretionary area, which is broad at the national level, as enunciated by the Commission, appears to be narrow when it reaches the laboratory. . . . I would hope that we would have enough confidence in laboratory managers and that we would have an effective enough administrative pattern so that these dis- cretions could be applied at the laboratory level." PAGENO="0453" 449 TRAINING FOR EXCELLENCE A law passed in 1958 was a landmark in the Government's pursuit of excellence. Its many flexible provisions are especially suitable for meeting the need of Federal research and engineering activities to keep professional and technical staff abreast of rapidly changing developments. Thus, laboratories can build in training as a part of the regular careers of thįir professionals. THE TRAINING LAW AUTHORIZES * Employee training at full pay within the agency or at outside facilities. * Training at colleges, universities, professional institutes, industrial labora- tories, or research foundations. * Payment for all or part of tuition and related costs. * Acceptance by employees of contributions and awards incident to training in non-Government facilities. * Payment of travel expenses and registration fees for attendance at professional meetings. * Cooperation among agencies in opening up training courses across agency lines. THE LAW HAS CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS BUT ALSO PROVIDES FOR APPROPRIATE WAIVERS * Employees must have at least one year of civilian service before training at a non-Government facility can be authorized. [HOWEVER, IF THE AGENCY HEAD FINDS THAT POSTPONEMENT OF THE TRAINING IS CON- TRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST, HE MAY WAIVE THIS RESTRICTION.] * Employees may receive only one year of training in a non-Government facility during any 10-year period of service. [HOWEVER, THIS RESTRICTION MAY BE WAIVED BY THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION AT THE REQUEST OF THE HEAD OF THE AGENCY.] * University training may not be undertaken for the sole purpose of obtaining a degree. [HOWEVER, IF THE TRAINING IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEVELOPING SKILLS, KNOWLEDGES, AND ABILITIES WHICH WILL BETTER QUALIFY AN EMPLOYEE FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF OFFICIAL DUTIES, AND THE DEGREE IS ATTAINED IN THE PROC- ESS OF RECEIVING SUCH TRAINING, THE DEGREE IS AN INCI- DENTAL BY-PRODUCT OF THE TRAINING, RATHER THAN ITS SOLE PURPOSE.] PAGENO="0454" 450 A number of agencies have sent staff members to universities for full-time training for periods of up to one year. In addition, several laboratories have worked out arrange- ments with nearby universities under which senior staff members of the laboratory serve as part-time faculty members and give graduate courses to their junior col- leagues, often using projects of the laboratory as course or thesis subjects. Training on the job continues to be the most important and economical method of training large numbers of people in the skills and knowledges required in our complex civilization. This type of training has proved its effectiveness regardless of level and kind of work. It should not be neglected in favor of academic training. The Commission has authorized a variety of techniques which agencies are encouraged to utilize. TRAINING AGREEMENTS Agencies may enter into special agreements with the Civil Service Commission which provide that satisfactory completion of a special course of in-service training qualifies a participant for reassignment or promotion to a specific job. For example, an agreement may be effected which provides for a promotion after satisfactory completion of six months training to a position for which the indi- vidual would not otherwise qualify. Training programs of this type may be used to bring performance levels of pro- fessionals recruited at GS-5 and GS-7 to the GS-7 and GS-9 levels quickly. EXECUTIVE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS Agencies may enter into special executive development agreements with the Civil Service Commission which authorize the movement of individuals from professional, scientific, and technical fields to administrative fields in order to - prepare them for supervisory assignments in their professional fields. The agency must show that, within a reasonable time after assignment to the positions covered, employecs will acquire the knowledges necessary to perform fully their new duties. Under such an agreement, agencies can make these movements of personnel with- out the prior approval of the Commission. If no such agreement has been made, such movement can be accomplished only with the prior approval of the Civil Service Commission. - PAGENO="0455" 451 CO-OP TRAINING PROGRAMS* These are long range programs designed to attract quality personnel to full-time Federal employment upon attainment of their degrees. A program is usually arranged so that the student alternates about six months of academic training at an accredited college or university with six months of work experience in the Government agency. PAGENO="0456" PAGENO="0457" 453 RECOGNIZING ACHIEVEMENT Two ways in which the personnel system recognizes achievement have already been outlined: quality increases within the grade and impact of an outsta~iding staff member on his assignment. Some important additional methods follow: MERIT PROMOTION PROGRAM Under guidelines published by the Commission, each agency develops a promo- tion program to insure that broad areas of consideration are used and that selections are made from among the best qualified when vacancies are to be filled by promotion. (As indicated earlier, management may fill vacancies by methods other than promotion.) By promoting the best qualified, management recognizes achievement and sets the tone of the entire enterprise. To insure valid judgments, some Federal agencies convene panels of senior colleagues so that professionals are rated for promotion by persons who are expert in the area concerned. INCENTIVE AWARDS Agency heads are authorized to grant cash awards or honorary awards, or a combination of both, to employees for achievements that improve operations or are in the public interest. These are important vehicles for recognizing high quality performance, particularly when quality increases would not be appro- priate. Cash awards of up to $25,000 and honorary awards ranging from an official commendation up to the "President's Award for Distinguished Federal Civilian Service" have been granted to scientists and engineers. ~or example, 17 of the 21 largest cash awards-ranging from $5,000 to $25,000-were made for scientific and technical achievements; and 18 of the 46 Presidential Awards for Distinguished Federal Civilian Service have been awarded to Federal. scientists. PAGENO="0458" 454 For outstanding R&D achievement some Federal agencies have established special medals or awards named for distinguished scientists who served the agency in the past. For example, the Office of Naval Research has established an annual Navy-wide science award known as the Captain Robert Dexter Conrad Award for Scientific Achievement. This award was named in honor of the first head of the Planning Division of ONR, who was the primary architect of the Navy's basic research program. The Naval Research Laboratory annually grants the E. 0. Hulburt Award to a NRL scientist or engineer for a scientific accomplishment of significant value to the Navy. This award was named in honor of the Laboratory's first Director of Research. The Bureau of Standards annually awards the Stratton Award to a Bureau scientist or engineer for an unusually significant contribution to some area of science or engineering. This award was named in honor of the Bureau's first director. Name awards have also been established by some laboratories for the best tech- nical paper-of-the-year published by a staff member. For example, Cambridge Research Laboratories has established the Dr. Marcus D. O'Day Award. The Air Force Navigation and Guidance Laboratory has established the Samuel M. Burka Award. There is room for considerable ingenuity in establishing award programs for special purposes. The Commission's pamphlet Awards and Honors for Scientists and Engineers provides further information on this subject. PERFORMANCE RATING PLANS The Commission may approve a wide variety of rating plans for use within the agencies. Except for certain broad principles, there is no requirement for uni- formity between agencies nor between occupations or components within the same agency. Thus, agencies are encouraged to develop performance rating plans tailored to the specific environment in which they will be used. A well-conceived, conscientiously administered performance rating plan can assist in the identification of the type of training or higher education needed by an individual to work at his maximum capacity. It can also assist in the identification and recognition of staff members who have made important scien- tific and technical contributions. However, because of the recognition possible under the incentive awards program, it is perhaps true that the "Outstanding" rating is little used today. Regardless of how individuals or groups are recognized for their achievements, administrators must realize that, to be effective and meaningful, recognition must be reserved for real contributions. PAGENO="0459" 455 ENCOURAGING A CREATIVE ENVIRONMENT This, then, is the Federal personnel system as it applies to scientists and engineers in most departments and agencies--a group of principles, policies, and procedures within which laboratory directors can shape the particular environment they seek for their staffs in the light of the missions and goals assigned to the organization. The development of an environment to foster high productivity and innovation is a large subject, beyond the scope of this pamphlet, and one abounding in subtleties that go far beyond adequate salary rates or generous vacation time. But many personnel factors, as well as other management factors such as the extent to which authority is delegated to the laboratory director, undoubtedly enter into this chal- lenging and complex subject. Some factors such as those related to pay policies and career development oppor- tunities are mentioned elsewhere in this pamphlet. Among others that should be considered are the following: * Attendance at conferences of professional societies. * Giving credit lines or otherwise acknowledging contributors to publications of the laboratory. * Freedom to publish, teach, or lecture outside of duty hours. * Scheduling of vacation time. (One definite advantage of Federal employment is that normally vacations do not have to be taken only at certain seasons when an entire operation shuts down.) * Flexibility in hours of work. (Agency heads have the discretion to authorize variations in the standard 40-hour week. Thus, staff members may work on a `first 40 hours" basis-for example, working late one evening on an experi- ment and coming in late the next day; or they may work a 40-hour week scheduled to allow them to attend classes during the normal workday when the training is not authorized under provisions of law.) * Position titles adapted to the profession. (Official titles such as ~`Supervisory Physicist" are used for personnel and payroll purposes, but agency heads may authorize more professionally meaningful titles for publication on papers, correspondence, etc. Examples are `Member of Technical Staff," "Research Associate," or "Senior Scientist.") Granted, the laboratory director, like all Federal managers, has to work within a framework of statutes, Commission regulations, and internal agency instructions. Nevertheless, there are real flexibilities built into the framework for personnel management, flexibilities that are not always fully known and less often fully utilized. This pamphlet is designed to help the science and engineering manager keep in mind the whole range of special resources available to him in the difficult task of developing a good laboratory environment. PAGENO="0460" APPENDIX L THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS-LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH SERVICE PRINCIPAL PUBLICATIONS RELATING TO TIlE FUTURE USE OF GOVERNMENT LABORATORIES Warren H. Donnelly, Specialist, Science and Technology, Science Policy Research Division, and Mary Anne Lipforcl, Research Assistant, Science Policy Research Division, Washington D.C. Growing interest in the future use of Government laboratories has prompted the compilation of the following listing of principal publications and references. The listing is in two parts. First, principal documents and reports relating to use of Government laboratories are cited. Second, actual inventories of Govern- ment laboratories are identified. All items are listed chronologically to show the development of interest. Many of these items are summarized briefly in the report, "A Case Study of the Utilization of Federal Laboratory Resources," published by the Research and Technical Programs Subcommittee of the House Committee on Government Oper- ations as a committee print in November 1966. I. PRINCIPAL PUBLICATIONS RELATING TO FUTURE USE OF GOVERNMENT LABORATORIES 1932: The Economy Act of 19a2. 31 USC 686 (47 Stat. 417) Public Law 72-212. 1947: Steelman, John R. "Administration for Research," vol. 3 of Science and Public Policy, a report to the President, October 4, 1947. 1954: Executive Order No. 10521, 19 FR 54, March 19, 1954, pp. 1499-1500. [This order directed the Interdepartmental Committee to see that Federal agencies engaged in research ". . . keep informed of major equipment and facilities which could serve the needs of more than one agency."] 1955: Subcommittee on Research Activities in the Department of Defense and Defense Related Agencies, Committee on Business Organization of the Department of Defense. `~Research Activities in the Department of Defense and Defense Related Agencies," April 1955. 1955: U.S. Commission on the Organization of the Executive Branch of the Gov- ernment. "Research and Development in Government," also published as House Document No. 174, 84th Congress, 1st Session, May 1955. 1957: National Science Foundation. "Federal Financial Support of Physical Facilities `and Major Equipment for the Conduct of Scientific Research," a report to the Bureau of the Budget, June 1957. 1959: Executive Office of the President, Bureau of the Budget. "Commercial- Industrial Activities of the Government Providing Products or Services for Government Use," Bulletin No. 60-2, September 21, 1959. 1960: Joint Committee on Atomic Energy. "The Future Role of the Atomic Energy Commission Laboratories," 86th Congress, 2d Session, October 1960. 1962: Executive Office of the President, Bureau of the Budget "Report to the President on Government Contracting for Research and Development," April 30, 1962. Text printed in "Systems Development and `Management," hearings, and as Senate Document No. 94, 87th Congress, 2d Session, 1962. [The Bell Report]. 1962: Subcommittee on Military Operation, Committee on Government Opera- tions. "Systems Development and Management," hearings. House of Representatives, 87th Congress, 2d Session, 1962. [Hearings on the Bell Report]. 1964: National Academy of `Sciences-National Research Council. "Toward Better Utilization of Scientific and Engineering Manpower," report of the Corn- mittee on the Utilization of Scientific and Engineering Manpower, Pub- lication No. 1191, Washington, D.C., 1964. 1965: Executive Office of the President, Office of Science and Technology. "Bio- medical Science and Its Administration: A Study of the National Insti- tutes of Health," February 1965. [The Wooldridge Report]. (456) PAGENO="0461" 457 1966: Office of the Comptroller General of the United States. "Survey of Research Laboratories, Laurence G. Hanscom Field, Bedford, Massachusetts" report to the Congress, January 1966. 1966: Executive Office of the President, Bureau of the Budget. "Policies for Acquiring Commercial or Industrial Products and Services for Govern- ment Use," Circular No. A-76, March 3, 1966. II. INVENTORIES AND INFORMATION ON FEDERAL LABORATORY RESOURCES 1955: Interdepartmental Committee on Scientific Research and Development:.~ "Major Scientific Facilities and Equipment of U.S. Government Labora- tories," June 1, 1955. 1957': National Science Foundation. "Fed~eral Financial Support of `Physical Facilities and Major Equipment for the Conduct of Scientific Research," `a report to the Bureau of the Budget, June 1957. 1964: U.S. General Services Administration. "Inventory Report on Real Property Owned by the United States Throughout the World as of June 30,, 1963," Washington, D.C., 1964. 1964: Subcommittee on Science, Research, and Development, Committee on Sci- ence `and Astronautics. "Fiscal Trends in Federal Research and Development, Government and Science, No. 2," House of Representatives, 88th Congress, 2d `Session, 1964. Committee print. 1964: National Science Foundation. "Obligations for Research and Development, and R & D Plant, `by Geographic Divisions and `States, by Selected Fed- eral Agencies, Fiscal Years 1961-1964," `report to the Subcommittee Oil Science, Research, and Development of the Committee on Science and `Astronautics. House of RepresentatiVeS, 88th Congress, 2d Session, 1964. Committee print. 1964: Select Committee on Government Research. "Manpower for Research and Development," Study No. II, U.S. House of RepresentatiVeS, 88th Con- gress, Zd Session, 1964. House Report 1907. 1964: Department of the Navy. "Department of the `Navy, R.D.T. & E. Manage- nient Guide," vol. 2, NAVEXOS P2457, July 1, 1964. 1964: Office of the Director of Defense Research and Engineering, Department Defense. "In-House LaboratOries of the Department of Defense; Organi- zational Relationships, Resources, and Missions," vol. III of Phase III Study, Military Construction, $upporting Services, Personnel and Man- power, November 15, 11)64. 1964: Select Committee on Government Research. "Federal Facilities for `Research and Development," Study No. III. House of Representatives, 88th Congress, 2d Session, November 19, 1964. 1964: U.S. Civil `Service Commission. "The Environment of the Federal Labora- tory," proceedings of the Third Symposium, December 7-8, 1964. 1964: Air Force System's Command, U.S. Air Force. "Technical Facility Capability Key," FFACO 80-3, July 1, 1965. 1966: Office of the Director of Defense Research and Engineering, Department of Defense. "Department of Defense In-House R.D.T. & E. Activities," Management Analysis Report, September 1, 1966. 1966: Office of the Director of Defense Research and Engineering, Department of Defense, "Department of Defense In-House Laboratories: Report of the Defense `Science Board Task Force," October 31, 1966. 0 PAGENO="0462"