PAGENO="0001"
NOMINATIONS
HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE
UNITED STATES SENATE
NINETY-THIRD CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
JEWEL P. COBB, NORMAN HACKERMAN, WILLIAM NEILL
HUBBARD, JR., SAUNDERS MAC LANE, GROVER E. MURRAY,
DONALD B. RICE, JR., L. DONALD SHIELDS, AND JAMES H.
ZUMBERGE TO BE MEMBERS OF THE NATIONAL SCIENCE
BOARD, NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
SEPTEMBER 11 AND OCTOBER 3, 1974
Printed for the use of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare
RUTGERS Mw ~
OOVERNME'I\JT I
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
40-498( 2Ų~~ WASHINGTON: 1974
~ ,~`a:J
2? 7~/J-~/i7~7t~3
PAGENO="0002"
COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE
HARRISON A. WILLIAMS, JR., New Jersey, Chairman
JENNINGS RANDOLPH, West Virginia JACOB K. JAVITS, New York
CLAIBORNE PELL, Rhode Island PETER H. DOMINICK, Colorado
EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts RICHARD S. SCHWEIKER, Pennsylvania
GAYLORD NELSON, Wisconsin ROBERT TAFT, Ju., Ohio
WALTER F. MONDALE, Minnesota J. GLENN BEALL, Ja., Maryland
THOMAS F. EAGLETON, Missouri ROBERT T. STAFFORD, Vermont
ALAN CRANSTON, California
HAROLD E. HUGHES, Iowa
WILLIAM D. HATHAWAY, Maine
JOSEPH P. MCMURRAY, Staff Director and Chief Legislative Counsel
MARJORIE M. WHITTAKER, Chief Clerk
Roy H. MILLENSON, Minority Staff Director
JAY B. CUTLER, Minority Counsel
(II)
PAGENO="0003"
CONTENTS
CHRONOLOGICAL LISP OF WITNESSES
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 1974
Page
Weicker, Hon. Lowell P., Jr., a U.S. Senator from the State of Connecticut- 3
Tower, Hon. John, a U.S. Senator from the State of Texas 4
Bentsen, Hon. Lloyd, a U.S. Senator from the State of Texas 7
Stever, Dr. H. Guyford, Director, National Science Foundation 9
Bell, Hon. Alphonzo, a Representative in Congress from the State of
California 20
Hinshaw, Hon. Andrew J., a Representative in Congress from the State of
California 20
Mac Lane, Saunders, D. Phil., of Illinois, to be a Member of the National
Science Board 21
Hackerman, Norman, Ph. P., of Texas, to be a Member of the National
Science Board (reappointment) 35
Cobb, Jewel Plummer, Ph. D., L.L.D., D. Sc., of Connecticut, to he a Mem-
ber of the National Science Board 52
Shields, L. Donald, Ph. D., of California, to be a Member of the National
Science Board 62
Rice, Donald B., Jr., Ph. D., of California, to be a Member of the National
Science Board 67
Hruska, Hon. Roman L., a U.S. Senator from the State of Nebraska 70
Curtis, Hon. Carl T., a U.S. Senator from the State of Nebraska 70
Zuinberge, James H., Ph. D., L.L.D., L.H.D., of Arizona, to be a Member of
the National Science Board 71
Murray, Grover E., Ph. D., of Texas, to be a Member *of the National
Science Board 80
THTJR5DAY, OCTOBER. 3, 1974
Hubbard, William N., Jr., M.D., to be a Member of the National Science
Board, accompanied by Charles F. Brown, General Counsel of the Na-
tional Science Foundation, and Theodore W. Wirths, Director, Office of
Government and Public Programs of the National Science Foundation_ 140
STATEMENTS
Bell, Hon. Alphonzo, a Representative in Congress from the State of
California 20
Bentsen, Hon. Lloyd, a ITS. Senator from time State of Texas 7
Cobb, Jew-el Plununer, Ph. D., L.L.D., D. Sc., of Connecticut, to be a Mem-
ber of the National Science Board ~i2
Curtis, Hon. Carl T., a ITS. Senator from the State of Nebraska 70
Hacicerman, Norman, Ph. D., of Texas, to be a Member of the National
Science Board (reappointment) 3~
Hinshaw, Hon. Andrew J., a Representative in Congress from the State of
California 20
Hruska, Hon. Roman L., a U.S. Senator from the State of Nebraska 70
Hubbard, William N., Jr., M.D., to be a Member of the National Science
Board, accompanied by Charles F. Brown. General Counsel of the Na-
tional Science Foumidation, and Theodore W. Wirths. Director, Office of
Government and Public Programs of the National Science Foundation__ 140
(III)
PAGENO="0004"
Iv
STATEMENTS-Continued
Javits, Hon. Jacob K., a U.S. Senator from the State of New York, pre- Page
pared statement 3
Kennedy, Hon. Edward M., a U.S. Senator from the State of Massa-
chusetts, prepared statement 93
Mac Lane, Saunders, D. Phil., of Illinois, to be a Member of the National
Science Board 21
Murray, Grover E., Ph. D., of Texas, to be a Member of the National
Science Board 80
Rice, Donald B., Jr., Ph. D., of California, to be a Member of the National
Science Board 67
Shields, L. Donald, Ph. D, of California, to be a Member of the National
Science Board 62
Stever, Dr. H. Guyford, Director, National Science Foundation 9
Prepared statement 11
Tower, Hon. John. a U.S. Senator from the State of Texas 4
Weicker, Hon. Low-eli P., Jr., a U.S. Senator from the State of California__ 3
Zumberge, James H., Ph. D., L.L.D., L.H.D., of Arizona, to be a Member of
the National Science Board 71
Biographical information on nominees:
Cobb, Jewel Plummer, Ph. D., L.L.D., D. Sc 53
Hackerman, Norman, Ph. D 36
Hubbard, William N., Jr., M.D 128
Mac Lane, Saunders, D. Phil 22
Murray, Grover E., Ph. D 82
Rice, Donald B., Jr., Ph. D 68
Shields, L. Donald, Ph. D 63
Zumberge, James H., Ph. D., L.L.D., L.H.D 72
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Articles, publications, etc.:
Colleges and universities receiving donations from the Upjohn Co.,
1972 through September 30, 1974 145
Institutions receiving pharmaceutical research and development grants
from the Upjohn Co., January 1, 1Q73-September 30, 1974 146
National Science Board, former members of 111
National Science Board Its Place in National Policy by Eric A
Walker 122
National Science Policy, by Grover E. Murray, Ph. D 81
"NFS's Research Budget: An Inside View of the Grant Process," from
the Science and Government Report, volume III, No. 4, Febnuary 15,
1973 119
Communications to:
Williams, Hon. Harrison A., Jr., a U.S. -Senator from the State of New
* Jersey, from:
* Hart, Hon. Philip A., a U.S. Senator from the State of Michigan_ 118
* Mahon, George H., a Representative in Congress from the State
of Texas, September 12, 1974 (with attachment) 88
Tower, Hon. John, a U.S. Senator from the State of Texas, Sep-
tember 10, 1974 5
Wimer, David J., special assistant to the President, the White
House, August 30, 1974 2
PAGENO="0005"
NOMINATIONS
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 1974
U.S. SENATE,
C0MMIrrEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE,
Washingto%, D.C.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 3 p.m., in room 4232, Sen-
ate Office Building, Hon. Harrison A. Williams, chairman, presiding.
Present: Senators Williams, Kennedy, and Cranston.
Also present: Senators Weicker and Tower.
The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order to consider the
nominations referred to the committee for the National Science Board,
National Science Foundation.
I have a letter here from the White House that I order inserted in
the record at this point.
[The letter referred to follows:]
(1)
PAGENO="0006"
2
THE WHITE HOUSE
WA S H IN G T ON
August 30, 1974
Dear Mr. Chairman:
President Ford supports th~ nominations
of William Hubbard, Donald Rice, Norman
Hackerman, Grover Murray, James Zumberge,
L. Donald Shields, Saunders MacLane, and
Jewel P. Cobb for the National Science
Board. Since these appointments have been
in process a long time, anything you could
do to expedite their hearings would be
appreciated.
Thank you for your patience in this matter.
Please call if you have any questions.
Sincerely yours,
David J. Wimer
Special Assistant to the President
Honorable Harrison A. Williams, Jr.
Chairman
Labor and Public Welfare Committee
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
PAGENO="0007"
3
The CHAIRMAN. The distinguished senior Senator from the State of
New York, my good friend and ranking minority member of the com-
mittee, Mr. Javits, could not attend this hearing because of a prior
commitment but I am happy to order his statement printed in the
hearing record as if he were present.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF HoN. JACOB K. JAVITS, A F.S. SENATOR
FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Senator JAvIT5. Mr. Chairman, I regret that I will be unable to be
present at the hearings this afternoon due to scheduling conflicts. This
is the first time the committee has held hearings on nominees to the
National Science Board. In this regard I would like to point out that
this hearing has been requested and held with the full concurrence of
the minority members of the committee.
The importance of the National Science Board to the contribution
which science can make to alleviate the many problems which lie be-
fore this Nation is great. With each day the significance of the task
of the men who sit upon this Board grows both with respect to the
welfare of this Nation, as well as that of the international community.
We, in the Congress, do not take their duty lightly and wish to ex-
press to them our awareness of the importance of the contributions
they must make.
The CHAIRMAN. Senator Weicker, we are honored to have you here
to introduce one of the nominees.
STATEMENT OP HON. LOWELL P. WEICKER, JR., A U.S. SENATOR
PROM THE STATE OP CONNECTICUT
Senator WEICKER. Thank you very much.
I just want to say a few words on behalf of Dr. Jewel Plummer
Cobb who is here with us today.
She is a member of the faculty at the Connecticut College, New
London, Conn. That is the college my wife attended, and I always
remember it as the Connecticut College for Women.
Dr. Cobb also is dean of the college and is someone highly thought
of not just in academic circles but indeed in civic circles in Connecticut
and, more specifically, in the town of New London.
I think her presence will be a great addition to the Foundation. She
has a great warmth about her. She is a true scientist, but I suppose
first very much a human being. She is interested in other human
beings, and I am very proud to have her as the Connecticut repre-
sentative on the Board.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator Weicker.
Senator Tower, we would like to have your statement at this time.
If you do not have time to stay and would like to introduce the nomi-
nees from Texas, please proceed.
Senator TOWER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It is good to be back in my old committee environs without having
any other responsibility.
The CHAIRMAN. We greatly miss you.
PAGENO="0008"
4
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN TOWER, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF TEXAS
Senator TOWER. It is a pleasure for me to appear today to urge the
favorable action of the committee on two fellow Texans, Dr. Hacker-
man, who is the president of Rice University, and Dr. Murray, who
is the president of Texas Tech.
Both of these men are not only distinguished educators but distin-
guished scientists. Dr. Hackerman is a renowned chemist. Dr. Murray
is a renowned geologist. Both have made substantial and significant
contributions in their respective fields.
The value of their services on the Science Board of the National
Science Foundation is manifest in the fact that they have been re-
nominated for second terms. I should just like to express my un-
qualified endorsement and urge the favorable consideration of the
committee.
In order not to detain the committee longer, I ask that by unanimous
consent my letter to you on the matter be included in the record at
this point.
The CHAIRMAN. It will be included.
[The letter of Senator Tower referred to follows:]
PAGENO="0009"
5
JOHN TOWER
TEXAS Hs~$SS
5~1Cnfte~i ,~tc~tez ScnaIe
September 10, 1974
The Honorable Harrison A. Williams
Chairman
Committee on Labor and Public Welfare
United States Senate
Washington, D. C. 20510
Dear Mr. Chairman:
I am most pleased to have the opportunity to urge that
your Committee report favorably to the Senate the
nominations of Doctor Norman Hackerman and Doctor Grover E.
Murray for additional terms of service on the National
Science Board, National Science Foundation.
We Texans are often accused of excessive boasting when we
speak of the many attributes of our State. Our boasting
is accurate and not subject to rebuttal, however, when we
speak of the outstanding institutions of higher learning---
both public and private--located within Texas. My friends
before your Committee today, Presidents of two of our
finest and most respected universities, are exceedingly
well qualified for continued service on the National Science
Board, having proven their worth through their outstanding
contributions to the Foundation over the past six years.
Not only are they eminent administrators and academicians,
but moreover they are highly respected natural scientists
within their individual realms of experience and training.
Dr. Hackerman fills a dual role at Rice University in Houston
where he serves not only as President but in addition as
Professor of Chemistry. A transplanted Texan, having been
reared in the Eastern United States and educated at Johns
Hopkins University, Dr. Hackerman has distinguished himself
as an outstanding chemist. For twenty-five years he served
the University of Texas, first as an Assistant Professor of
Chemistry, and then progressing through the ranks to the
Chairmanship of the Department and eventually Presidency
of the University. Widely published, he has long held
membership and participated in the professional societies
of the scientific community of which he is such an important
member.
PAGENO="0010"
6
The Honorable Harrison A. Williams
September 10, 1974
Page Two
Dr. Murray became a Texan in 1966 when he moved to Lubbock
to assume the Presidency of Texas Tech University. A North
Carolinian by birth, Dr. Murray received his advanced degrees
from Louisiana State University, where he later joined the
faculty and rose to Chairmanship of the Department of
Geology prior to being named Vice-President for Academic
Affairs. Publisher of a textbook concerning the geology
of the Gulf Coast, Dr. Murray's expertise and abilities
have benefited numerous educational and geological
professional associations and commissions.
I thus commend, Mr. Chairman, each of these men to you and
to the members of the Committee and urge your favorable
consideration of their nomination to the National Science
Board.
Warm regards,
Ver~ truly yours,
hn Tower
JGT:Sb
PAGENO="0011"
7
The CHAIRMAN. We are very grateful for your appearance and
your statement. It will be very helpful to the committee.
We will now receive for the record a statement from Senator
Bentsen.
STATEMENT OP HON. LLOYD BENTSEN, A U.S. SENATOR PROM THE
STATE OP TEXAS
Senator BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased today to join those
endorsing the renominations of Dr. Norman Hackerman and Dr.
Grover Murray to the National Science Board. Both have served on
that body for the last 6 years, and their nominations for reappoint-
ment attest to the merit and distinction of their service.
Both Dr. Hackerman and Dr. Murray have demonstrated a continu-
ing excellence within their chosen professions, academic disciplines,
universities, and larger communities. Both have spent long years
acquiring their expertise, but they also bring to all of their endeavors
a breadth of vision and perspective absolutely essential for distinguish-
ing the immediate from the lasting.
Dr. Norman Hackerman currently serves as the president of Rice
lJniversity in Houston. Educated as a chemist at Johns Hopkins, Dr.
Hackerman came to Texas shortly after the Second World War and
taught with distinction at the University of Texas from 1945 to 1970
while pursuing his special interest of colloid research. He chaired
that university's chemistry department, served as dean of research
and sponsored programs, and was vice chancellor for academic affairs.
He climaxed his career in Austin by being named president of the
University in 1967 and held that post until leaving for the presidency
of Rice.
Dr. Hackerman has received the National Association of Corrosive
Engineers' Whitney Award and currently is a fellow of the New York
Academy of Sciences and the American Chemical Society.
Since his appointment to the National Science Board, Dr. Hacker-
man has chaired its programs committee and its ad hoc committee on
the Fifth National Science Board's Report to the Congress which
published its findings, "Science Indicators," in August 1973. He also
is a member of the Board's Committee on Graduate Education.
Dr. Grover Murray has served as president of the rapidly growing
Texas Tech University in Lubbock since 1966. Educated in geology
at the University of North Carolina and Louisiana State University,
Dr. Murray chaired L.S.U.'s geology department and served as vice
president and dean of academic affairs before ¼~oming to Tech and
adopting Texas as his home. Since 1969. Dr. Murray has also been
president of the Texas Tech School of Medicine.
Dr. Murray has chaired the U.S. National Committee on Geo1ogy~
directed a National Science Foundation project on geologic studies
in northeastern Mexico, served on the Interior Department's Marine
Resources Advance Committee, and been a delegate to the 1967 meet-
ing of the International Committee on the History of Geological Sci-
ences in the Soviet Union. He has served with the WTorld Health Or-
ganization and been a member of the board of directors with the
Southwest Center for Advanced Studies.
PAGENO="0012"
8
Dr. Murray received the University of North Carolina's Distin-
guished Alumni Award in 1971 and is a fellow of the Geological
Society of America. As the National Science Foundation proceeds with
its coordination of our Nation's energy research and development,
Dr. Murray's association with the Society of Exploration Geophys-
icists, the American Society of Oceanography, and the Gulf Universi-
ties' Research Corp. will be invaluable.
Dr. Murray has served on the National Science Board's long-range
planning committee and has chaired its Budget Management Sub-
committee.
Mr. Chairman, John Fitzgerald Kennedy once thoughtfully ob-
served that "Science contributes to our culture in many ways, as a
creative intellectual activity in its own right, as the light which has
served to illuminate man's place in the universe, and as the source
of understanding of man's own nature." Man's inquisitive nature is
perhaps his greatest resource. It has led him on an endless pursuit
to the far horizons of knowledge, and it is that force which must be
harnessed and directed in solving the problems that pose a never-
ending challenge to him.
If man's inquisitiveness know-s no bounds, most of his resources are,
unfortunately, not without limit. During the past year, we have pain-
fully learned that the materials needed to feed, to clothe, to house, and
to transport man are not always sufficient, nor are the resources needed
to increase quickly their supply. Critical choices will have to be made
in the decade ahead-and are, indeed, already being made-which
will drastically affect the quality of life on Earth during the last
third of this century.
Both of the gentlemen I endorse have proven their ability to make
those hard choices, to balance the many demands with the growing
but nevertheless limited resources of their fine universities. Their
decisionmaking ability and management experience have already been
utilized by the National S~ience Board, and both will certainly be
drawn upon heavily in the years ahead.
More than sheer intelligence, inquisitiveness, professional skill, and
management ability is, however, needed if the fruits of science and
technology are to be harvested for man. Science has profoundly en-
larged our capability to sustain and improve life, but within our own
lifetimes, we have also witnessed the profoundly destructive forces
that the discipline has unleashed. Man's survival will continue more
than ever to depend upon the rational, civilized and truly humane
application of science's wonders. As Milton Eisenhower on~e noted,
"Science tells man only what is possible, not what is right." I trust
that Dr. Hackerman and Dr. Murray have the ability to distinguish
what is truly right, and I believe that we, as a just and decent people,
need men like them to direct the course of our national scientific
effort.
Mr. Chairman, I urge the committee's thoughtful consideration and
approval of the nominations of two outstanding scientists and my
good friends, Dr. Norman Hackerman and Dr. Grover Murray.
The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Stever, as Director of the National Science
Foundation would you care to present the Board members.
PAGENO="0013"
9
STATEMENT OF DR. H. GUYFORD STEVER, DIRECTOR,
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Dr. STEVER. Mr. Chairman, you have afready met three of the Board
Members, Dr. Cobb, Dr. Hackerman, and Dr. Murray.
There are others, Dr. William N. Hubbard, Jr., president, The Up-
john Co., from Kalamazoo, Mich. Dr. Hubbard is the only one who
could not be here today. He is on a business trip in Europe. He regrets
not being present.
He will be glad to appear before the committee at any time, with
either the committee or the staff, individually or collectively, at your
convenience.
[The biographical sketch of Dr. Hubbard appears on p. 128.]
Dr. STEVER. Dr. Saunders Mac Lane is Max Mason Distinguished
Service Professor of Mathematics, University of Chicago. He is here.
Dr. Donald B. Rice, Jr., president of the Rand Corp., from Santa
Monica, Calif., is present.
Also we have Dr. L. Donald Shields who is president of California
State University at Fullerton.
And Dr. James H. Zumberge, who is chancellor, University of Ne-
braska at Lincoln.
Mr. Chairman, as you know, this is an historic occasion because it is
the first time that a public hearing has been held by the Senate on
nominations for membership on the National Science Board. I can tell
you that the Board has expressed great pleasure that this has occurred.
I would like to enter most of my statement in the record because I
know you do want to get on to the other business, and interview the
nominees themselves.
In my statement there are a few pages, from 3 to 7, which deal with
the National Science Foundation, its Board, the responsibilities of
the Board, which, as has been pointed out many times, is not an ad-
visory board but is a policy board. It has both a policy forming role
and an oversight role on our performance. So it really has a role anal-
ogous to that of the Congress with respect to the broad sweep of ad-
ministration programs.
If you would like, we can go into the organization of the Board.
Two of the nominees are also old members, and they can comment
on that if you would like. There is one thing that I would like to com-
ment on specifically, and that has to do with the composition of the
National Science Board and the criteria which are used to select new
members.
Actually the National Science Foundation Act itself describes the
criteria: it provides that members of the Board shall be eminent in
the fields of the basic, medical, or social sciences, engineering, agri-
culture, education, research management, or public affairs. They shall
be selected solely on the basis of established records of distinguished
service, and shall be so selected as to provide representation on the
views of scientific leaders in all areas of the Nation.
This stress then is on diversity. The membership of the Board has a
broad base. It includes eminent scientists and educators, persons ex-
perienced in research management and public affairs. Membership also
PAGENO="0014"
10
takes into account a number of other factors, including balance among
professional fields, various types and sizes of educational institutions,
public and private, inclusion of women and minorities.
Both geographical and disciplinary balances are of significant im-
portaiice in reaching sound judgment on many pressing problems and
important programs which affect the entire country.
The current Board consists of persons from 12 universities, one small
college, 3 industries, and I educational association. It includes 4
practicing scientists and 13 administrators. The present Board mem-
bers represent some 10 different disciplines. They come from nine
States and the District of Columbia.
The nominees appearing before your committee today would add
substantially to the balance of the Board. They include two biologists,
two chemists, an economist, two geophysicists, and a mathematician.
They would add representation from three States-Connecticut~ Il-
linois, and Nebraska. The reappointment of Dr. Hackerman and Dr.
Murray would continue representation from Texas on the Board. The
nominees are drawn from a small college, two State universities, a
land-grant university, two private universities, a pharmaceutical com-
pany, and a research organization.
The balance of the Board I think is a very important subject and is
always considered. It is difficult because the National Science Founda-
tion supports work in 15 or 20 different fields of basic science, and it
is impossible to get every field represented all the time, but to have it
spread over during the years is an important thing.
Mr. Chairman, I would be glad to answer questions either on what
I have said here or on the test.imony I have introduced.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Stever follows:]
PAGENO="0015"
11
STATEMENT BY DR. H. GUYFORD STEVER
DIRECTOR, NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE
UNITED STATES SENATE
SEPTEMBER 11, 1974
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
I want to thank you for the opportunity to meet with the Committee.
First. I should like to express my appreciation of the Committee's
consistent interest in and support of the National Science Foundation.
As you know, the six-year terms of the Members of the National
Science Board are staggered so that eight are appointed in each even
numbered year. Today 1 would like to introduce the nominees for
membership on the Board for the term 1974 to 1980. With your permission
I would then like to make a short introductory statement describing the
functions and methods of operation of the Board. The nominees are:
Dr. Jewel P. Cobb, Dean, Connecticut College.
Dr. Norman Hackerman, President, William Marsh Rice University.
Dr. Hackerman has been a Member of the Board for the past six years
and has been renominated.
PAGENO="0016"
12
-2-
Dr. W. N. Hubbard, Jr., President, The Upjohn Company,
Kalamazoo, Michigan. Dr. Hubbard is on an important business trip
in Europe. He was unable on short notice to reschedule appointments
in order to appear before your Committee today. He regrets not
being present. He will be glad to appear before the Committee or to
confer with members or staff at their convenience.
Dr. Saunders Mac Lane, Max Mason Distinguished Service
Professor of Mathematics, University of Chicago.
Dr. Grover E. Murray, President, Texas Tech University.
Dr. Murray has also been nominated for a second term.
Dr. Donald B. Rice, Jr., President, Rand Corporation,
Santa Monica, California.
Dr. L Donald Shields, President, California State University
at Fullerton.
Dr. James H. Zumberge, Chancellor, University of Nebraska
at Lincoln.
Mr. Chairman, this is an historic occasion. It is the first
hearing to be held by a Senate committee on nominations for membership
on the National Science Board. On behalf of the Board and myself I
am delighted to have this opportunity to discuss the basic role of the
Board and the manner in which it operates and to describe the way
in which nominees for membership are selected.
PAGENO="0017"
13
-3-
The National Science Foundation Act (Public Law 81-507) states
that `The National Science Foundation shall consist of a National Science
Board.. . and a Director." This means that the Board is an integral part
of the Foundation, not an advisory body. In general, the Board's
principal function is to provide policy guidance for the conduct of
the Foundation's activities. It, therefore, concerns itself with all
major aspects of the Foundations mission. In particular, it participates
with the Director in the formulation and review of programs. The Board
must approve all new programs. Further, all individual projects within
these new programs are reviewed by the Board until the objectives of
the program are well established.
The Board in collaboration with the Director is expressly charged
by the National Science Foundation Act with recommending and
encou raging the pursuit of national policies for the promotion of basic
research and education in the sciences. Allied to this responsibility
is a requirement that the Board render to the President for submission
to the Congress an annual report on the status and health of science
and its various disciplines including such matters as national resources
and manpower.
The Board meets its national science policy responsibilities in a
variety of ways. The Board renders informal guidance for use by me in
40-498 0 - 75 - 2
PAGENO="0018"
14
-4-
my capacity as science adviser to the President. Preparation of the
annual report necessarily involves consideration of policy issues. The
Board has completed and issued five annual reports. 1/ The sixth and
seventh reports are in preparation. The seventh Board report will
expand and further refine the indicators on the state of the science
enterprise in the United States developed in the fifth report.
The Board from time to time establishes special commissions or
other working groups to conduct special studies or analyses and to
recommend policies for future action. Three such special commissions
have been established and have rendered major reports. 2/
1/ Toward a Public Policy for Graduate Education in the Sciences (1969)
The Physical Sciences (1970)
Environmental Science--Challenge for the Seventies (1971)
The Role of Engineers and Scientists in a National Policy for Technolpgy (1972)
Science lndicators--l972 (1973)
2/ Special Commission for Rubber Research--Recommended Future Role of
the Federal Government with respect to Research in Synthetic
Rubber (1955)
Special Commission on Weather Modification--Weather and Climate
Modification (1966)
Special Commission on the Social Sciences--Knowledge Into Action:
Improving the Nation1s Use of the Social Sciences (1969)
PAGENO="0019"
15
-5-
In April the National Science Board convened a Seminar on
Scientific and Technical Manpower Projections. To this Seminar the
Board invited some fifty persons interested in the analysis and use of
manpower projections. it is expected that a report of this meeting with
the Board's recommendations on manpower projections will be available
soon.
To meet its responsibilities the Board has organized itself into two
major committees, the Programs Committee and the Planning and Policy
Committee. The Programs Committee examines new and ongoing programs
and those individual projects which require Board approval. The results
of the Committee's examinations are presented to the full Board in the
form of recommendations for specific action.
The Planning and Policy Committee concerns itself with general
policies and budgets, particularly the balance among Foundation programs.
An important adjunct of the Planning and Policy Committee is its
Budget Management Subcommittee. This Subcommittee provides a
mechanism for integrating National Science Board and National Science
Foundation staff work on program plans and priorities, budget proposals
and issues. The Planning and Policy Committee also presents its
recommendations to the full Board for action.
~ Ad hoc committees are also formed from time to time to make
special studies or to perform specific tasks.
PAGENO="0020"
16
6-
With the growth in the Foundation's budget and its increasing
proportion of the Federal support of science, the Board is playing a more
significant role in the review and evaluation of the status and health
of U. S. science. It usually holds eight meetings a year of two or three
day's duration. In the intervening months the Executive Committee of
the Board meets to transact necessary business of the Board and the
Foundation. The result is that the Board or its Executive Committee
meets every month.
I would like to discuss briefly the composition of the present
National Science Board and the criteria used for selecting new Members.
The National Science Foundation Act provides that"... members of the
Board (I) shall be eminent in the fields of the basic, medical, or social
sciences, engineering, agriculture, education, research management
or public affairs; (2) shall be selected solely on the basis of established
records of distinguished service; and (3) shall be so selected as to
provide representation of the views of scientific leaders in all areas
of the Nation."
I should like to emphasize the stress this section places on
diversity. The membership of the Board has a broad base. It includes
eminent scientists and educators, persons experienced in research
management and public affairs. Membership also takes into account a
PAGENO="0021"
17
-7-
number of other factors, including balance among professional fields,
various types and sizes of educational institutions (public and private),
inclusion of women and minority individuals.
Both geographical and disciplinary balance are of significant
importance in reaching sound judgments on many pressing problems and
important programs which affect the entire country. The current Board
consists of persons from twelve universities, one small college, three
industries, and one educational organization. It includes four
practicing scientists and thirteen administrators. The present Board
Members represent some ten different disciplines. They come from
nine states and the District of Columbia.
The nominees appearing before your Committee today would add
substantially to the balance of the Board. They include two biologists,
two chemists, an economist, two geophysicists, and a mathematician.
They would add representation from three states--Connecticut, Illinois,
and Nebraska. The reappointment of Dr. Hackerman and Dr. Murray
would continue representation from Texas on the Board. The nominees
are drawn from a small college, two State universities, a land-grant
university, two private universities, a pharmaceutical company, and
a research organization. They also include two working scientists.
PAGENO="0022"
18
-8-
The process of selection, also determined by statute, requires the
President to consider recommendations from the National Academy of
Sciences, the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant
Colleges, the Association of American Universities, the Association of
American Colleges, the Association of State Colleges arid Universities, or
by other scientific or educational organizations. In practice recommendations
both solicited and unsolicited are received from many other sources.
ln June 1973 the Board appointed an Ad Hoc Committee to
Recommend Board Nominees to consider the recommendations received
from the scientific and educational communities, the Congress, and
other sources. It solicited recommendations from 25 leading scientific
and educational associations. This Committee met formally on four
occasions during the fall. It established guidelines for the selection of
candidates and analyzed their qualifications taking into account their
discipline, background, experience, major interests, and geographical
location in light of those of the present Board Members. Following this
extensive review by the Committee of some 250 suggestions, the Board
and I agreed on a slate of candidates which we transmitted to the White
House for consideration in November 1973.
The selection process is indeed complex and the eight nominees
being presented to you today have been the subject of most careful
evaluation.
PAGENO="0023"
19
-9-
I believe that you have biographical information on all the nominees.
I would like to reiterate Dr. Hubbard's regret that he was not able to be
here and his willingness to meet with the Committee or any of its
members at their convenience.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my introductory remarks. I will be
glad to answer any questions and I am sure that the group of distinguished
nominees before the Committee also will be glad to answer questions.
PAGENO="0024"
20
Dr. STEVER. I am pleased to present the distinguished nominees to
the committee.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. Dr. Stever.
Gentlemen, I appreciate your being here, and we will afford you the
opportunity immediately to express yourselves.
First, we will hear from Congressman Alfonso Bell.
Mr. BELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
STATEMENT OP HON. ALPHONZO BELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS PROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. BELL. I would like to take this opportunity to introduce to the
committee the president of the Rand Corp., in Santa Monica, Calif.,
Mr. Donald Rice.
Mr. Rice was formerly Assistant Director of the Office of Manage-
ment and Budget and Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Re-
source Analysis.
In 1970 he was awarded the Meritorious Civilian Service Medal by
Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird.
I want to add also that he is a very highly respected civic leader in
Santa Monica, which is in my congressional district. He is well-known
there and considered a leader in the community.
It is my pleasure, Mr. Chairman, to introduce Don Rice, president
of the Rand Corp.
The CHAIRMAN. We appreciate that, and I am sure Dr. Rice ap-
preciates that too.
Congressman Andrew Hinshaw.
STATEMENT OP ANDREW J. HINSHAW, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS PROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. HINSHAW. It is a pleasure for me to be here and to introduce Dr.
Donald Shields president of the California State University at
Fullerton.
That institution has over 19,000 students and over 750 faculty and
other staff.
I have known Dr. Shields for a good many years. It is a distinct rec-
ognition of his service that he assumed the office of president of the
California State University at Fullerton at the relatively young age of
33, an age when many persons in the academic world find themselves
not even reaching their full professorship.
He is a research scientist. He has worked in education for a long
time. He has worked in both government and business.
He is the author of many books and publications which have been
published and has received a great deal of esteem.
There are many honors which have been conferred on Dr. Shields
and a listing of these honors as well as extensive information regarding
his background, are, I believe in his file for your consideration.
I think his experience in government, in the academic world, and in
the business world, has brought him recognition in our local area~ as
well as throughout the entire country, one who is extremely well re-
spected by his colleagues in the world of chemistry and by his faculty,
staff and students.
PAGENO="0025"
21
We know him as a very forthright person who is wefl respected by
everyone who comes in contact ~with him. I believe that his experience
would bring valuable background to the National Science Board.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. Congressman Hinshaw.
Senator Kennedy who is the chairman of our subcommittee which
deals with the National Science Foundation will be with us in a
moment.
I wonder if giving you an opportunity here to 1)rese1~t in capsule
f ~rm your views and attitudes toward the role that you will play in
the Science Foundation would be appropriate. Would that. be an in-
efficient way to get to know you better?
Dr. STEVER. I think that is a great way. Senator Williams.
The CIL~IR~rAx. We can start from right to left.
Dr. Mac Lane.
STATEMENT OP SAUNDERS MAC LANE, D. PHIL., OP ILLINOIS, TO
BE A MEMBER OP THE NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD
Dr. MAC LANE. The National Science Foundation in the 25 years
that it has existed has been a tremendous and very useful force in
American society and science. It has brought scientific activity in this
country to great heights. It has made great contributions.
I think it is going to be very important to keep on with these de-
velopments~ to emphasize the great things which high quality scien-
tific research can contribute. It is often investment in basic research
which will pay out in the future.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Dr. Mac Lane.
A copy of Dr. Mac Lane's biographical sketch will be included at
this point in the record.
[The inforn'iation referred to follows:]
PAGENO="0026"
22
Saunders Mac Lane
CURRICULUM VITA
Saunders Mac Lane was born in Norwalk, Connecticut on August
Lj, 1909. His father, Donald Bradford Mac Lane, was a Congregational
minister then preaching at Taftville, Connecticut. His mother, n~e
Winifred Andrews Saunders and graduated fro~W~yoke College, was a
secondary school teacher. There was one sister', Lois, *who died in
infancy, and two younger brothers, Gerald B. Mac Lane and David T.
Mac Lane. During successive pastorates 01' his father, Saunders Mac
Lane lived with the family in Taftville, Connecticut, Boston, Massa-
chusetts, Wilbraham, Massachusetts and Utica, New York. He started
high school at the Utica Free Academy and finished high school at
Leominster High School (Massachusetts), where he was living with his
mother and brothers with his grandfather. His grandfather, William
Ward McLane, was also a Congregation minister.
Education
Saunders Mac Lane attended Yale College from 1926-1930 and re-
ceived his Ph.B. there in 1930. In college his primary interest had
shifted from chemistry to mathematics. In 1930-1931 he was a gradu-
ate student in mathematics at the University of Chicago, where he r'e--
ceived an M.A. in 1931. With stipends from the Institute for Inter-
national Education and later from the Alexander von Humboldt Founda-
tion, he then went to Germany where he studied mathematics at the
famous German Center for Mathematics at Gbttingen. His studies were
completed in 1933 with a dugre~ of J).PIiLi (at which time over half'
the faculty el mathematics was dismissed by the NazI government).
He was awarded the degree of D.Phil. upon publication of his thesis
in 19311.
Mathematical Research
(See attached list of' publications)
Mac Lane's first scientific paper was in physics written with
irving Langinuir and K. B. Blodgett. This was a result of a summer
spent at the Research Laboratories of the General Electric Company
in Schenectady, New York (1929). Subsequently his mathematical
PAGENO="0027"
23
-2-
research work was successively in the fields of logic, graph theory
and topology, algebra, algebraic topology, homological aLgebra, and
category theory, as in the approximately 90 research papers listed
in the attached bibliography. For example, these include a discovery
of spac~K(fl-n) now called the Eilenberg-Mac Lane spaces, and the
discovery of category theory and of the cohomology of groups, both
jointly with Samuel Eilenberg.
Positions
Sterling Fellow in Mathematics, Yale, 1933~19314; Benjamin Pierce
Instructor in Mathematics, Harvard University, l93~-l936; Instructor,
Cornell, 1936-1937; University of Chicago, 1937-1938; Assistant Pro-
fessor, Harvard University, l938-l9~l; Associate Professor, l9~4l_~l9146;
Professor, l9I~6_l9147; University of Chicago, 19'17-1963. Max Mason
Distinguished Service Professor, 1963- . Also, from l9~3-l9~5
during the Second World War, Research Mathematician at the Applied
Mathematics Group at Columbia University (concetned largely with
airborn lead computing sights). During l9~It~_l91I5 Mac Lane was Director
of this group.
Chairman, Department of Mathematics, University of Chicago,
1952-1958. Member, Council of the Faculty Senate, University of
Chicago, l9~8-l95l and 1970-1973. Member of other University Com-
mittees such as the Committee on Criteria for University Appointments.
Mathematical Education
With Uorrett 13irkhoff, Mac Lane published in 191LL the text,
~hurvey of Modern Algebra. This text, which has now gone through
three editions, had a substantial influence on undergraduate courses
in algebra at American institutions. It has been followed by a more
recent text, ~~bra, Macmillan, l966~ giving a somewhat more up-to-
date treatment of this subject.
In graduate education Mac Lane has directed 35 Ph.D. theses, am;
on the attached list. Two of these Ph.D.'s (Irving Kaplansky and
John U. Thompson) are now members of the National Academy of Sciences.
In undergraduate education Mac Lane was active in various movements
for reform. In 1951-1953 he served as President of the Mathematical
PAGENO="0028"
24
Association of America, which is the professional. organleatlon Con-
cerned with collegiate mathematical education.
Professional Societies
Since 1933 Mac Lane has been a member of the American Mathema-
tical Society, the principle organization for the encouragement of
mathematical research in the United States. He has served at vari-
ous times as a member of the Council (1939_l9111), Colloquium
Lecturer, 1963, Editor of the Bulletin
of the American Mathematical Society (l9143~l9147), Editor of the Trana-
actions of the American Mathematical Society (19149_l951), Vice-Presiden
of the American Mathematical Society (19146-19147), Editor of the Collo-
quium Series of the American Mathematical Society (1966-1972), and
finally as President of the Americaii Mathematical Society (1973-19714).
He is also a member of other professional societies, including the
Association for Symbolic Logic since about 1935, the American Associa-
tion for the Advancement of Science and the Society of Industrial and
Applied Mathematics, 1973-
In 19119 Mac Lane was elected to membership in the National Aca-
demy of Sciences. He served as an elected member of the Council of
that Academy from 1958-1961, and again from 1969-1972. From 1960-1968
he was Chairman of the Editorial Board of the Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences. Finally, in 1973 he was ejected to a
four-year term as Vice-President of the National Academy of Sciencea,
and in this connection currently also serves as Chairman of the Re-
port Review Committee of that Academy.
Science Policy
When the National Academy of Sciences first established its Com-
mittee on Science and Public Policy in about 19614, Mac Lane wan one
of the members of that Committee and also served on the subpanel which
prepared for the Committee on Science and Aatroriomic.~ of the U. S.
House of Representatives a report, `Basic Research and National Goa~s"
(Mac Lane contributed an article,"Leadership and Quality in Science" ).
Honors
Phi Beta Kappa, 1929 (Yale); Associate Member', Sigma Xi, 1929 (Yale)
full Member, 19311; Montclair Yale Cup (given to the student ~ca~
PAGENO="0029"
25
made his Y in scholarship) 1929; Chauvenet Prize for mathematical
exposition by Mathematical Association of America, 19141; John Simon
Guggenheim Fellow, 19147_19148 (Paris and Zurich) and 1972-19714 (Cam-
bridge, England and Aarhus, Denmark); elected to membership, American
Academy of Arts and Sciences, 19145- ; American Philosophical Society
l9149-jnember of the Council, 1956-1968 and Vice-President, 1970-1971.
Honorary degrees: D.Sc. Purdue, 1965; Yale, 1969; Glasgow, )97l;
Ccc College, 19714; Fellow, Royal Society of Edinburgh, 1972-
Foreign Associate, Danish Academy of Sciences, 1971-
PAGENO="0030"
26
Publications of Saunders Mnc Lane
1930
A. lisypics
1, With Irving Leng~i1x and L B, Blodgett, Zffect of arid beaus `in the c~ .a
acteristics of filonente of tungaten and other materials, Phys~ical Rw1o~i
vol 35(1930) pp 478~503,
2, AbgakUnste Beweiss in Logikkalkul, Thesis, (~ttingan, 1934,
3. £ logical analysts of m.thunatical structure, The Koniat, Jan, ~935
pp 118430
4, Bilb.rt~3ernays on proof theory, Review Bulletin, vol 40(1935) up 1~2~l65
5, Catnap on logical apntax (Review), Bulletin, vol 44(1938) p; l7i'll
~` ~2&~!~
6. Abstract absolute values which give new irreducibility criteria, cue.~
ings, u.S, vol 21(1935) pp 472~.474
7, The id.sl.decctspoaition of rational primes in terms of absolute veluee~
Proceedings, NAB, vol 21(1935) pp 663'~667
8. A construction for prime ideals an absolute values of an algebraic field,
Duke, vol 2(1936) pp 492~3l0
9, Rote on e~ equatisos without affect, Bulletin, vol 41(1936) pp 731~736
10, A construction for absolute values in polynemial rings, Trancactiona,
vol 40(1936), pp 363.395
11. The Schonamenn~.Eieeostein irreducibility criteria in terms of prime ideals,
Transactions, vol 43(1938) pp 226~'239
12, A lattice forsolation for transcendence degrees and p"basea, Duke, vol 4
(1938), pp 435~468
13. The msiquones of the p~ series reprewentation of certain fields with
valuations, Annals, vol 39(1938) pp 370.382
14, The meiversality of formal power series fields, Bulletin, vol 45(1939)
pp 888~~890
15, Bubfielda end automorpkisrn groups of p"adic fields, Annals, vol 40(1939)
pp 423.442
16. Rote On the relative structure of p'edic fields, Annals, vol 41(1940)
pp 75l~753
17, Redular fields, I Beperating transcendence bases, Duke, vol 5(1939) pp 372~'393
18. Steinita field towers for modular fields, Transactions, vol 46(1939) pp 2345
19, (with M. F. Backer) The ninionu number of generators for inseparable alge
braic extensione, Bulbotin, vol 46(1940) pp 182486
20, (with F, ~. Rclwntdt) The generation of inseparable fields, Proceedings, NIUS.
vol 27(1941) pp 583.5~'
PAGENO="0031"
27
21, (wic~h A,R. C1if~o~d) FGctor ~cts o~ a greup in Jts cbotrac~ uniu ~eup~
.voi 50(1941) pp 285-4%
22. A conjectiva of Ore on chainc in pert~uUy ordorL4 cnt~~ Bulictir.
vol 49(1943) pp 547-48
D ~ersonf~g~ra wr5~ten jointly with Prof. 0.1G. Bchilling.
2 Infinite auabex fiolde with ~Tc~ether ideal theorica, ,~xnericrn Jou~.r~al,
vol. 61(1939) pp 7?A-782
24. Zero*dimsnaional w.~ancbee of rank one on algebraic varietiec, Anr.nlc,
vol 40(1939) pp 507-520
25 ~orzna1 a1g~bric nther fields, ProcccdtngotlADvoi. 26(1940) pp lZl~l.26
26. Nareal algebraic ni~er fields, Thcnanctiono, .vol 50(1941) pp 295'~384
27. A foronla for the direct product of crosse~i product algebras, Bulletin,
vol 48(1942) pp 108~1l4
4 ~maral Xuonsr Theory for ir~ctic~ fis1d~, Duke, ,vol 9(1.942) pp 125~i~7
29. soupe of algobree over an algebraic nwsbor field, Laurican JouriaL,,
vol. 65(1943) pp 299*308
8, E~.-poeitory works ona1g~4.
3& tbteo on higher algebra, Planographed, Edwards Brothers, Ann Arbor, Mich,
1939, 211 pp
31, Algebraic function~, Picangraphod, Edwerda Brothers, Ann Arbor, Mich., 1940
62 pp
32, With Garrett Bivkhoff:
A Survey of ~mrn algebra, Mew. ?erk, The Macmillan Cuapany, 1941.
33. S~s recent advances in Algebra, ituaricen Math.,. Monthly, vol. 46(1939)
pp 3-19
34, Modular fields, American Math.. Monthly, vol 47(1940) pp 259"274
P'
33. Scat unique separation thesrcsw far graphs, American Joumnn1~ we). 57(1935)
pp 805~82O
36, Some interpretations of abstract linear dependence in terinn of p3.'~;~cc~:iv~
g.onetry, American Journal, vol 58(1936) pp 236240
31. A combinatorial coadition for planar graphs, ~wtdenta Mathanatical,
vol 28(1936) pp 22-32
38, A structural characterization of planar combinatorial graphs, Duke...
vol ~(1937) pp 660472
0. ~ers~on olqgy, written jointly with Prof. V.11. Adkiaeon (Univ of Arkaunac)
39. Planar graphs ~shoao bcmeeuorphismų can all be artended for any mapping on
bbs sphere, American Jourrel, vol 59(1937), pp 823.832
40, Pined points and abs ertuneion of tha heeeuzsorphisnw of a planar graph.
American .7curnal, vol 60(1938) pp 6l2'639
PAGENO="0032"
28
41. Extending naps of plane Poano continue, Duke, vol 6(1940) pp 216-228
62. Extensions of homeomorpkimris on the ephere, Lectures in ~ the
University of Michigan, Conference of 1940, iv~eity of Michigan Press,
1941, pp 223-236
B.. Papers on Topslogy cnd Algbra,, written jointly with Prof. S. Zilenberg (Uni-
versity of Michigan anTin~1sna University)
43. Infinite cycles end homologies, Proceedings, NAB, vol 27(1941), pp 535-539
44. Group extensions and bmsology, Annale, ~1 43(1942) pp 757-831
45. Relations between homology end bomotopy groups, Proceedings, HAS, vol 29
(1943) pp 155-158
46. Relations between homology and homotopy group. of spaces, Annals of l4athe-
natice, vol 46(1945) pp 480-507
47. Natural isomorphieme in group theory, Proceedings, HAS, vol 28(1942)
pp 537-543
48. General Theory of natural e~iva1enče, Transaotieus, vol 58(1945) pp 231-294
49, Cohee~1ogy theory in abstract groups I, Annals of Nethematice, vol 48
(1947) pp 51-78
50. Gohomology theory in abstract groups II, Group extnaione with a eon-
abelisn kernel, Annals of Mathematics (1946) pp 326-341.
Si, Determination of the aecond homology end cohomology group. of a space by
means of heoutopy invsriants, Proceedings, NAS, pp 277-280(1946)
52, Co Uoeology groups of infinite complexes and compacts, Appendix A in S.
Lefechets, Algebraic Topology (1942) pp 344-349
53. Algebraic coh~1ogy and loops. Duke Math, .1. v 14(1947) pp 435-463
54. Co~~logy and Gelois theory I. Normality of algtbras and Teicimmllor' s
cocycla, Trans. AMS, v. 64(1948) pp 1-20
55, Syzasetry of algebras over ntsther fields. Bulletin AIlS, v, 54(1948)
pp 328-333
56. Groups, categories and duality, Proc. National Aced. Sci, USA. v, 34
(1948) pp 263-267
57, Non'aaeoctative method for aesociative algebras, Bulletin AIlS, v 54(1948)
pp 897-902
58, Ronalogy of spaces with operators II. Transactions AIlS, V. 65(1949) pp 49-99
59. Cohomology theory in abstract groups III Operator hozaeoseorpbisne of kernels,
Ann, Math, v, 50(1949) pp 736-761
60. Relations between b.~1ogy and homotopy groups of spaces II, Ann, Math,
51(1950) pp 514-533
61. Cohasology theory of ebelian groups and homotopy theory. Proc. NAB
(I, v. 36(1950) pp 443-447)
62, Cohonology theory of abeltan groupo cud hasotopy theory. Proc. HAS
(II, v, 36(1950) pp 657-663)
63, Cohouolcgy theory of abelian groups, Proc. Inter. Congr, Math, v 2(1950)
Czusbridgc pp 8-14
PAGENO="0033"
29
64, Gohoniology thenry of shelton groupo and hcoiotopy theory XXX. Prc~c, Not.
Aced. Sat, USA. (1951) pp 307-310
65. RamoIo~ theories for ne4tiplicativo cyotoma. Trans. 8MB. v, 71(Septenber
1951) pp 294-330
66. 0ohmoo1o~ theories of ebeltan groups IV. Proc. Nat. Lead. Set. USA v. 38
t1952) pp 325-329
67. ~cyelic models. Amer. .Tazr, Nath. v. 75(Jcnuery 1953) pp 189-199
68, `ht the groups U( if, n) I. Ann, Math. v, 58(1953) pp 55-106
69. Du the groups li( q,n) II, )Isthoda of ccoputaticn. Ann. Math, v, 60(1954)
pp 49-139
70. Du the groups H( fl,n) III. Operations end obstructions, Ann. Math. v. 60
(1954) pp 513-557
71, ncoulogy theory of obelisu groups. Canadian J. I4ath, v. 7(January 1955)
pp ~3-55
1. Other Joint Pa.:
72. With J.LC. Whitehsad: Ot the 3..type of a complex. Proc. Nat. Aced. Set,
r, 36(Janu.ery 1950) pp 41-48
~. ~
73. Roonlo~ products in K(J7,n). Proc. *MS. v. 3(August 1954) pp 642-651
74. Slide end torsion products for modules. Unive. Politec. Torino Pend. San,
Mat, 15(1955-56) pp 281.309
75. Romologie des anneaux at dcc modules, Oslioque do Topologie algebraiquc,
Lourain 1956, pp 55-80
76. Extansions and obstructions for ring.. Ill. J. Math. vol. 2, 81.. 3(Sept.
1958) pp. 316-356
77, A proof of the eubgroup theorom for free products. Mst7aexaatikt 5(1958)
pp 13-19
78. Group extensions by primary obelian groups. Trans. Amer. Math. So. (April,
t96~) vol. 95, No. 1, pp 1-16
K. ~6!!7_.~!~.!L
79, Duality for groups. Bulletin *813. v. 56(Novomber 1950) pp 485-516
80. Locally small categories and the foundations of sat theory. Proc. Syinp.
on Voundations Math (Warsaw 1959) pp 25-43
81. An algebra of additive relations. Proc. Notl. Aced. Sate. vol. 47 Mo. 7
(July 1961) pp 1043-1031
82. Natural associativity end c.maztativity. ate. University Studies, vol 49,
No. 4. Pall, 1963 pp 28-46
83. Categorical algebra. Bull. AMS (January 1963) v. 71, No. 1. pp 40-106
84. Projective classes and acyclic ewdela, with A. DoId and U. (*erst, Porthco'n-
ing, Springer Lecture Notes
40-498 0 - 75 - 3
PAGENO="0034"
30
-5..
811. Prejective olaases and aoyelie mode3,s, with A. Dold and
U. Obez'at, pp 78-91 in Reports ot the Midwest Category
Seminar, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 47, Springer-
.Vorlag~ New Zisk, 1967.
85. Pisible programs for sategox'ists, pp ~23-l3l in Category
Theory, Homology Theory and Their Applications I, Lecture
Notes in Mathematics, vol. 86, Springer-Verlag, New York,
1968,
86. Foundations for Categories and Sets, pp. 1116-1611, in Cate-
gory Theory, Homology Theory and Their Applications II,
Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 92, Springer-Verlag,
New York, 1969.
87. Foundations of Mathematics, Category Tb cry, pp 286-29~1,
in Contemporary Philoso~hy4 A Survey, edited by Raymond
Kitbanaky, Florence,Lä ~hiova, ~
88. Coherenc. and iaaoniaal maps, pp 233.-2~I2 in Symposia Ma~4ie-
matica, vol. IV, Assoguidi, Bo1ogne~ 1970 (Conference bud
Maroh 25, 1969).
89. The influence of N. H. Stone on tb. ortgins of dategory, in
Functional Analysis and Related Fteld:a, edited by Felix E.
Brawder, Springer-Verlag, New Yo3~k~ 1*70.
90. The Milgram'Bar construction as a. tensor product of tunctor,
pp 135-152, in The Steenrod Algebra &hd its Applications~(j~
Conference to ealebrate N.E. Steenroc4's Sixtieth birthd~~).
Lecture NOtee in Mathematics, vo1~ 3.68, Springer-Verlag;
New York, 1970.
.91. Categorical algebra and aet-thsoretLc~toundatjons, in Axin-~
matie Set Theory, Proceedings of 8ym~otia in Pure Mathematio~s,
Vol. XIII, Part 1, American Mathematie~1 Soeiety, Provids~c~e,
R. I. 1971. .
92. (with G4M.Kefl~)'QOherSaoe.jn.aj~ed eatego~,i.s ~` P~~r and
Applied Algebra, vol. 1, no. 1 (19'fl), pp 97-14(5.
.93. (with 0. N. Kelly) Closed cohepense for a natural transforma-
tion, pp 1-28, in Coherence in Categories, Lecture Notes in
Mathematics, Vol. 281, Springer-VOrlag, Nw Vork, 1972.
914, One universe as a foundation for eat*gor~ theory, pp. 192-200,
in Reports of the Midwest Category 8em~nar III, Lecture Notes in
Matheaatios,Vol. 106, Springer-~Ver]ag, 1969.
I.. Mechanics
1. Hamiltonian mechanics and geemetry, 4merican Math. Monthly,
Vol. 77, No. 6, June-July (1970), pp 570-586.
PAGENO="0035"
31
.2.. Gco~etrica1 Meahanies, Parts I and II, Lecture Notes,
University of Cbioago, 1968.
l't. ~~tiops ~
1. Corso do tepologia general (Notas do Matematien) No. 11.
Translated by J.C. Valcares, Instituto )e Mate. Pars e Ap~.U
do cons * Nat. do Posquises, Rio do Janeiro, p 102 (15~I).
2. Of course and eoursea, Amer. Math. Monthly, Vol. LXI, No. 3,
Marob 195k, pp. 151-15?.
3. Algebra, Twenty-Third Year Book, Nati. CouncIl of Toachor~ o:~
Math., 1957, pp. l00-1~t.
L~* Metrie postulates for plane geometry, Amer. Math. Nonthly~ Vo.
66, No. 7, August-September, 1959, pp. .5~I3-555..
5. Some reoent advances in algehra, MAA. Stl3dioo in ~tod~rn ~
pp 9-3JL
6. Some additional advanaca. In algebra, MAA Studies in Modern
Algebra, pp 35..58.
7. Preliminary meeting On college loveL matheiratica education,
Amer. Math. Mon~bly, vol. 72, No. 2, February, 1965, pp. l?4-1?5.
8. Homology (~22 p~.gee), 1963, Springer-Verlag.
9. (with Garrett Birkhoff) A Survey of Modern Algebra, 1st edition
19~1, 2nd edItion 1953, 3rd edition 1965, MaCmillan, New Vork.
10. (with Garrett Birkhoff) Algebra, 1967, Macmillan, Now Ya:~Cc.
11. Categories for the Working mathenatielari, Spninr-Vcnlag,
New York, 1972.
12. Mappings as a MacIc Mathematical Concept, pp 2C0.21C, in
Journeys in SCien'~c~, `tYelfth APOSR Ccienee Seminar, edited
1. Arm, Th~ r.ir~r~At1J of Now Mox~.co, A1buqu.rqua~ 19~
N. Steno ~C
1. Leadership and qunlAty In ~cier.oe, Badilo Research and Nationo).
Goals, Report to Committee on Science and Astronautics, U.S. Unac
of Representativen, Natl. Acad. of.Soiencee, pp 189-202.
2. The future role of the federal government in mathematico, Juror.
Math. Monthly, vol. 74, No. 1, Part ~I (January, 196?) pp 92-irfl.
o, oa~pJ~p~.
* I.. Gilbert Ames Bliss, Year Book of the American PMIldsopbical
Society for 1951, pp 288-291.
PAGENO="0036"
32
-.7-,
2. O~w~1d VObXID1 A biographloal m.mo$.r, ~AS (l96~I) pp 325-3i~l.
3. (with Jerome Huneaker) Edwin Btdv.U Wilson, A bio~rap~iea1
memoir, NAB (1973) pp 285-320.
July 1974
PAGENO="0037"
33
Ph.D. Students - Saunders Mac Lane
School Qtr. Year Thesis
1942 Valuation Theory
1942 Formal power series
1942 A homogeneous algebra
with limited associativ.
1946 The cohomology theory o~
group extensions
1947 Extensions of valuation
with prescribed value
group and residue class
field
1947 On the cohomology theor~,
of fields
Aug. 1952 Relations between homotc
and homology groups
1954 Representation for
dicategOries
Sept. 1955 Modules of extensions
over Dedekind rings
June 1956 Introduction to the
theory of block assem-
blages and developments
in the theory of re-
traction
Dec. 1956 k-fold recursion and
well-ordering
June 1956 CompositS, equations,
and, recursive definitio
Aug. 1957 Cohomology theory in fie
~Mar. 1957 On the structure of
hyperalgebras
June 1959 A proof that finite grou~
with a fixed-point free
automorphism of prime
order are nilpotent
June 1960 Moore-Cartan theorems
and Leray-Serre theorem
June 1960 The homology of twisted
Cartesian products
June 1960 The factoriration of
cyclic reduced process
by secondary cohomology
operations
Harvard
Harvard
Harvard
Harvard
Harvard
Harvard
Chicago
Cal .Tech
Chicago
Chicago
Student
Kaplansky, Irving
Putnaifl~ Alfred, L.
`Phelps, C.R.
`Lyndon, Roger
Moyles, B.N.
Carter, W.C., Jr.
Novosad, Robert S.
Hughart, Stanley P.
Nunke, Ronald J.
Kru~e, Arthur H.
Howard, William A.
Nerode, Anil R.
Ballard, William R.
Halpern, Edward
Thompson, John G.
Tao, Joseph
Szczarba, Robert
LiuleviciUs, Arunas
Chicago
Chicago
Chicago
Chicago
Chicago
Chicago
Chicago
Chicago
Kristensen, Leif
Chicago Sept. 1961 On the cohomology of two-
stage Postnikov systems
PAGENO="0038"
Year Thesis
1962 Categoricity in power
1963 Bockstein spectra
1964 A functorial form of the
differentiable Riemann-
Roch theorem
1964 Universal Objects for
Spectral Sequences
1964 Abelian Varieties attache
to Representations of die
continuous groups
Vector Fields and Vector
products
Group derived functors
and relative representa-
bility
On the homology Ring of
an abelian group
The Hamel basis theorem
and the, countable axiom
of choice; an exercise ir
the method of Paul Cohen
1969 The Double Category of -
adjoint squares
1969 Completion of Categories,
Satellites, and derived
functors
1969 V-completion by V-monads
through the use of Kan
extensions
Torsion modules over
Dedekind Prime rings
A Coherence Theorem for
Closed Categories
Eilenberg-!4ac Lane IUgebr
and Their Computation
The Integral Homology Al~
bra of an Eilenberg-Mac I
Space
34
Student
School
Qtr.
Morley, Michael Chicago
Hungerford, Thomas W. Chicago
Solovay, Robert Chicago
Aug.
Dec.
June
Kuo, T.C.
Chicago
Sept.
Mountjoy, Robert H.
Chicago
Sept.
Zvengrowski, Peter
Chicago
Dec.
1964
MacDonald, John
Chicago
Sept.
1965
Schafer, James
Chicago
Sept.
1965
Shafer, David
Chicago
Sept.
1966
Palmgüist, Paul
Chicago
Mar.
Stauffer, Howard
Berkeley
Sept.
Dubuc, Eduardo
Chicago
Dec.
Eisenbud, David
Chicago
June
1970
Voreadou, Rodiani
Chicago
Sept.
1972
Hamshei, Ross~
Chicago
Sept~.
`1973
Decker, Gerald John
Chicago
June
l97ZI
PAGENO="0039"
35
The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Hackerman.
STATEMENT OP NORMAN HACKERMAN, PH. D., OP TEXAS, TO BE
A MEMBER OP THE NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD (Reappointment)
Dr. HACKERMAN. Senator, I think it is quite important to recognize
the continuity between science in its most ignorant form and the use
of science in behalf of society.
As things now stand science and technology are vital forces-not
the only forces but vital forces-in the continuing growth of this
world.
Because of that it is very important that the National Science Board
recognize all aspects of science and technology, and its usefulness, not
only as an area of creative work, distinct work, but also as an area in
which application can be made.
That does not mean that all pure science is applicable, and it does
not mean that one can move so purposefully that one can focus directly
on those areas of pure science that will be useful. So it becomes very
important, it seems to me, that the members of the Board and the
staff of the Foundation recognize the importance of all areas and the
hinderances to the transfer of this reduction of pure ignorance to the
increase in applicability.
As a member of the Board-and I am sure my colleagues feel the
same way-it is our job to make sure that all areas are adequately
taken care of.
The CHAIRMAN. You are the scientist who basically explores the
unknown.
Mr. HACKERMAN. He exposes his own ignorance and tries to reduce it.
The CHAIRMAN. I should confess to being pretty close to zero in
science. I think probably my closest association to basic science was
as caretaker for a year at Vannevar Bush's farm.
I will say that he liked to escape, to be released from the demands
of science, because everything operational in that home that I was
the caretaker of went back to another century. Everything worked
with wood-a wood burning cookstove, a wood burning furnace. I
learned a great deal about trees that winter in New Hampshire.
A copy of Dr. Hackerman's biographical sketch will be included
at this point in the record.
[The information referred to follows:]
PAGENO="0040"
36
NORMAN HACKERMAN
BIOGRAPHICAL DATA January 1974
iFull name: Norman Hackerman
`Address: President's House, Rice University, Houston, Texas 77001
Date of birth: March 2, 1912
Place of birth Baltimore, Maryland
Education: A. B., Johns Hopkins University, 1932
Ph. D., Johns IIopkins University, 1935
Positions held:
Rice University
President September 1970-
Professor of Chemistry September 1970-
The University of Texas at Austin
President 1967-70
Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs 1963-67
Vice President and Provost 1961-63
Dean of Research and Sponsored Programs 1960-61
Director of the Corrosion Research Laboratory 1948 -61
Chairman of the Chemistry Department 1952-61
Professor of Chemistry 1950-70
Associate Professor of Chemistry 1946-50
Assistant Professor of Chemistry 1945-46
Research Chemist, Kellex Corporation 1944-45
Assistant Professor of Chemistry, Virginia Polytechnic Institute 1941 -43
Assistant Chemist, United States Coast Guard 1939-41
Research Chemist, Colloid Corporation 1936-40
Assistant Professor of Chemistry, Loyola College 1935-39
Memberships in Learned Societies
Member, American Philosophical Society 1972 -
Membcr, National Academy of Sciences 1971-
Electrochemical Society (Chairman, Corrosion Division, 1951;
Vice Prcsident, 1954-57; President, 1957-58; Interim Editor,
Electrochemical Technology, 1965-68; Technical Editor,
______ of the Electrochemical Society, 1950-68; Editor, 1969-)
Honorary Member, 1973.
PAGENO="0041"
37
Norman Hackerman page 2
Memberships in Learned Societies (continued)
American Chemical Society (Executive Committee, Colloid Division, 1955-58;
Board of Editors, American Chemical Societ Monogpph Series, 1956-62)
National Association of Corrosion Engineers (Board of Directors, 1952-55;
Chairman, A. B. Campbell Young Authord Award Committee, 1960-)
Intersociety Corrosion Committee (Chairman, 1956-58)
Fellow, American Association for the Advancement of Science
Memberships on Boards, Committees, and Councils
National Board on Graduate Education, 1971-
National Science Board, 1968-
Argonne National Laboratory (Chemical Engineering Division Review Com-
mittee, 1963-69; chairman, Board of Trustees, 1969-73)
Cordon Research Conferences (Chairman, Conference on Corrosion, 1950;
chairman, Conference on Chemistry at Interfaces, 1959; Member, Board
of Trustees, 1970-)
Universities Research Association (Council of Presidents); chairman, 1973
Environmental Pollution Panel, the President's Science Advisory Committee,
1965-66
Industry Consultant to the Metal &irface Treatment Equipment Show,
Stockholm Trade Center, for U. S. Department of Commerce, 1967
National Academy of Science-National Research Council (Division of Chemistry
and Cheniical Technology, 1958-)
Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc. (Consultant, 1964-)
Editorial Board, Catalysis Reviews, 1968- 1973 I
Advisory Editorial Board, Corrosion Science, 1965-
PAGENO="0042"
38
Norman Hackerman page 3
Awards
Whitney Award of National Association of Corrosion Engineers 1956
Joseph L. Mattlello Award 1964
Palladium Medalist of the Electrochemical Society 1965
Southwest Regional Award of the American Chemical Society 1965
Honorary Societies
Alpha Chi Sigma
Phi Kappa Phi
Phi Lambda Upsilon
Sigma Xi
Important Publications*
N. Hackerman and R. A. Rwers, J. Phys. Chem., 57, 139 (1953),
"Surface Reactions of Chromium in Dilute Cr5104 Solutions."
A. C. Makrides and N. Hackerman, md. Eng. Chem., 46, 523 (1954),
"Action of Polar Organic Inhibitors in Acid Dissolution of Metals."
W. H. Wade and N. Hackerman, Trans. Faraday Soc., 53, 1636 (1957),
"Anodic Phenomena at an Iron Electrode."
P. V. Popat and N. 1-Jackerman, J. Phys. Chem., 62, 1198 (1958),
"Capacity of the Electrical Double Layer and Adsorption at Iblarized
Platinum Electrodes. L Adsorption of Anions."
N. Hackerman, Z. fur Elektrochemie, 62, Nr. 6/7, 632 (1958),
"Sorption, Oxidation and Passivity."
E. S. Snavely, Jr. and N. Hackerman, Can. J. Chem., 37, 268 (1959),
"The Anodic Passivation of Iron."
N. Hackerman, J. Electrochem. Soc. (India), VIII (1), 9 (1959),
"Corrosion Inhibition and Chelating Agents."
N. 1-Jackerman, Comptes Rendus du Symp. Eur. sur les Inhibiteurs de
Corrosion, Ferrara, Italy, 1960, "An Adsorption Theory of Corrosion
Inhibition by Organic Compounds."
N. Hackerman and R. M. Hurd, First Int. Cong. on Metallic Corrosion,
London, 1961, "Corrosion Inhibition and Molecular Structure."
N. E. Wisdom, Jr. and N. 1-lackerman, J. Electrochem. Soc., 110, 318
(1963), "Surface Studies on Passive Iron."
*Dr. Ilackerman is the author and co-author of more than 160 publications. The
1 i~,r~d ~ ~rnnn~ rht~
PAGENO="0043"
39
Norman L I~k man
Important Publications (continued)
W. H. Wade and N. Hackerman, Advances in Chem. Series, 43, 222
(1964), "ThermodynamiCs of Wetting of Solid Oxides."
N. Hackerman and W. H. Wade, J. Phys. Chem., 69, 314 (1965), "A
MicrocalorimetriC Study of Liquid-Liquid Displacement Phenomena."
R. M. Hurd and N. Hackerman, Electrochimica Acta, 9, 1633 (1964),
"Passivity Phenomena at the Silicon/Electrolyte Interface."
N. Hackerman, E. S. Snavely, Jr., and J. S. Payne, Jr., J. Electrochem.
Soc., 113, 677 (1966), "Effects of Anions on Corrosion Inhibition by
Organic Compounds."
D. M. Mohilner and N. Hackerman, Electrochimica Acta, 11, 1669 (1966),
"Thermodynamic Treatment of Interfacial Curvature in ElectrocapillaritY."
N. Hackerman, E. S. Snavely, Jr., and L. D. Fiel, Electrochimica Acta,
12, 535 (1967), "Anodic Passivity of Nickel in Hydrogen Fluoride."
K. Kawasaki and N. Hackerman, Japanese Journal of Applied Physics, 6,
1184 (1967), "Vapor Adsorption arid Displacement on Ikrous Glass by
Surface Conductivity."
K. Aramaki and N. Hackerman, J. Electrochem. Soc., 115, 1007 (1968),
"Structure Effects of Many-Membered Polymethyleneimine on Corrosion
Inhibition."
K. Aramaki and N. Hackerman, J. Electrochem. Soc., 116, 568 (1969),
"Inhibition Mechanism of Medium-sized Pblymethyleneimine."
PAGENO="0044"
40
LIST OF PUBLICATIONS
Norman Hackorman
1. IV. A. Patrick and Norman Hackerman, U. Phys. Chem. ~, 679-88 (1936).
`Studies on Molecular Weight Changes of Sulfur Monochiorido."
2. Leonard H. Cohan and Norman Hackorman, nd. Eng. Chem.~ Anal. Ed. .12, 210-13 (1943)
"Determinin0 Emulsifyin8 Efficiencies,"
3. Norman Hackerman and 0. 1. Marshall, Trans. Electrochem. Soc. ~, 195-205 (194&.
"Corrosion Studies on Electrolytic Chromium."
4. Norman Hackerman, U. Chem. Educ. ~, 45-46 (1946).
"The Eēuilibrium Concept in Beginning College Chemistry Courses."
5. Norman Hackerman and B. A. Shock, Chem. Eng. ~, 296 (1946).
"Checking Conosion on Oil Well Pipe Lines."
Norman Hackerman and B. A. ShocI~, ACS 110th Meeting, Chicago, Septembąr 1946.
"Formation end Nature of Surface Layers on Steel in High-Pressure Nat~rai
Gas Condensate Wells." (Abstract of Papers 39-401)
6.~. Norman Hackerman and B. A. Shock, Ind. Eng. Chem. ~, 863-67 (1947).
"Surface Layers on Steel in Natural Gas Condensate Wells."
7. D. A. Shock and Norman Hackerman, nd. Eng. Chem. ~, 1283-86 (1947).
"Corrosion Studies in Natural Gas Condensate Wells. Protective Layars."
8. Norman Hackerman and B. A. Shock, World Oil 127., 198-206 (1947).
"Corrosion in Condensate Wells."
9. Norman Hackerman, Corrosion .~, 45-60 (1948).
"Use of Inhibitors in Corrosion ~
10. Norman Hackerman and B. I. Marshall, U. Electrochem. Soc. 2~, 49-54 (1943).
"Passivity of Chromium."
11. Norman Hackerman and U. D.~ Sudbury, U. Electrochem. Soc. ~, 191-58 (1948).
"Effect of the Addition of M~ines on the Electrode Potential of Ccpp~r
in Buffered Acid Solution."
12. B. A. Shock and Norman Hsckerman, Ind. Eng. Chem. ~ 2169-72 (1948).
"Extraction of Polar Constituents from Hydrocarbon Solutions. Field
Application in Natural Gas Condensate Wells."
13. Norman Hackerman and H. R. Schmidt, Corrosion .~, 237-43 (1949).
"The Role of Adsorption from Solution in Corrosion Inhibitor Act1o~.'
14. Norman Hackerman and H. R. Schmidt, Ind. Eng. Chem. ~j, 1712-16 (1949).
"Kinetics of the Corrosion Process in Condensate Gas Wells."
14a. F. A. Matsen, Uack Myers and Norman Hackerman, ~ra4~edica1 Ph~si~n1 Ch~-j~r~,
The Macmillen Company, New York, 1949.
PAGENO="0045"
41
-2-
15. D. A. Shock and Norman Hackerman, nd. Ens. Chem. ~j, 1974-77 (1949).
"Corrosion of' Steel in Sulf'ur-Producin~ Tubos. Frasch Proceoz."
16. Norman H~ckornman and H. R. Schmidt, U. Phys. end Colloid Chain. ~, 629-30 (19/9).
"The Adsorption of Organic Corrosion Inhibitors on Iron and Steel Surfacco."
17. E. S. Glenn, Jr., E. L. Cook and Norman Hackerman, J. Electrochern. Soc. ~
liOC-112C (1949). "Possible Role of' the Solid Surface in Elactroloas
Plating."
18. Norman Hackerman and E. E. Glenn, Jr., J. Phys. and Colloid Chain. ~L, 497-505
(1950). "Orientation of a Polyfunctional Organic Molecule at a Steel
Surface."
19. Norman Hackerman and E. L. Cook, J. Electrochem. Soc ~2, 1 (1950).
"Effect of Adsorbed Polar Organic Compounds on the Activity of Steel
in Acid Solutions."
20. Norman Hackerman and U. D. Sudbury, U. Electrochem. Soc. ~ 109 (1950).
`The Effect of Amines on tie Electrode Potential of Mild Steel in Tap
Water and Acid Solutions."
21. E. E. Glenn, Jr. and Norman Hackerman, Rev. Sci. Instru. 21, 148-49 (1950).
"Positive Displacement Pump for Corrosive Fluids."
22. Norman Hackerman and D. A. Shock, Corrosion ~, 195-200 (1950).
"Corrosion in Sulphur Production. The Use of an Alloy Protective
Coating."
23. Norman Hackerman and Leland L. Antes, Science .11.2, 471 (1950).
"Contact Potentials of Evaporated Iron Films in Air and in Nitrogen
at Low Pressure."
24. Noriran Hackerman and Ray M. Hurd, J. Electrochem. Soc. 2~, 51-56 (1951).
"Dichromate Reduction Rate at a Steel Surface in Air-free, Acetic
Acid Solution."
25. E. L. Cook and Norman Hackerman, J. Phys. and Colloid Chem. ~, 549-557 (1951).
"Adsorption of Polar Organic Compounds on Steel."
26. A. L. McClellan and Norman Hackerman, J. Phys. and Colloid Chem. ~ 374-382 (.55i~.
"The Sorption of Gases on Metals at Room Temperature."
27. Leland L. Anges and Norman Hackerman, J. Appl. Phys. ~, 1395-1398 (1951).
"Contact Potential Variations on Freshly Condensed Metal Films at Low
29. Robert A. Powers and Norman Hackerman, J. Phys. Chem. ~, 187-88 (1952).
"Nickel Plating by Chemical Reduction. I. Effect of the Basis Metal."
30.' Norrran Hackerman and Tyleen .iensen, U. Electrochem. Soc. ~, 60-63 (1952).
"The Effect of Indium Sulfate in Chromium Plating Baths.
28. Norman Hackerman, Corrosion ~, 321 (1951).
PAGENO="0046"
42
-3-
31. HunC Li Vkrng and Norman Hackorman, J. Phys. Chem. ~, 771-774 (1952).
Sorption of Gasos on Metal Powders and Subsequent Change in Metal
Reactivity at Room Temperature."
32. Norman Hackerman and E. L. Cook, U. Phys. Chem. ~, 524-526 (1952).
"Dual Adsorption of Polar Organic Compounds on Steel."
33. Norman Hackerman, Corrosion ~, 143-49 (1952).
"Physical Chemical Aspects of Corrosion Inhibition."
34~ Norman Hackerman, nd. Eng. Chem. ~ 1752-55 (1952).
"Effect of Temperature on Corrosion of Metals by Water."
35. Norman Hackerman andR. A. Powers, U. Phys. Chem. ~7., 139-42 (1953).
`Surface Reactions of Chromium in Dilute Cr51O4 Solutions."
~6. Colby D. Hall, Jr. and Norman Hacker-man, U. Phys. Chem. 2, 262-63 (1953).
"Charging Processes on Anodic Po1ariz~tion of ~
37. Norman Hackerman. U.S. Patent 2,630,407, March 3,1953. Electrodaposition
of Chromium. (Assigned to Research Corporation, New York.)
38. R. A. Powers and Norman Hackerman, U. Electrochem. Soc. .LQ~, 314-19 (1953).
"Surface Reactions of Steel in Dilute Cr5104 Solutions: Applications
to Passivity."
39. Norman Hackerman and E. E. Glenn, Jr., U. Electrochem. Soc. 1Q.Q, 339-44 (1953).
"Corrosion of Steel by Air-free, Dilute, Weak Acids."
40. M., U. Joncich and Norman Hackerman, J. Phys. Chem. 2, 674-78 (1953).
`The Reaction of Hydrogen and Oxygen on Submerged Platinum Electrode
Catalysts. I. Effect of Stirring, Temparature and Electric Polarization.:
41. ii. l~uskat, A. Chatenever and Norman Hackerman, API Proceedings, November l95~.
"l'echanism of the Displacement of Oil from Porous Materials."
42. Norman Hackerman, Corrosion 1Q, 70-72 (1954).
- "The Measurernent~of Electrode Potentials."
43. Norman Hackerman and A. C. Makrides, nd. Eng. Chem. ~ń, 523-26 ~l954).
"Mechanism of Inhibition by Organic Compounds."
44. Norman Hacker-man and A. H. Roebuck, nd. Eng. Chem. 46, 1481-85 (1954).
"Adsorption of Polar Organic Compounds on Steel.'~
45. Norman Hackerman and Colby D. Hall, Jr., U. Electrochem. Soc. 101, 321-27 (lS~4).
"Electrochemical Polarizatim of Titanium in Aqueous Solutions of Sodim
Chloride."
46. Norman Hackerman and Olin B. Cecil, U. Eloctrochom. Soc. ~ 419-425 (19~$).
"The Electrochemical Polarization of Zirconium in No,itral Salt Solutions.
PAGENO="0047"
43
-4-
47. K. 8. H~innnh, P.1. .J. Joncich and Norman Hackorrnan7 Roy. Sci. In~tr. ~ 6'~-35 (15~.
"An Automatic Syotom for the Study of' Catalytic Reactions Involving Cu~.ee."
48. Barton L. Cross and Norman Hackorman, Corrosion .L~, 407-12 (1954).
"Inhibitor Evaluation by the Pearson Null Bridge."
49. Norman Hackerman and Sarah Jane Stephens, J. Phys. Chem. ~0, 904-8 (1954).
"The Adsorption of' Sulfate Ions from Aqueous Solutions by Iron Surfaces."
50. F. A. Matson, A. C. Makridos and Norman Hackerman7 J. Chem. Pays. 2Z, 1800-
1803 (1954). "Charge-Transfer-No-Bond Adsorption."
51. Norman Hackerrnan, Trans. New York Acad. Sci. ~, 7-11 (1954).
"Effect of' Sorption o~i Metal Dissolution in Aqueous Acid Solution."
52. P. A. George and Norman Hackerman, Corrosion U., 249t-54t (1955).
"Acid Corrosion Inhibition by High Molecular Weight Nitro~en-Containir~
Compounds.
53. Donald M. Sowards and Norman Hackerman, J. Electrochem. Soc. 1Q.~, 297-303 (1955).
"Kinetics of' Surface Reactions of' Metals. I. Iron."
54. N. H. Simpson and Norman Hackerman, Nucleonics j~, 67-68 (1955).
"Following Surface Diffusion of Radioisotopes."
55. A. C. Makrides, N. M. Komodromos and Norman Hackerman, J. Electrochem. Soc. 12,
363-69 (1955). "Dissolution of' Metals in Aqueous Acid Solutions. I.
Current-potential Relations for Iron and Mild Steel."
56. A. C. Makrides and Norman Hackerman, J. Phys. Chem. ~, 707-10 (1955).
"Inhibition of' Acid Dissolution of' Metals. I. Some General Observations."
57. Pay M. Hurd and Norman Hackorman, J. Electrochem. Soc. IQ.2, 594-97 (1955).
"Electrokinetic Potentials of' Bulk Metals by Streaming Current Measure-
ments. I. Method."
58. A. C. Makrides and Norman Hackerman, nd. Eng. Chem. a, 1773-78 (1955).
"Ef'f'ect of' Thiourea Compoungs on Dissolution Rate of' Iron and Mild S~eel."
59. Norman Hackerman and Emerson H. Lee, J. Phys. Chem. 59, 900-06 (1955).
"The Ef'fect of' Gases on the Contact~Potentials of' Evaporated Metal Films.'
60. N. H. Simpson and Norman Hackerman, .1. Electrochem. Soc. IQZ, 660-61 (1955).
"Surface Co~amination of' Copper by Phosphate.Ion Duriag ElectropolisninC
- - Use of' p.) ~
61. Ray IL Hurd and Norman Hackerman, J. Electrochem. Soc. 1Q3~ 316-19 (19%).
"Electrokinetic Potentials on Bulk Metals by Streaming Current l~eneure-
ments. LI. Gold, Platinum and Silver in Dilute Aqueous Electrolytes.'
62. Norman Hackorman~ Bulletin of' the india Section, The Electrochem. Soc. ~,
31-35 (1956,. ~Corrosion and Its inhibition."
PAGENO="0048"
44
-5-
63. Norman Hsckorman and Norman H. Simpson, Trans. Faraday Soc. ~, 628-33 (i95~.
`Rates of Surfaco Self-Diffusion Over the Principal Planes of Sin~lc
Crystal of Coppor."
64. IV. J. Krodol and Norman Hackerman. U.S. Patent 2,743,178, April 24, 195~.
Process for De-inking Printod Waste Paper." (Assigned to W. J. Krodoi)
65. Norman Hackerman, A.G.A. Proceedings, April 1957.
`Vapor Phase Corrosion inhibition."
66. Pay 11. Hurd and Norman Hackerman, J. Electrochem. Soc. .LQ~, 482-485 (1957).
"Kinetic Studies on Formation of Black-Oxide Coatings on Mild Steel ir.
Alkaline Nitrite Solutions."
67. William H. Wade and Norman Hackerman, Trans. Faraday Soc. ~, 1636-47 (1957).
"Anodic Phenomena at an iron Electrode."
68. John J. Bordeaux and Norman Hackerman, J. Phys. Chem. ~j, 1323-2? (1957).
"Adsorption from Solution of Stearic Acid on Iron; Effect on Electrode
Potential.
69. Ralph .J. Brodd and Norman Hackerman, J. Electrochem. Soc. 10.~, 704-09 (1957).
"Polarization Capacity at Solid Electrodes and True Surface Area V~1ucc.
70. A. C. Makrides and Norman Hackerman, J. Electrochem. Soc. i~, 156-62 (1952).
"Dissolution of Metals in Aqueous Acid Solutions. ii. Depolarized Die-
solut ion of Mild Steel."
71. Norman Hackerman, Ray M. Hurd and Earl S. Snavely, Corrosion l.~, 203t-OSt (1558).
"Corrosion R~tes of Mild Steel in NH4NO3-NH3-H2O Solutions."
72. Helmut Kaesche and Norman Hackerman, U. Electrochem. Soc. .1..Q~, 191-98 (1958).
"Corrosion inhibition by Organic Amines."
73. No. san Hackerman, U. Electrochem. Soc. .LQ.~, ll9C-2lC (1958).
`On Research - its Care and ~ (Presidental Address)
74. Norman Hackerman and Arthur C. Hall, U. Phys. Chem. ~, 1212-14 (1958).
`The Adsorption of Water Vapor on Quartz and Calcite."
75. P. Popat and Norman Hackerman, U. Phys. Chem. ~, 1198-1203 (1958).
"Capacity of the Electrical Double Layer and Adsorption at Polarized
Platinum Electrodes. 1. Adsorption of Anions."
76. Norman Hackerman, Z. f~ir Elek±rochemie ~j, 632-637 (1958).
`Sorption, Oxidation and Passivity."
77. Earl S. Snavely, Jr. and Norman Hackerman, Can. U. Chars. .~2, 266-275 (1559).
"the Anodic Passivation of Iron."
78. Norman Hackerman, Bulletin of the india Section, The Electrochem. Soc. ~, 9-IS
"Corrosion Inbibitionand Chelating Agents."
PAGENO="0049"
45
79. J. J. McMullen and Norman Hackorman, U. Electrochern. Soc. 1Q.~, 341-46 (1959).
"Capacities of' Solid Metal-Solution Interfacos."
SO. A. C. Mekrides and Norman Hackerrnan, U. Phys. Chom. ~, 594-96 (1959).
Heats of femersion. I. The System Silica-Water."
8l.~. William H. Wade and Norman Hackerman, U. Phys. Chern. ~, 1639-41 (1959).
"Heats of' mersion. II. Calcite and Kaolinite - The Effect of Pretrca~me~~.'
82. R. A. Le~ault and Norman Hackerrnan, Corrosion ~, 5l7t-522t (1959).
"Corrosion Inhibitor Evaluation from Cathodic Polarization Mcasuramer~s."
83. G. M. Schmid and Norman Hackerman? U. Electrochern. Soc. .~, 142-43 (196C).
"The A-C Resistance of a Polarized Stainless Steel Wire Cathoce."
84. W. H. Cede, A. L. Every and Norman Hackerman, U. Phys. Chem. ~, 355-56 ~i96O).
Heats of Imersion. f II. The Influence of Substrate Structure in the SiC2-
H20 System."
85. Howard F. Finley and Norman Hackerman, U. Electrochern. Soc. .1J21, 259-63 (~96G).
"Effect of Adsorption of Polar Organic Compounds on the Reactivity of 5~ec.'
86. Norman Hackerman, ~ of Dissolution Processes," inThe Surface Ch~-~ a±c~
of l~nta1s and Semi-conductors, H. C. Gatos, ed., John Wiley & Sons, r~c.,
New York, 1960.
87. G. M. Schmid and Norman Hackerman, U. Electrochem. Soc. jQ~, 647-51 (1960).
"The A-C Resistance of a Stainless Steel Electrode and Specific Adsorption.
88. W. H. Wade and Norman Hackerman, U. Phys. Chem. ~, 1196-99 (1960).
`Heats of Immersion. V. The Alumina-Water System - Variations with
Particle Size and Outgassing Temperature."
89. Norman Hackerman, Chem. Eng., January 23, 1961.
"A Survey of the New Chemistry."
90. R. L. Every, 0. H. Wade and Norman Hackerman~ U. Phys. Chem. ~, 23-29 (1961).
"Free Energy of Adsorption. I. The Influence of Substrate Structure ~n
the Si02-H20, Si02-n-Hexane and Si02-CH3OH Systems."
91. R. L. Every, 6. H. Wade and Norman Hackerman, U. Phys. Chem. ~, 937-41 (1961).
`Free Energy of Adsorption. II. The Influence of Substrate Structure ic
the Systems Al2O3and Ti02 with n-Hexane, CH3OH and H20."
92. U. S. Riney, G. M. Schmid and Norman Hackerman, Rev. Sci. Instru. ~Z, 568-52 ~i96
"Single Pulse Method for Measurement of Electrical Double Layer Parar7etere.~
93. P~. V. Popat and Norman Hackerman, U. Pnys. Chem. ~, 1201-05 (1961).
"Electrical Double Layer Capacity of Passive Iron and Stainless Steel
Electrodes."
94. G. M. Schmid and Norman Hackerman, U. Electrochem. Soc. ~ 741-44 (196~).
"Anddic Polarization of' Stainless Steel in Chloride Solutions."
40-498 0 - 75 - 4
PAGENO="0050"
46
-7-.
95. Norm.in Fbckcrman, Comptos Rondus du Symposium Europoon sur los Inhibitcurs
do Corrosion, Forrara (Italic), pp. 101-109, 1961.
"An Adsorption Theory of Corrosion Inhibition by Organic Compounds."
96. W. I. V1ido and Norman Hackorman, J. Phys. Chcm. ~, 1681-83 (1961).
"Heats of Insiorsion. V. The Ti02-H20 S>dem - Variations with Particiu
Sizes and Outgassing Tcmperaturo."
97. .1. D. Goodrich and Norman Hackerman, J. Electrochem. Soc. .1.~, 1092-97 (1931).
`The Dissolution of Steel in the System NH4NO3-NH3-H20."
98. W. H. l'ade, H. D. Cole, D. E. Meyer and Norman Hackerman, Advancen in Ch~ls~"~
~ies 33, 35-41 (1961).
"Adsorptive Behavior of Fused Quartz Powders."
99. Norman Hackerman, A. M. Hurd and A. R. Annand, Corrosion j~, 37i-42z (1o62).
"Sow Structural Effects of Organic N-Containing Compounds on Corrosion
Inhibition,"
100. G. M. Schmid and Norman Hackerman, 1. Electrochem. Soc. .LQ2, 243-247 (1962).
"Double Layer Capacities of Single Crystals of Gold in Perchioric Acid
Solutions,"
101. IV. H. Code and Norman Hackerman, J. Phys. Chem. ~, 1823-26 (1962).
`V-leats of irrnnersion. Vii. The irrmersion of Silica, Alumina, and Titania
in Hexane - Variation with Particle Size and Outgassing Temperatura."
102. Norman Hackerman and A. M. Hurd, "Proceedings of the First International
Congress on Metallic Corrosion," pp. 166-172, Butterworths, London, 1962.
"Corrosion inhibition and Molecular Structure."
103. Norman Hackerman, Corrosion j~, 332t-337t (1962).
"Recent Advances in Understanding of Organic inhibitors."
104. J. D. Goodrich and Norman Hackerman, J. Electrochem. Soc. jQ~, 795-93 (1962).
"Polarization and inhibition of Steel in the NH4NO3-NH3-H20 System."
105. C. U. Schmid and Norman Hackerman, J. Electrochem. Soc. IQ~, 1096-99 (1962).
"Electrical Double Layer Capacities of Iron During Forced Cathodic Docay
of Passivity."
106. T. L. Ashcraft, John Riney and Norman Hackerman, Rev. Sci. Instr. 3~, 5-7 (1563).
"Electrostatic Voltmeter for the Measurement of Surface Potentials."
107. Norvell E. Wisdom, Jr. and Norman Hackerman, J. Electrochem. Soc. ILQ, 318-25 (1963
"Surface St,~dies on Passive iron."
108. C. U. Schmid and Norman Hackerman, J. Electrochem. So~.~jQ, 440-44 (1563).
"Electrical Double Layer Capacities and Adsorption of Alcohols on Cold."
109. Norman Hackerman and A. A. Annand. U.S. Patent 3,091,591, tisy 29, 1963.
`V.lethod of irAibiting Corrosion." (Assigned to Texas Research Assocstoo.)
PAGENO="0051"
47
-8-
110. Robert C. Ayers, Jr. and Norman Hackerman, J. Elcctrochcm. Soc. flu, 507-13 (1961).
"Corrosion Inhibition in HC1 Using Mothyl Pyridinos."
111. Gerald Aronowitz and Norman Hackerman, J. Electrochem. Soc. .UQ, 633-40 (1961).
"The Passivity of Iron-Chromium Alloys."
112. 1.1. C. 8~nta and Norman Hackerman, J. Electrochem. Soc. iL., 114-19 (1964).
"The Effect of' Acidity on the Differential Capacity of Polarized Platinus
Electrodes."
113. William H. Wade and Norman Hackerman, Adv~pos in ~hr. irr ~rie~ 43, 222-11
(1964). "Thermodynamics of' Wetting of Solid Oxides."
114. Norman Hackerman and W. H. Wade, ii. Phys. Chem. ~, 1592-94 (1964).
"Certain Aspects of' the Interpretation of Immersional Heats of Gels.'
115. M. J. Joncich and Norman H~kerman, J. Electrochem. Soc. IlL, 1286-89 (1964).
"Preparation and Surface Area Measurements of Platinized-Platinum Electrodes.
116. Norman Hackerman, Official Digest ~, 1405-32 (1964).
"Surfaces, Sorption and Polymers in the Inhibition of Corrosion Reactions."
(The Joseph J. Mattiollo Memorial Lecture for 1964.)
117. R. R. Annand and Norman Hackerman, in ~~incyc1opedia of ELr~c+.rocr~rdSillL,
Clifford A. Hampel, Ed., pp. 274-80, Reinhold Publishing Co., ~iew York, 1964.
"Corrosion Inhibition."
118. * Takao Murakawa and Norman Hackerman, Corrosion Sci. ~ 387-96 (1964).
"The Double Layer Capacity at the Interface Between Iron and Acid Solutions
With and Without Organic Materials."
119. R. M. Hurd and Norman Hackerman, Electrochim. Acts ~, 1633-43 (1964).
"Passivity Phenomena at the Silicon/Electrolyte Interface."
120. Norman Hackernmn and W. H. Wade, J. Phys. Chem. ~, 314-15 (1965).
"A MicrocalorimetriC Study of Liquid-Liquid Displacement Phenosena.'
121. Raymond L. Venable, William H. Wade and Norman Hackerman, U. Phys. Chco. ~2,
317-21 (1965). "Heats of Immersion. Viii. Differential Hcat~ of' Ad-
sorption as.a Function of Particle Size for the Alumina-Water System.'
122. R. R. Annand, R. M. Hurd and Norman Hackerman, J. Electrochem. Soc. 1.12, l~-
44 (1965). "Adsorption of Monomeric and Polymeric Amine Corrosion Irnibi.orc
on Steel."
123. R. R. Annand, R. M. Hurd and Norman Hackerman, U. Electrochem. Sac. 144-
48 (1965). "Inhibition of Acid Corrosion by Soluble Monomer and Polymer
Amines Containing Identical Functional Groups."
124. William U. Krodel and Norman Hackerman. U.S. Patent 3,179,555, April 23, 93~.
"Process for De-Inking Printed Wa~te Paper." (Assigned to W. U. Kro...~
PAGENO="0052"
48
-9-
~5. Norman Ilackurman, E. S. Snavoly, Jr. and J. S. Payno, Jr., J. Elacirocnc:~.
Soc. 1137 677-631 (1966). `Ef'f'ects of' Anions on Corrosion Inhibition
by Or~anic Compounds."
12o. Donald E. Meyer and Norman Hackorman, J. Phys. Chew. ~fl, 2077-66 (1966).
`Adsorption Thormodynamics of' the Interaction of' Water and Various
Silica Powders."
127. D. M. Mohilner and Norman Hackerman, Eloctrochim. Acta 11, 1669-04 (1966).
"Thermodynamic Treatment of' Interfacial Curvature in Elcctrocapi11a~ity."
128. Norman Hackerman, E. S. Snavely, Jr. and L. C. Fiel, Electrochim. Acta 1.2,
535-51 (1967). "Anodic Passivity of' Nickel in Hydrogen Fluoride."
129. Norman Hackerrnan, E. S. Snavely, Jr. and L. D. Fiel, Corrosion Sci. 2 39-50 (i9~7).
`The Anodic Polarization Behaviour of' Metals in Hydrogen Fluoride.
130. Takao Murakawa, Shigeo Nagaura and Norman Haskerman, Corrosion Sci. 2, 79-69 ~i967).
"Coverage of' Iron Surface by Organic Compounds and Anions in Acid Soluticrc.
131. Takao Murakawa, Toshiharu Nato, Shigso Nagaura and Norman Hackermar, Carraeio~.
Sci. 2, 657-64 (1967). "Differential Capcity Curves of' Iron in Perchlcric
Acid in the Presence of' Anions."
132. Koji Kawasaki and Norman Hackerman, Japanese J. Appl. Phys. ~, 1184-92 (1967).
"Vapor Adsorption and Displacement on Porous Glass by Surface Conductivity."
133. Norman Hackerman and Nelson N. Estos. U.S. Patent 3,324,025, Juno 6, 1967.
"?$ethod of' Treating Electrodes for Use in Electrochemical Devices."
(Assigned to Union Carbide Corporation.)
134. David 1. Mohilner, Norman Hackerman end A. J. Bard, Anal. Chcm. 39, l499-150l (1967
"On Derivation and Application of' Linearized Current-Potential Characteria±ic.'
135. Marcellus T. Coltharp and Norman Hackerman, 4~. Phys. Chem. 22, 1171-77 (1963).
`The Surf'ace of' a Carbon with Sorbed Oxygen on Pyrolysis."
136. Larry G. Spears and Norman Hackerman, J. Electrodhem. Soc. fl~, 452-56 (1968).
"The Electrolysis of' kmnon.ium Bif'luoride in Anhydrous Hydrogen Fluoride."
137. Koji Kawasaki and Norman Hackerman, Surface Sci. IQ, 299-302 (1968).
`On the Variation of Surface Conduction Current of' Porous Vycor Glass by the
Adsorption of' Water Vapor."
138. Takao Murakawa, Toshiharu Kato, Shigeo Nagaura and Norman Hackerman, Ccrrosio~
Sci. ~, 341-347 (1968). "Diff'erential Capacity vs. Electrode Potential
Curves for Fe-HC1O4 in the Presence of' Organic Anions."
139. Larry G. Spewra and Norman Hackerman, Rev. Sci. Instr. 3~, 688-89 (1963).
"Low Temperature ir Cell for Studies Using Anhydrous HF as a Solvent."
PAGENO="0053"
49
140. Tak~o Muriknwn~ Toshiharu Kato end Norman Heckorman, Corrocion Sci. 433-
435 (1968). `A Transition State of Corrosion Inhibition Mechanism froc
Adsorption to Film Forming."
141. Takao ilurakawa, Toshiharu Kato, Shigao Nagaura andNorman Hackerman, Corroaica
Sci. ~, 483-89 (1968). "A Contribution to the Undorstanding of' The Syn-
ergistic Effect of Anions for the Corrosion Inhibition of Fe by Amincs."
142. Larry G. Spears and Norman Hackerman, J. Gas Chromatography ~, 392-93 (1950).
"Analysis of F2, HF, NF3, t-N2F2 , and N2F4 Mixtures by Gas Chromato~ra~y.
143. P. E. Hudson, E. S. Snavely, Jr., J. S. Payne, L. D. Fiel and Norman Hackarmar:
Corrosion 2~, 189-96 (1968).
"Absorption of Hydrogen by Cathodically Protected Steel."
144. David Jones and Norman Hackerman, Corrosion Sd. ~ 565-572 (1968).
"The Corrosion of Fe in the NH4NO3-NH3-H20 System."
145. Kunitsugu Ararnaki and Norman Hackerman, J. Electrochem. Soc. iL~, 1007-13 (1953).
"Structure Effects of' Many-Membered Polymethyleneimine on Corrosion In-
hibition."
146. Katsumi Kanzaki Niki and Norman Hackerman, J. Phys. Chem. 2~, 1023-29 (1969).
"The Effect of Normal Aliphatic Alcohols on Electrode Kinetics."
147. Kunitsugu Ararnaki and Norman Hackerman, J. Electrochem. Soc. 11~, 568-74 (1969).
"Inhibition Mechanism of Medium-Sized Polymethylenaimine."
148. Norman Hackerman, Chimie et Ind.-Genie Chim. 1.Q.~, 532-39 (1970).
"Inhibition de is corrosion des metaux par las composes organiques.
Structure moleculaire et sorption."
149. Keh-Chi Tsai and Norman Hackerman, J. Electrochem. Soc. .U.~, 28-36 (1971).
"Effects of Amides on the Passivation of Iron."
150. K. K. Niki, Y. Okuda, T. Tomonari, E. Buck and Ncrman Hackerman, Electrochirn.
Acta j~, 487-93 (1971). "The Determination of Kinetic Parameters from
Potential-Step Measurements with a Digital Computer."
151. Erwin Laengie and Norman Hackerrnan, J. Electrochem. Soc. .U~, 1273-78 (i9?i).
"Electrode Behavior of Iron in 2M HC1 Containing Oximes or ~inuc1iciine.5
152. R. Narayan and Norman Hackerman, J. Electrochem. Soc. ~ 1420
(1971). "Adsorption of Thiourea and Derivatives at the
In-Hg Electrolyte Interface."
153. Norman Hackerman, .7. Chem. Ed. 48, 643 (1971).
"Chemistry Instruction in the 70's."
PAGENO="0054"
50
- 11 -
154. K. K. Niki and Norman Hackerman, J. Electroanal. Chem.
32, 257 (1971). `~Effect of n-Amyl Alcohol on the
Electrode Kinetics of the v(II)/v(Iii) and Cr(II)/
Cr(III) Systems.
155. H. Vaidyanathan and Norman Hackerman, Corros. Sci. 11,
737 (1971). "Effectof Furan Derivatives on the
Anodic Dissolution of Fe."
156. H. Vaidyanathan and Norman Hackerman, Electrochim. Acta 16,
2193-2199 (1971). Further Aspects of the Differential
Capacitance of Iron."
157. E. McCafferty and N. Hackerman, J. Electrochem. Soc. 119,
146-154 (1972). "Double Layer Capacitance of Iron
and Corrosion Inhibition with Polymethylene Diamines."
158. D. Larkin, N. Hackerman et al., J. Electrochem. Soc. 119,
189-191 (1972). "Liauid Ammonia as a Non-Aaueous
Solvent: The Kinetics of m/m+2 Exchange."
159. E. McCafferty and N. Eackerman, J. Electrochem. Soc. 119,
999-1009 (1972). "Kinetics of Iron Corrosion in
Concentrated Acidic Chloride Solutions."
160. K. Ogura and N. Hackerman, Electrochim. Acta 17, 1717-1722
(1972). "Diffusion of Cations in the AnoaTc Oxidation
of Metals: Numerical Calculations."
161. Norman Hackerman, Science 175, 475 (1972). "The Future
of Graduate Education, If Any."
162. Norman Hackerman, Science 179, 1081 (1973). "Enclaves
of Pluralism: The Private Universities."
163. Norman Hackerman, Corrosion 29, 85 (1973). "Science
and Technology in the Service of Society."
164. l4arcellua T. Coltharp and Norman Eackerman, J. Colloid
Interface Sci. 43, 176-184 (1973). "Heterogeneity in
Solution Adsorp~Ton: Edge Carbon and Oxide Coverages
I. Methanol-Benzene."
165. Marcellus T. Coltharp and Norman Hackerman, J. Colloid
Interface Sci. 43, 185-189 (1973). "Heterogeneity in
Solution Adsorp~Ton: Edge Carbon and Oxide Coverages
II. n-Butanol-Benzene."
PAGENO="0055"
51
- 12 -
166. Charles D. Thompson and Norman Hackerman, Corrosion Science 13,
317-324 (1973). "Effect of Nitriles on the Polarization
of Iron in l.ON Nd."
.167. Charles D. Thompson and Norman Hackerman, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 44,
1029-1030 (1973). "Apparatus to Measure Hydrogen Evo1uti~n
from Corroding Metals."
168. Kotaro Ogura and Norman Hackerman, J. Electrochem. Soc. 120,
1638-1644 (1973). "The Transient Behavior of Passivated
Iron under Cathodic Potential Pulsing."
169 * Norman Hackerman, Science 183, 907 (1974). "Ignorance as the
Driving Force."
PAGENO="0056"
52
The CnAnn~rAx. Dr. Cobb.
STATEMENT OP JEWEL PLUMMER COBB, PH. D., LL.D., D. SC., OP
CONNECTICUT, TO BE A MEMBER OP THE NATIONAL SCIENCE
BOARD
Dr. COBB. I am very pleased to be here as the third generation of a
family devoted to science: my grandfather was a pharmacist, my
father was a physician, and I am a biologist.
It is a great pleasure indeed to have the privilege to serve on the
National Science Board.
I see my particular role as one that involves the scientist as well as
the educator. I am very much interested in training and bringing into
the mainstream those human resources we have in America to enlarge
upon the talents for science, the improvement of science, and of course
the progress of human welfare.
I particularly feel strongly about the area of health and about the
area of education. I would hope that these two areas combined with
the continued interest in basic research (as an area for charting un-
known courses about which we cannot now predict future value) be
continued and supported. I see my particular role as an important one,
and certainly for me a very exciting one.
The CnAIR~IAx. Thank you very much, Dr. Cobb.
A copy of Dr. Cobb's biographical sketch will be included at this
point in the record.
[The information referred to follows:]
PAGENO="0057"
53
CURRICULUN VITA
Jewel Plumrner Cobb, Ph.D., LL.D., D.Sc.
Dean of the College and
Professor of Zoology
Connecticut College, New London, Connecticut 06320
Business
Address: Office of the Dean
(Fanning 202)
Connecticut College
New London, Connecticut 06320
Phone: (203) 442-5391, Ext.241
Birthdate: January 17, 1924
Fields of Specializati4t~j
Tissue culture of mammalian normal and neoplastic cells.
Cytological effects produced in vitro by cancer cheaotherapeutic agents.
Cytological effects of hormones following direct cell exposure.
Factors influencing growth and morphology of the normal and abnormal
pigment cell.
Academic Background:
University of Michigan:
Talladega College:
New York University:
New York University:
Graduate work in cell
Doctor M. J. Kopac.
Master'a Thesis: "Effect of Several Aromatic Amidines on the
Respiration and Aerobic Metabolism of
Yeast Cells."
Doctorate: "Mechanisms of Pigment Formation."
Home
Address: 740 Williams Street
New London, Connecticut 06320
Phone: (203) 442-7334
1941-1942.
1942-1944. A.B. degree.
1944-1947. M.S. degree in Cell Biology.
1947-1950. Ph.D. degree in Cell Biology.
physiology under the direction of
PAGENO="0058"
54
-2-
Research Experienc~
1949: Summer spent at Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Role,
Massachusetts, as an independent investigator working on
initotic inhibition in Arhacia eggs.
1950 to 1952: Post-doctorate Fellow, National Cancer Institute working
at the Harlem Hospital Cancer Research Foundation in
New York City, "Cytological and Histochemical Studies of
Human Cancer Cells in Tissue Culture in the Presence of
a Series of Drugs."
1953 to 1955: Research Grant, National Cancer Institute, "Production of
Melanin in vitro using Tissue Cultures of Amelanotic
Tumors."
1955 to 1958: Research Grant, National Cancer Institute, "Factors
Influencing Normal and Abnormal Pigment Cell Growth."
This study was continued up to and including the
year 1964.
1955 to 1960: Head of the tissue culture lab of the cancer research
group of Fourth Surgical Division of New York University
Post-Graduate College of Medicine (later changed to
third division).
Major area of lab studies: The in vitro effects of
several newly synthesized promising chemotherapeutic
agents against cancer, using human neoplastic tissues.
This work was conducted in conjunction with a clinical
chemotherapy program.
Growth characteristics and cytology of rare human tumors
with reference to modulation phenomena occurring
in vitro.
Warburg respirometer studies of oxygen consumption,
respiratory quotients, glucose utilization and aerobic
and anaerobic glycolysis of the human neoplastic cell
line, Hela.
1960 to 1969: Studies of hormonal factors invluencing the growth and
melanization in vitro and in vivo of the Cloudman 5 91
mouse melanoma. U.S.P.H.S. Research Grants.
Studies of induced tolerance of melanoma to a foreign
host strain. Determination of optimal nutritive
requirements of the S 91 melanoma in organ culture.
U.S.P.H.S. Grants.
Head of cell biology laboratory, in the biology depart-
ment, Sarah Lawrence College.
PAGENO="0059"
55
-3-
Current Research Activities (continued):
1969 to -- : Director, cell biology laboratory, Zoology department,
Connecticut College.
Research Grant (1969-1974), National Cancer Institute,
Public Health Service: Helanogenesis and Growth of
Pigment Cells In Vitro.
Research Grant (1971-1973), American Cancer Society:
Direct Hormone Action on Human and Mouse Melanoma in
Tissue Culture.
Teaching Experience:
Undergraduate college credits in Education: thirty semester hours.
1945 to 1950: Teaching Fellow, Biology Department, Washington Square
College, New York University.
1952 to 1954: Instructor in Anatomy, University of Illinois College
of Medicine. Organized and directed the Tissue Culture
Laboratory of U. of I. Taught histology, and organized
and conducted a graduate course in the laboratory and
theory of tissue culture as a research technique.
1955 to 1956: Instructor in Research Surgery, New York University
Post-Graduate Medical School.
1956 to 1960: Assistant Professor of Research Surgery at seme medical
school.
1956 to 1957: Visiting Lecturer, Hunter College, in Research Associates
Program for M.S. degree. Taught first lab and lecture
course on Tissue Culture.
1960 to 1969: Professor, Biology Department, Sarah Lawrence College,
Bronxville, New York; senior member and tenured.
1969 to -- : Dean of the College and Professor of Zoology,
Connecticut College, New London, Connecticut.
PAGENO="0060"
56
-4-
Awards:
Teaching Fellowship, Biology Department, New York University,
1945-1950.
Post-Doctorate Fellowship, National Cancer Institute, 1950-1952.
N.Y.U. Alumni Key Pin Award for scholarship as outstanding woman
alumna of 1952, Graduate School of Arts and Science, New York
University.
Elected to Sigma Xi, National Honorary Science Society, 1952.
University of Illinois Achievement Award, 1953-1954. "Cinemato-
graphic Studies of Human and Mouse Neoplastic Cells in Tissue
Culture."
Elected a Fellow of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1965.
Member of Sigma Delta Epsilon, national women's scientific
fraternity.
Awarded travel grant by the National Science Foundation as United
States Scientist to the 7th International Cancer Congress in
London (1958) and to the 8th Congress in Moscow (1962).
Sabbatical leave spring semester 1967 spent doing research at the
Laboratory Internazionale di Genetica a Biofisica (International
Lab of Genetics and Biophysics) on cancer viruses, (specific
genetic studies on polyoma virus). Awarded special Research
Fellowship by the National Institutes of Health to support this
work in Naples, Italy, for a seven-month period. Held from
February 1 to September 1, 1967.
Who's Who in America.
Who's Who in American Science.
Honorary Doctorate of Laws degree awarded at May, 1971 Commencement,
Whaaton College, Norton, Massachusetts.
Who's Who Among the Women in the Nation--American, 1972-73 Edition.
Honorary Doctorate of Science degree awarded at June, 1972
Coiranencement, Lowell Technological Institute, Lowell, Massachusetts.
PAGENO="0061"
57
Other Educationally Related Activities
1. Biology course designed and taught as part of National Science
Foundation In-Service Institute for High School Science Teachers
held at Sarah Lawrence College 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, and 1964.
2. Science Advisory Board in 1960 for planning of nev Mt. Vernon High
School.
3. Directed Undergraduate Research Participants Program of National
Science Foundation at Sarah Lawrence College, 1962-1966.
4. Woodrow Wilson Fellowship Nominating Committee, Region II, from
1964 to 1970.
5. Author of Partners in Education program, a teacher-assistant program
for junior high school underachievers, where college students will
combine their talent with classroom needs to inspire, lead, guide,
and help this age group.
6. Trustee, Hartt College of Music, Hartford, Connecticut. 1969-1972.
7. Board of Regents, University of Hartford, Hartford, Connecticut.
1969-1972.
8. Board of Trustees, The Institute for Educational Management. 1973-
9. Board of Directors, American Conference of Academic Deans. 1972-73.
10. Evaluation Committee, New England Association of Schools and Colleges.
11. Developer and Director of Fifth Year Post Baccalaureate Pre-Med
Program for minority students at Connecticut College, New London,
Connecticut.
12. Consultant to the Director of the National Institutes of Dental
Research and Member of National Advisory Dental Research Council,
Department of Health, Education and Welfare. 1972-
13. Commission on Academic Affairs, American Council on Education,
Washington, D.C. l973
14. Member of the Corporation, Marine Biological Institute, Woods Hole,
Massachusetts. 1972-
15. Board of Directors, American Council on Education, Washington, D.C.,
1973-1976.
16. Board of Directors, Educational Policy Center, New York, New York.
17. Ford Foundation travel and study grant to publish proceedings of a
1973 New England college conference of university and college
administrators from institutions with significant increases in black
students over the past five years.
18. Member Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences, 1974
PAGENO="0062"
58
-.6 -
Other Educationally Related Activities (continued)
19. Committee on Opportunities for Women and Minorities in Science
of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
W.ashington, D.C. 1973-
20. National Science Board, policy-making body of the National
Science Foundation, Washington, D.C. 1974-
Public Service:
1. Education Committee, Tissue Culture Association. 1972-
2. Advisory Board, Mohegan Community College, Norwich, Connecticut.
3. Incorporator of Lawrence and Memorial Hospitals, New London, Connecticut.
4. Board of Directors, Family Services, New London, Connecticut.
5. Board of Directors, The National Center for Resource Recovery, Inc.
Washington, D.C.
6. Conservation Cossnittee, City of New London, Connecticut, 1970-71.
7. State of Connecticut Health and Educational Facilities Authority--
a~body politic and corporate of the state constituting a public
instrumentality.
8. Board, 21st Century Foundation.
9. Advisory Committee, Southeastern Region, Hartford National Bank and
Trust Company.
Memberships:
New York Academy of Science
Tissue Culture Association
American Association for Cancer Research
American Society for Cell Biology
American Association for Advancement of Science
Sigma Delta Epsilon
Sigmi Xi
International Union Against Cancer
American Conference of Academic Deans
American Association of University Women
American Association of University Professors
PAGENO="0063"
59
publications:
1. The effect of triethylene melamine, aureomycin, and some 4-amino
derivatives of folic acid on tissues in vitro. G. Antikajian,
L.T. Wright, .J.Plunmier, and S.Weintraub. 3. Nat. Canc. Inst.
12: 269-274, 1951
2. The in vitro effects of A-methopterin. J.Plummer. Blood VII,
Supplement, Jan. 1952.
3. Triethylene melamine in vitro studies. I. Nitotic alterations produced
in chick fibroblast tissue cultures. Cancer Res. 12: 796-800.
J.Pluxnmer, L.T. Wright, G.kntikajian and Si~Teintraub, 1952.
4. Triethylene melainine in neoplastic diseases. Acta Hematol, 8: 122.
A.Prigot, .J.C.Wright, J.Plummer, and L.T. wright, 1952.
5. The in ~ production of pigment granules: ~gment Cell Growti~.
Academic Press, Inc., New York, N.Y. J.Plununer and M.J.Kopac, 1953.
6. The in vivo and in vitro effects of cheinotherapeutic agents on human
neoplastic diseases. J.C.Wright, J.I.Plursmer, R.S.Goidan, and
L.T.Wright. Harlem Hospital Bull., VI: 58-63, 1953.
7. Human bladder neoplastic cells in tissue culture. J.P.Cobb, J.H.Kiefer,
and H.Woods. 3. Urology, 73: 1039-1044, 1955.
8. Tissue culture observations of the effects of chemotherapeutic agents
on human tumors. J.P.Cobb. Trans. N.Y. Acad. Sci., 17: 237-249, 1955.
9. Effect of in ~ X-irradiation on pigmented and pale slices of
Cloudinan S9l mouse melanoma as measured by subsequent proliferations
j~yj~. J.P.Cobb. 3. Nat. Canc. Inst., 17: 657-666, 1956.
10. Evaluation of variation in transplantability and growth of pigmented
and pale fragments of the Cloudman S9l mouse melanoma following
X-irradiation in vitro. J.P.Cobb. Proc. Amer. Assn. Canc. Res.,
2: 10, 1955.
11. The effect of triethylene thiophosphoramide on fifty patients with
incurable neoplastic diseases. J.C.Wright, P.Foster, B.Billow,
S.L.Guxnport, and J.P.Cobb. Cancer, 10: 239-245, 1957.
12. Investigation of the relationship between clinical and tissue response
to chetnotherapeutic agents on human cancer. J.Wright, J.P.Cobb,
S.L.Gumport, F.N.Golomb, and D.Safadt. New England 3. Med.,
257: 1207-1211, 1957.
13. Effect of Actinomycin D on tissue cultures of normal and neoplastic
cells. J.P.Cobb and D.G.Walker. 3. Nat. Canc. Inst., 21: 263-277, 1958.
14. Observations on the action of triethylene thiophosphoramide within
individual cells. J.P.Cobb, D.C.Wafler, and J.C.Wright. Acta of VII
International Cancer Congress, 1960.
PAGENO="0064"
60
8-
Publications (continued):
15. Studies on a craniopharynioma in tissue culture. J.P.Cobb and
J.C.Wright. J. Neuropath. and Exper. Neurology, 18: 563-568, 1959.
16. Chemotherapy of disseminated carcinoma of the breast. J.C.Wright,
J.P.Cobb, F.M.Goloinb, S.L.Gumport, D.Lyall, and D.Safadi.
Ann. Surgery, 150 (2), 1959.
17. The comparative cytological effects of several alkylating agents on
human normal and neoplastic cells in tissue culture. J.P.Cobb.
Annals of New York Academy of Sciences, 84: 513-542, 1960.
18. Comparative chemotherapy studies on primary short-term cultures of
human normal, benign, and malignant tumor tissues--a five year study.
J.P.Cobb, D.G.Walker. Cancer Res., 21: 583-590, 1961.
19. Effect of heterologous, homologous, and autologous serums on human
normal and malignant cells in vitro. J.P.Cobb and D.G.Walker.
.7. Nat. Canc. Inst., 27: 1-15, 1951.
20. Studies on human melanoma cells in tissue cultures. I. Growth character-
istics and cytology. J.P.Cobb and D.G.Walker. Canc. Res., 20: 858-867,
1960.
21. The chemotherapy of human solid tumors by perfusion techniques.
F.M.Goloinb, J.C.Wright, J.P.Cobb., S.L.Gumport, A.Postel, and D.Safadi.
Proc. Amer. Assoc. Canc. Rca., 3, 1960.
22. Further investigation of the relation between the clinical and tiesue
culture response to chemotherapy agents on human cancer. .LC.Wright,
~.P.Cobb, S.L.Gunport, D.Safadi, D.G.Walker, and F.M. Golomb.
Cancer, 15: 284-293, 1962.
23. In vitro selection of chemotherapeutic agents for perfusion therapy of
human cancer. F.M.Golomb, .J.P.Cobb, D.G.Walker, and J.C.Wright.
Surgery, 51: 639-644, 1962.
24. Studies on human melanoma cells in tissue culture. II. Effects of
several cancer chemotherapeutic agents on cytology and growth.
J.P.Cobb and D.G.Walker. Acta Union Internationale Contre Le Cancer.,
XX: 206-208, 1964.
25. Melanin mobilization in cultured Cloudman S9l mouse me1anocy~es.
C.M.Nadolney and J.P.Cobb. Excerpta Medica. Tissue Culture Meetings,
1964.
26. Significance of large molecular protein molecules in the nutrition of
mouse melanoma organ cultures. J.P.Cobb and E.S.Rose. Excerpta
Medica, Section I, Vol. 19, No. 10, 1965.
27. Time lapse cinematography in Medical Research. .J.P.Cobb and D.G.Walker.
Bolex Magazine, 1966.
PAGENO="0065"
61
-9-
Publical~~ (continued)
28. Cytological studies on human melanoma cells in tissue culture following
exposure to five chemotherapeutic agents. J.P. Cobb and D.C. Walker.
Cancer Chemotherapy Rpts., 52: 543-5552, 1968.
29. Environmental influences on the growth of Cloudxnan S9l mouse melanoma
in organ culture. J.P. Cobb. Proc. Oral Res. Seminars 1967/1968.
30. Article by J. P. Cobb, The j~g~ of the Black Experience on ~j~~gr Educatj.on
in New England. (An occasional paper of the School of Education,
University of Connecticut, and edited by Glenn C. Atkyns): 100-115, 1969/1970.
31. S91 mouse melanoma sublines following total in ~ versus alternate
in ~ passages. Jewel P. Cobb and Anne McGrath. J. Nat. Canc. Inst.
48:885-891, 1972.
32. "I am Woman, Black, Educated." Article in Hartford Courant, February 4,
1973.
33. In yj~~ effects of melanocyte-stimulatiTts hormone, adrenocorticotropic
hormone, l7P-estradiol, or testosterone propionate on Cloudman 591
mouse melanoma cells. Jewel P. Cobb and Anne McGrath. J. Nat. Canc. Inst.
52:567-570, 1974.
34. "The Morni~g After--A Retrospective View of a Select Number of Colleges
and Universities with Increased Black Student Enrollment in the Past Five
Years." The report of a conference at the University of Connecticut,
Storrs, April 30, 1973. Edited by Jewel Pluanner Cobb and Carolyn McDew.
Library of Congress Cat. Card No.: 74-79612. 1974
July 1974
References on file at:
New York University Placement Services
Education Division
10 Washington Place - Roots 200
New York, New York 10003
Telephone: (212) 598-2961
Mr ~ M R,irlcpv fl1r~'t~r
40-498 0 - 75 - 5
PAGENO="0066"
62
The CHAIRi%IAX. Senator Kennedy, we are running through the panel
here in capsule form getting to know members of the Foundation
better. They are giving just a brief statement of their view of their
role.
We have reached Dr. Shields.
STATEMENT OF L. DONALD SHIELDS, PH. D., OF CALIFORNIA, TO
BE A MEMBER OF THE NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD
Dr. SHIELDS. Mr. Chairman, Senator Kennedy, I am very pleased
for the opportunity to be nominated to the National Science Board.
My particular interests over the years have been in the areas of basic
science and basic science research. I have also been particularly inter-
ested in applied research and more recently in sčience education.
I appreciate the opportunity, particularly in the applied science
area and in the science education area, to participate in a policymaking
board.
I represent a segment of higher education which educates about 25
percent of the young people in the colleges and universities today, and
about 50 percent of the young people who enter teaching at the ele-
mentary and secondary level.
I have particular interests in the latter two areas.
The CHAnu~rAx. Thank you, Dr. Shields.
A copy of Dr. Shield's biographical sketch will be included at this
point in the record.
[The information referred to follows:]
PAGENO="0067"
63
cdifornia state university fullerton
fullerton, california 92634
office of fhe president VI T A
L. DONALD SHIELDS
President and Professor of Chemistry
California State University, Fullerton
Education:
B. A., Chemistty, University of California, Riverside, 1959
Ph. D., Chemistry, University of California, Los Angeles, 1964
Administrative Positions Held:
President, CSUF, May, 1971--present (appointed at age 34 as the youngest
president of a major state university in the U.S.A.)
Executive Committee, Council of Presidents, California State University
and Colleges System, September, 1973--present
Acting President, CSUF, October, 1970 - May, 1971
Vice President for Administration, CSUF, 1967-70
Chairman, CSUF Faculty Council, 1967
Assistant to the Chancellor (School Relations), University of California,
Riverside, 1955-57
Academic Positions Held:
Professor of Chemistry. CSUF, 1967- -present
Visiting Professor of Chemistry, UCLA, Summers 1964-67
Associate Professor of Chemistry, CSUF, 1966-67
Assistant Professor of Chemistry, CSUF, 1963-66
Government and Industry Positions Held:
Consultant to California State Senator Dennis E. Carpenter for Review of
the California Master Plan for Higher Education, 19 72-73
Consultant to the National Science Foundation, 1970
Consultant to California State Senator John L. Harmer for Legislation In
Support of Research in the California State Colleges, 1968-69
Chemist. United States Department of Agriculture, Riverside, California,
Summers 1958-59
Research Chemist, Kelco Company, San Diego, California, Summers 19 55-57
the california state university and colleges
PAGENO="0068"
64
VTT.A -- L. DONALD SHIELDS - 2 -
Honors:
Orange County Press Club Award, 1973 Headliner of the Year In
Education,' May, 1974
Distinguished American Award - National Football Foundation and Hall of
Fame, Orange County Chapter, April, 1974
California State Jaycees Award--One of California's Five Outstanding
Young Men of 1970, "April, 1971
California State Legislature Distinguished Teaching Award, CSUF, 1965
Sigma Xi Membership (Honorary National Science Fraternity), 1963
du Pont Teaching Fellowship, UCLA, 1961-62
Phi Lambda Upsilon Membership (Honorary National Chemistry Fraternity), 1961
Graduate Teaching Assistant Fellowships at UCLA, University of Illinois,
and USC, 1959
Watkins Award (Outstanding Graduating Senior Award) UCR, 1959
California Club Membership (Honorary ~tatewide student society, membership
by invitation from the President of the University of California), 1956
Four Year Academic Scholarships to Stanford University and UCR, 1954
Directory Listings:
American Men of Science, 11th Edition
Leaders in Education, 4th Edition
Who's Who in American College and University Administration, 19 70-71
Who's Who in California, 9th Edition
Professional Publications:
Modern Methods of Chemical Analysis, 2nd Edition, John Wiley and Sons,
New York, in preparation.
Modern Methods of Chemical Analysis, John Wiley and Sons, New York,
1968, Tokyo Kagaku Dozin Co., Ltd., Tokyo, 1971, Editorial Limusa,
Mexico, 1973.
Analytical Methods of Organic and Biochemistry, John Wiley and Sons,
New York, 1966.
"Complexes of Chromium (II) with Diethylenetriamine and Triethylene-
tetramine, "Inorganic Chemistry, Volume 4, No. 4, 1965.
"Complexes of Chromium (II) and (III) with Ethylenediaminetetraacetic
Acid, "Inorganic Chemistry, Volume 3, No. 1, 1964.
"A Method for the Determination of Equilibrium Sulfur Pressures of
Metal Sulfide Reactions," Economic Geology and the Bulletin ~
the Society of Economic Geologists, Volume 57, No. 7, 1962.
"Chelates of Cadmium with Kojic Acid," Journal of the American Chemical
Society, Volume 83, 1961.
PAGENO="0069"
65
VJTA - - L. DONALD SHIELDS - 3 -
Profess ional Activities:
Speaker, 1973 Annual Meeting, National Council of Colleges of Letters
and Science, Scottsdale, Arizona, `Management Systems In Higher
Education"
Speaker, 1973 Conference On California State University and Colleges
Chemistry Programs, San Francisco, California, "The Future of
Graduate Programs in the California State Universities and Colleges"
Speaker, 1973 Annual Meeting, Auxiliary Organizations Association of the
California State University and Colleges, Pomona, California, "Part-
j~ers for the Future"
Speaker, 1972 National Meeting of the National Center for Higher Education
Management Systems (NCHEMS), Denver, Colorado, "Higher Education
Resource Requirements Prediction Model: A Case Study"
Speaker, 1972 National Meeting of the Association of Collegiate Registrars,
Newport Beach, California, ~New Challenges In Higher Education"
Chairman, Pacific Coast Conference on Chemistry and Spectroscopy, Anaheim,
California, April, 1970
Member, American Association for the Advancement of Science
Member, American Chemical Society
Member, American College Public Relations Association
Member, American Institute of Chemists
Community Activities:
Chairman, Disneyland Community Service Awards Committee, 1973
Member, Town Hall of California, 1972 - present
Member, Orange County Economics Development Council, 1972 - present
Board of Trustees, World Affairs Council of Orange County, 1972 - present
Board of Directors, Orange County Sports Celebrities, 1972 - present
Member, Orange County Chamber of Commerce
Member, Fullerton Chamber of Commerce
Personal Information:
Born: September 18, 1936, San Diego, California
Parents: Mr. and Mrs. Clifford L. Shields, El Cajon, California
Married: Patricia Ann Baldwin, September 1, 1957
Children: Ronald, 1958; Steven, 1960; Cynthia, 1962; and Laurie, 1968
Office Address: California State University, Fullerton
Fullerton, California 92634
Telephone: (714) 870-3456
Home Address: 1010 Eastridge Knoll
Fullerton, California 92635
Telephone: (714) 525-6321
6/28/74
PAGENO="0070"
66
CONGRESS OFTHE~ UNITED STATES -
Charles E. Wiggins
Member of Congress * 25th (New `~W~h~ ~is4ir~bfP&1~74nia
September 13, 1974
Honorable Harrison A. Williams, Jr.
Russell Building #352
Washington, D.C. -
Dear Senator Williams:
L. Donald Shields, President of California
State University, Fullerton, has been nominated
by President Ford to the National Scienca
Board. I understand that you recently held
confirmation hearings on his nomination.
It is a pleasure to endorse Dr. Shields'
appointment. As President of a major
California State University, Dr. Shields will
serve an important role on the National
Science Board which is now unfulfilled.
If confirmed, he will be, I believe, the
only representative from this type of institution.
I have known Dr. Shields for many years, both
as a friend and as President of California
State University. Dr. Shields has held many
responsible positions both in and out of the
academic field and has previously held the
position of ~nsultant to the National Science
Foundation. ia has demonstrated himself to
be highly competent.
ITe is a deserving person and would be a definite
asset to the National Science Board.
Sincerely yours,
CHARLES . UIGGP
Member of Cong
JUDICIARY
SOUSE ADMINISTRATION
SELECT COMMITTEE ON
STANDING COMMITTEES
Ad~th~isNDti~, A~.i.t~H
PATRICK ROWLAND
JOHN E. FOOTE
JOHN E. MERCER
W,.hi~gHN 015~.
119 CANNON HOB
WASHINGTON. D.C.
ZIP 11515
Di~t~iZ OI5~,
BASLER PROFESSIONAL BLDG.
1118 NORTH HARROR BLVD.
FULLERTON, CA. 92635
CEW: lm
PAGENO="0071"
67
The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Rice.
STATEMENT OF DONALD B. RICE, JR., PH. D., OF CALIFORNIA, TO
BE A MEMBER OF THE NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD
Dr. RICE. Mr. Chairman, Senator Kennedy, I am personally deeply
honored to be here and to have this prospective opportunity, because I
see it as a chance to assist with what I consider to be very important
work.
I recall when I was in the Office of Management and Budget some
years ago thinking that the word foundation could well have been
coined for the work of the National Science Foundation. That is one
very appropriate way to think about it, because NSF has provided
much of the support for the research activity which builds the founda-
tion base of knowledge.
I think we are in an age that is requiring, more and more, inter-
disciplinary approaches to problems that our society faces.
The basic science programs of the NSF contribute to the foundation,
the knowledge that is important to all of the areas of our existence.
The applied programs of the NSF try to help to put that knowledge
to work on some real problems. Many of those toughest problems that
our society has to face today require bringing together several dis-
ciplines to work on one problem.
I think it is important to keep in mind the three-part missions of the
Foundation: the basic work, the applied work on real problems, and
educational efforts of the Foundation.
I would hope that the Board can continue to come up with and
provide better policies in all those areas.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Dr. Rice.
A copy of Dr. Rice's biographical sketch will be included at this
point in the record.
[The information referred to follows :1
PAGENO="0072"
68
Donald B. Rice
President of The Rand Corporation since April 1972. Rand is a non-profit,
public service institution which carries out research and analysis on problems
related to national security and the public welfare.
Dr. Rices most recent service prior to coming to Rand was as assistant
director of the U. S. Office of Management and Budget, in the Executive Office
of the President. There he had responsibility for the budgeting, program analysis,
and management improvement activities of 0MB in the areas of agriculture,
atomic energy, commerce, energy, environment, natural resources, public works,
science and technology, space, and transportation.
He currently serves as Member, National Advisory Committee on Oceans
and Atmosphere; Member, National Science Board of the National Science
Foundation (nominated June 1974 subject to Senate confirmation); Director,
Purdue Research Foundation; and Member, Advisory Council for College of
Engineering, University of Notre Dame.
He attended Notre Dome on a Union Carbide scholarship in chemical
engineering, 1957-1961, and received his B.S. in 1961. During his senior
year he was elected to membership in Tau Beta Pi, the national engineering
honorary society. His Army ROTC service resulted in a commission as 2nd Lt.,
USAR upon graduation in 1961. Purdue University awarded him his M.S. in
industrial admnistration the next year, and his Ph.D. in management and
economics in 1965. While pursuing his doctorate, he was a Fo~tI Foundation
doctoral Fellow, 1962-1965, and served as an instructor and research associate
in quantitative methods for management.
From 1965 to 1967, he served as an officer in the U.S. Army attaining
the rank of captain. During that time he held the post of assistant professor
of management at the Naval Postgraduate School at Monterey, California, and
later became acting deputy director for academics of the Navy Management
Systems Center there. In these capacifles he helped develop and teach a
program to train Department of Defense officials in techniques of planning and
analysis. He also taught statistics at the University of California at Santa Cruz
in 1966.
In June 1967, he became director of cost analysir in the Office of the
Secretary of Defense. The following year his responsfb~ities for defense cost
analysis were broadened to include analysis of the economic impact of defense
spending.
PAGENO="0073"
69
He became Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Resource Analysis) in
February 1969, with responsibilities for analysis of cost, manpower and logistics
requirements, for preparation of fiscal guidance issued by the Secretary of
Defense to the military services, and for the coordination of the Department
of Defense's program and budget planning with the National Security Council.
Upon his departure from the Department of Defense to loin the 0MB in
September 1970, Secretary of Defense Melvin R. Laird awarded him the
Meritorious Civilian Service Medal "for his contributions to the increased
effectiveness and capabilities of the U.S. defense program and the management
and efficient use of defense resources.'
He is a member of the American Economic Association, the Institute of
Management Sciences, and the American Association for the Advancement of
Science.
He has contributed articles to Management Sdence_ (`Discrete Optimizing
Procedures for Solving Linear and Non-Linear Integer Programming Problems," `66);
The International Journal of Production Research ("Experimental Determination
of Optimum Operating Conditions," `66); Behavioral Science ("Nature, the
Experimental Laboratory and the Credibility of Hypotheses," `65); and The Armed
Forces Comptroller ("Cost Analysis in the Department of Defense," `69).
Dr. Rice married the former Susan Fitzgerald of Evanston, Illinois, in 1962.
They reside with their sons, Donald, Joseph, and Matthew at 518 Georgina Avenue,
Santa Monica, California 90402.
July 1974.
PAGENO="0074"
70
The CHAIRMAN. We will now receive for* the record the statements
of the two Senators from the State of Nebraska, Messrs. Hruska and
Curtis.
STATEMENT OP HON. ROMAN L. HRUSKA, A U.S. SENATOR PROM
THE STATE OP NEBRASKA
Senator HRUSKA. It is my extreme pleasure today to have with me
Dr. James H. Zumberge, chancellor of the University of Nebraska-
Lincoln. Dr. Zumberge is a very distinguished and deserving nominee
for the National Science Board of the National Science Foundation.
I note with pleasure that another Nebraskan, Clifford Hardin, then
chancellor of the University of Nebraska, served on this board from
1966 until he was appointed Secretary of Agriculture.
Dr. Zumberge is a respected scientist with an international repu-
tation. I am convinced he will make a tremendous contribution to the
Board.
In addition to his duties as chancellor, he is vice president of the
University of Nebraska System and a Nebraska delegate to the task
force on Midwest energy requirements and environmental protection
for 1973-74.
An eminent geologist, Dr. Zumberge is chairman of the Committee
on Polar Research of the National Academy of Sciences, and the U.S.
delegate to the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research of the
International Council of Scientific Unions. He was chief glaciologist
for the U.S. Ross Ice Shelf project in Antarctica for the International
Geophysical Year in 1957-58 and was a recipient of the Antarctic
Service Medal in 1966.
Prior to joining the University of Nebraska, Dr. Zumberge was
dean of the College of Earth Sciences at the University of Arizona,
president of Grand Valley State College of Allendale, Mich., and pro-
fessor of geology at the University of Michigan. He received his
Ph. D. from the University of Minnesota.
I know Dr. Zumberge welcomes the opportunity to serve as a mem-
ber of the National Science Board. I feel the Nation will benefit by
his presence on this distinguished body. His contributions to the field
of science have been many in past years. As a member of the Board he
will be able to continue to play a vital role in the advancement of
science in this country.
It is my pleasure to introduce to you Dr. James H. Zumberge.
STATEMENT OP HON. CARL T. CURTIS, A U.S. SENATOR PROM THE
STATE OP NEBRASKA
Senator CURTIS. Mr. Chairman, I wholeheartedly join my colleague,
Senator Hruska, in supporting the nomination by the president of
Nebraska University Chancellor James H. Zumberge to fill a vacancy
on the National Science Foundation Board.
Nebraska University has found not only an able and capable
administrator in Dr. Zumberge, but a scientific scholar of international
repute as well.
As Senator Hruska pointed out, Dr. Zumberge is chairman of the
Committee on Polar Research of the National Academy of Sciences,
PAGENO="0075"
71
and the U.S. delegate to the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Re-
search of the International Council of Scientific Unions.
As chief glaciologist for the U.S. Ross Ice Shelf project in Antarc-
tica in 1957-58, Dr. Zumberge has achieved national and international
acclaim for his accomplishments and for his writings and lectures on
a mysterious continent most of us will never see.
We are in an era when scientists are groping to the outreaches of
human knowledge to meet the problems of a technological age. Men
such as Dr. Zumberge are equipped to explore and to direct the ex-
ploration of projects aimed at meeting urgent energy requiments,
directing critical medical research, promoting use of the seas and of
space to harness God's gifts for man's needs.
Dr. Zumberge is equal to the task. I feel great pride in commending
him to this committee.
The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Zumberge.
STATEMENT OP JAMES H. ZUMBERGE, PH. D., L.L.D., L.H.D., OP
ARIZONA, TO BE A MEMBER OP THE NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD
Dr. ZTJMBERGE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Kennedy.
I come to this table with a feeling that I have an awesome responsi-
bility. In the 25 years that I have been in the professional world of
science, I have dealt with affairs of the Earth and have learned to
pursue my own scientific interest in geology with great zeal and enthu-
siasm. But I know now that I must take a broader view of the world
of science, and that my own views have to be tempered by more atten-
tion to a total balance of science in the United States.
I therefore am honored if someone thinks I can bring this capability
to the National Science Board with other colleagues around this table.
I have been in the field of Earth studies, and these have taken me
into foreign countries many times where I find that science is the one
common language of those of different philosophical persuasions. I
have the feeling that more and more over the years we may be looking
to this common language as a way of beginning a dialog with people
with whom we have little else in common.
I know that the National Science Foundation over the years has
a role to play in bettering our foreign relations through our science
programs.
I do find it a great thrill to be here and look forward to offering my
services to the Nation in the cause of science if I am confirmed by this
committee.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.
A copy of Dr. Zumberge's biographical sketch along with other
information will be included at this point in the record.
[The information referred to follows:]
PAGENO="0076"
72
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF JAMES H. ZUMBERGE
July 17, 1974
Dr. James H. Zumberge is Chancellor of the University of Nebraska - Lincoln
and Vice President of the University of Nebraska System. He was born in
Minneapolis, Minnesota on December 27, 1923 and is married to the former
Marilyn Edwards of Western Springs, Illinois. Their four children are
currently enrolled in college, Mark at the University of Michigan, Jim at
Cal Tech, joEllen at Arizona State University, and John at the University
of Arizona.
Dr. Zumberge received his Ph.D. degree in 1950 in geology with a minor
in soils from the University of Minnesota. He joined the faculty of the
University of Michigan in 1950 as an instructor and advanced to the rank
of full professor in 1960. From 1950 to 1962 he was a consultant in ground
water and non-metallic deposits in the State of Michigan.
in 1962, Dr. Zumberge was named president of the then new Grand Valley
State College at Allendale, Michigan. That institution was created by the
Michigan State Legislature in 1960 as the tenth state-supported college in
Michigan. It was to have a liberal arts program. Under Dr. Zumberge's
administrative direction, it opened in the fall of 1963 with 225 freshman
students and 15 faculty members. When he resigned the presidency to
return to his academic discipline in August of 1968, Grand Valley State
College had more than 2,000 students and 100 faculty. Its physical plant
was valued at $15 million.
He became director of the School of Earth Sciences at the University of
Arizona in 1968, developing a program which included geology, hydrology,
arid land studies, and dendrochronology. Within three years the school was
elevated to college status with Dr. Zumberge being the first dean. On
February 1, 1972, he left the University of Arizona to become Vice President
of the University of Nebraska System and Chancellor of the University of
Nebraska - Lincoln.
Dr. Zumberge is a veteran of the U. S. Marine Corps having served from
March 24, 1943 to December 27, 1945. He was commissioned a Second
Lieutenant on July 27, 1945.
I-Ic is chairman of the Committee on Polar Research of the National Academy
of Sciences, and the U. S. Delegate to the Scientific Committee on Antarctic
Research of the International Council of Scientific Unions. He was the chief
glaclologist for the United States Ross Ice Shelf Project in Antarctica for the
International Geophysical Year (1957-1958) and was the chief organizer for
three subsequent Antarctic expeditions.
PAGENO="0077"
73
page 2
His awards include the James H. Zumberge Library named in his honor
at Grand Valley State College In 1968, and Cape Zuniberge, Antarctica,
named in his honor in 1962. He was the recipient of the Antarctic Service
Medal in 1961 and received a University of Minnesota Outstanding Alumni
Service Award in 1972. He holds two honorary degrees, an L.L.D. from
Grand Valley State College and an L. H. D. from Nebraska Wesleyan Uni-
versity.
Dr. Zumberge belongs to the following professional organizations: Sigma Xi,
American Association for the Advancement of Science, Geological Society
of America (Fellow), Society of Economic Geologists, American Geophysical
Union, International Glaciological Society, Arctic Institute of North America,
National Association of Geology Teachers, Cosmos Club of Washington, D. C.,
Who's Who, and he served as president of the Michigen Academy of Sciences
in 1967.
He also holds membership in the Navy League, two discussion clubs - - Round
Table and Candlelight, and is an honorary member of Rotary International.
He is a member of the First Plymouth Congregational Church and serves on
its Board of Trustees. He is a director of Bankers Life Nebraska, the Cooper
Foundation, and the Nebraska Farmer Company.
Dr. Zumberge is the author of technical articles, books, and numerous papers
given at national and international meetings. Attached is a listing of his
publications.
PAGENO="0078"
74
PUBLICATIONS or JAMES H. ZUMBERGE
1950
4. Or~4gpf Bedrock Lakes in Northwestern Minnesota (Abstract), GSA Bull. Vol. 61
No;12, p. 1517.
1951
5. Laboratory Manual for Physical Geolggy. W. C. Brown Co., Dubuque, 77 pp.
1952
The Geolo of It sca ~ Park. Mlnn. Conservation Volunteer.
1c~p,~~h Studies on Wamplcj,~_~ Michigan (Abstract), GSA Bull,,VoL63,
p. 1318 (with J.T. Wilson).
The Lakes of Minnesota: their or, ndclassification, Minn. Geol. Survey t:ll. 3
University of Minnesota Press, 99 p.
1953
9. Q~ntitative Studies on Thermal Expansion&Contract~~ fi, Joor n. of
Geology, Vol. 61, No. 4, pp. 374-383 (with J.T. Wilson).
1954
10. Effects of Ice on Shore Development, Proceedings of the 4th Conference on
Coastal EngIneering, pp. 201-205 (with },T. Wilson).
11. A Study of Ice on an Inland La~ Snow Ice and Permafrost Research Pot oblishmont
1948
1.
2.
3.
The Geology of Bemidgi State Park,
Minn. Conservation Vol'~nteer,
Nov. -Dec.,
pp. 17-20.
1949
Pie Geology of Scenic State Park,
Minn. Conservation Voftriieer
(Abstract), Proc. Minn. Acad. Sci.
July-August.
, Vol.
The OrJ,g,in of Minnesota Lakes
pp. 116-117.
0.
7,
8.
Report No. 5, Corps of Engineers, USA, Wilrnette, 111., 78 p. (with J.T.
Wilson and E. Marshall).
40-498 0 - 75 -
PAGENO="0079"
75
1955
12. Glacial Erosion in Tilted Rock Layers, Journ. Geol., Vol. 63, No. 2 (1)55)
pp. 149-158.
.13. Pollen Profiles, Radiocarbon Dating, and Geologic Chronology of the Lake
Michigan Basin, Science, VOi. 121 (Feb. 1955),pp. 309-311
(with J. E. Potzger).
14. Bottom ~ (Abstract), in Institute on Lake Superior
Geology, April 1-2, 1955, unpaged, University of Minnesota
Center for Continuation Study, Minneapolis, 1955..
1956
15. The CajyM~nkatO-V~tderS Prob~g~, GSA Guidebook, Mlnn. Meeting, 1956
pp. 65-81 (with H. E. Wright, Jr.).
16. The Northwestern Part of the Southern Peninsula of Mlchlg~p, Univ. Michigan
Dept. Geology, Friends of the Pleistocene, Midwest Section,
GuIdebook, 36 pp. (wIth S. H. Spurr and W. H. Melhorn).
17. Late Flelstocen~ Features of Cheboygan and Emmet Counties, Michlg~n,
Amer. Journ. of Sci., Vol. 254 (Feb. 1956), pp.96-109
(with S. H. Spurr).
18. Late Wisconsin Chronology of the Lake Michigan Basin Correlated with
Pollen Studies, GSA Bull., Vol. 67 (March 1956) pp. 271-288
(with John E. Potzger).
19. Late Pleistocene History of the Lake Michigan Basj~, Friends of the
Pleistocene, Midwest Sec., Guidebook, 7th Field Conf. ,pp.3-l2.
1957
20. Laboratory Manuajj Phy~ēal Geology, 2nd revised ed., Wm. Brown Co.,
Dubuque, 1957, 77 pp.
21. Land Drainage and the Water Table In Southern Michigan and Northern Indiana,
Papers of the Michigan Academy of Science,Arts, and Letters, 42
(1957), pp. 105-113, 2 figs.
1958
22. Elements of Geolpgy, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., N.Y., 328 pp.
23. PrelIminary Report on the Ross Ice Shelf Deformation ProJ~t, Feb. 1958, In
Symposium on Antarctic Res., Dept. of Scientific and Tndustrlal Res..
Wellington, New Zealand, Feb. 18-22, 1958, pp. 20-27.
PAGENO="0080"
76
24. PrelimInary Report on the Ross Ice Shelf Deformation Project, )uy 1958, ICY
Glaciological Report Series, No. 1, ICY World Data Center fe
Glaciology American Geographical Society, N.Y., pp. IV-l ,13.
25. Preliminafy Report on the Ross Ice Shelf Deformation Project, Sept. 1958, PubI. 47,
LAs sociatlon Internationale d ` Hydrologie Scientifique, Symposium de
Chamonix, Sept. 16-24, 1958, pp. 56-63.
26. StudIes In Sialolethiasis, Annals of Otology, Rhinalogy, and Laryngology, Sept. 1958,
Vol. 67, No. 3, pp. 595-617 (with Blatt, Denning, and Maxwell).
1959
27. Glaciers, World Scope Encyclopedia.
28. Review: Geology of the Great Lakes, by Jack Hough, Amer. Journ. of Sci., Vol. 257,
No. 7, pp. 542-544.
29. Summary of 1959 Geology, World Scope Encyclopedia.
30. Review: The Polar Regions In Their Relation to Human Affa1rs~ by Laurence M. Gould,
Michigan Alumnus Quarterly Review, Aug. 8,1959, p. 367.
1960
31. Deformation of the Ross Ice Shelf Near the Bay of Whales, Antarctica, ICY
Glaclological Report Series No. 3, American Geographical Society,
May 1960, 148 pp. (with M. Giovinetto, R. Kehle, J. Reid).
32. Correlation of Wisconsin Drifts In Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio,
GSA Bull., Vol. 71, pp. 1177-1188.
33. GeologIc Structures of the Ross Ice Shelf, Antarctica, Report of the XXI International
Geologic Congress, PartXXI, 1960, pp. 60-67.
1961
34. The Dynamics of Ice Shelves (abstract), Abstracts of Symposium Papers, Tenth
Pacific Science Congress. Honolulu, Hawaii, p. 321 (with C .W. M.
Swithinbank).
35. Eiementos de Geologla (translation of English version of Elements of G~~9y)
Mexico CIty, 1961, 451 pp.
36. Report of the University Committee on Polar Research, James H. Zumberge,Chairman,
Ann Arbor, 1961, 48 pp.
37. Weathering of a Quartz Diorite at Marble Point, McMurdo Sound, Antarctica, Journ.
of Geol., Vol. 69, No. 3, July 1961 (withW. C. Kelly).
PAGENO="0081"
77
38, Geologic Investigations in Lake Superior, Geotimes, Vol. 6, N. 4, Nt i -Dec. 1911
pp. 10-14 (with Paul Gast).
1962
`39. Problems on the Origin of Lake Superior, Metropolitan Detroit Science Review,
Vol. 23, May Issue, pp. 57-59.
40. A New Shipboard Coring Technique, Journ. Geophysical Research, Vol. 67, ~No. 6,
pp. 2529-2536.
41. Problems on the Origjn of Lake Superior, Proceedings, 5th Conference on Great
Lakes Research, Great L~1'es Researcl Division, Institut~ Science
and Technology, Univ. of Mich., p. 1,39.
42 The Dynamics of Ice Shelves, Antarctic Research, Geophysical Monograph No. 7,
AGU, pp. 197-208 (with C.W.M. Swithinbank).
1963
43. Elements of Geolqgy, 2nd Edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., N.Y. 342 p.
1964
44. Hydrology of Lakes and Swam~, Handbook of Applied Hydrology, Sec. 23,
McGraw-Hill Book Co., N.Y., 33 pp.(wlth John Ayers).
45, J~rlzontal Strain and Absolute Movement of the Ross Ice Shelf Between Ross Island
and Roosevelt Island, Antarctica, 1958-1963, Antarctic Snow and Ice
Studies, Antarctic Research Series, VoL2, AGU, pp. 65-81.
46. Report of the President, Grand Valley Slate C~p~Jgg~: An Account of the l'ormative
Years of a New Liberal Arts College in Michigan, vii end 70 pp.,
14 figs., 2 tables, Grand Valley State College, Allendale. Mich., Sept. 19b4
1965
47. The Ice Shelves, Antarctica, Methuen & Co., Ltd., Chapter 8, pp. 199-200
(with C.W.M. Swithinbank).
48. Pleistocene Geology of Indiana and Michigan, Quaternary of the U.S. Review
volume for V1I Congress, Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, N .J.,
pp. 63-84 (withWm. J. Wayne).
49. Review: Hydrogeoig,gy, by J. B. Lamarck, Geographical Review, Vol. 55, No. 4,
pp. 612-614.
PAGENO="0082"
78
1966
50. Gnolo~ of the Dee~ Basin of Lake Superior (abstract), 9th Conference on Great
Lakes Research, Michigan Technological University, Houghton,
March 1966, p. 6 (with Win. Farrand, J. Parker).
51. Review: Principles of Structural Glaciolo~iy, by P.A. Schuinskii, translated by
David Wraus, American MineraloJist, Vol. 51, No. 5 and 6, pp. 91~_9115.
52. New Bathymetric main of Lake Superior and eeoc geological ismlications (abstract),
Twelfth Annual Institute on Lake Superior Geology, Ray 6-7, 1966,
p. 6 and back covcr (with Win. Farrand, J. Parker).
53. Review: Guidebooks for the 7th International Association for Quatornary Research
(~X~), Nebraska Acadcay of Sciences, Lidcoln, Nb.(i~3,
Gcotiincs, Vol. 11, No. 2, Sept. 1966, pp. 36-37.
~ Review: A Continent for Science: The Antarctic Adventure, by Richard S. Lewis,
Arctic, Journal of the Arctic Institute of N.A., Vol. 19, No. 3,
Sept. 1966, pp. 280-281.
55. Report on Ross Ice Shelf Survey II (RISS II) 1965-66, Antarctic Journal of the
United States, July-August 1966 issue, Washington, D.C., p. 138.
56. Geomorphology of the Floor of Lake Superior (abstract), Program l~66 Annual
Meeting. Geological Soc. America, San Francisco, California, p. 66
(with Wa. Farranci).
1967
57. Laboratory Manual for Physical Geology, Third Edition, W. C. Brown Co.,
Dubuque, 7~ ~1~3 figs. & diags.
58. Today's College Crisis and Grand Valley, The Torch, Vol. 1~0, No. 3, pp. 28-31.
1968
59. Lobes, Lobations, Rheinhold Encyclopedia of the Earth Sciences Series, Vol. III,
Gcor~orphology (ed. Rhodes Fairbridge), pp. 672_67L~.
60. The Michigan Academy - Time for a Change, Seventy-Second Annual Report, The
Michigan Acad. of Sci. Arts & Letters, ed. Robert Martin,
Ann Arbor, Mich., p. L~l_~4l~.
61. The Ice Regino of the Eastern Part of the Ross Ice Shelf Drainage Systan,
International Assoc. of Scientific Wydrology, General Asseably
of Bern 1967, Pub. No. 79, p. 255-266 (with Mario Giovinetto).
62. Review: Etuda.. - Lee Glacdore, by Louis i~.gassiz (English translation by
Aiu,a. V. Carozzi, Hafrier, N.Y., 1967 Journal Geol. Education,
Vol. 16 (Oct. 1968), pp. 1L~9_l5o.
PAGENO="0083"
79
1969
63. Grand Valley State College: Its developmental years. Allendale,
- Michigan, March 1969, 172 p.
64. Ross Ice Shelf Studies, 1969, Antarctic Journal, Vol. IV, No. 5, Sept. -
Oct. 1969, p. 215-216 (with B. M. E. Smith and Anne Fuzesy).
65. A Mid-Wisconsin Peat in Michigan, U. S. A., Polen et Spores, Vol.
11, No. 3, 1969. p. 585-601 (withW. S. Benninghoff).
66. Memorial to Edward Willard Berry (1900-1968), GSA Proceedings
Volume for 1968, November 1969.
1970
67. Memorial to Reynolds McConnell Denning (1916-1967), GSA Proceed-
ings Volume for 1967. January 1970. p. 193-196 (with James T.
Wilson).
68. Review: New Media and College Teaching, edited by James W.
Thornton, Jr., and James W. Brown, The Journal of Higher
Education, May 1970. p. 417-419.
69. Ross Ice Shelf Studies, 1970, Antarctic Journal of the U.S., Vol.
V, No. 5, Sept. -Oct. 1970, p. 153-154.
70. The Need for Environmental Planning: An Overview, Proceedings.
Western Agricultural Economics Association, Corvallis, Ore.,
p. 263-267.
1971
71. Fission or Fusion, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
Transactions on Education, Vol. E-14, No. 1, February 1971,
p. 24-26.
72. Review: International Symposium on Antarctic Glaciological Exploration
(ISAGE) by A. J. Gow, C. Keeler, C. C. Langway and W. F. Weeks
(eds.), Science, v. 171, no. 3969, Jan. 29. 1971, p. 369-370.
PAGENO="0084"
80
73. The Ross Ice Shelf Project (RISP), Antarctic Journal, v. 6, no. 6
6 p. 258-263.
1972
74. Report on the Ross Ice Shelf Project (RJSP), SCAR BULLETIN No.
40, p. 840-844; The Polar Record, v. 16, no. 100, P. 190-194.
75. Review: Research In the Antarctic, Louis Quam and Horace D.
Porter (eds.), 1971, AAAS, Pub. No. 93, Washington, D. C.
768 p., 08 Transactions Amer. Geophysical Union, v. 53,
no. 4, pp. 299-301
76. Elements of Geology, 3rd ed., John Wiley and Sons, New York
(with C. A. Nelson), 431 p.
1973
77. Laboratory Manual for Physical Geology, 4th ed., Wm. C. Brown
Co., Dubuque, Iowa.
78. The Report of the National Water Commissior. and Its Significance
for Irrigated Agriculture in Nebraska, Nebraska Resources,
Winter 1973, No. 10, pp. 10-11.
1974
79. Glaciation - Landforms Produced by, Encyclopaedia Britannica 15th
Edition, Macropaedia, vol. 8, p. 164-177.
80. Camp Michigan, 1957-1972. Antarctic Journal of the U. S. May-june
issue, 1974.
81. The Fortunes of Agriculture and the University, Farm, Ranch, and
Home Quarterly, Summer 1974.
The CiIAIri1~IAN. Doctor Murray.
STATEMENT OP GROVER E. MURRAY, PH. D., OF TEXAS, TO BE A
MEMBER OF THE NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD (Reappointment)
Dr. MUmIAY. Mr. Chairman, Senator Kennedy~ ~i would echo most
strongly tile words of I)i. Hackerinan. my fellow- Texan, who has also
been renonunated, and another meniber of this group, sitting on my
left, Dr. Zumberge.
At the 1e(1UeSt of Senator Kennedy's office, I provided his office with
PAGENO="0085"
81
a statement regarding my attitudes about a national science policy and
activities in that regard. I would ask, with the Senator's permission,
that that statement be entered into the record.
The CHAIRMAN. It will be.
[The statement referred to follows:]
STATEMENT RE NATIONAL SCIENCE POLICY BY GROVER B. MURRAY, PH. D.
I am a firm and strong supporter of the continued development and the clarifi-
cation of a National Science Policy. I believe that the National Science Board
should be charged with assisting the Congress in developing this national policy.
I am an advocate of Federal Government support for both basic scientific research
and applied research. The United States has grown strong and has maintained
its position in world leadership because of its strong universities. Faculties and
students have developed extensive research capaliblities in the various scientific
and engineering disciplines. At this critical period in world history, the United
States cannot afford to decelerate its efforts in scientific research.
I believe that basic scientific and applied research should be conducted both in
universities and in industry. Our Nation needs to place special emphasis on
basic and applied research in all, sources of energy, in food, in the social sciences,
and in the medical sciences. But we must remember that this should not be done
at the exclusion of research in the basic scientific disciplines, since they undergird
all scientific knowledge.
To ensure continued leadership in international research and education, the
strength of the universities in the United States must be maintained. The Nation
needs to continue its obvious on-going commitment to the education and training
of scientists and engineers in numbers necessary to maintain its world position.
The Congress, I believe, should provide guidance, leadership, and the support
vital for scientific growth.
Dr. MURRAY. Thank you, sir.
Briefly, I might say that I serve both as president of Texas Tech
Umversity and as president of the Texas Tech University School of
Medicine. Therefore my vistas have been broadened far beyond the
fields of the Earth sciences.
I believe the National Science Board has responsibility to work with
the Congress to develop a national science policy to insure continued
leadership of our United States in science and technology in the world.
I believe we must place great emphasis on basic research in food and
fiber, energy, oceanography, materials, the social sciences, and the
medical sciences. WTe must insure, through cooperation and work with
industry, that advances resulting from basic research are put into
practice.
It is a great pleasure for me to be renominated to the National Sci-
ence Board, and I would assure the committee that I shall do every-
thing within my pow-er to work with Senators, with Congressmen, and
with the Director of the Foundation, to insure success of the National
Science Foundation.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Dr. Murray.
A copy of Dr. Murray's biographical sketch along with other infor-
mation will be included at this I)oint in the record.
[The information referred to follows:]
PAGENO="0086"
82
GROVER E. MURRAY
President and Professor of Geosciences, Texas Tech University
President,Texas Tech University School of Medicine at Lubbock
University of North Carolina, 1937
Bachelor of Science
Louisiana State University, 1939
Master of Science
Louisiana State University, 1942
Ph.D.
EXPERIENCE:
1937-1938 Teaching Fellow, Louisiana State University
1938-1941 Louisiana Geological Survey (Research Fellow)
1941-1948 Magnolia Petroleum Company
1948-1949 Louisiana Geological Survey, Director of Research
1948-1955 Professor, Stratigraphic Geology, Louisiana State University
1950-1953 Chairman of Department of Geology, Louisiana State University
1949-1966 Consulting Geologist (part-time)
1949-1951, Director of geology field courses for Louisiana State
1961 University and the University of Texas in Louisiana,
Texas, Colorado
1949-1951 Visiting Professor of Geology, University of Texas (summers)
1951-1960 Technical Advisor to Arkansas Fuel Oil Corporation
1953-1954 Consultant to Houston Oil Company of Texas
1955-1966 Boyd Professor of Geology, Louisiana State University
1956-1960, Director, National Science Foundation field studies in
1966 Sierra Madre Oriental and adjacent areas and Parras
Basin in northeastern Mexico
1959-1960 Visiting Geoscience Lecturer with the American Geological
Institute
PAGENO="0087"
83
1962-1966 Technical Advisor, Austram Oil, Ltd. (Australia)
1963-1964 Consultant to Delhi Australian petroleum, Ltd. (Australia)
1963-1965 Vice President and Dean of Academic Affairs, Louisiana
State University
1965-1966 Vice President for Academic Affairs, (Louisiana State
University System)
1966-1967 Consultant to Venezuelan Ministry of Mines and Hydrocarbons
1963-1969 Member, Advisory Committee, International Center for Medical
Research and Training (Costa Rica)
1966- Consulting Professor of Geology, Louisiana State University
1966- President and Professor of Geosciences, Texas Tech University
1969- President, Texas Tech University School of Medicine at
Lubbock
AWARDS:
1971 Distinguished Alumnus Award, University of North Carolina
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS AND ACTIVITIES: (NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL)
1968- 1974 National Science Board (Member)
Geological Society of America (Fellow)
1951-1954 Commissioner to American Commission of Stratigraphic
Nomenclature
1952 Chairman, Symposium of sedimentary Volumes
1955 Chairman, Program Committee. New Orleans Meeting
1955-1958 Program Committee
1959-1960 Chairman, Southeastern Section
1961-1964 Member, Council
1963-1964 Chairman, Committee on Nominations
1963-1968 Associate Editor
1964 Chairman, Committee on Honors and Awards
PAGENO="0088"
84
1964 Chairman, Committee on Penrose Medal
1967 Chairman, Annual Meeting, New Orleans
Society of Economic Pa1eontolog~sts and Mineralogists (Member)
1948-1950 Committee on Members and Papers
1948-1950 Nominating Committee
1952-1954 Editor, Journal of Paleontology
1951-1955 Research Committee, Member
1957-1960 Research Committee, (Vice Chairman, 1957; Chairman, 1958)
1957-1960 Member, Gulf Coastal Section, (Vice President, 1959)
1954-1955 Representative to Paleontological Society Council
1963-1964 President
1964-1965 Past-President and member of Executive Council
1964-1968 Representative to American Geological Institute's House
of Society Representatives
1973 Honorary Member, Gulf Coast Section
American Association of Petroleum Geologists (Member)
1944-1945 Distinguished Lecture Committee
1946-1955 Geologic Na~nes and Correlations Committee; Chairman, 1952-54
1954 Distinguished Lecturer
1955 Emblem Committee
1955-1960 Tectonic Map Committee
1957-1963 Commissioner to American Commission on Stratigraphic Nomenclature
1958-1962 Representative for American Association of Petroleum
and Geologists to House of Society Representatives
1965-1968
1959-1963 Editor of AAPG Bulletin; Member of Executive Committee
1959-1963 Business Committee
1959-1961
Committee on Salt Dome Volume
PAGENO="0089"
85
1963-1965 Voluntary Research Fund Campaign Committee
1964-1965 President
1965-1966 Past President and Member, Executive Committee
1966-1967 Chairman, Nominating Committee
1966-1967 Vice Chairman, Academic Advisory Committee
1966-1967 Executive Advisory Committee
1966-1969 Medal Awards Committee (Chairman, 1968-1969)
1969 Chairman, Annual Meeting, Southwestern Section
1970 Honorary Member
American Commission on Stratigraphic Nomenclature
1951-1954 Commissioner from Geological Society of America
1957-1963 Commissioner from American Association of Petroleum
Geologists
1960-1962 Vice Chairman and Secretary
U. S. National Committee on Geology: 1963-1968, Member, 1964-1968, Chairman
American Society for Oceanography: 1965- 71 , Member, Board of Directors
Gulf Universities Research Corporation
1964-1969 Member, Board of Directors
1965-1966 President and Member of Executive Committee
1966-1967 Chairman of the Board of Directors and Member, Executive
Committee
1967-1969 Member of Executive Committee
1967 Presiding Officer, Symposium on Science and Engineering in
the Gulf of Mexico
American Geo1pg~ical Institute
1965-1968 Representative for Society of Economic Paleontologists and
Mineralogists to House of Society Representatives
PAGENO="0090"
86
1958-1962 Representative to Acerican Geological Institute House of
and Society Representatives
1965-1968
American Association for Advancement of Science, Member
Western Information Network Association, 1967- , Board of Directors
ICASALS, Inc., Board of Governors, 1967-
Organization for Tropical Studies, Inc., 1966-69, Board of Directors
Department of the Interior (U.S.A.) 1967-1969, Marine Resources Advisory
Committee
United Health Foundations, Inc., 1969-1972, Board of Directors
Royal Resources Exploration, Inc., 1969- , Board of Directors
The Antarctican Society, Member, 1970-
American Geophysical Union, Member, 1968-
Society of Exploration Geophysicists, 1963-
National Panel of Arbitrators of the American Arbitration Association, 1964-
Public Affairs Research Institute of Louisiana, 1963-1966
Texas System of Natural Laboratories, Board of Directors, 1967
National Foreign Policy Conference for Educators, Washington, D.C., 1966
Golf Coast Association of Geological Societies
Geoscience News, Senior Editorial Advisor, 1966-1968
World Academy of Art and Science (Fellow), 1967-
Texas Partners of the Americas (with Peru), Board of Directors, 1971-
The Philosophical Society of Texas, Heather, 1971-
National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges
1. Member, Mineral Resources Committee, 1970-
2. Member, Commission on Home Economics, 1971-73
3. Member, Educational Telecommunications Committee, 1971-
4. Member, Liaison Committee, Foundation for the Arts and Humanities
Sigma Xi Sociedad Geologica Mexicana
Sigma Gamma Epsilon Norsk Geologisk Forening (Life Member)
Omicron Delta Kappa Association Mexicana de Geologos Petroleros
Cosmos Club UniversityClub (New York)
Sociedad Cactelogia Mexicana Cactus & Succulent Society of America
PAGENO="0091"
87
Paleontological Research Institute International Commission on Stratigraphy
Paleontological Society National Order of Chad
International Geological Congress, Mexico City, August-September, 1956;
Official Delegate of the State of Louisiana and Official Delegate of
Louisiana State University.
International Geological Congress, Copenhagen, Denmark, August-September, 1960;
Official Delegate of the State of Louisiana, Louisiana State University,
the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, and the Society of Economic
Paleontologists and Mineralogists.
International Geological Congress, New Delhi, India, December, 1964; Official
ii. S. Delegate, Head Delegate from the American Association of Petroleum
Geologists, Official Delegate of the State of Louisiana, and Official
Delegate of Louisiana State University.
International Geological Congress, Prague, Czechoslovakia, 1968; Official
U. S. Delegate.
International Geological Union, Organizing Committee of the Constituent
Assembly of the International Commission on the History of the Geological
Sciences, Yerevan, Armenia (U.S.S.R.), June, 1967; Official Delegate as
Chairman of the U. S. National Committee on Geology; Delegate from Texas
Tech University and the American Association of I5etroleum Geologists.
PUBLICATIONS: STRUCTURAL GEOLOGY; MICROPALEONTOLOGY; STRATIGRAPHY AND
REGIONAL GEOLOGY OF COASTAL PROVINCE; GEOMORPHOLOGY; GEOPHYSICS; SURFACE
GEOLOGY; PETROLEUM GEOLOGY MEXICO, AUSTRALIA, UNITED STATES; EDUCATION
LISTED IN: WORLD WHO'S WHO IN SCIENCE; AMERICAN MEN OF SCIENCE; WHO'S WHO
IN AMERICA; WHO'S WHO IN THE SOIYFH AND SOUTHWHST; DIRECTORY OF CERTIFIED
PETROLEUM GEOLOGISTS OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF PETROLEUM GEOLOGISTS;
DIRECTORY OF CERTIFIED PROFESSIONAL GEOLOGISTS OF THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE
OF PROFESSIONAL GEOLOGISTS; PRESIDENTS AND DEANS OF AMERICAN COLLEGES AND
UNIVERSITIES; LEADERS IN AMERICAN SCIENCE; CONTEMPORARY AUTHORS; WHO' S WHO
IN EDUCATION
Born - Maiden, North Carolina, October 26, 1916
Married to the former Nancy Beatrice Setzer
Two daughters: Martha (Mrs. Wylie Poag) and Barbara Elizabeth
Two granddaughters and one grandson
1974
PAGENO="0092"
88
GEORGE MAHON CHAIRMAN
19TIDAT.. T~o*s COMMITIEEON APPROPRIATIONS
Q1ongrc~ of the ~ntteb ~`tate~
~ou~e of ~epre~entatibe~
~a~bington, ~ 20515
September 12, 1974
Honorable Harrison A. Williams, Jr.
Chairman
Labor and Public Welfare Committee
United States Senate
2226 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, D. C. 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Due to the fact that I had an important pre-conference
meeting on the Defense Appropriations Bill, I was unable
to attend your hearing yesterday regarding confirmation
of nominees to the National Science Board. I had wanted
to be present to testify in behalf of Dr. Grover Murray,
President of Texas Tech University, who has been nominated
f or reappointment to the Board.
I would deeply appreciate your including in your hearings
the attached statement in Dr. Murray's behalf. Thanks
very, very much.
Si rely,
M : pw
Attachment
PAGENO="0093"
89
Mr. Chairman:
I would like to express my stromg interest in the
reappointment to the National Science Board of Dr. Grover
Murray, President of Texas Tech University, in my home
to'~in of Lubbock, Texas.
Dr. Murray, during his time on the National Science
Board, has demonstrated his great ability and intense in-
terest in the field of science through his outstanding
contributions to the success of National Science Foundation
programs. He ha~ been extremely active and most effective
during his tenure on the Board..
Of course, abundant information is available to you
regarding Dr. Murray's outstanding capabilities and quali-
fications for reappointment, but I did want the committee
to know of my great admiration for Dr. Murray and of my
feeling that his eminence as a scientist and an educator
will make his reappointment to the Board highly desirable
from the standpoint of the 2~merican people.
Thank you.
40-498 0 - 75 - 7
PAGENO="0094"
90
The CHAIRMAN. I just have at this point two questions or observa-
tions, and then I would like to turn to Senator Kennedy.
First, there are dangers and wasteful conditions that. exist that we
have to struggle to live with, situations that I would think science
could find an answer to eliminating as far as the danger and the waste
and turning it into energy.
Those of us who live along the coast particularly see the answer to
one of our dangerous and wasteful fallouts of industry, sludge,
dumped off the coast, and it is a killer in the oceans, and maybe it is
going to be closer to shore.
It would just seem to me that applied science could give us an answer
to the sludge problem. which is the fallout of heavy industry.
Unless I am way off on this. the particular is whether science could
productively be applied to changing the nature of sludge.
How would you persons of science relate that to the operations of
Government and make it a priority of interest and see that a program
of scientific effort is urged?
That is a long question. but do you understand the point I have
attempted to make?
Dr. STEVER. Yes: I think these Board members will be exposed to a
number of proposals that work in this field which is part of, I suppose~
the emerging materials crisis or emerging materials problem, and
in a number of our programs this does come up.
In fact, one of the RANN programs used industrial waste in Phil-
adelphia in road construction. It had never been used before. It was
sewage actually, and it was converted and used in road construction.
I forget the figures now, but the amount. for that road base was re-
duced from $16 million, or something like that, down to $3 million.
I am not sure of the figures. but it w-as a very substantial reduction.
So I think science, especially in our applied research area, will meet
many of these problems. but. also in our basic materials science pro-
gram, we will be touching on substitute materials and recycling of
materials.
Maybe Dr. Hackerman would want to speak to that.
Dr. HACKERMAN. That is precisely what I would have said. Recycl-
ing is a trick we certainly have to do more of and better. There is no
doubt about it.
We have to use what is left of our resources now. We must use our
brains to find ways to recycle the things that we use.
This particular example certainly fits very well. It is indeed a ma-
terial that lends itself to production. not only of roadways, but. also
building blocks.
The CHAni~rAx. You who are on the Board and being reappointed
to the Board, what is your opportunity to feed this into the action
1)arts of the Government?
Dr. STEVER. Quite a number.
As you know-, the Congress and the administration have worked
together in the last. 6 years to strengthen the applied science base of
this Foundation, not to divert us away from basic science, but to give
a smoother flow from the basic research to the applied.
The RANN program has established for the Foundation a very close
contact w-ith the mission agencies. All of the RAXX grants-and
PAGENO="0095"
91
this year the budget at RANN will be almost $150 million-make
a requirement on the researcher that the research team will make
contact with the potential users of that applied research.
This is a forcing method of trying to insure the flow of our ideas
right to the user. It is interesting. Sometimes the user will be an
industrial company, sometimes it is a State or local municipal gov-
ernment. Sometimes it is the Federal Government.
I think that the last 6 years has shown an increased conscious
approach to precisely this problem and has forced and encouraged
the NSF to build bridges that are necessary to tape the flow of basic
knowledge.
Again I ask one of the old Board members to comment on how
well we are succeeding in that, but that is a specific objective of the
program.
Dr. MURRAY. Mr. Chairman, I believe the RANN program has been
progressing very well in the Foundation. There was some slowness
at the start, it is true. But as the general scientific and technological
public, and the working people in these areas, have come to under-
stand the purposes of this program, I think interest in participating
in Government stimulation of research in these areas is increasing
substantially.
I note that in the past it has been easier for us to use materials and
to waste the byproducts than it has been to utilize the byproducts.
But those in the environmental and Earth sciences, and those interested
in environmental problems, realize there are finite resources available
to us on planet Earth, and we are hearing the economic limits of
some of our limited resources.
So we must encourage~ either through reasonable legislation or
other incentives, industrial companies and organizations of all kinds
to learn to convert waste into usable products in order to conserve our
total natural resources.
Dr. S1IIEL1s. Mr. Chairman, I would just comment in the area of
chemistry of organic waste significant progress has been made more
recently in conversion to low energy uses, such as methane, and also
progress has been made to convert organic wastes into agricultural
products~ fertilizers in particular.
I think, as Dr. MlTrray has indicated, we all have a much more
active interest and concern about utilizing those resources that we
had just been setting aside.
Dr. HAGKERMAN. I might just say there were two things that were
difficult to deal with when this program started.
One was the unease in the scientific community itself, which was
not used to being tied quite so closely to objectives.
The other was how to go about the doing.
The unease has diminished. It takes a long time to change people's
attitudes, but it has diminished. It has not entirely disappeared.
The methods of going about what you perceive as a need have im-
proved considerably over the last 21/2 years.
I would say from my contact with our program that it is certainly
a very effective program. There may be places which are weak and
they are having difficulty. But., by and large, it is doing a first-rate job.
The question you pose would be cared for very well in that program.
PAGENO="0096"
92
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.
Senator Cranston.
Senator CRANSTON. I just want to say that I am very proud that two
Californians are among this very fine group of nominees to the Na-
tional Science Foundation, Dr. Donald Shields, president of the Cali-
fornia State University at Fullerton, and Dr. Donald Rice, president
of the Rand Corp.
Both have achieved national prominence as leaders in their re-
spective fields.
Dr. Shields, who, when he was appointed as president of one of the
major State universities, was the youngest person to hold that posi-
tion in the Nation, has been a dynamic force in building that univer-
sity to the highly regarded and respected academic stature it holds
today. That achievement has been accomplished in only 3 years. I am
confident that Dr. Shields will bring this same vitality and initiative
to the National Science Board.
Dr. Rice will bring to the Board his broad experience in public
service, both in the Federal Government and the Rand Corp. As assist-
ant Director of the Office of Management~ and Budget, he had responsi-
bility for evaluation and analysis of all Federal programs in areas
related to science.
The CHAIRMAN. As a former comptroller, that does not disturb you
too much.
Senator CRANSTON. No. it does not disturb me at all.
This experience gives him a unique opportunity to grasp the extent
of all Federal activities touching upon the interests of the National
Science Foundation, knowledge which w-ill he invaluable in carrying
out his duties as a member of the National Science Board.
He also served in the Department of Defense with major responsi-
bilities in cost analysis and budgeting.
As President of the Rand Corp., for the past 2 years, Dr. Rice has
been in the vanguard of those organizations which are concerned with
research and analysis on problems affecting scientific development
and the public welfare.
Dr. Rice's strong background in science and in budgeting will make
him an invaluable member of the Board. His qualifications will bring
an essential dimension to the Board's collaborative thinking as this
Nation faces the scientific and the economic challenges of today.
Dr. Shields and Dr. Rice bring to the Board the strength it needs
to be a positive and constructive force in shaping our Nation's future.
I am pleased that two men of their caliber have been nominated, and
I look forward to working with them in the future.
The CHAIR~rAx. Thank you. Senator Cranston.
I will come back to a question later.
I would like to recognize Senator Kennedy.
Senator KENNEDY. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman. Senator Cranston, Dr. Stever, new nominees, and
those who are up for reconfirmation, I want to express my apprecia-
tion for this hearing.
Rather than take your valuable time in reading the statement I pre-
pared I ask unanimous consent that it be entered in the record as if
read.
PAGENO="0097"
93
PREPARED STATEMENT OF Hox. E1wARD M. KENNEDY,
A U.S. SENATOR FROM TIlE STATE OF MASSACIIIJSETI'S
Senator KENNEDY. Today's hearing on the nominations we have re-
ceived from the President for membership on the National Science
Board, gives this committee and the public an excellent opportunity
to examine some of the critical science policy questions which we face
in this Nation. I hope that the nominees will be able to give us their
view on how we can improve the dialog between the scientific com-
munity and the general public, and between the scientific community
and the Congress.
In the 6 years I have served as Chairman of the Special Subcom-
mittee on the National Science Foundation, the Foundation has been
given expanded responsibilities in the area of applied research. We
have seen the Foundation budget double, from $400 million to close
to $800 million. And as this has occurred, there has been an increasing
awareness on the part of the public of the impact and importance
of the Foundation's mission. This has been accompanied by an increas-
ing interest on the part of Members of Congress in the work being
supported by the Foundation-and recent debate on the Foundation's
budget produced both positive comments and suggestions on areas
where the Foundation might improve either its administrative pro-
cedures or the way it allocates funds among competing research dis-
ciplines and proposals.
The two charts we have in the committee room today indicate the
gap which exists between the public's view as to how they would like
their tax dollars for research to be spent and how those funds are
actually allocated in the Federal budget.
The bai graph shows that over 50 percent of Federal research dol-
lars are spent for defense-yet opinion surveys indicate that only 11
percent of the public supports these expenditures, with 30 percent
actually stating that this is the area of research which they least
support.
The bar graph also shows that we are only spending about 10 per-
cent of each Federal research dollar for improving health care; yet
65 percent of the public feels this should be the area of highest priority.
I hope our hearing today will serve to open up the communication
process between members of the Board and those of us in the Con-
gress who are working to improve the effectiveness of the Federal
Government's role in the support of science and technology. I hope
that, when the new members join the Board, they will keep in touch
with us-that they will let us know, both formally and informally, of
areas where the Congress can be helpful in assisting them in fulfilling
their responsibilities. I hope that the new members, as well as present
members, will take an active role in communicating with the public
at large-sharing with all of us their expertise and judgments on the
critical science policy issues this Nation faces.
I look forward to the opportunity to hear the views of the nominees
today on the difficult questions we face here in the Congress in trying
to hold down Federal spending, while at the same time ensuring that
adequate resources are devoted to science and science education. I hope
that the nominees will share. with us their views on legislation that
PAGENO="0098"
94
will be before the committee shortly with regard to the adequacy of
present science advisory mechanisms available to the President.
And of interest to all Members of the Congress, are the views of the
nominees on what contribution the scientific community has, been
making to the amelioration of critical materials shortages; their as-
sessment of steps this Nation should be taking to deal with dwindling
food supplies; to assist in the development of an energy policy which
will assure us the fuel we need, without negating the progress we have
made toward improving the quality of the air we breathe, the water
we drink, and the land which sustains us. And underlying all o,f these
concerns the condition of our economy and our need for the best pos-
sible scientific and technical advice if we are to restore the purchasing
power of the dollar and return this Nation to a ~eriocl of sustamed
economic growth. prosperity, and price stability.
The National Science Board is the only Federal body which has
as its broad charter responsibility for the overall health of science in
the United States. It is a policymaking governing Board; not an
advisory board. It should be at the forefront in looking for, new
ideas and structures to improve the programs of the National Science
Foundation, and the direction oi national science policy.
Senator KENNEDY. This is the first time that we here in the Senate,
have had an opportunity to meet. across the hearing table with nomi-
nees to the National Science Board.
I think this hearing is extremely important, useful, and helpful in
enabling us to exchange views with the Board, not only in meetings
such as this but, hopefully, through direct contacts that may be made
with the Board members by the members of this committee or other
Members of Congress.
I would hope that, as a result of this meeting the Board will realize
our very serious concern about many of the matters which are before
the Board.
You are aware we have a small subcommittee which deals with the
authorization of appropriations for the National Science Foundation,
and I think all of us who serve on that. subcommittee, which I chair,
recognize the very significant importance of this Board.
There are many boards within the Federal Government. Most of
theni are advisory, and a few of them have the power and influence
in the area. of public policy which this Board quite clearly does.
I feel that the American people, our constituents. want us to work
closely with this Board as well as with the. National Science Founda-
tmn. as we focus our attention at the congressional level, as the Presi-
dent does at the executive level, on many problems which aie in the
forefront. of the miiids of the American people.
I think this relationship can be helpful and useful in trying to com-
mi~ mcate some of those concerns to policyrnakers.
There will be obvious areas of agreement. probably some significant
areas of disagreement. but I do not. think those channels have really
been onen in the past. and I am very hopeful. as a result of this meet-
ing and continued work, that we can establish full communication in
the very near future.
PAGENO="0099"
95
Over here, for example, [indicating charts] on the one hand, results
of a poll included in Science Indicators, a report from the National
Science Board. It gives at least some indication about where the Amer-
ican people would like their resources spent in science and technology.
Highest priority was assigned to improving health care, reducing and
controlling pollution, and reducing crime.
Then, on the other chart, we show where the money is actually being
spent. We see $998.8 million for health care, and over $10 billion for
national defense. Only $55 million is allocated for crime prevention
and control.
I am not suggesting, just by this observation, that you ought to be
able to establish priorities by public opinion polls-obviously that is
not the point I am trying to make.
I do think, however, that we must be more sensitive to the public's
concerns and try to find ways in which these concerns, whether in
energy, food, ocean policy, materials shortages, health care, crime,
pollution, or any of these areas, can be met-I am very hopeful that
you are going to help us reflect the sensitivity and the concern that are
abroad in the land on these issues.
We are attempting to do that with our Office of Technology Assess-
ment. We are beginning to deal with some difficult and important
areas, and I am hopeful that you can help and that you will work with
us in the Congress.
The Foundation is really a powerful instrument for policymaking
and can help us reflect our constituents' concerns, and not in the narrow
parochial sense but in the broader national sense.
I hope that in your own deliberations and your own judgments you
will be sensitive to these concerns, because I think that is a matter of
great importance.
I would like to ask Dr. Stever before we get into some of the other
questions, Mr. Chairman, if he could tell us about how he makes de-
cisions about who is going to serve on various committees of the Board.
Do you have a procedure?
Dr. STEVER. Within the Board, board committees?
Senator KENNEDY. How do you decide that?
What can these new nominees expect?
Will they serve on committees?
Dr. STEVER. You mean advisory committees or the Board itself?
Senator KENNEDY. I mean committees of the Board.
Dr. S1~vER. The Board has, over the years, organized itself in dif-
ferent ways.
Today, there are two major substantive committees and several
minor ones, or administrative ones. There is an executive committee
which, by law. I chair. and that is an administrative committee of the
Board. .
The substantive committees are a planning and policy committee
and a programs committee. Each of those committees has subcommit-
tees working on different problems.
Dr. Hackerman has been chairman of the programs committee for
3 years.
Did you, Dr. Murray?
Dr. MURRAY. I have served on both committees.
PAGENO="0100"
96
Dr. STEVER. The programs committee essentially is the oversight
committee. It looks over what we are doing, recommends Board action
on proposals and programs, and challenges us on grants. We report
performance to them. The planning and policy committee is exactly
that, it looks to the future, future budgets, future directions.
Then each of these committees has ad hoc subcommittees working
on different problems.
For example, the planning and policy has a committee on science and
manpower at the present time. It has a committee on long-term budg-
eting which Dr. Murray chaired.
We, of course, have other ad hoc committees. The 25th anniversary
of the National Science Foundation is coming up, and we have one for
that occasion.
Now, to speak to the selection of various members on these. All
Board members serve on at least one committee. They are given a
chance by the Chairman, or have been in the past, to express an inter-
est in the area in which they would like to serve.
I would say that every one of the new nominees will be swept up in
committee work very quickly. Committee work goes on at the regular
Board meetings and sometimes in between. I think it is a very effective
way of getting the Board's work done.
But the committees report to the total Board, so a11 matters eventu-
ally come to the Board.
Senator KENNEDY. It is my understanding that each member does
not serve on a committee.
Am I wrong about that?
Dr. HACKERMAN. They serve on one of the two standing committees.
Senator KENNEDY. Every person on the Board at the present time
serves on one or the other committee?
Dr. HACKERMAN. Except for the executive committee members and
the Director.
All other members serve on one of the two standing committees.
Senator KENNEDY. Are you familiar with this [indicating]?
Dr. STEVER. The organization? Yes; we are very familiar, but we
may not know what is on it. [Laughter.]
Senator IKENNEDY. It shows that Dr. Harrison from Massachusetts,
who serves on six different committees, and I do not see Dr. Hacker-
man's name.
Dr. STEVER~ This is a foreshortened Board. This is a 17 member
Board instead of 25.
You see from late spring when our annual meeting is held, we did
not have the new Board members nominated and confirmed and, as a
consequence, this list is somewhat foreshortened.
But Dr. Harrison serves on the programs committee, and she has
been a. very conscientious contributor there, and on a subcommittee.
Senator KENNEDY. She serves on six committees.
* She serves on the programs committee, subcommittee on H. & D.
incentives and assessment programs. the subcommittee on RMI pro-
grams. and three ad hoc committees.
Dr. STEVER. Both of those are temporary committees.
Senator KENNEDY. She serves on the ad hoc nominating committee
for Board Officers, she serves on the ad hoc committee on Bicentennial
PAGENO="0101"
97
celebration, and she serves on the ad hoc committee on the Sixth NSB
report.
Dr. STEVER. Very well.
Senator KENNEDY. She serves on six subcommittees, I am just trying
to get some idea as to the procedures which are followed.
There are Members of Congress who serve on more committees than
others. I am just trying to find out what these newer members should
expect.
Dr. STEVER. I think the important point is that the two substantive
committees are the programs committee and the planning and policy
committee, and all members of the Board have an assignment on one
or the other of those except for the members of the executive commit-
tee which often meets concurrently on administrative and organiza-
tional matters.
Senator KENNEDY. Then they will serve on subcommittees of those
committees?
Dr. STEVER. Yes; as their interests show up.
Senator KENNEDY. Who names those?
Dr. STEVER. The Chairman of the Board, not the Director.
All board committees are handled by the Chairman of the Board.
Usually the Chairman with the Director and Vice Chairman and
members of the executive committee works out the committee assign-
ments.
Senator KENNEDY. Let me ask you this. As I understand, under the
statute there is room for ~ve professional staff personnel to support
the board itself.
Dr. STEVER. I think that is correct, yes.
Senator KENNEDY. What is your view about that? Should not the
Board have an independent staff? I would also be interested in the
views of the new nominees.
Dr. STEVER. My view is that in all the time I have served as a Board
member, and not as Director, and since I have been director, the
working of the secretariat of the National Science Board has been very
good. We work together. I do not know that serious problems have
arisen. It has always been thought that it is better to have us together
rather than to have two operations so that we would have difficulty
in getting together.
I believe this is a better way of operating, but I would be glad to
listen to the views of the Board members on that.
Senator KENNEDY. I would be interested. We have just gone through
this issue with regard to the Office of Technology Assessment Board.
Dr. MAc LANE. If I may speak to that, I have also sat on other
boards and councils and, although I have seen very little of this Board,
it is certainly my impressioii that the staff support is there for this
Board and that it is excellent and certainly superior to many.
Senator KENNEDY. I do not think anyone is questioning the quality
of the staff. The real question is the need for independent judgments.
Wouldn't the Board benefit from having staff accountable to the
Board itself as their prime responsibility?
I do not think anyone is trying to imply for a moment that the
operating staff of the Foundation is not willing and cooperative. But
I am sure there are matters which hopefully you are going to discuss
in attempting to develop your own policies and your own recommenda-
PAGENO="0102"
98
tions, your own ideas. It might be somewhat advisable to have staff
who are accountable to you. I am wondering whether any of you feel*
this is advisable or desirable.
Dr. MAC LANE. I did not speak to that because obviously not having
been on the Board I would not know in detail.
I suspect, Senator Kennedy, that the independence that you get
will reflect the independence of the Members of the Board. If they
are independent, then they will find ways and means of expressing it.
Dr. HACKERMAX. Senator, I would like to speak to that point because
I have served 6 years on the Board. There is not any question that the
staff, when they work for the Board, answer to the Board. The
Board members I have known have been sufficiently independent so
that, if they thought they were not getting an appropriate response in
terms of the full sweep of the questions, they would let it be known.
Dr. Mtmi~y. Senator Kennedy, I would support what Dr. Hacker-
man has said. In my 6 years on the Board I have always found that
the staff, in working for the Board, did so with dedication.
It seems to me there is an advantage to this, although I am sure
arguments can be made to the contrary, and that is, the staff is in-
timately interwoven into the fabric of the National Science Founda-
tion, krtows what is going on internally, and can bring that expertise
and knowledge to the Board, whereas an independent staff might not
be able to do so.
Senator KENNEDY. That is a rather interesting expression. Is that
the feeling of the rest of the Board?
Dr. RICE. Senator Kennedy, if I might comment, I too do not have
experience with this Board, so I do not want to pass any judgment
on what the situation is in this case.
I do serve on another statutory committee which does have per-
manent staff to support the committee. I would certainly say in that
case I consider that staff support essential. I do not think the com-
mittee in that other case could do its work without staff support.
So I certainly would expect we would need staff support for the
National Science Board.
I think on the other hand I have seen enough staff support of vari-
ous kinds that I personally would be able to tell if we were not getting
the quality of staff support from the mechanisms that are now there
in the Foundation to provide it.
So I agree with your point that staff support for the Board is im-
portant, and it has to be support that is responsive to the Board. If
that is not the case-I have no reason to question that it is the case-
if it should not be the case, I am sure that would be easily determined.
Dr. STEVER. Senator Kennedy, there is also a very interesting note
in our statute here. The National Science Board and the Director-
that is the 25 people-are the National Science Foundation. The other
people, the entire staff-in other words, they are one and the same.
Bylaw itsays:
Be it enacted there is hereby established in the Executive Branch of the
Government an independent agency to be known as the National Science Founda-
tion. The Foundation shall consist of the National Science Board and the
Director.
That is all we consist of. We hire people to help us, and that is the
staff, but the National Science Board is the Foundation together with
PAGENO="0103"
99
the Director. If the Board should feel a need for its own staff it could
have one. It has never requested the appointment of such a staff al-
though it has occasionally requested and received the services of
particular staff members for particular jobs.
This is the most powerful board there is as far as I can see in the
Federal Government.
Senator KENNEDY. It also says: "The Board with the concurrence of
the majority of its members may appoint staff consisting of not more
than five professional staff members and such clerical help as may be
necessary. That staff shall be appointed by the Director and assigned
at the direction of the Board."
I would have thought the intention of that language was to permit
the Board itself to have access to at least five professional personnel
for staff support.
They at least would feel that their first responsibility would be in
serving the Board.
The CHAIRMAN. We will have to declare a short recess to enable us
to go to the Senate floor to vote.
IBrief recess.]
Senator KENNEDY (presiding pro tempore). The committee will
come to order. I believe the chairman will be back with us shortly but
he asked me to proceed.
Maybe we could talk just a little bit about what sort of priority you
give to public participation in the Board's decisionmaking process.
I would like to ask those who are already members of the Board
what is being done now?
Have you set up any procedures to involve the public? If so, I
would like to know what they are.
Then I would also be interested in what the nominees feel aboi~it
public participation. Is this important? Is this something which needs
to be improved?
Dr. HACKERMAN. There is one formal way of doing it, sir, and that
is through our advisory committees. There are a large number of per-
sons associated with the various facets of the Foundation's activities,
which means with the various facets of science and technology. These
are colleagues which are not on the Board, not in the Foundation, who
are asked these questions.
In addition each of us hears individually from our colleagues, and
if we do not, we ask. That is, if we think there is an important question
coming up, we will ask those whom we happen to see at meetings.
So we have both the one formal way and the informal way.
Senator KENNEDY. Maybe you could tell us a little bit about the sort
of things. based upon your experiences, that these groups have come
up with. What kind of input have they had? In what areas have they
participated? Is there any role for a nonscientist on the Board?
Do they all have to be scientists?
Dr. STEVER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak a little bit to that.
Of course what Dr. Hackerman has referred to is all of the advisory
committees which are open to the public. I cannot say that we get a
great deal of particination from the public in those advisory meetings
because they very quickly get into the technical details.
A scientist who wants to participate would probably go to one of
PAGENO="0104"
100
his colleagues on the Board and tell him his ideas-either on the
Board or one of these advisory committees.
\~Te also have often on particular subjects, for example, RANN has
an advisory board, and it is broader than just the scientists. WTe try
to get the user committee in.
I think that several of our Assistant Directors-this is outside of
Board action-have used workshops, two or three day workshops, in
which the results of science and technology in a certain field are
promulgated to a broader audience, and there are nonscientists in
that.
For example. there is the tall buildings engineering problem work-
shop. A number of people outside the science community attended it.
It has been my experience that not very many members of the
public are interested in going through the kinds of matters that are
involved.
You may be asking the question, would it be wise to have completely
nonscientists on the National Science Board itself to give a different
viewpoint. My only comment is that the business of the Foundation
is science, and therefore scientists should predominate; but the Board
should also have educators and others among its members.
Senator KENNEDY. The statute says: People active in public affairs.
Dr. STEVEn. The act reads the members may be active in public
affairs.
Senator KENNEDY. It is pretty broad, pretty general.
Dr. STEVER. Yes. I believe that is correct. The Board has had social
* scientists and so on. The Board has recommended people who have
broad experience, but usually they do have at least one working science
iiiterest.
Senator KENNEDY. I wish the Board would consider this and at-
- tempt to find out whether it would be helpful to have a nonscientist
on the Board. You consider very complex matters and probably there
would be different views on different issues. There are some in which
you caii get more public participation; less in others. On some matters
a nonscientist can be involved all the way through; others because
of their technical nature, may only be appropriate for the input of a
nonscientist at certam times.
It may vary a great deal but it seems to me that it would be helpful
to examine how the public could be brought into the decisionmaking
process, how to get their input, would be worth considering, rather
than just relying on the advisory committees. You may come up with
some ideas, and you may not.
I do not underestimate the problems that you do have, but I do
think it is important because of the power of this particular Board
in terms of the development of science policy. Public participation
seems to me to be within the range of possibility.
I would like to see what procedures could be followed. Would
you take a look at that?
Dr. STEVER. Yes. I will, and give an indication of your interest to
the chairman at oui. iiext meeting.
Senator KENNEDY. I would be glad to write you on this. It does
seem to me that this is at least something that ought to be considered.
What kind of attendance caii we expect from the members at Board
meetings? What has been the experience?
PAGENO="0105"
101
Dr. STEVER. Very good. We may have statistics. The average is 22
out of 25 members.
My experience has been it is one of the hardest working groups
of part-time Board members I have ever been on.
Senator KENNEDY. That is enormously impressive and a great trib-
ute I think to the members themselves as well as to the fact that
they know what they are doing is important. That is very impressive.
While we are talking about the priorities, I note that Dr. Mac
Lane wrote quite extensively on priority setting in broad areas of
science.
Do you think you might be able to outline briefly your own views
concerning the Board's role in setting priorities?
Dr. MAC LANE. Senator. it is correct that I have written a little
on setting priorities. Because the problem is so tough, I was trying
to clear up my own thoughts about it.
As the Board will set such priorities I think I am going to learn
a lot more.
Mainly, setting priorities runs through a range of difficulties, or
a range of sorts of priorities. Setting priorities is reasonably clear
when you try to set the priorities about where you would like to be,
where you would like to get.
For example~ one would like to solve the problems that are up at
the top of that list [indicating chart].
One would, for example, like to know how sources of energy can
be made better available, but how to get there is the place at which
the disagreement comes.
So, for example, on sources of energy it may well be that you do
not attack this frontally, or that you do not only attack this frontally.
But you often set people off by themselves to think about wild ideas
that do not start out to be ideas about energy, just in the hope that
something wholly new will come floating up.
So that is the other half of our setting priorities. I believe the
reason I emphasize that half is that it does come up in my own
branches of science, especially in mathematics.
There are very few people who are wise enough to know which
piece of mathematics is going to be most profitable in the future. For
example, there are some wonderful problems in geometry. When I
was young and learning about geometry, people said those wonderful
problems are just sort of hopeless, so complicated, so I did not pay any
attention to them-not only I, but nearly everybody else-until some-
body had the great idea of making a breakthrough at that particular
point. This particular one was done by a man named John Milner at
Princeton in 1955, and it wholly changed the picture.
So there is that part of scientific priorities that depend on someone
getting the incisive idea, and for that it would be hard for the Na-
tional Science Board, or any other board, really to set what science
can do.
What it has done in the past is to support the right sort of basic
scientific research in a good environment that will encourage able
people to think, and hopefully some of them will have the bright ideas.
So, to summarize~ there are the sorts of priorities that one can be
clear about, and sorts of priorities that depend on having a good and
PAGENO="0106"
102
encouraging climate for scientists in which to think. I hope the Board
can struggle with both of them.
Senator KENNEDY. Dr. Hackerman, maybe you could tell us a little
how the Board has worked to set priorities in the past.
Dr. HACKERMAN. To set priorities in the basic research areas or in
the Foundation's activities generally?
Senator KENNEDY. Both.
Dr. HACKERMAN. Of course, by and large you have to consider that
there are people who have representative approaches. as well some
who have senatorial appr6aches. In fact, the debates that go on in
the Board with regard to whether more support should be diverted to
one science or another are really kind of vigorous, because each has
its own strong supporters, and each has rights. There is no question
about it.
But you can see a swing as pressures for answers to needs appear.
That is not necessarily the best way to do it, but it does work that way.
For example, when the question of the environment finally came
to everybody's attention, it became quite apparent that we had not
really gone as far as we should in analytical chemistry, to take a
single example.
The improvement in that area over a period of a few years, making
it possible to analyze better, faster, and with more precision and
accuracy, has been quite remarkable.
So the priorities are set by virtue of needs, even in the basic sciences.
With respect to one area as contrasted to another [referring to
chart], I think this is not a matter of pressures-I would like to find
another word for it-but of the stridency of the problem.
Crime is a great problem. If indeed people had good ideas as to
what to do about it, I think you would find considerable research in
that area. So far the ideas have not appeared. I think it is set basically
in terms of needs.
Senator KENNEDY. Is that not putting the cart before the horse?
For example, at the end of the Second World War, so much money
was available in the areas of defense research, at least in my part of
the country, the ablest and brightest and most talented scientists and
researchers went in that direction, then to the space program, because
there seemed to be a Federal commitment in that area. That was where
the resources were available.
The space program, of course, is an enormously imaginative pro-
gram that has fascinated many of those in the scientific community.
The point is, in the area of crime prevention, for example, if a Fed-
eral commitment is made, scientists and researchers might move into
that area. I agree with you that we must support those programs where
there is the best opportunity for progress. We must wrestle with this
and find out areas in which there is a possibility to make some break-
throughs and open up new areas in science and modern technology.
I suppose this also involves those who are out in the scientific and
research community who know there is a pretty good commitment in
certain special areas.
Would this not lead them to try to find these rather special pro-
grams? Is this something that should be considered as well?
PAGENO="0107"
103
Dr. HACKERMAN. It does, but in some places the ideas just do not
come up. We are either not ready for it or people really have not
oriented themselves properly.
In fact, the ones you are talking about-space, for example-really
did crystalize. The gaps in our knowledge were discernable. We knew
what to go after.
In some instances you cannot do that. You have to wait until that
gap begins to appear so you can discern it and then approach that
particular problem.
Senator KENNEDY. I suppose in referring to some of those areas
[referring to charts], there are probably special considerations which
reflect to an extent whether any of these priorities are accurate but I
suppose there are some areas even within these general categories where
some real opportunities for progress exist.
Dr. HACKERMAN. Yes, I think so.
Senator KENNEDY. We cannot be expected to allocate more money
than you possibly can effectively use. Simply spending more may not
provide answers, in cancer research, for example, but certainly there
are other health areas where increased funding is needed.
Dr. MURRAY. Senator, could I make a few comments?
Senator KENNEDY. Certainly.
Dr. Mum~&y. I think it is even more complicated than has been
intimated by Dr. Stever and Dr. Hackerinan.
I think there is an overriding attitude which I would say is sub-
scribed to by all members of the Board, and that is the national wel-
fare, the health of the Nation. Even though we may not speak overtly
to this point, it is always there in the back of our minds. How does
research in chemistry, or in the forefront of chemistry, or break-
throughs in cellular biology, for example, affect the national welfare
and keep this Nation viably strong so we can compete with the rest
of the world?
The Foundation staff, as well as the Board members, are in direct
contact, and are intermingling and discussing at all times with leaders,
with young people, as well as older people, getting thoughts as to where
the major breakthroughs may be as well as to where the cutting edges
of science may be, as you may have heard. They explore such questions
as: Where can money best be spent to develop the knowledge which
will contribute to the public welfare?
When you put all this together, and meld it, through the Board
discussions-which Dr. Hackerman correctly reported as being rather
vigorous at times-the end result is a pretty good mix.
For example, my priorities might be in the area of studies of the
movement of continents and the possibility of mineral deposits in
certain areas, whereas somebody else's priority could be in astronomy
or biology. But we try to bring all these together in the interest of
what is best for the Nation and what will maintain its strength and
viability.
Senator KENNEDY. Senator Williams, I just have a few more
questions.
The CHAIRMAN. I would like to listen.
Senator KENNEDY. I was listening to Dr. Mac Lane, who has done
extensive writings in establishing of priorities. We have talked a
PAGENO="0108"
104
little bit about some of the ways that we have been reaching these
decisions.
On an entirely different subject. Dr. Cobb, I was interested in what
you had found to be the interest of women in science and tecimology.
What should we be doing, or what can the Board do in terms of
bringing women into more important roles, both on the Board. and
in our Nation. I would be interested also in any comments you would
like to make about what can be clone to make this whole area of science
policy more interesting to minorities.
Dr. COBB. First of all, I would like to reemphasize the concept of
scientists and science as a positive moral ethic in terms of understand-
ing that its whole process has been and is operative for the development
of the future of mankind that makes everyone accessible to the best
things in life. `With that particular goal, there are, of course, areas in
basic research and applied research to be emphasized.
I see a policy group having the facility to look at basic research and
to encourage it because it has implications for directions that we can-
not predict at this moment in time.
In relation to the two oppressed groups, women and minorities, I
would say that we certainly have to look at what programs can be
mounted to increase the numbers of women moving into the sciences,
and, in general, having access to higher education. The socialization
process begins very early, not only for women, but for minorities.
Early on they are not expected to go too far in the hard sciences. This
has been very clearly indicated. Mathematics, for example, physics,
and engineering are underrepresented.
`We talkedabout this 2 years ago. `Women in science and engineering
met at the invitation of Dr. Philip Handler at the National Academy
of Sciences. We were in fact dismayed to find that the Atomic Energy
Commission, for example, has very antiquated ideas about exposure of
women to radiation at certain times of the month. Yet a man might
have a cut or sore finger and is allowed to be exposed to radiation
nevertheless.
The point is, we have missions given to us from social scientists as
well as from people involved in science education to look at: (a)
programs on the early education and the desocialization of women;
and (b) the new access routes for the encouragement of minorities to
enter science.
However, there has certainly been little done for encouraging
women in science. We know at the moment that only 20 percent of the
faculty teaching in colleges in any field are women. And the same per-
centage was true in the 1920's. We have made no progress there.
So I see these as very important issues. I am going to be the con-
science for the women and minorities on the Board, but will be very
aware of the total picture, I assure you.
Senator KENNEDY. Very good.
I note. Dr. Shields, you have been interested in this, too, at your
University.
Going on from what Dr. Cobb has said, do you think some of the
experiences you have had could be applicable nationally?
Can you draw on your experience to try to meet some of the prob-
lems Dr. Cobb has mentioned?
Dr. SHIELDS. I think so, Senator.
PAGENO="0109"
105
One of the critical concerns we have had is to attempt to stimulate
and develop the interest, particularly within ethnic minorities, in
science at a much earlier stage than we have been able to in the past.
In that sense, there have been several more programs mounted in re-
cent years to try to develop better expertise in getting right into the
elementary schools and secondary schools where there is a large ethnic
minority population to create science teaching approaches to the pres-
ent science curricula that would be of more interest to ethnic minori-
ties, and get them involved in an earlier stage in some of the excite-
ment of science.
I think this is an area that we can improve on, and I am certainly
interested in looking into it more.
Senator KENNEDY. Very good.
Dr. RICE. May I comment on that subject?
Senator KENNEDY. Certainly.
Dr. RICE. Just thinking from the point of view of our experience at
Rand, where we have been trying to increase the numbers of women
and minorities with real success in the past few years, but not nearly
enough, I would say it is necessary to work that problem from both the
supply and the demand sides. We do need programs that make it possi-
ble for women and minorities to get involved in areas of science to
begin with, and then be able to stay in school as long as necessary. We
do not have enough of that sort of program.
On the other hand, we do not have policies today which permit
minorities and women to develop their skills on the job to the extent
that I think necessary.
Money is short everywhere, so money is squeezed on every project.
That means that every project manager throughout the Government
has an incentive to encourage the institution doing the work he or she
is funding to put only the best people on it, only the people who have
already demonstrated their qualifications. The whole process works
to make it difficult to provide development opportunities for people
who have not already demonstrated their abilities.
I think that is an area that we could well look into.
Senator KENNEDY. That is a good observation.
As a former 0MB official, and recognizing the actual decrease from
fiscal 1973 to 1974 in Federal expenditures in science and technology,
do you think we can afford to reduce that spending any more in the
future?
Dr. RICE. I do not know if I am familiar with just exactly what
figures you are referring to, Senator. In my view, the decrease is not
the direction to go in.
Senator KENNEDY. In constant dollars, as I understand it, there
has been a decrease.
Dr. RICE. Yes, I think that is a very valid point; absolutely the cor-
~rect way to look at the problem is in terms of constant dollars.
With respect to the National Science Foundation itself, if you look
at the figures there in terms of, say. about a 4- or 5-year, in the most
recent years, the funds available for research in the Foundation have
gone ill) at a somewhat faster rate than inflation. But there has been a
decline in nondefense areas elsewhere in the Government, and the
increase in NSF has not been enough to offset the declines in other
places.
40-498 0 - 75 - 8
PAGENO="0110"
106
I think that is the problem we have to look into. I would prefer to
see some real growth. certainly not a decline.
Senator kENNEDY. If we saw a further decline in constant dollars,
how do you see that as affecting the mandate of the Science
Foundation?
Dr. RICE. The most important impact it would seem to me to have
on the Foundation would be to increase the pressures on the Founda-
tion to pick up the slack in areas that would be dropped out by other
agencies.
The Foundation has already had a lot of difficult problems of that
sort to deal with over the past several years. as strictly basic research
activities have been reduced by the 1)epartment of Defense, by NASA,
and the AEC.
It would increase pressures on the National Science Foundation if
that trend continued in other agencies.
Senator KI~xxn)Y. I)r. Rice, do you have any feeling for what is
happening in other countries in terms of total expenditures for science
and technology?
WThat are they doing, say. in Western Europe?
Dr. RICE. I do not have Western European figures at my fingertips.
I do recall that the best estimate that we were able to put together-
there is a lot of uncertainty about them, to be sure-indicates that
Soviet Union spending on R. & I). has been rising steadily in real
terms.
Senator KENNEDY. Could you provide a little information for us on
that, I)r. Stever?
It is my information that they have been spending significant
amounts for science education and research.
Dr. STEVER. The Board will have out in the near future a second
report on science indicators, and there will be mole data on that.
I think that as far as the fraction of the gross national product is
concerned, we peaked in 1966 or soniething like that, and have gone
down one-tenth ~ year. or a tenth of a percent pci' year, from 3 per-
cent down to 2.3 percent.
The Soviet Union is harder to pin down on statistics because of the
difference in the systems. but it appears to continue to go up.
West Germany has come up w-ith a strong area, although it is not
certain whether they are continuing to grow, but they are in the same
range that they were.
Japan has been growing. I dlo not know whether the energy problem
has cut back their growth concepts. There will be new statistics out
soon. andi we will certainly keep you informedi of them.
I dlo think in toto we still have the largest audi the most l)o~Verful
program. but our relative advantage is now-here near what it was.
Senator KENNEDY. I know that. you served, Dr. Rice, on Dr. Kil-
han's committee which madle recommendiations for improving the
science adivisory mechanism in the executive branch.'
Is this something you will continue to support?
Dr. RICE. Yes. Senator.
I was honored to be a part of that committee. I do have a personal
view reflected quite well. I think, in the report in many ways, that it is
`Ad hoc Committee on Science and Technology of the National Academy of Sciences;
report entitled Science and Technology in Presidential Policijmaking: A. Proposal.
PAGENO="0111"
107
desirable to strengthen the arrangements that provide science and
technology information into the staff processes that serve the Presi-
dent. I think it is more desirable to have an entity which can cover
the full range of problems. The arrangement that we have today-all
of us believe Dr. Stever has done a magnificent job in this assign-
ment-does not cover the whole range of problems. It covers problems
in a most piecemeal way.
The council that was proposed by Dr. Killian's committee is cer-
tainly one such option that could be pursued.
I think it is most important in that same context to recognize that
many of the problems, and therefore the staff processes that are needed
to serve the Office of the President, must be concerned with the full
range of talents and information that have to be brought to bear on
these problems.
Many of the problems that need to be dealt with are not wholly
science problems and technology problems and not even dominated
by the science and technology considerations.
I am sure you are grappling with that in the case of the Office of
Technology Assessment (OTA).
I think we have to find `a better w-ay of providing a broad-based in-
terdisciplinary and analytical staff to serve the President, as well as
to strengthen the science advisory mechanism.
Senator KENNEDY. Dr. Zumberge, I know th'at your university has
participated extensively in the Foundation's programs over a period
of time.
Do you have some ideas in terms of the relationship of the Founda-
tion to universities that might be helpful?
Do you have any suggestions or comments?
Dr. ZUMBERGE. Senator, the Foundation has always enjoyed a very
close relationship with universities and university people in the con-
duct of research from the e'arliest stages onward.
I think that that has been one of the strengths of this country, that
there are so many universities~ so widely dispersed, and of such diverse
character, that the Foundation has almost unlimited numbers of
groups in different fields to draw upon for the conduct of research.
Even in the area of the new emphasis on applied research, we find
universities, such as the University of Nebraska and other land-grant
institutions, having the expertise to solve some of these problems of
basic interest for the future of mankind.
One of the good examples is in agriculture where so many problems
with science relate to the quality of food~ its transportation, its avail-
ability to people, not only in this country but. all over the world.
The one thing that makes the United States quite different from
other countries is that the Foundation itself does not engage in re-
search, but that it finds out where the research can be done, which it
does in a number of ways, and responds to proposals that are
submitted.
I think the proposals submitted by universities to the Foundation
are one of the great strengths of science in our country. This method
should be continued and strengthened, not only as it has been, but in
new areas that are developing. We have many colleges and universi-
ties at all levels in the post-secondary educational field which have a
great number of people who are on the cutting edge of many of the
areas of basic as well as applied research.
PAGENO="0112"
108
My simple answer to your question. sir, is that this relationship has
allowed us to reap great rewards, and I see no reason to do anything
but continue it and strengthen it.
Senator KENNEDY. It is good and should be strengthened; is that it?
Dr. ZUMBERGE. Yes.
Senator KENNEDY. Dr. Murray. could you give us your evaluation
of the effectiveness the energy research programs have which are
being undertaken?
I know that you have a very distinguished background in this area.
Dr. MURRAY. I think the energy crisis in many respects is more
financial and political than it is scientific, certainly in respect to the
petroleum industry in this country. This industry is oiie of the critical
industries in this Nation. Probably 110 other substance. other than
food, air, and water, is more essential to our continued growth as a
major nation and to our maintenance and survival. We could not
possibly go to work in the mornings, or return home at. night without
crossing or utilizing a single petroleum product.
Private industry, in this instance, has done an outstanding job of
finding reserves, both in this Nation and abroad and in the exporta-
tion of expertise and know-how in the search for, and the production
of, petroleum products, not without some mistakes, however, as is
understandable.
The Foundation programs in support of solar energy, wind energy,
geothermal energy. the use of hydrogen. and so forth, are in their
infancy. I think it may be a little premature to attempt to evaluate
them at the moment.
However, it seems to me that it is incumbent upon the Foundation,
the U.S. Geological Survey, or the Atomic Energy Commission-
whatever the group may be-to push ahead in energy research at
maximum speed.
This may not be the most efficient system, but I believe they should
push ahead at maximum speed to insure self-sufficiency, whatever that
may be.
Senator KENNEDY. Do you think we ought to push ahead in all of
them?
Dr. MURRAY. Yes.
Senator KENNEDY. You do not think we ought to ti~y to take a look
at the different alternatives and find out what the scientific problems
are, what the tecimological problems are, what are the costs relative
to each?
Dr. MURRAY. If we tend to push ahead in all of them these problems
would come to light.
Senator KENNEDY. I am sure the problems will come to light, but
will that not mean we have spent a lot more in resources if we are
pressing ahead in all of these efforts, rather than trying to move ahead
first to the point where at least we get some projection as to what it
is going to cost in terms of financial investment. what it is going to cost
in terms of technological investment, and what the secondary effects
are going to be, for example, in terms of the use of water out in the
Rocky Mountain States, as well as other public policy issues?
Dr. Mumtxx-. We need to go ahead as rapidly aiid as strongly as we
can on all of them, because they tend to complement each other. I be-
PAGENO="0113"
109
lieve solar and wind energy can reduce the dependence on oil and the
natural gases; for example, in certain areas of the country.
Utilization of hydrogen as a fuel must be explored because, if we
can convert to hydrogen-propulsion systems, we are certainly going to
be able to preserve our petroleum and natural gases for other important
uses.
As we learn to complement the various energy sources, we will
achieve a balance in the energy picture in this country, as well as a
balance in the distribution of energy, which we do not have at the
present time.
Senator KENNEDY. I hope you will give some more thought to wind
energy. As someone who spends a lot of time close to the sea, it seems
incredible that a sail about a quarter the size of this wall can drive a
15-ton boat through mountainous spray. One just cannot help but
think there are all kinds of marvelous things that can be done through
the use of wind energy.
We have talked about *that before with the Foundation. Unlike
health care, wind energy research is not heavily funded.
Dr. STEVEn. We accept your bias.
Senator KENNEDY. We have just touched on some of the things
which concern the committee. I hope we have a chance to go through
them in more depth at another time. I want to thank all of you very
much for coming up here.
This is a very outstanding group, Mr. Chairman, and I think that
with the responsiveness they have displayed this afternoon in answer-
ing our questions, and their interest in being aware of some of the
concerns we have up here, there is reason for encouragement and
hopefulness.
I think this group will be very useful and helpful to us in trying
to find ways for us to better support their work.
So, I want to thank all of the nominees, and you, Dr. Stever, for
your appearance here this afternoon.
The CHAIRMAN. There are just one or two things that I have, ladies
and gentlemen.
It seems with fluctuating national needs and demands we see cer-
tain areas of scientific resources removed from certain activities.
For instance, aeronautical engineering is an area that is much
reduced relative to what it was 4 years ago.
I have been told that at one of our great universities, Georgia Tech,
some of the people working in aeronautical engineering are not spon-
sored in research in solar energy.
I just wonder if that is one of the Foundation's activities.
Dr. STEVER. Yes, it is.
The CHAIRMAN. It would seem to me that the Foundation would
obviously be alerted to this reservoir of talent that might be other-
wise not fully occupied and could be put to use for some of your
purposes.
Dr. Smvnn. In the energy field, for example, in the areas where at
the present time we have a lead responsibility, we are in fact trans-
ferring money to certain NASA laboratories.
The Lewis Laboratory, of course, is a leader in wind energy. We
h ave discovered many people who are in the aerospace business con-
PAGENO="0114"
110
verting to other national needs, and our RVANN program caused us
to help considerably in that conversion.
Dr. MURRAY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce a relative
point in this regard.
One of the problems with the utilization of wind energy and solar
energy is the storage of the energy once it is produced. I call your
attention to the fact that the Foundation is supporting research in
this area of storage of energy.
Dr. STEVER. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. Are all the members of the Board from what you
call the hard sciences?
Dr. STEVER. No. sir. I think I should answer that. Representatives
of the social sciences are on the current Boa.rd. We have four members:
Dr. W. Glenn Campbell of Stanford TJniversity, who is an economist;
Dr. Roger W. Heyns, who is a phychologist; Dr. William H. Meckling,
from the Graduate School of Management at Rochester, who is an
economist; and Dr. Frederick P. Thieme from the University of
Colorado, who is an physical anthropologist.
Of the new nominees here today, Dr. Rice is in the social sciences
in economics. so we will have, if this group is confirmed, 5 out of 25
members of the Board who will be in some form of the social sciences.
We have had a few people come to us and say that we do not do
very much with social sciences as far as Board membership is con-
cerned, and when we tell them we have 5 out of 25, they say, maybe
they are overrepresented.
The CHAIRMAN. Would there be room for a sociologist?
Dr. STEVEn. Yes. We have had former Board members in that field:
Dr. Chester I. Barnard, Dr. Rufus F. Clement, the very Reverend The-
odore M. Hesburgh. Dr. James G. March. one of the retiring Board
members. was in this field. We lost Jim March's services, but we will
probably pick up others o,f his kind later. A list of former members
of the Board is hereby inserted into the record, with your permission.
[The list of former members of the National Science Board referred
tO follows:]
PAGENO="0115"
111
FORMER MEMBERS
NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD
NSB-74--176
Dr. Sophie D. Aberle
Special Research Director
University of New Mexico
*Dr. Roger Adams
Research Professor
Department of Chemistry and
Chemical Engineering
University of Illinois
Dr. W. 0. Baker
Vice President - Research
Bell Telephone Laboratories,
Murray Hill, New Jersey
#*Dr. Chester I. Barnard
President
The Rockefeller Foundation
Dr. Robert P. Barnes
Professor of Chemistry
Howard University
Dr. R. H. Bing
Rudolph E. Langer Professor
of Mathematics
The University of Wisconsin
+#Dr. Detlev W. Bronk
President, The Rockefeller
University and
President, National Acadeny of
Sciences
Dr. Harvey Brooks
Gordon McKay Professor of
Applied Physics and
Dean of Engineering and
Applied Physics
Harvard University
Dr. Mary I. Bunting
President
Radcliffe College
*Dr. Rufus E. Clement
President
Atlanta University
#Dr. James B. Conant
President
Harvard University
*Dr. Gerty T. Con
Professor
Biological Chemistry
School of Medicine
Washington University
(St. Louis)
Dr. John W. Davis
President
West Virginia State College
Mr. Charles Dollard
President
Carnegie Corporation of
New York
+Dr. Lee A. DuBridge
President
California Institute of
Technology
*Dr. Conrad A. Elvehjen
President
The University of Wisconsin
Position is that when appointed to Board or major
affiliation during service on Board.
* Deceased.
# Former Chairman, National Science Board.
+ Former Vice Chairman, National Science Board.
Inc.
PAGENO="0116"
112
Dr. Henry Eyring
Dean
Graduate School
University of Utah
Dr. William A. Fowler
Institute Professor of Physics
California Institute of Technology
+Dr. Edwin B. Fred
President
The University of Wisconsin
Dr. T. Keith Glennan
President
Case University
Dr. Julian R. Goldsmith
Associate Dean
Division of the Physical
Sciences
The University of Chicago
Dr. Laurence M. Gould
President
Carleton College
+Dr. Paul M. Gross
Vice President
Duke University
Dr. William W. Hagerty
President
Drexel Institute of Technology
÷#Dr. Philip Handler
James B. Duke Professor and
Chairman, Department of Biochemistry
Duke University and
President, National Academy of
Sciences
Dr. Clifford M. Hardin
Chancellor
University of Nebraska
Dr. Leland J. Hawortn
Director
National Science Foundation
The Very Reverend Theodore M.
Hesburgh, C.S.C.
President
University of Notre Dame
*Dr. William W. Houston
Honorary Chancellor
William Marsh Rice University
*Dr. George D. Humphrey
President
The University of Wyoming
*Dr. 0. W. Hyman
Dean of Medical School and
Vice President
The University of Tennessee
Dr. Charles F. Jones
President
Humble Oil & Refining
Company
Houston, Texas
Dr. Thomas F~ Jones, Jr.
President
University of South Carolina
*Dr. Robert F. Loeb
Bard Professor of Medicine
College of Physicians and
Surgeons
Columbia University
-2-
PAGENO="0117"
113
*The Reverend James B. Macelwane, S.J.
Dean
Institute of Technology
St. Louis University
Dr. Katharine E. McBride
President
Bryn Mawr College
Dr. Kevin McCann
President
The Defiance College
Dr. William D. McElroy
Director
National Science Foundation
Dr. Donald H. McLaughlin
President
Homestake Mining Company
San Francisco, California
Dr. Edward J. McShane
Professor of Mathematics
University of Virginia
Dr. James G. March
David Jacks Professor of Higher
Education, Political Science,
and Sociology
School of Education
Stanford University
*Mr. George W. Merck
Chairman of the Board
Merck & Company, Inc~
Rahway, New Jersey
*Dr. Frederick A. Middlebush
President
University of Missouri
*Mr. Edward L. Moreland
Executive Vice President
Massachusetts Institute
of Technology
Dr. Robert S. Morison
Professor of Biology and
Director, Division of
Biological Sciences
Cornell University
*Dr. Joseph C. Morris
Vice President
Tulane University
Dr. Marston Morse
Professor of Mathematics
The Institute for Advanced
Study
Dr. Samuel M. Nabrit
President
Texas Southern University
Dr. Morrough P. O'Brien
Dean
College of Engineering
University of California,
Berkeley
Mr. Harvey Picker
Chairman of the Board
Picker Corporation
White Plains, New York
+Dr. E. R. Piore
Vice President and
Chief Scientist
International Business
Machines Corporation
Arnonk, New York
-3-
PAGENO="0118"
114
Dr. A. A. Potter
Dean of Engineering
Purdue University
Dr. Mina S. Rees
President
The Graduate Division
The City University of New York
*Dr. James A. Reyniers
Director
LOBUND Institute
University of Notre Dame
*Dr. William W. Rubey
Professor of Geology and
Geophysics
University of California,
Los Angeles
*Dr. Jane A. Russell
Associate Professor of
Biochemistry
Emor- University
Dr. Glenn T. Seaborg
Chancellor
University of California,
Berkeley
Dr. Paul B. Sears
Chairman
Conservation Program
Yale University
Dr. Frederick E. Smith
Professor of Advanced Environmental
Studies in Resources and Ecology
Graduate School of Design
Harvard University
*Mr. John I. Snyder, Jr.
Chairman of the Board and
President
U. S. Industries, Inc.
New York, New York
Dr. Athelstan F. Spilhaus
President
The Franklin Institute
Dr. E. C. Stakman
Chief
Division of Plant Pathology
and Botany
University of Minnesota
Dr. Earl P. Stevenson
President
Arthur D. Little, Inc.
Cambridge, Massachusetts
Dr. Julius A. Stratton
Pr es i dent
Massaciiusetts Institute of
Technology
Mr. Richard H, Sullivan
President
Association of American
Colleges
Dr. Edward L. Tatun
Professor of Microbiology
and Biochemistry
The Rockefeller University
+Dr. Ralph W. Tyler
Director
Center for Advanced Study in
the Behavioral Sciences
Dr. Ernest H. Volwiler
Chairman of the Board
Abbott Laboratories
North Chicago, Illinois
#Dr. Eric A. Walker
President
The Pennsylvania State
University
-4-
PAGENO="0119"
115
*Dr. Alan T. Waterman
Director
National Science Foundation
Dr. Warren Weaver
Vice President for the Natural
and Medical Sciences
The Rockefeller Foundation
*Dr. Douglas M. W~iitaker
Vice President for
Administration
The Rockefeller University
*Dr. Malcolm M. Willey
Vice President
Academic Administration
University of Minnesota
*Mr. Charles E. Wilson
President
General Electric Company
*The Reverend Patrick H. Yancey, S.J.
Chairman
Department of Biology
Spring Hill College
- - July 24, 1974
PAGENO="0120"
116
The CHAIRMAN. I find that encouraging.
Senator Kennedy raised the one point that I wanted to raise before
we recess, and that is on science personnel, manpower, so-called.
A few weeks ago I was at a conference of engineers, and the mission
there was to explore ways to excite minorities to an interest in
engineering.
They had very stark statistics of 40~000-plus graduates in engineer-
ing last year or the year before, of which there were 400 blacks. This
conference was sponsored by one of our great national corporations.
They are fully aware of their responsibility, and they have been
aided by some of the work of this committee, particularly the equal
employment opportunity legislation that came from here. They are
really thirsting for qualified people.
Again, as you mentioned, it starts early in the educational life of an
individual. Many of them are corporately launching programs of edu-
cational interest at the elementary and secondary levels.
Is there any role for your Foundation in this?
Dr. STEVEn. Yes, sir, and we participate in many different ways.
First of all, the National Academy of Engineering here in town has
a Commission on Minorities in Engineering. It is chaired by Mr.
Reginald H. Jones, who is chairman of the Board of General Educa-
tion. Many corporations and schools have representatives on this. It is
quite an active group.
I am a Government representative. The Secretary of HEW is also a
Government representative. One of the NSF people in minority edu-
cation, Dr. James Mayo, is helping that committee.
We have a program for minorities in science-a small program, but
it is quite a good one. The Board has shown intense interest in doing
better in this area.
We have just learned that our consciousness is going to be expanded
on this. Dr. Cobb, you will find several other members who have similar
objectives.
We do have a role, we are conscious of it, and we are trying to do
something with it.
The CHAIRMAN. I do not know whether there will be an opportunity
or not, but I learned another bit of stark information from Dr. Gal-
legos-he comes from a Spanish background in Denver-and said not
only is there not an effort to stimulate interest, there is an absolutely
depressing attitude at the lower levels of discouragement, that there is
no room in some of the areas. He was talking about science and
engineering.
So I think you might find an ally in Dr. Galiegos at OEO.
Dr. STEVER. We find allies in very interesting places. The Los Alamos
Laboratory of the AEC has, I think, the only native American Indian
Ph. D. in physics on its payroll. It is located in an area with lots of
Indian tribes and reservations. It has worked with one of the major
reservations there, and volunteered science services to help them in
some of their early education programs in science.
The National Science Foundation is funding AEC's laboratory to
do this program.
The CHAIRMAN. Fine.
PAGENO="0121"
117
Dr. STEVER. We are trying as often as we can to broaden the spread
to where the problems are on the support for minority education in
science and technology.
The CHAIRMAN. I gather this is a historic occasion, a hearing on
confirmation. It is good for us here to have this opportunity to meet
you and hear from you.
I think our committee is strongly in support of the Foundation. We
are very pleased with this meeting, and certainly will do our job as
efficiently as we can, so we will clear this process of nominations as
rapidly as possible.
At this point I order printed a letter from Senator Hart, of Michi-
gan, endorsing Dr. Hubbard and other pertinent material submitted
for the record.
[The material referred to follows:]
PAGENO="0122"
118
PHILIP A. HART
~JCnUcb ~a~fez ,~ena{e
September 5, 1974
The Honorable Harrison A. Williams
Labor and Public Welfare Committee
4230 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, D. C. 20510
Dear Senator:
Next week you are scheduled to hear the nominees to
the National Science Board. One nominee is Dr. W. N.
Hubbard, Jr., President of The Upjohn Company - and
the world.
His distinguished career would recommend him highly
as one who could provide effective and thoughtful
service on the Board. Your judgment with respect to
his nomination will be based upon your own impression
of him and his background, but I hope you will not
think it inappropriate for me to express my own
endorsement of Dr. Hubbard.
Sincere
Philip A. Hart
PAGENO="0123"
119
SCIENCE & GOVERNMENT REPORT
The Independent Bulletin of Science Policy
.~
Vol. III, No.4
P.0.Box2l123,Washington,D.C.20009 ~ lQ7s 1eb. 51973
NSF's Research Budget: An Inside View of the Grant Proeess
First of a series of non-official renditions con-
cerning how the major federal granting agencies
decide yes or no on grant applications.
Over the next year, some 15,000 researchers will
seek to share the $275 million that the National
Science Foundation plans to dispense for its
traditional program of individual project research.
Perhaps 5000 will be successful; of these, almost all
will receive less than half the money they sought,
and in many cases, as little as 30 percent.
Who makes the decisions, what are the criteria
that separate the blessed from the disappointed,
and are there, as folklore holds, tricks of "grant-
manshsp" that can make a difference? SGR has
spent the last several weeks trying to find out by
chatting, on a non-attributable basis to encourage
candor, with some of the people who staff the
innards of the NSF bureaucracy. Our conclusion is
that the present system, though honestly admini-
stered and brimming with good intentions, is
surprisingly uneven and often arbitrary in its
criteria and nsethods, and that it would be desira-
ble for Congress or perhaps the National Academy
of Sciences to undertake a diligent inquiry usto this
vital aspect of the economy of science. Aisd, yes,
shrewdly composed application does hold an edge
over a less polished competitor, even though their
substance and the quality of the applicants may be
similar. (See Grantsmanship," p. 2).
NSF's $275 million in project research money,
as distinguished from funds provided for national
research centers, oceanography, Research Applied
to National Needs, and other of the Foundation's
many activities, is distributed through a Research
Directorate that is divided into six disciplinary
divisions: environmental sciences, biological and
medical sciences, engineering, social sciences, math-
ematical and physical sciences, and materials re-
search,
The Directorate is headed by one of NSF's six
assistant directors, Edward C. Creutz, who prey-
.4nd 4sk if Fled Like on .4pjusiniineni
Stapled in the centerfold of the latest NSF
staff telephone directory is a form titled, "Re.
cord of Telephone Threat," including a section
I inquiring: "If a bomb threat, when will it
explode? Location of bomb. Reason for placing
[~~Name of caller."
oualy was dtrector of research of the General
Atomic Division of the General Dynamics Corpora-
tion, and before that head of the physics depart-
ment and nuclear research center at the Carnegie
Institute of Technology. The six divisions under
Creutz are each headed by a director, and then,
varying from case to case, they are subdivided into
sections and individual programs that report direct-
ly to the division director.
However, within this complex and varying table
of organization, the key figures in all cases are the
~xogram directors, associates and assistants, of
whom there are 75 within the 1200-member staff
of the Foundation. To an extent that is not widely
recognized, they are the ones who in reality decide
yes or no and how much, and rarely at all are their
decisions altered by the staff structure above,
though major-but not binding-iisfluersces are ex-
erted by outsiders whose opinions are routinely
solicited.
How do the program directors operate? Well, as
one top NSF official explained to SGR, "There's
not much uniformity. We let them use their
judgment." Applications are routed to tlse program
directors by NSF's central processing office, wnich,
two years ago, confronted by a 10-20 per cent
growth rate that now annually adds up to 25,000
applications, active grants and contracts, took to
(Continued on pa ge 2)
In Brief
Some elders of science recall with dismay that
Nixon's new economic czar and main input for
science policy affairs, Treasury Secretary George P.
Shultz, has sometimes spoken of the "arrogance"
that he encountered among scientists when he was
a young economics teacher at MIT after World War
II-
With the White House Office of Science and
Technology lacking a director or deputy director
and due to expire in July, the man in charge is
David Beckler, a veteran staffer, who says, "I'm
organizing an orderly retreat". . -
Some recent departees from federal service are
expressing shock over the gap between public and
private salary scales, but it's the public pay they
now find at the upper end of the scale. One
ex-Washington official noted that his government
assistant drew $21,000 a year. "We couldn't
possibly match that in the private sector," he said.
PAGENO="0124"
120
2-SCIENCE & GOVERNMENT REPORT Feb. 15,.s~73
NSF RESEARCH BUDGET (Cont'd from page 1)
the computer to provide continuous "tracking" of
all that paper.
Since all the program directors work either alone
or at most with a few fulltime professional
colleagues, they personally examine every arriving
application-no small task, considering that the
numbers total 300 to 600 per year for each
program, and that an average application is in the
neighborhood of 25 pages. If the application looks
anywhere near "reasonable"-as many program
directors put it-the next step is to solicit through
the mail confidential opinions, consisting of essay-
style comments on the proposal, plus an "overall
rating" that runs from "excellent," through "very
good, good, fair, poor," with it being generally
agreed that anything below the top two has very
little chance. As for what the reviewers are
supposed to comment on, that, too, varies some-
what from program to program, but in general; the
directors want their thoughts on the scientific
validity of the proposal, its importance for "ad-
vancing the field," the "reasonableness" of the
budget, and the relationship between the appli-
cant's past performance and the ambitiousness of
the project.
How many appraisers and who are they? That,
too, turns out to be a matter of individual
discretion, with the numbers varying from three or
four in most cases to as many as a dozen in others.
One commonly expressed opinion was that in the
"hard" sciences, it's easier to size up a proposal
and the ratings tend to be fairly consistent; hence
fewer mail reviews. In the social sciences and In
newly developing interdisciplinary fields, the score-
keeping was said to vary widely, and the tendency
was to collect a greater number of opinions.
In general, the "mail reviewers" are people in
whom the directors have confidenc, either from
personal acquaintance, professional reputation, or
because they have been recommended by the
members of another major element in the granting
system: the program advisory panel, of which there
are 24, one for each program, with some overlap,
usually consisting of 12 members per panel who
meet with the program director for three two-day
sessions per year. (Remuneration, $75 per day,
__________________________________________ (Continued on page 6)
"Grantsmanship" & Other Matters
NSF officials specify scientific merit as the
key determinant in awarding research project
grants, but privately some concede that gene-
rally unspoken of elements can affect the
balance. Following are examples from conversa-
tions with Foundation executives:
"It helps if there's some evidence of frugality,
like saying that a certain piece of equipmant is
absolutely essential, but that you'll borrow
rather than buy."
"It's good for a youngster to list some big
shot as co-principal investigator, but you've got
to be careful with that. We'll check to see what
his other commitments are. If he's serving just as
a front, it won't help at all."
"Relevance? We have no formal requirement
for stating anything about it in so application,
but it's significant in borderline csses-and more
and more cases are borderline these days."
"Anyone who can come up with something
that you can put to work right away has an
inside track."
"We get doubtful if a guy with a good but
ordinary research record proposes to solve some
colossal scientific problem. It's better to have a
seasonable match between past performance and
wlsat you're planning."
Congressional intervention in behalf of an
applicant? "Absolutely worthless and may even
do harm. We kiss it off with a courteous reply
about the normal reviewing process, and if we
ask for data from the program director, we never
tell him that it's for a congressman."
Pro/.'ram Directors: :11 the Center
of NSF's (;ranz Systeni
What sic some of the major professional
characteristics of the program directors who
occupy so important a position in NSF's suppor~
of project research?
Almost all hold Ph.D's in the disciplines they
supervise or in a nearby field. About one-third
are on leave to NSF for a year or two from
research or administrative posts. The others are
considered permanent appointees, and of these
at present, about half have served with NSF for
at least 5 years. In almost all cases, their
financial rewards are substantially superior to
the prevailing rates of the academic world.
Depending on length of government service and
whether they bear the title of program director,
associate, or assistant, their salaries range from
$19,700 to $34,900, with most in the vicinity of
$30,000. Fairly representative is a program
director who came to NSF three years ago from
an associate professorship at a major university,
and is now receiving a salary of slightly over
$30,000.
Having operated on essentislly level budgets
for the past three years, most directors radiate a
sense of feeling squeezed between their NSF
superiors, who listen to their requests and then
hand them a budget to distribute more or less at
their own discretion, and their wailing colleagues
in the field, who demand to know why more
money isn't forthcoming.
PAGENO="0125"
121
NSF RESEARCH BUDGET (Could from page 2)
plus a free trip to Washington, a chance to meet
with colleagues, and, of no amall importance, an
opportunity to keep abreast of what others in the
field are planning.)
But unlike at the National Institutes of Health,
where outside scrutiny for funding of grant appli~
cations is required by law, the role and authority
of NSF's advisory panels are discretionary with the
program director. Some submit every application,
with the mail reviewa and their own comments, for
consideration by the panel, and whoBy or in large
part abide by the panel's decisions. Others, usually
claiming that the application load is too great to be
sensibly diapowd of in six days of meetings a year,
uw their panels simply to keep them abreast of
scientific, administrative and financial matters in
the discipline. Some, according to a top NSF
official, "make the decisions themselves, maybe
with just a mail review or two in cases where
they're doubtful."
When all the appraisals, of whatever sort, have
been made, there's the program director with desk
piled high. What happens next tends to vary from
program to program.
According to one NSF official, when Willism D.
McElroy directed NSF, his guiding rule was "teke
care of the proven performers-and that, it is said,
still guides some program directors. McEiroy's
successor. H. Guyford Stever, according to this
same official, has neither rescinded that dictum nor
approved it. "I doubt if anyone in the house has
any idea of what Stever thinks about this matter,"
said the official.
So, the program directors tend to go their own
way. One of them, presiding over several million
dollars a year, said that he feels "uneasy if the
young people aren't getting a good share"-
"young" being under 35-but he added that there
is no proportion specifically earmarked for the
young. Others said that age did not figure in their
decisions.
Another explained that since her program can
provide only about 30 percent of the funds
requested, "my rule of thumb" is that "young
investigators ran get along without s technician.
The importent thing is simply to get them started
on research. In considering applications from older
applicante, we ge~serally cut them down to one
technirisn for every three requested." One director
said that he tends to be "particularly hard on the
older, established researchers. Some of them think
their name alone ran swing the matter. I think
otherwise."
After an application has been approved by a
program director, formal approval is required from
two higher levels, but, with few exceptions that's
simply a formality. "It's rare for even one in a
hundred to be bucked back," a director explained.
For the rejected applicant there is a channel for
appeal. He can resubmit his application for another
run through the review procesa.-D.S.G.
40-491 0 - 75 - 9
PAGENO="0126"
122
The recent article on "Federal sci-
ence policy" by Philip Handler (3
March, p. 1063), in which be discusses
the rote of the President's Science Ad-
visory Cotnrnittee and of the National
Science Board, raises some interesting
questions. Among other things it sug-
gests a very careful reconsideration of
the mechanisms by which the National
Science Board can most effectively
make its contributions to federal sci-
ence policy. This same matter has in
the past received considerable attention
from the House Subcomnsittee on Sci-
ence, Research, and Development (the
"Daddario committee"), and a bill pro-
posing changes in the status of the
Board is once again before the Con.
gress. Indeed, the whole question of
the nation's scientific and technological
progress, particularly in terms of the
useful application of oar accumulated
scientific knowledge and its relation to
the national economy, has become a
matter of general concern. And the
operations of the National Science
Board clearly play an important part
in this larger picture.
These considerations have prompted
me to put on paper some of the im-
pressions and opinions I gained daring
a term on the Board.
Throughout the history of the Na-
tienal Science Foundation, and indeed
even before its formal establishment,
the question of how much responsibil-
ity and authority the National Science
Board should have has been a matter
of contention and uncertainty. The orig-
inal enabling act, after 5 years of
congressional debate on the subect, was
vetoed by President Truman on the
grounds that it granted lao much au-
thority to the Board and thus infringed
on the constitutional duties of the Chief
Executive. The act which was finally
signed in 1950 was far from clear
with respect to the Board's role. And
rabsequent legislation, designed to cc.
solve some of the initial uncertainties,
has actually had the effect 0f making
the Board's position more, rather than
less, anomalous.
The Foundation, as originally con-
ceived, was very largely the brainchild
of Vannevar Bush, the director of the
World War 1! Office of Scientific Re-
search and Development. To him and
to the other founding fathers, the con~
cepn was paramount that the nation's
science policies should be determined
by responsible leaders in science, edu-
cation, and public affairs-men repre-
sentative of the best scientific thinking
in the country. To achieve this end,
Bush, in his original report proposed
an organizational structure for the new
agency which provided for an unusual
degree of autonomy and a very clear-
cut pattern of authority and responsi-
bility (11:
Respovsibitity to the people, theough
the President and Congress, should be
placed in the hands of . . . lIbel Mem.
here, who should be . . . selected by the
President on the basis of their interest in
and capacity to prumote Ihe purposes of
the Foundation. . . . The Members should
elect their own chairman annually.
The chief euecotice officer of the Founda.
t,ov should be a director appointed by the
Membe~-o. Subiect to the direction and
sopetoision of the Members (acting as a
board), the director should discharge all
the fiscal, te~al, and administrative fonc.
tons of the Foundation.
Thus, as Bush and his committee
conceived the Foundation, its organiza-
tional structure was to be modeled af-
ter the pattern of the large private
foundations of the country rather than
thal of a typical gos'ernment agency.
The Board was to run the show, and
he director was to be, in effnct, the
Board's employee. It was a simple and
straightforward arrangement. The mem-
bers of the Board, free both from ex-
ternal political pressures and from in-
ternal administrative duties, could ap-
ply their talents and exercise their cot-
leclive judgmenl in the development of
a meaningful science policy for the
nation. Both the responsibility for es-
tablishing programs and the authorily
for carrying them out would resl clear.
ly with the Board, with the director
nerving as its executive officer.
It was too much to hope, of course,
that such an idealislic arrangement
would meet with either congressional
or presidential approval. Thus the en-
abling act, as finally passed, included
complications and anomalies that made
the Board's role in the operations of
the Foundation cumbersome from the
outset and almost assured the defeat
of the founding fathers' intentions.
In the manner of compromise legis-
lation, the act was too specific in some
respects and too vague in others. The
director of the Foundation, rather than
being chosen by the Board, was to be
appointed directly by the President
(with the advice and consent of the
Senate) and was to be a nonvoting cx
officio member of the Board. These
provisions seemed reasonable enough in
the light of the Foundnlion's govern-
mental characler, bttt the act went on
to enumerate specific responsibilities for
the director which served to compli-
cate his relationship to the Board. He
was authorized to "exercise the pow.
ers of the Foundation" with respect to
awarding scholarships, granting fellow.
ships, and entering into contracts. Thus
he wbs to be the agency's "contracting
officer." But he was to perform this
function "in accordance with the poli.
ries established by the Board" and with
the express provisicn that no final ar
lion was to be taken in these matterS
"unless in each inatanre the Board has
reviewed and approved the action pro-
posed to be taken."
The Board was given the privilege
of making recommendations to the
President with respect to the appuint.
meet of the directcr and was granled
the power to create its own enecutivc
committee (of which Ihe director was
also to be a nonvoting cx officio mem-
ber), but was prohibited from assign.
ing to its executive commiltee "the
function of establishing policies, or Ihe
function of review and approval" of
contracts and awards. The Board was
to elect its own chairman. And it was
specifically stated that the Board "shalt,
except as otherwise provided by this
Art, enercise the authority granted Ia
the Foundation by this Act."
II was an unusual and cumbersome
arrangement. The Board, il is true, was
free to determine overall policy, but
it was the director who reported 10 the
President, On the olher hand, the
Board was saddled with what actually
nCtEedce, vol.. tnt
National Science Board:
Its Place in National Policy
Eric A. Walker
`the nathan S presidast et the Nattenat /oad-
soy at Ergteeeethg sod of Pcsnsytnnnta State-
UaIa,e,hy, tintreecty Pack, Pa. 16502.
PAGENO="0127"
amounted to a targe part of the orga-
nization's administration, while the ad-
ministrative control of personnel rested
with the director. And although the
Board was charged with the develop-
ment and pursuit of a national science
policy, no mechanism was provided
for the implementation of whatever
decisions might he made in this re-
spect.
Moreover, it was not at all clear
just what was meant by a national
science policy. Did this mean simply
determining the overall needs of the
nation as far as scientific research and
education were concerned, or did it
involve a composite of specific policies
for the scientific affairs of Congress and
the various eneculive agencies? Did it
include an investigation and evaluation
of the programs of other-frequently
larger and more influential-federal
agencies, and if so, by what means? In
the light of these anomalies, it is un-
derstandable that, during the early
years of the Foundation, little attention
was paid to large-scale policy matters.
lincertain of the Foundation's place
among the many federal agencies sup-
porting research, limited by inadequate
lands, and burdened with operational
duties, the Board devoted most of its
energies to working out practical ar-
rangements for carrying out its own
programs. The determination of over-
dl policy, even for the Foundation it-
self, was by no meant a simple mat-
ter. In this respect the act had pro-
vided for a troika-like arrangement
which did not make for easy sledding.
three groups clearly played a direct
part in policy guidance and control of
he agency-the Congress, the Execu-
tive Branch, and the Board itself, each
if which had, and still has, some meat-
tire of veto power over the Founda-
tion's activities. As lung as alt three
tic in favor of a given policy or proj-
set, there is no problem. But if one of
them wishes to exercise a veto, it can
to so. Either the Congress or the Ad-
ittinistration can thus negate a poticy
Promulgated by the Board.
In l95fi, an executive order ctarillcd
to some extent the Foundation's cuter-
itt responsihitities by instructing it "to
CCitt mend to the President policies
the Federal goverrment which will
`trcngthcn the national scientific efforl
01st furnish guidance toward defining
lie responsibility of the Federal govern.
vent in the conduct and support of
ederat research." And in t959, the is-
limit situation was improved by amend-
to the National Science Act
which permitted the Board to delegate
authority to the director and to its exe-
cutive committee to approve grants and
contracts in certain situations. Yet in
spite of these attempts to overcome
some of the difficulties inherent ix the
original act, the Foundation seemed un-
able to fulfill the especlations of its
founders.
To many the troubte appeared to lie
in the Foundation's unusual structure.
Complaints were heard that the NSF
was "not like other Federal agencies."
that it was not sufficiently responsibte
to or controlled by the executive branch.
that it was too directly responsible to
the Board. Suggestions were made that
the Foundation should be put into the
more regular pattern of other govern-
ment agencies. For this and other rea-
sons, the Foundation was reorganized
by an act of Congress in 1962. What the
reorganization plan did in effect was
to push the Foundation further away
from the concept which had been of
prime importance to its founders-that
of providing a workable mechanism by
which the best scientific thinking of the
country could be hrottght to bear on
the development and pursuit of a sound
science poticy for the nation. By the
1962 reorganization, the Board-sap.
posedly the representative of the na-
tion's top scientists and edocators-svas
placed in a curiously restricted po-
sition, both in relation to the Founda-
tion's own operations and to its broader
influence in the government's scientific
affairs.
The tendency to strengthen the direc-
tor's position vis-ą-vis the Board had
been evident in a 1959 executive order
which designated him as a member of
the Federal Council for Science and
Technology. The act of 1962 further
strengthened his position at the expense
of the Board. First, he was utade a
full voting member 0f the Board. Since
such an arrangetttext is fairly com-
mon in many universities and indus.
trial corporations, this step was not
seriously resisted by the Board. Bitt the
really curiouts provision of the 1962 oct
was that, in overhauting the executive
conimittee to give it a more effective
rote in the Foundation's tperations. it
was specified that the director, rather
than the Board chairman, shoitid he
chairman of the Board's esecutive com-
The 1962 act ,ttso removed from the
Foundation "so mttch of the function
conferred ttpon" it by the original act
-"to devetop and encourage the pur-
suit of a national policy for the pro-
utotiou of basic research and educa-
tion in the sciences - . - as would
enable [the director of the Office of
Science and Technology) to advise and
assist the President in achieving coor-
dinated Federal policies" foe this pur-
pose. In addition, the act removed the
Foundation's charge "to evaluate scien-
tific research projects undertaken by
agencies of the Federal Government"
and transferred this function as well
to the Office of Science and Technol-
ogy. Thus the Board's opportunity for
infittencing federal science policy was
further and severely restricted. As a
matter of fact, if it had not been for
the vigilance of sante alert Board ment-
hers, the Board woutld, at that time.
have been stripped of all real authority
and reduced to an advisory function.
Discussions then took place and a
compromise "truce" which lasted 3
years was the result.
The fate of the advisory committees
under the provisions of the reorganiza-
lion act is also significant. These com-
mittees, made up of scientists in sepa-
rate disciplines, such as mathematics.
astronomy, engineering, and others, had
been an important communication link
between the scientific fratereily and the
Board. By making them responsible to
the director, the 1962 act removest
them from direct contact with the
Board. And a later reorganization act
119651 abolished completely the statu-
tory requirement for these committees.
Since the committees had been removed
earlier from the jurisdiction of the
Board, the Board had no chance in
1965 to vote on the desirability of
their statutory position.
What it all adds up to is that gradual-
ly, by successive steps, the National
Science Board-originally envisioned as
a largely autonomosts group of leaders
who were to have a powerful voice in
the condttct of the scientific affairs of
the nation-has become what amounts
to little more than a routine commit-
tee for determining the specific awards
and contracts of the Notional Science
Foundation, with little power to en-
force policy decisions. This is not to
say, of course, that the larger purposes
of the Fostndation have, over the years.
been unsttccessful. The present strength
of United States science speaks to the
Fottndation's overall achievements. Nor
it stir iii that there has been seri-
ous contention or bickering between
the Board and the director. It is to the
cruvittt of hottt the tirector in, the
menthers of the Board that they have
heen able to work effectively together
123
PAGENO="0128"
in spite of the curious organizational
pattern forced upon them. What it does
indicate, however, is that the Board,
in its efforts to carry out its responsi.
hilities, has found itself constantty ham.
-lrung by operational restrictions and
bureaucratic encumbrances.
It is not strange therefore that the
lsaard has been regarded in some quay-
tars as an ineffective body, nor that it
has been charged with neglecting some
of its basic duties. No reports have
been separately issued by the Board.
although until the last few years the
Board chairman has contributed slate.
ments to the annual report of the di.
rector. But the Board's neglect in this
respect can be at least partially ex-
plained by the fact that it has never
been empowered to have a staff of its
own, and although the suggestion has
been made that it depend for its staff
work on the regular Foundation person.
net, this has not proved very practical.
These people are part of a tine or-
ganization headed by the director, and
work for the Board is regarded by
them as temporary additional duty, with
a tow priority. They have other duties
and cannot be expected to serve two
masters. Thus on many occasions, the
Board's effectiveness has been seriously
limited by its inability to get the facts
on which it can base the policies it is
responsible for.
On other occasions, where the facts
are available and a policy has been
formulated, the suggestions or direc-
tions of the Board have not been im-
plemented. For example, the problem
of what percentage of the cost of the
research projects supported by the
Foundation should be paid by the col-
leges or universilies concerned has long
been under discussion. On this ques-
tion, there has never been, to all ap-
pearances, a firm Board policy. Yet the
Board did direct hat some fraction of
the support of these projects should
come from the university, and when the
matter was discussed in Congress. it
was suggested that this fraction be of
the order of 5 percent. But this, as one
of our congressmen has pointed out, is
far too simple, and instead the `coun-
try's research effort finds itself entangled
in provisions which are complex, in.
equitable, and whose reasons for exist-
ence seem to he such a dark secret
that they cannot be shared with the uni-
versities (2).
As mentioned before, the suggestion
sos been made on a number of oc-
c,ssions that, since the Board's position
is so obviously an anomalous one, it
might be advisable to simply make it,
by legislative action, a purely advisory
body. This suggestion has been vigor-
ously resisted, on what appear to me
to be very solid grounds. It seems lą
me that the original purposes of the
Board are at least as important today
as they were when the Foundation was
established. Indeed, the nation's expand.
ing research activity seems today to be
more in need of capable direction than
ever before. And it seems eminently de-
sirable that this direction should come
from the men whose technical compe-
tence and rational judgment have fitted
them to make the decisions necessary
for a sound science policy-men who
are intimately familiar with the discov-
ery and application of knowledge and
who are willing to contribute a sub-
stantial portion of their time to the
performance of an important public
Indeed it seems to me very likely
that, if the National Science Board were
to be further stripped of its authority
and be made a purely advisory body,
it would be impossible to get the same
calibre of men to serve on it. As an
advisory board, it would lose even the
vestige of influence in nationat affairs
that has been left to it. I cannot help
but feel that whatever steps are taken
by Congress to reorganize the National
Science Foundation, they should he tak-
en in the direction of strengthening
the Board's role rather than diminish-
inc it. The national policymaking rote
of the Board should he clarified not
only in relation so the Foundation it-
self. but also in relation to the Office
of Science and Technology, the Office
of the Special Assistant to the Presi-
dent for Science and Technology, the
Presidents Science Advisory Commit-
tee. the Federal Council for Science and
Technology, the National Academy of
Scirnces, and the National Academy
of Engineering. All of these groups can
play an effective part in a national sci-
ence program, but they can do so only
with well-defined responsibilities and
clearly understood assignments.
And there would be real advantages
in restoring to the National Science
Board some of the authority that, either
by default or intent, it has gradually
lost. The National Science Board has
been made up. over the years, of men
who to a large eslent are as objective
in their judgment and as conscientious
in their decision-nsaking as could be
found anywhere. Their essential loyalty
is not to the Congress, or to the Ad-
ministration, but to science itself. More-
over, they are appuinted by the Presi-
dent, with the consent of the Senate.
for 6-year terms, which means that at
least six of them span a 4-year presi-
dential term. They are. in short, better
qualified to carry oat the task that men
like Vannevar Bush envisioned for them
than almost any other group that could
be named. What they need is a clarifi-
cation of their duties, an assurance of
adequate authority, and as much free-
dom us possible from bureaucratic pres-
sures and entanglements.
The legislation currently being con-
sidered for revamping the Foundation
is a short step in the right direction;
at least, it leans the right way. To
same extent it supports the Board's
own suggestion that the Board should
"establish and be responsible for the
policies and programs of the Founda-
tion." At least it slates specifically that
the Board should "determine policy."
Yet it seems to me that many of
the problems of the past could be al-
leviated if the Board were given a more
clear-cut mandate, not only to estab-
lish policies but to determine programs
as welt, and to be made responsible
for seeing that the programs realty
carry out the policies. It is for this
reason that the Board by unanimous
vote proposed the wording referred to
above, wording which in my opinion
was intended to mean (ii that the Board
should establish the purpose and nature
of the various individual programs sap.
ported by the Foundation; (ii) that the
Board should exercise a continuing gen-
eral surveillance of the awards made
under such programs: (iii) that the
Board should be empowered to modi-
fy or terminate such programs when in
its judgment they no longer appear to
serve the nationat interest adequately;
and (iv) that the director bring to the
Board those applications for grant or
contract funds which raise matters of
policy or of the interpretation of pol-
icy. In addition, the Board should ob-
viously choose its own chairman, opec-
ale its own executive committee, ap-
point its own functional committees on
the basis of practical needs, and be
assigned a small staff to aid in neces-
sary research and report.writing.
Yet even if alt this were done.
the question stilt arises as to who real-
ly runs the Foundation. The matter
of administrative discipline is sonse-
times raised. Should Board members
be permitted to raise questions publicly
without approval of the Executive
Branch, the Bureau of the Budget, or
the President's Scientific Adviser? Or if
SCtENCr, VOL. 36
124
PAGENO="0129"
the Board promulgates a policy which
it thinks is in the best interests of the
country, should approval be obtained
from the Executive Branch before such
a policy is announced?
Some Board members object to the
constraints of this sort of administra-
tive discipline, and at least in the past
have felt that prior approval of Ibis
type should not be required. tt might
be reasoned that the director-who is a
presidential appointee, who is on the
federal payroll, and who is making a
career of federal service-is obviously
subject to adm)nistrative discipline. But
does the same reasoning apply to Board
members? In fact, the question of giv-
ing testimony before a congressional
committee itself has been raised. Must
Board members offer only "approved"
testimony? If so, this would seem to
seriously weaken the Board's voice in
terms of the purposes for which it was
established. In my opinion, the nation
would best be served by making that
voice stronger. Unless some provisions
are made to really strengthen the Na-
tional Science Board, we are likely to
witness a gradual shift of the control
of national science policies and pro-
grams from the scientific community
to the bureaucracy-with a consequent
weakening and distortion of the whole
sciFntific effort.
Rsternses eed Nots
repyh'ted by ht Nutiocat Soisnos Focnd,tlue,
Wushtegtnn, D.C. (1960).
2. 1 hess oo,n,esntnd sects fatty cx this wastes
in ety eves ye Syfrses 155, 1409 (t967).
125
PAGENO="0130"
126
The CHAIRMAN. The committee will now stand in adjournment sub-
ject to the call of the Chair.
[Whereupon, at 5 :30 p.m., the committee adjourned subject to the
call of the Chair.]
PAGENO="0131"
NOMINATIONS
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 3, 1974
15.5. SENATB,
SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE NATIONAL SCIENCE
FOUNDATION, COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE,
Wa$hington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9 :40 a.m., in room 431,
Russell Office Building, Hon. Edward M. Kennedy, presiding.
Present: Senator Kennedy.
Senator KENNEDY. The subcommittee will now come to order.
First of all I want to extend a word of congratulations, Dr. Hub-
bard, for your nomination to the Board.
As you well understand, our subcommittee is a small subcommittee.
These hearings are indicative of the continued and increasing interest
that the Congress has in working with the National Science Founda-
tion in the development of science policy.
The members are extremely active and interested, and increasingly
so, in working with the Board in the development of scientific priori-
ties, in trying also to interact with the Board and in responding to
their interest in what Congress is thinking.
I think there has been an increasing beneficial relationship that has
been developing over the period of recent years, and it is really in that
spirit that we wanted to meet with you here this morning.
First of all, I would appreciate it if you would express your interest
in the Board and what you feel to be the areas in which you can make
the greatest contribution, and really what you hope to be able to
achieve by service on the Board.
At the outset I will make your complete biographical data a part
of the record. It is indeed impressive. You have been a distinguished
dean of one of the great medical schools, an extremely successful busi-
nessman in the private sector, presently president of the Upjohn
Co. and one who has been active in community and civic affairs.
A copy of Dr. Hubbard's biographical sketch will be included in the
record at this point.
[The information referred to follows:]
(127)
PAGENO="0132"
128
CURRICULUM VITAE
William Neill Hubbard, Jr., M.D.
Born: October 15, 1919 in Fairmont, North Carolina
Marital Status: Married Elizabeth Terleski, December 28, 1945
Children: William N., III
Michael James
Mary E~a
Elizabeth Anne
Susan Ellen
Education:
Premedical: Columbia College, Columbia University, 1937-41 -- A.B.
Medical: University of North Carolina School of Medicine, 1941-43
New York University College of Medicine, 1943-44 -- M.D.
Postgraduate: Bellevue Hospital
Intern, Third Medical Division, 1944
Assistant Resident, Third Medical Division, 1945
~henectady County Tuberculosis Hospital
Resident, 1946
IsIievue Hospital
Intern, Department of Pathology, 1947
Assistant Resident, Third Medical Division, 1948
Resident, Third Medical Division, 1949
University Appointments:
New York University College of Medicine
Assistant in Medicine, 1949-50
John Wyckoff Fellow in Medicine, 1950-51
Instructor in Medicine, 1950-53
Assistant Professor of Medicine, 1953-59
Assistant Dean, August 1, 1951 to June 30, 1953
Associate Dean, July 1, 1953 to June 30, 1959
PAGENO="0133"
129
Curricu1im~ Vitae -2- W. N. Hubbard, Jr., M.D.
University Appointments, cont'd.
University of Michigan
July 1, 1959-June 30, 1964: Dean of the Medical School and
Associate Professor of Interoal Mcd~.ine
July 1, 1964-June 30, 1969: 1~ean of the Medical School and
Professor of Internal Medicine
July 1, 1969-March 31, 1970: Dean of the Medical School, Director
of the Medical Center and Professor
of Internal Medicine
The Upjohn Company
April 1, 1970 - Sept. 30, 1972: Vice President & General Manager
Pharmaceutical Division
Oct. 1, 1972 - Apr. 16, 1974: Executive Vice President
Apr. 16, 1974 - President
Hospital Appointments:
- Bellevue Hospital Third Medical Division
Clinical Assistant Visiting Physician, 1950-52
Assistant Visiting Physician, 1952-59
University Hospital of New York University
Assistant Attending Ph"sician in the Department
of Medicine, 1952-59
University Hospital of The University of Michigan
Senior Medical Staff in the Department of Internal
Medicine, 1959-70
Membership in Societies:
Alpha Kappa Kappa
Alpha Ocega Alpha
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American College of Physicians: Fellow
American Medical Association
Association of American Medical Colleges
Harvey Society
Michigan State Medical Society
Member of the Council, 1960-62
New York Academy of Medicine
Phi Kappa Phi
Sigma Xi
Society of Alomni of Bellevue Hospital
Kalamazoo Academy of Medicine
Michigan Academy of Science, Arts, and Letters
PAGENO="0134"
130
Curriculum Vitae -3- W. N. Hubbard, Jr., M.D.
United States Goverrsnent Agency Appointments:
Member of the Study Section, Heart Program Project Committee
of the National Institutes of Health, 1960-64
Regent of the National Library of Medicine, 1963-67; 1972 -76
Chairman of the Board of Rege~its, 1965-67; 1974-75
Member, Ad Hoc Advisory Committee to the Surgeon General
on Dental Research Centers, 1964-67
Consultant to the Public Health Service Division of
Hospitals and Medical Facilities, 1964-66
Member, Ad Hoc Advisory Committee on National Networks of
Data Processing Systems, Office of Science and
Technology, 1965
Consultant, National Institute of Dental Research,
1965-66, 1970-
Member, Dental Research Institutes Special Programs
Advisory Committee, 1966-69; Chairman, 1968-69
Member, National Advisory Commission on Libraries,
1966-68
Member, Special Medical Advisory Group of the Veterans
Administration, 1969-70
Appointments:
Association of American Medical Colleges
Associate Secretary, part-time, 1954-56
Member, Editorial Board, Journal of Medical Education,
1960-65
Member, Executive Council, 1962-68
Vice-Chairman of the Coimnittee for Planning for Medi-
cal Progress Through Education, 1964-65
President, 1966-'i7
Chairman, Federal Health Program Committee, 1966-68
Chairman, AANC Institute on Medical School
Curriculum, 1968
Member, Medical Advisory Committee, The W. K. Kellogg
Foundation, 1959-67
Member, Board of Directors, National Society for Medical
Research, 1962-64
Member, Board of Directors, National Fund for Medical
Education, 1962- (Vice-Prea. 1968)
Member, AMA Task Force on Animal Care, 1962-65
Chairman of the Council and Treasurer, EDUCOM, 1964-66
Member, Board of Trustees, Detroit Annual Conference
Retirement Homes of the United Methodist Church, Inc.
1965- ; Board of Health and Welfare, 1968-
Member, Governor's Advisory Council on Heart Disease,
Cancer and Stroke, 1965-66
President, Michigan Association for Regional Medical
Programs, Inc.; Chairman, Board of Directors;
Chairman, Regional Advisory Group, 1966-68; Member,
Board of Directors, 1968-69
Member, Conanittee on Health Manpower, Michigan State
Board of Education, 1966-68
Member-at-Large, Board of Directors, National Board of
PAGENO="0135"
131
Curriculins Vitae -4- W. N. Hubbard, Jr., M.D.
Appointments, cont `d:
Member, Committee for a Study of the Governance of
Medical Schools, Macy Foundation, 1967-69
Member, Advisory Board on Medical Education of the
Citizens Cocanittee on EducattGn for Health Care,
1967-69
Member, Committee on Health and Human Values, 1968-70
Member, Executive Panel for the Study on Biomedical
Education for the Future, National Academy of Science
Board on Medicine, 1968-69; Chairman, Panel on the
Relationships of Medical Schools to the Universities
and Higher Education, 1968-69
Member, Board of Directors, The Upjohn Company, 1969-
Member, Board of Directors, Greater Detroit Area
Hospital Council, Inc., 1969-70
Member, Areawide Health Planning Operating Conanittee,
1969-70
Member, Advisory Committee of the Inter-Society Coninission
for Heart Disease Resources, 1969-70
Member, Board of Directors, National Intern and Resident
Matching Program, 1969-70
Member, Coninission for the Study of Nursing and
Nursing Education, 1970-73
Member, Board of Trustees, Bronson Methodist Hospital,
1970-
Chairman Governor's Action Committee on Corrections
1972-
Member, Panel of Educational Consultants to Commission
on Education for Health Administration, 1973-
Member, Board of Trus~:ees, Kalamazoo College, 1973-
Member, Board of Dire~tors, National Medical Fellowships, Inc.
1973-
Member, Brown University Committee on Medical Education, 1974-
Member, Board of Directors, First National Financial Corporation
1974-
Awards and Honors:
Distinguished Alumni Service Award, University of
North Carolina, March 31, 1962
Sc.D. (Hon.) conferred by Hillsdale College,
Hillsdale, Michigan, May 28, 1967
Special Award, Michigan State Medical Society,
September 27, 1967; February 24, 1968
Sc.D. (Hon.) conferred by the Albany Medical College,
Albany, New York, June 1, 1968
PAGENO="0136"
132
W. N. Hubbard, Jr., M.D.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Terramycin in the treatment of pneuinococcal pnewnonia. (With
W. S. Tillett.) Aim. N. Y. Acad. Sci., 1950, 53, 429-432 (Sept. 15).
2. Systemic toxic responses of patients to treatment with strepto-
kinese-dornase. J. Curt. Investigation, 1951, 30, 1171-1174.
3. Research orientation and methods. Contribution to educational
objectives of the basic medical sciences. J.A.M.A., 1959, 170,
432-435 (May 23).
4. The university phase of medical education. Scalpel, 1959, 29,
No. 3, 4 pp.
5. Medical education at The University of Michigan. Guest editorial.
Washtenaw Co. N. Soc. Bull., 1960, Il, No. 6, p. 12.
6. Mental health research in the Medical School. U. N. Ned. Bull.,
1960, 26, 32-35 (Feb.).
7. The 110th Medical School convocation: introductory remarks.
U. N. Med. Bull., 1960, 26, 325-332 (Oct.).
8. The future of geriatrics education. Guest editorial. New Physician,
1961, A-l5 to A-16 (July).
9. Medicine and dentistry must someday merge. New Med. Materia, 1962
4, No. 3, p. 40 (Mar.).
10. Changing patterns in medicine: education and practice. U. N. Med. Bull.,
1962, 28, 7-13 (Jan.-Feb.).
11. The dean and the hospital administrator. J. Med. Educ., 1962, 37,
Nc'. 4, 270-272 (Apr.).
12. The changing role of the physician. Scalpel, 1962, 32, No. 4, 6 pp.
13. New physician. Editorial. J. Nich. State N. Soc., 1963, 62, 201-202.
14. Professional obligation. U. N. Ned. Bull., 1963, 29, No. 4,
195-200 (July-Aug.).
15. Problems of discipline in medical schools. Fed. Bull., 1964,
51, No. 11, 341-351 (Nov.).
16. Grants management and the scientific community. U. N. Ned. Center J.,
1965, 31, 1-3 (Jan.-Feb.).
17. An institution's individuality. Guest editorial. Internat. Ned.
~ 1965, 81, No. 3, p. 89 (Mar.); Internat. Surg. Digest,
1965, 74, No. 3, p. 97 (Mar.).
PAGENO="0137"
133
W. N. Hubbard, Jr., M.D.
BIBLIOGRAPHY (p. 2)
18. The Hippocratic oath. Mich. Med., 1965, 64, 247-250 (Apr.).
19. Viewpoint of the scientific cousnunity. Pub. Health Rep., 1965,
80, No. 8, 677-680 (Aug.).
20. One hundred years and hence. Mich. Mcd., ~965, 64, 684-686 (Sept.).
21. The revolution in science and the response of the church.
Mich. Med., 1966, 65, 179-182 (Mar.).
22. The educational functions of the university medical center.
Universiteit en Hogeschool, 1967, 13, 205-219 (Jan.). (In: Functions
of the future university medical center. Proceedings of the Boerhaave
Conference, University of Leiden, The Netherlands, December 15-17, 1966).
23. The sequicentennial of The University of Michigan's role in health.
Mich. Med., 1967, 66, 163-167 (Feb.).
24. Human biology and medical ethics. U. M. Med. Center J.,
1967, 33, 49-53 (Mar.-Apr.).
25. The educational environment in the large medical school. (With
Robert B. Howard). J. Med. Educ., 1967, 42, No. 7, 633-641 (July).
26. The Tricentennial. U. N. Ned. Center J., 1967, 33, 156-157 (July-Aug.).
27. Continuing Education and revaluation of the physician. Fed. Bull.,
October, 1967, pp. 318-325.
28. Janus revisited. J. Med. Educ., 1967, 42, No. 12, 1071-1080 (Dec.).
29. A report from the September, 1968 AANC Workshop on the Medical
Curriculum. J. Med. Educ., 1969, 44, No. 1, 58-61 (Jan.).
30. The implications for licensure of changes in medical education.
Fed._Bull., 1969, 56, No. 3, 53-64 (Mar.).
31. University of Michigan health team geared for extensive expansion.
Nich. Med., 1969, 68, No. 9, 475-476 (May).
32. The health manpower shortage: the physician. U.M. Med. Center J.,
1969, 35, No. 2, 98-100 (Apr.-June).
33. Health Knowledge. The Health of Americans, Prentice-Hall, Inc.
1970, 4, 93-120. (Report of the 37th American Assembly,
Apr. 23-26, 1970).
PAGENO="0138"
134
W. N. Hubbard, Jr., M.D.
BIBLIOGRAPHY (p. 3)
-34. Curriculum changes. ACMC Newsletter, June 1970 (Annual Meeting
Assn. Canadian Med. Colleges, Oct. 1969).
35. Introduction - the medical school curriculum. J. Med. Educ., 1970
45, No. 11, Part 2, 3-6 (Nov.).
36. Compassion and competence. Honors Convocation Address, The Univ. of
Ala. School of Med., Birmingham, Ala. The Alabama Journal of Med.
Sciences, July, 1970.
37. Book Review. Financing Medical Education: An Analysis of Alternative
Policies and Mechanisms. Rashi Fein and Gerald I. Weber. Jour. Med. Ed.
Vol. 46, No. 10, October, 1971.
38. Editorial Cotmnent regarding question of departments of family medicine
in Michigan medical schools. Mich. Med., 1972, 71, No. 11, 333 (Apr.).
39. Preclinical Problems of New Drug Developments. Conference on "The
Regulation of the Introduction of New Pharmaceuticals" Dec. 4-5, 1972.
~
PAGENO="0139"
135
W. N. Hubbard, Jr., M.D.
MAJOR ADDRESSES
1. "Medical Education -- for What?" Sigma Xi Lecture, Ann Arbor,
March 9, 1960.
2. "The Responsiveness of Medical Education to Changes in Medical
Practice." Wayne County Medical Society, Detroit, April 4, 1960.
3. "Economic Dilemma of Doctor in Training." Panel: Michigan Clinical
Institute, Detroit, March 9, 1961.
4. "Professional Obligation." Commencement address, Fifty-Ninth
Annual Commencement, Baylor University College of Medicine,
Houston, Texas, May 27, 1961.
5. "Private Medicine." Symposiiun: Michigan Tuberculosis Association,
Kellogg Center, East Lansing, September 20, 1961.
6. "Changing Patterns in Medicine: Education and Practice." Michigan
Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Grand Rapids, Sept. 27, 1961.
7. "The Dean and the Hospital Administrator." Annual Meeting, The
Association of American Medical Colleges, November 12, 1961.
8. "Changing Patterns in Medical Education." Milwaukee Academy of
Medicine, January 16, 1962.
9. "The Changing Role of the Physician." Alpha Epsilon Delta
Convention, Toledo, April 27, 1962.
10. "The Needs of Medical Education." National Fund for Medical
Education, Detroit, November 28, 1962.
11. "New Medical Schools -- Why and Where?" Edward and Susan Lowe
Lecture, Butterworth Hospital, Grand Rapids, March 26, 1963.
12. "Influence of the Judaic-Christian Ethic on Western Civilization."
Hillel Foundation, Ann Arbor, March 27, 1963.
13. "Educational Values in Medical Writing." American Writers
Association, Ann Arbor, May 15, 1963.
14. "Undergraduate Medical Training." Panel: Wisconsin Academy of
General Practice, Fifteenth Annual Scientific Assembly,
Milwaukee, September 17, 1963.
15. "The Role of Computers in Medical Diagnosis." Also: "Ambulatory
Patient Care in the Hospital Setting." Mecklenberg County
Academy of General Practice, Charlotte, N.C., October 2, 1963.
PAGENO="0140"
136
W. N. Hubbard, Jr., M.D.
MAJOR ADDRI~SSES (p.2)
16. "Practices and Procedures for Allocation of Work Effort to
Federally Supported Pesearch Programs." Lecture at a DRG
Sponsored Seminar for PHS Grants N~i~gcmment Staff. Bethesda,
Nd., December 2, 1963.
17. "The Rise and Fall of the Medical Specialties." First Annual
Memorial Lecture in Honor of Dr. Martin B. Taliak, Berea, Ohio
December 11, 1963.
18. "Problems of Discipline in Medical Schools." Federation of
State Medical Boards of the United States, Chicago, Feb. 11,1964.
19. "The Evaluation of Education in the Clinical Sciences." National
Board of Medical Examiners' Invitational Conference, Philadelphia,
March 13, 1964.
20. "Twenty-Five Years Before and After." University of North Carolina,
Chapel Hill, March 20, 1964.
21. "Science and Humanism." Phi Beta Eappa address,\Ann Arbor,
April 23, 1964.
22. "The Future Dependable Archives." American Medical Writers'
Association, Ann Arbor, Nay 13, 1964.
23. "Medical Care -~ Where Have We Been, Where Are We Going?" All
Class Dinner, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, May 21, 1964.
24. "Historical Background of the HIppocratic Oath." Convocation
Address, College of Medicine, )hio State University, Columbus,
September 27, 1964.
25. "Grarc3 Management and the Scientific Community." American
Public Health Association, New York City, October 7, 1964.
26. "Munich Memorial Lecture." Commencement Address, University of
Kentucky College of Medicine, Lexington, May 10, 1965.
27. "Implications of the Coggeshall Report for Surgical Education."
American Surgical Society, Boston, July 9, 1965.
28. "The Revolution in Science and the Response of the Church."
Michigan Methodist Pastors' School, Albion College, Albion,
August 31, 1965.
29. `Medicine in Modern Society." Markie Scholars, Mont Tremblant,
Quebec, September 20, 1965.
PAGENO="0141"
137
W. N. Hubbard, Jr., M.D.
MAJOR ADDRESSES (p.3)
30. "Health Manpower Meeds." White House Conference on Health,
Panel Session on Health Education, Wa~h~ngton, D.C., Nov. 3, 1965.
31. "Hurnan'Biology and Medical Ethics." Salem College Symposium on
Technopclis--Modern Trends in Society, Winston-Salem, N.C.,
April 21, 1966.
32. "The Medical School and Psychiatry." Midwest Professors of
Psychiatry, Ann Arbor, June 17, 1966.
33. "The Educational Envirormient in the Large Medical School."
(With Robert B. Howard). Annual Meeting, Association of American
Medical Colleges, San Francisco, October 23, 1966.
34. "The Educational Functions of the University Medical Center."
Boerhaave Conference, Leiden, The Netherlands, December 15, 1966.
35. "What is Happening to Man Emotionally and Spiritually?" "What is
Wholeness?" Michigan Pastors' Conference, Ann Arbor,
January 16 and 17, 1967.
36. "Continuing Education and Revaluation of the Physician." Annual
Meeting, Federation of State Medical Boards of the United States,
Chicago, February 12, 1967.
37. `!Emerging Patterns of Education and Practice in the Health Professions--
Medicine." Pharmacy-Medicine-Nursing Conference on Health Education,
9~he University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, February 16, 1967.
38. "Preparing Physicians to Meet Future Needs for Health Care Services."
Twentieth National Conference on Rural Health, Charlotte, N.C.,
March 10, 1967.
39. `Trends in Medical Education." American Psychiatric Association,
Detroit, Nay 10, 1967.
40. "Science and Human Purpose." Cossnencetnent Address, Hillsdale
College, Hillsdale, Nay 28, 1967.
41. "Janus Revisited." Presidential Address, Association of American
Medical Colleges, New York, October 28, 1967.
42. "Can We Be Equal and Excellent Too?" Tuft ~edical School, Boston,
January 9, 1968.
43. "Are National Organizations Worth the Effort? American Association
of Chairmen of Medical School Departments of Pathology, Chicago,
March 1, 1968.
44. "Trends in Medical Education." American Academy of Physical
Medicine anį Rehabilitation, Chicago, April 26, 1968.
40-498 0 - 75 - 10
PAGENO="0142"
138
W. N. Hubbard, Jr., M.D.
MAJOR ADDRESSES (p.4)
45. "Flexible Bricks--Building for Change." Fourth North American
Conferc~:ce on Campus Planning ano Public Building, Urbana, Ill.,
April 30, 1968.
46. "Medicine and &manlsm." Corm'encement Address, Albany Medical
School, Albany, New York, June 1, 1968.
47. "Human Biology and Humanism." Ministers Conference, New York
Union Theological Smiinary, New York, N. Y., July 8, 1968;
"The Human Race and the Individual." Ibid., July 9, 1968;
"For the Good of My Patient." Ibid., July 9, 1968; "Should
We, if We Can?" Ibid., July 10, 1968.
48. "Impact of Federal Money on Functions of a Medical Center."
College of American Pathologists, Government and Academic
Sectione. Miami, Florida, October 13, 1968.
49. "Basic Minimal Requirements for the Medical Student in Otorhino-
laryngology." American Academy of Opthainiology and Otorhino-
laryngology, Chicago, October 27, 1968. -
50. Dedic~ition Address, Mt. Holyoke College Library, South Hadley,
Mass., November 9, 1968.
51. "Dust." Minnesota State Pastors' Conference, St. Paul, Minn.,
January 21, 1969; "A Little Lower." Ibid., January 22, 1969.
52. "Implicet.1ons for Licensure of Curriculum Changes in Medical
Education." Fourteenth Annual Walter L. Bierring Lecture,
Federation of State Medical Boards of the United States,
Chicago, Febru~y'8, 1969.
53. "What Is Needed and What May Be Consumed." Conference on Natthnal
Biimedicrj Education Coasnunication Network, Bethesda, Maryland,
February 25, 1969.
54. "Where Do We Go From Here?" Michigan State Medical Society
llealth Planning Conference, Kalamazoo, April 16, 1969.
55. "Medical Schools--National as Well as Local Resources."
Cossnencement Address, University of North Carolina School of
Medicine, Chapel HIll, N.C., April 24, 1969.
56. "Sc1er~-e Basic to What?" Meeting of Program Directors of
Gt-'duate Tra4ning in Pharmacology, Clinical Pharmacology,
M;c~ictnal Chem~atry and Toxicology, San Francisco, October 2, 1969.
57. "Curriculum Changes." Annual Meeting of the Association of
Canadian Medical Colleges, Toronto, October 22, 1969.
PAGENO="0143"
139
W. N. Hubbard, Jr., M.D.
MAJOR ADDRESSES (p.5)
58. "Compassion and Craipetence." Honors Convocation Address,
The Univesaity of Michigan, Ann Arbor, March 20, 1970.
59. "Compassion and Competence." Honors Convocation Address,
The University ni Alabcaa School of Medicine, Birmingham,
Alabama, Nay 27, 1970.
60. "National Goals in the Education and Training of Physicians."
14th Conference for Foreign Medical Scholars, Case Western
Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio,
June 9, 1970.
61. "A Look Into the Crystal Ball -- The Future of the Drug Industry."
Advanced Workshop on the Drug Industry, Practising Law Institute,
New York City, July 27, 1970.
62. "Paradox of Useful Knowledge." Keynote address 75th Annual Meeting
Michigan Academy of Science, Arts and Letters, Kalamazoo, Michigan
April 22, 1971.
63. "The Institutionalized Physician." Cotanencement Address, University
of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, June 2, 1972.
PAGENO="0144"
140
Senator KENNEDY. Perhaps you could tell us a little bit about your
interest in the Board and what you hope to achieve.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM N. HUBBARD JR., M.D., TO BE A MEMBER
OF THE NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD, ACCOMPANIED BY CHARLES
F. BROWN, GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE NATIONAL SCIENCE
FOUNDATION, AND THEODORE W. WIRTHS, DIRECTOR, OFFICE
OF GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC PROGRAMS OF THE NATIONAL
SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Dr. HUBBARD. Let me first thank you for this opportunity to be with
you. Recognizing your own interest, not only in the National Science
Board, but in broad matters of the application of science, I think it is
important that we have this opportunity.
My concern is with interfaces, Senator, the interface between the
acquisition of knowledge. which is called basic research, and its devel-
opment in utilizable forms, which is technology; and then the final
social requirement that these should be for the public benefit.
The interface between these three realms is one of high tension, as
you well know. The problem is whether we can adequately serve each
of these without destroying the vitality of the others. In my view,
there is no simple choice between the essential values of basic research
on the one hand, and the essential ultimate goal of serving public
benefit.
There is no natural relationship between the two. There is nothing
in basic research as such which necessarily serves the public benefit
except that it be in terms of natural philosophy and general increased
understanding, and the very broad and indeterminate kinds of benefit
that brings.
So we look first for a linkage between basic research and utility.
The RANN program of the Foundation is one in which I am very
much interested, because it is designed to take basic knowledge and
apply it to national needs.
Then there is the question of public benefit. I do not think I have
to elaborate on the problems of validating scientific technology and
its innovations as being synonomous with public benefit.
There is today, as we all know, a great question as to whether sci-
entific teclmology, which represents feasibility, does in fact serve the
public benefit. That interface is one where I think the Foundation has
a very important role of interchange with the Congress and with the
executive branch, so that, of all the possible technological advances
that might be. undertaken, a common choice is made of the ones that
will most likely serve the public benefit.
That is a very general background. As to why I think I have any-
thing to contribute, I have had an opportunity to work with each of
these areas, starting off with basic science, working in medicine, which
is utilization of science for human purpose par excellence, and now
working with another kind of institution, but still one whose future
depends ultimately on benefiting the public.
I feel t.hat I have had an opportunity to have direct experience in
each of these interfaces, and would share that experience within the
Board, hopefully advantageously. That remains to be seen.
Senator KENNEDY. You wrote an article in 19G5 in Public Health
Reports concerning Federal grant management. At that time you were
PAGENO="0145"
141
dean of the medical school and professor of internal medicine at the
TTrnversity o,f Michigan, and you were commenting at that time about
the loyalty of scientists to their own professions.
I believe you indicated that you felt usually those loyalties exceeded
loyalty to the Department or to the university.
How should we view now your own view and attitude as you take
on a position on the Board? Where do your loyalties lie?
Dr. HUBBARD. With the public interest as I serve the Board. I do
not consider myself, Senator, in any way a representative either of the
company I work for or the industry as I serve the Board; let me
say, however, specifically the pharmaceutical industry.
It does have an unusual opportunity for experience in taking theo-
retical knowledge and finally developing it into a technology, usually
a medicinal one that serves a need. So it practices the communication
between these interfaces to which I referred.
In doing so, I think it has an opportunity to share an experience
with other groups that are trying in general terms to manage this
same adjustment of interfaces.
The comments in 1965 referred more to disciplinary loyalty than
to problems of academic commitment.
Senator KENNEDY. Have you given some thought to various appli-
cations that may in any way present conflict of interest problems-
you might be asked to express your view on a proposal that might,
to some extent, be of interest, or consequence, or importance to your
company.
Can you tell u~ a little bit about what your criteria will be in making
any decisions, as to whether you would excuse yourself from partici-
pation on any grant application?
Dr. HUBBARD. If I could relate at all a possible benefit either to the
company, or I say to the industry in my case, then I would absent
myself.
I have asked myself about this. The only program that the Founda-
tion has now that is likely to be a frequent event is one of faculty
research support where faculty members or graduate students may
go to the laboratories of the pharmaceutical companies for thesis
work or advanced work in an area that is advantageous to them.
In this case, the grants are made to the companies. I would absent
myself from the decision when any company might be involved.
Other than that. the only relationship that I am aware of would be
on contracts that might be negotiated between the Foundation and a
commercial laboratory. If the Board were to be involved in such an
effort, then I would not participate in any matter affecting my
company.
Other than this, I am not aware-but, of course, I have not been
on the Board-
Senator KENNEDY. Surely.
Dr. HUBBARD [continuing]. Of actions on the Board that would rep-
resent poteiitial conflicts.
Senator KENNEDY. WThat about LTpjohn making grants to universi-
ties for certain research. and then other grant applications coming
before the Board from such universities?
How closely related would those grants or requests have to be before
you would feel that you would excuse yourself?
Dr. HuBBAim. Let me take a specific example, if I may. I think this
is public information now~ or soon will be.
PAGENO="0146"
142
The company has made a significant grant to Brown University to
endow a faculty position in clinical pharmacology in its medical
school. If a proposal were to come forward from that department in-
volving tnat individual, I think I would not consider that a conflict of
interest because the company has no continuing relationship with it.
On the other hand, I sit as a member of the advisory committee to
the medical school at Brown, and I would not participate.
Similarly, when I was at the University of Michigan, the company
made a capital gift to build laboratories when I was there, that were
named for the company. Once again, since the company has no con-
tinuing relationship at all with those laboratories, on that basis I
would not see a conflict; but having spent so long a time at the Uni-
versity of Michigan, I think I would not ever feel I could act objec-
tively if that university were concerned.
Senator KENNEDY. Say rather than just a grant program over a peri-
od of time that the company was supporting research at a university,
and then the requests came in for grants from those universities at the
same time that the company was involved in grants or other research
programs. Would you see any potential area here for conflict?
Dr. HUBBARD. I think if the company's name were involved, I would
simply, as a matter of discretion, iiot associate myself with it. That is
an operational answer.
A direct answer is that probably there would not be a conflict, be-
cause the likelihood of a given investigator asking for support for
exactly the same piece of work from a company and from somebody
else would be remote.
At the same time, it is true almost without exception that an investi-
gator, being supported by a company which has already established its
reputation through grant support in a field, that would not be sup-
ported exclusively from a company grant.
Senator KENNEDY. How many universities does the Upjohn Co. con-
tract with for any purpose?
Dr. HUBBARD. I do not have the figure. but it would be a large num-
ber. It would be perhaps 40 or 50. I do not know, but it would be a
large number.
Senator KENNEDY. Those arrangements vary as to dollar volume,.
from what to what, just generally? You may amend this.
Dr. HUBBARD. Oh, they would range from very small grants of
$1,000 or rarely even less to large ones extending over several years
that would be in the order of a small number of hundreds of thou-
sands of dollars.
These would all be specific in Federal Government language, they
would have the characteristics of contracts, rather than grants, with
rare exceptions.
We also make grants, but that is a different thing.
Senator KENNEDY. In the case of institutions which receive substan-
tial grants from Upjohn and grants or contracts for them come before
the Board. Given, the fact that Upjohn had either a grant or a con-
tract of a sizable amount of money invested in the institution, do you
see any potential area of conflict?
Dr. HUBBARD. Not in fact but, again operationally if I may take a
specific example, we have a large undertaking with the department of
obstetrics both at Harvard and at North Carolina.
PAGENO="0147"
143
Almost all of our large grants are for clinical research, research
involving patients. The Foundation does not handle those. So that I
guess the problem would not arise.
But let us assume that it does. If it were the department of obstet-
rics, then I think I should absent myself just as a matter of prudence,
but for other components of the medical school at Harvard or North
Carolina, I do not think there would be a conflict at all.
Senator KENNEDY. All right. Have you ever known, or do you know
now, individuals who have been on the Board, or have you worked
with them?
Dr. HUBBARD. Yes. Roger Heyns, who is president of the American
Council on Education, is on the Board. He was vice chairman, dean
of the arts the year I became dean of the medical school at Ann ArborS
and so we know each other. We are very close.
Dr. Carter, who is chairman, has been a consultant to the Upjohn
Co. for many years. Although I do not know him very well, I do have
a passing acquaintance with him.
Senator KENNEDY. Just one final area. We have been, as you know,
in the Congress, giving a good deal of thought to the issue of generic
drugs, and that has been a matter of public policy question that we
have been wrestling with-the administration, and our subcommittee
on health have different views on this.
I know you have some very definite views about this particular
issue. I expect as we move through a public discussion and debate on
this issue we will get the Science Foundation involved.
We had the Academy of Science make some recommendations on
people to serve on our bioequivalency panel.
However, on any issue that were to come before the Board on that
particular matter, how would you feel about that?
Dr. HUBBARD. I think once one has assured himself of clinical equiv-
alence-I must choose my words carefully.
Senator KENNEDY. Everyone chooses his words carefully.
Dr. HUBBARD. Well. I am not sure what bioequivalence is. Since I
started out as a clinician, I think I know what equivalence means, if
that can be assured, I think the Federal Government must not pay
more than the lowest cost that is commonly available.
To put it another way, I do not see any justification for a Govern-
ment agency to pay a premium for a truly clinically equivalent mater
rial simply because it has a manufacturer's copyrighted name on it.
Senator KENNEDY. Would you be willing to estimate what percent
of the marketable drugs could be clinically equivalent today?
Dr. HUBBARD. Again the unit of dimension of marketable drugs is
not easily come by. If you take it in dollars, it is a relatively small
part of the total because the largest dollar component of all prescribed
drugs is not generic. The very largest component in all categories is the
psycho-active drugs, the so-called tranquilizers; and these dominate
the market.
So the dollar impact would not be large now, but it would accumu-
late as time went on, as patents run out.
Senator KENNEDY. Right. The purpose of this meeting is not to go
through this, but perhaps the staff has questions. Mr. Gordon?
Mr. GORDON. The Small Business Committee for many years has
PAGENO="0148"
144
been concerned with the problem of Government patent policy, that is,
what happens to the results of research financed by the public.
Our committee started our hearings on the very same day Kefauver
started his hearings in 1959. The National Science Foundation testi-
fied before our committee that they were giving everything away to
private contractors, including such things as knowledge dealing with
weather modification.
How do you feel about this problem of using Government funds,
public funds, for research?
Dr. HTJBBAIU. Mr. Gordon, I am not expert in this area, and I would
first admit that it is a terribly complex problem.
My greatest familiarity is on the part of universities trying to decide
whether they are going to have a proprietary interest in the patents
that come out of the work of the faculty. I do not have a simple, direct
answer to that one, either.
Let me speak as clearly as I can. I think, first, there should not be a
giveaway, that the proprietary right of the taxpayer. represented by
the Government that has to be. recognized. So the direct giveaway is
one extreme.
On the other hand, from a practical pointof view, the totally non-
exclusive patent license given to as many as seek a license although it
has an egalitarian tone that is attractive from a practical point of
view will discourage any company from making a significant invest-
ment in development. So that one then has to seek an accommodation
between these two extremes, and I do not have the wisdom to tell you
precisely where it should lie.
Let me suggest. however, that when this kind of question arises
in industry there is a licensing pattern where royalties are charged.
It would seem to me that experience with that path ought at least to
be explored.
I will come back to my first statement.. I am not expert in this. I do
not even know whether it is legal for the Government to charge royal-
ties, but there is also in the commercial world a requirement that a
patent be worked to the point of commercial success in a given period
of time.
Mr. GoRDoN. It does not have~to be worked. A patent ca.n be secured
and sat on to prevent others from using it.
Dr. HUBBARD. In this case the license fails, and there is a penalty.
When we have things in our laboratory that we are not going to develop
1)ut we think ought to be developed by somebody, we license them but
we license them with strings.
\Ve have, to have pi~oof that the patent has been worked. We have
a time limit on when it. will be made effective, a cost of getting into
it in the first place. and we have a royalty agreement.
In my ignorance I do not know whether or not t.his kind of approach
should be utilized by the Government. so that it Protects the proprie-
tary rights of the taxpayer, but yet confronts the realities of risk in
a free enterprise system in developing inventions.
That is not a very useful answer, but it is the best I have.
Senator KENNEDY. Doctor. I am afraid I have to attend a confer-
ence at 10 o'clock. There are just a few other areas that I would like
PAGENO="0149"
145
to ask Mr. Strauss to ask you about it. It would be very much appre-
ciated if you could remain and just continue the record.
Dr. HUBBARD. Fine.
Senator KENNEDY. I think it probably would be useful if we had as
a part of the record a list of the 40 universities.
Dr. HUBBARD. Senator, I will be glad to give you the list, but do not
hold me to the 40.
Senator KENNEDY. Whatever you have.
Dr. HUBBARD. You will want what we would call unrestricted grants,
where we ask for nothing in return, which is in the nature of a philan-
thropic action.
Senator KENNEDY. Yes.
Dr. HUBBARD. Also those that have to do with product development?
Senator KENNEDY. Yes. We would like this for perhaps the last
couple of years.
Dr. HUBBARD. Two years.
Senator KENNEDY. That will be all right.
[The information subsequently supplied follows:]
EXHIBIT A
COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES RECEIVING DONATIONS FROM THE UPJOHN Co.-1972
THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 1974
Capital grants
Calvin College
Creighton University
Ferris State College School of Pharmacy
University of Colorado
Kalamazoo College
Michigan Technological University
University of Iowa-Health Science
Library
University of New Mexico
University of Oklahoma School of Medi-
cine
University of Southern California,
School of Pharmacy
Special Corporate grant program
University of Chicago University of Colorado Medical School
University of California, Los Angeles, Duke University
Center for the Health Sciences University of Michigan Medical School
Fellowship program
California Institute of Technology
University of California, Los Angeles
University of California, San Francisco
Cornell University
University of Illinois
Indiana University Medical School
McGill University
University of Michigan
Michigan State University
Pennsylvania State University
Princeton University
University of Puerto Rico
Stanford University
University of Texas, Medical School
Vanderbilt University School of Medi-
cine
University of Virginia
University of Wisconsin
Other grants
Atlanta University
Auburn University
University of California
University of Chicago
University of Colorado
University of Connecticut
Duke University
Emory University
University of Georgia
University of Guelph
Hahnemann Medical College
University of Hawaii
Howard University
Kalamazoo College
MacMurray College
Meharry Medical College
PAGENO="0150"
146
EXHIBIT A-Continued
COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES RECEIVING DONATIONS FROM THE UPJOHN Co.-1972
THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 1974-Continued
0th er grants-Continued
University of Michigan
Michigan State University
University of Minnesota
Morehouse College
Nazareth College
University of Puerto Rico
University of Southern Florida
Stanford University
Temple University
University of Tennessee
University of Texas
Tulane University
Tuskegee Institute
University of Utah
Medical College of Virginia
Wayne State University
Western Michigan University
Yale University
EXHIBIT B
INSTITUTIONS RECEIVING PHARMACEUTICAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT GRANTS
FROM THE UPJOHN CO-JANUARY 1, 1973-SEPTEMBER 30, 1974
Research Grants
Albany Medical College
College of Pennsylvania
Harvard University
Illinois Institute of Technology
Indiana University
Princeton University
University of California
University of Georgia
University of Illinois
University of Kansas
University of Manitoba
University of Miami
University of Michigan
University of Oregon
University of Texas
University of Wisconsin
Wayne State University
Western Michigan University
Domestic Pharmaceutical~-Clinical
Albany Medical Center
Albany Medical College
Albert Einstein College of Medicine
Baylor College
Baylor College of Medicine
Baylor University
Boston University
Boston University School
Bowman-Gray School of Medicine
Brown University
Case Western Reserve University
Case Western University
Charles H. Drew Postgraduate 1\Iedical
School
College of Georgia
College of Medicine and Dentistry of
New Jersey
Colorado Medical Center
Columbia University
Cornell Medical College
Cornell Medical School
Cornell University
Cornell University Medical College
Creighton University
Duke University
Emory University
George Washington University
Georgetown University
Hahnemann Medical College
Harvard Medical School
Harvard University
Houston University
Indiana University
Johns Hopkins University
Kansas University
Kirksville College
Loma Linda University
Louisiana State University
Loyola University
Maine Medical Center
Mayo Clinic
Medical College of Georgia
Medical College of Pennsylvania
Medical College of Virginia
Medical College of Wisconsin
Meharry Medical College
Miami School of Medicine
Michael Reese Hospital
Michigan State University
Mount Sinai Hospital
Mount Sinai School of Medicine
Mount Zion Hospital
New Jersey Medical School
Newr York Medical College
North Shore University
Northwestern University
Ohio State University
Roswell Park 1\Iemorial Institute
PAGENO="0151"
147
EXHIBIT B-Continued
INSTITUTIONS RECEIVING PHARMACEUTICAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT GRANTS
FROM THE UPJOHN CO-JANUARY 1, 1973-SEPTEMBER 30, 1974-Continued
Domestic Pharmaceuticctl~Cliflical-C0nt1nued
Rush Medical School
Rutgers Medical School
Rutgers University
Southwestern Medical School
St. Louis University
Stanford University
State University of New York
Temple University
Texas Technology University
Thomas Jefferson University
Tufts University
Tulane University
UCLA
Union University
University Hospital
University of Alabama
University of Arizona
University of Arkansas
University of Buffalo
University of California
University of Chicago
University of Cincinnati
University of Cleveland
University of Colorado
University of Connecticut
University of Florida
University of Illinois
University of Indiana
University of Iowa
University of Kansas
University of Kentucky
University of Louisiana
University of Louisville
University of Maryland
University of Massachusetts
University of Miami
University of Michigan
University of Minnesota
University of Mississippi
University of Missouri
University of Nebraska
University of New Mexico
University of North Carolina
University of Oklahoma
University of Oregon
University of Pennsylvania
University of Pittsburgh
University of Puerto Rico
University of Rochester
University of South California
University of South Carolina
University of Southern Alabama
University of Southern California
University of Tennessee
University of Texas
University of Utah
University of Vermont
University of Virginia
University of Washington
University of Western Ontario
University of Wisconsin
Vanderbilt University
\Tirginia Polytechnical Institute
Washington University
Wayne State University
Yale University
Senator KENNEDY. Some of the things Ms. Strauss will ask will con-
cern my interest in what you saw in the past in your dealing with the
NSF, some of the weaknesses, some of the strengths. We asked all the
other nominees where they. think there might be strengths, and we
have asked a little about the RANN program.
Dr. HUBBARD. I have had the privilege of reading that transcript.
Ms. STRAUSS. Dr. Hubbard, there was grant activity between Upjohn
and the Foundation over the last couple of years. I don't recall the
exact amount.
Dr. HUBBARD. I asked that same question this morning, and in the
last 2 years there has only been one single transaction for a faculty re-
search award, I only know what I was told this morning.
Mr. BROWN. I believe the period was since 1969.
Ms. STRAUSS. Did you have occasion to deal with the Foundation
directly on the grant so that you would have any experience to evalu-
ate Foundation procedures?
Dr. HUBBARD. No.
Ms. STRAUSS. No.
PAGENO="0152"
148
Dr. HUBBARD. No; our research program is responsible for some $46
million a year in expenditures. We have over 150 full time Ph. D.'s at
work, and there is a constant flow of academic people through that
laboratory. There would be no way for me to know what each one was.
Ms. STIt~Uss. So you are not particularly familiar with the grant
Upjohn received from the Foundation.
Dr. HUBBARD. No. It would be completely outside my day-to-day
work.
The vice president for research possibly could have known. The
probability is that this was all done through the director of one of the
units within the research establishment, and I would be surprised if
the vice president for research were aware of this particular work.
Ms. STRAUSS. One other question.
In the applied research area, as you know, the Senator has asked
for a comprehensive investigation now being conducted by the GAO
into the RANN program.
Have you had enough dealings with the RANN program to have
any kind of feeling as to how it is doing?
Dr. HUBBARD. I have had no contact at all with the RANN pro-
grams. save for one research effort. using the Delphi technique, where
I was one of the correspondents. That is my only direct contact with
the RANN program.
Ms. STRAUSS. Have you looked at the areas in which RANN is fund-
ing research, and how they meet national needs, how appropriate the
areas are, whether the research does address urgent needs?
Dr. HUBBARD. I have observed reports on the activities of the Foun-
dation, but I would not have you think that I am familiar with all of
them at this point.
MS. STRAUSS. Do you think that is an area that the Board ought to
be following-.how the RANN program sets its priorities, and how
they meet what our needs are?
Dr. HUBBARD. I would assume this to be one of the direct responsi-
bilities of the Board; yes.
Ms. STRAUSS. Does anyone else have any other questions?
Dr. MCMURRAY. I attended the hearings, and Senator Williams
asked at the hearings whether it would not be helpful to the Board
to have its own staff, and there was testimony that at least at present
they felt the present staff that worked both for the executive end of
the Foundation and the Board had served them well.
In my own experience in government I do believe that. However, I
believe it is the feeling of many Senators that they want to most effec-
tively utilize the genius and the ability of the various Board mem-
bers to their maximum; therefore since the statute does permit the
Board to have its own staff, and the question is how would you look
at this.
Would you feel it would be an effective means of helping the Board
members individually if you had a staff full time for the Board itself?
Dr. HUBBARD. My first response must be that, since I have not been
a member of the Board. or participated in any of its actions, it would
be very presumptuous of me to express an opinion about how the
Board can best opera.te.
Dr. McMURRAY But you have had long experience with boards.
PAGENO="0153"
149
Dr. HUBBARD. I have been involved in the problems of boards for
a long time, both at the university and more recently in private in-
dustry. Ex-Justice Goldberg has made clear, I think, the arguments
for separate staffing. I do not have a doctrinaire view of this.
I am certainly sensitive to the fact that staff in an operating organi-
zation is usually fully committed to operating requirements, and that
the education and support functions of Board members tend to be in
addition to their other duties, and not always welcome.
In that context one could say, there is the question of the obligation
of the Board to take independent judgment, and the rational argu-
ment that there is a biased commitment to what has in fact been done.
Therefore the staff takes, in a sense, the same position as the agency,
that it has to speak on behalf of the group judgment.
If you can bear with me, on the other hand, the problem is one of
timing. I am not sure that the boards that I have been familiar with
have., even digested what staff presents for it. I do not speak of the
Foundation because I am not familiar with it, but of the several other
boards of which I am a member. Most board members, you know, do
not read what is sent to them.
I do not think that provision of a staff that would address them
separately would be likely to help that problem very much. So from
a theoretical point of view I find myself very sympathetic to the idea.
From a practical point of view, I am not sure what the contribution
would be.
There are surely times when the Board needs work done, data col-
lated, research done, and for that work staff has to be made available.
If there is any problem prying people loose from their day-to-day
activities, we would have to bring in somebody on an ad hoc basis.
Mr. ANDREWS. Dr. Hubbard, one of the things I think the Senators
were interested in at the hearings is making sure that the nominees
present then, and you this morning, are aware of the statute, as Dr.
McMurray pointed out, which provides that a staff shall be available
to the Board.
Dr. HUBBARD. Let me speak in a generality. I think it is essential
that the Board secure the staff that it needs. Whether that is done
within a presently appointed staff, or by the appointment of addi-
tional staff, I do not consider to be a crucial judgment. I do find it
important that the Board should have that degree of independence
that it could require that adequate staff work in support of it be done.
From reading the transcript, it is my impression that the present
Board members feel that has been accomplished with the present
organization. If it has, then I think the function has been served, and
it would be redundant to appoint people to serve a purpose that has
already been served.
Mr. ANDREWS. I think the point that the Senators were interested
in was to insure that the Board did know that these resources were
available to them.
Dr. HUBBARD. Good.
Mr. ANDREWS. A point I might add parenthetically-perhaps un-
necessarily-but I will state this anyway-Senator Javits made a state-
ment in the previous hearing-I suppose there is no reason that you
should be aware of it-that the hearing, and this meeting this morn-
PAGENO="0154"
150
ing, were requested and held with the full concurrence of all of the
minority members of the full committee, of which Senator Javits is
the ranking minority member.
I did want to express that to you.
Dr. HUBBARD. I appreciate it.
Dr. EBBIN. Dr. Hubbard, I'd like to pick up on the point that Dr.
McMurray raised. It seems to us that every year during the authoriza-
tion hearings the management of the Foundation testifies as to how
busy the staff of the Foundation is and how heavy the workload that
they have to carry is.
Dr. HUBBARD. With the staff's concurrence, I assume.
Dr. EBBIN. Yes, with the staff's concurrence.
That is indeed one factor, because as you will agree, it is very difficult
to imagine how a staff can be expected to undertake additional work
when it is already taxed to capacity, to 100 percent of its capacity.
But an additional point that needs to be emphasized in these hear-
ings, it seems to me, is that the NSB is not an advisory board. It is the
policymaking Board of the Foundation, and as the policymaking
Board of. the Foundation it would seem sensible that the Board should
be afforded an independent capability to deal with the kinds of science
policy issues, and the kinds of national issues that transcend the scope
of individual grant or individual program managers.
If we show a continuing concern here, it is, for example, with the
applied research office and how such matters as national needs are de-
termined, who makes the determination, is that a matter for determi-
nation by the program manager or a project manager?
Is that to be the cumulative judgment of several project managers?
Is it to be an ad hoc decision, or is it to be made as a national policy
judgment. by a body charged with that responsibility? Should the
Board indicate to the Rann Management~ the areas of priority national
need, and instruct them to fund projects in those areas?
There is not.. for example. any evidence that one could derive from
the record of the Rann program that in areas not designated by the
Congress, energy development programs, earthquake engineering pro-
grams-possibly one or two others-that Rann has targeted their ef-
forts to deal with priority national problems responding to priority
national needs.
Perhaps that is a. statement rather than a question, but I would ap-
preciate it if you could respond to it.
Mr. BROWN. May I respond?
I understood that this is a hearing on Dr. Hubbard's qualifications
for membership on the National Service Board not an investigation of
the Rann program. After all. Dr. Hubbard has not been exposed to
the program.
Dr. EBBIN. I believe we are trying to get at-Mr. Andrews, Dr. Mc-
Murray, and I--at Dr. Hubbard's views about the relationship of the
Board in its policymaking function to the staff and we have come to
it from a discussion about the staff needs of the. Board.
WTe believe that the staff question relates to the policymaking func-
tion of the Board and its independence from operating programs and
program managers.
Dr. HUBBARD. My imclerstanding may be simplistic, but., as I tinder-
stand it, lRann is a l)art of the operations of the National Science
Foundation, and the Board and the Director are that Foundation.
PAGENO="0155"
151
Therefore, I cannot conceive of the Board being without direct re-
sponsibility for the policies and operations of Rann, as well as all
other parts of the Foundation's activities.
As I say, that is a simplistic response. but it represents my present
level of understanding.
Dr. MCMFRRAY. I think your point is well taken, Mr. Brown.
All I want to indicate, as a new member of that Board-and I think
that the pomt is very important-it. is a governing board, it is not an
a dvisory board.
One of the things that concerns anyone who looks at the operation
is to what extent the Board can get involved in overseeing the project
directors, and there are 74 of them, and they are making, I suppose,
smaller grants.
This is where it seems to me maybe a staff attached to the Board
could do some very valuable work in overseeing, and you would get
sort of a separate kind of view of the projects and how they are
made.
From my own experience at the other end of it, there are some very
good project grants that are not made, for I am sure good reason,
but it would be interesting to have the Board get a little bit more
involved at the lower level.
I am sure they are too busy, since they only meet-every 2 months,
is it?
Mr. BROWN. Eight or nine times a year.
Dr. MCMURRAY. To get involved in the smaller parts of the opera-
tion; and it seems to me it would be helpful to have staff assistance.
This is the only point that I would like to make.
You know that Senator Kennedy is the chairman of the Subcom-
mittee on the Science Foundation, and I am sure they will be inter-
esteci in what happens in this respect..
I can also say this. I myself was one of the people who contributed
to the Reorganization Act, which granted professional staffing for the
Congress, which some of us are now melnl)ers of, but I think the Sena-
tors, for example, find they have the same problem that the N.S.F.
Board members have.
They have such an avalanche of reading to do that the staffs who
become familiar with the Senators and their concerns are able to
follow through with this and pick out things that are of particular
interest to them and highlight them for the Senators, and follow
through.
The Senators could never keep up with their reading. I suppose
the Senators are concerned to what extent this Board can really most
effectively utilize its knowledge and wisdom to see that the policies
of the Board are best. determined.
Dr. 1-ITTBBARD. I understand the purpose that von cite, that. the Board
he informed so that its judgments can he appropriate, and that this is
a staff function. I agree with this entirely.
But I am not prepared to commit myself to how this can best be
achieved.
Dr. McMvmi.~v. We do not want you to.
Dr. hUBBARD. In my own checkeredl history of positions I have gone
both ways. I have in some circumstances created a full staff and, for
whatever it. is worth. in my present 1)ositiOn I have studiously avoided
PAGENO="0156"
152
having any staff, so I suppose my views are what you might call
eclectic on this matter, or very pragmatic.
I can assure you I am sensitive, but as to the mechanism for achiev-
ing it, I am not prepared to assign validity to an administrative device
a priori.
Mr. EBBIX. I think the effort was simply to make the point that that
was a concern.
Ms. STRAUSS. Dr. McMurray, I wanted to say one thing before we
close, to Dr. Hubbard.
This is the point that Senator Kennedy and Senator Williams
emphasized at the earlier hearing about keeping in close touch with
both the subcommittee and the full committee, and not just on a formal
basis.
As these matters come before the Board, and as discussions get
going, as to whether you need staff, or on the priority setting mecha-
nism, whenever you feel it might be helpful or useful, either to the
Board or to the Senate Members who are involved here on the Hill
on a continuing basis with the Foundation, feel free to just pick up
the phone and to call and let us know, so we can be helpful whenever
we can.
I think Senator Williams was interested in that as well Dr. Mc-
Murray.
Dr. HUBBARD. Yes.
Dr. McMmu~~. As a final word. I would like to say in regard to
questions about staff, both Senator Williams and Senator Kennedy-
and other Senators who have expressed a similar kind of interest-
indicate no lack of confidence in the staff.
Dr. HUBBARD. I appreciate that.
Dr. MGMURRAY. As far as the staff of the National Science Founda-
tion, it is quite to the contrary. I think they have one of the best staffs
in Washington.
Ms. STRAUSS. Thank you very much, Dr. Hubbard. The hearing is
now adjourned.
Dr. HUBBARD. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 10 :30 a.m.. the subcommittee adjourned.]
0