As I understand it, this is not now the case and that circumstances have changed since publication of the magazine. Can you bring us up to date on your schedule? Dr. MCELROY. I am prepared to go to work full time at your pleasure. The CHAIRMAN. You are ready to go to work. Dr. MCELROY. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. That is very helpful. Senator Kennedy wants to submit some questions in writing; however, I do not intend to hold up action on your confirmation. You will answer them and send them back to the Senator. You would have no objection to answer them, then? Dr. MCELROY. Certainly not. (The questions and the answers of Dr. McElroy subsequently received follow:) Hon. EDWARD M. KENNEDY, NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION, DEAR SENATOR KENNEDY: It is my pleasure to submit the answers to the questions you sent to me by letter of July 9, 1969. These answers follow the same order as the questions attached to your letter. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance to you. I look forward with real pleasure to working with you and your Special Subcommittee on the National Science Foundation. My very best regards. Sincerely, WILLIAM D. MCELROY, Enclosure. 1. Since you have recently been serving as Chairman of the Population Committee of the National Academy of Sciences, would you comment on the overall population problem and on the role you believe NSF should play in attempting to cope with it. I would also be interested in hearing a further explanation of your suggestion in a press interview that there ought to be tax incentives to encourage smaller families in America. 1. Pressure from the uncontrolled growth of population is one of the major problems which this country and the world faces. An increasing amount of research work has of course been going on, supported particularly by NIH, on the biological aspects of this problem. All too little has been done with regard to the social, economic, and demographic aspects of the problem. It is my view that the availability of a much greater amount of information in these areas would permit education programs which would go a long way toward helping develop effective population programs. I firmly believe that in the absence of successful education programs which would bring about voluntary population control, some Government programs, preferably of an incentive nature, will be required in the future. I believe that in several areas, particularly in the biological and social sciences, basic research of the type supported by NSF can be of crucial importance in expanding the knowledge base and the supply of skilled specialists available to deal with population problems in the next several decades. 2. As you know, last year's revision of the NSF Act explicitly included the social sriences among the areas to be supported by NSF. Have you given any thought to ways whereby NSF can further strengthen its support of the social sciences, particularly in view of the pressing social problems of our times? 2. The social sciences must certainly play a significant and vigorous role in the Nation's efforts to solve the very crucial problems that we face. As you know, the National Science Board has commissioned a report on the social sciences and I understand it is going to be issued sometime this summer. I am looking forward to reading the recommendations to see what guides may be provided that will help the Foundation to support good research in the social sciences more effectively. I believe that one of the most needed contributions that the Foundation can provide to the country is the fostering of interdisciplinary approaches-having the physical and engineering sciences, life sciences, and the social sciences working together in concerted efforts in major National problem areas. I propose to spend a considerable part of my efforts at the Foundation finding ways in which the social sciences can contribute more effectively to the knowledge base which will assist in solving some of our most important National problems. 3. Last year's revision to the NSF Act also, as you know, made explicit NSF's authorization to support applied scientific research and to undertake applied research programs relevant to national problems involving the public interest. What plans, if any, do you have for utilizing this authorization to aid in the resolution of urgent national problems such as environmental pollution? 3. Environmental pollution is one of a number of areas that need much attention and that I believe can benefit from applied scientific research which NSF can support. All too little is known about many biological aspects of our estuaries so vital to the health and welfare of this country. For example, much needs to be done to learn more about factors, including those resulting from pollution, that affect growth or non-growth of microorganisms in these estuaries. Another area, as mentioned above, is that of population pressures. There is a great need to obtain broad underlying knowledge of a statistical, social, political, economic, and demographic nature and to focus it on the problems of population. There are other vitally important problem areas which would include: transportation, nutrition, genetics, urban growth dynamics, education of the disadvantaged for fuller participation in a technological society, etc. All of these and others require additional fundamental information to help solve the problems. It is premature for me to offer specific and detailed comments on what applied research we would expect to support. As I become more familiar with the details of the Foundation's programs, and as studies currently in progress by the Bureau of the Budget and the Federal Council on Science and Technology indicate what gaps or imbalances there are in the Nation's science activities, more specific actions by the Foundation can be planned to use this authority effectively in the public interest and in a way responsive to the intent of Congress. 4. Do you have any thoughts on ways we can make education in science more relevant and meaningful to the youth of the nation? 4. I agree that the students at the undergraduate, graduate and postdoctoral levels are seeking in the science education programs ways to apply their knowledge to the major problems of today. However, I see clearly that in the universities today there is underway a process which is increasingly relating studies to contemporary needs. I see it in the various disciplines such as in biology in which investigators are pursuing the broad ecological problems related to food, pollution of water and streams and the atmosphere. I see it in the engineering schools which are devoting more and more effort and energy to the problems relating to the big cities, innovation of better construction technology, mass construction to overcome chronic housing shortages, and new methods in other aspects of moving rapidly to apply existing knowledge to resolve immediate problems. Surely, we must consider most carefully the views of the young people themselves. However, we must also lend considerable effort to finding better ways to assess society's real needs in terms of what will help. How can we best treat causes instead of symptoms? How do we know when we have identified a root cause? Research into these questions may be basic in the areas of social science, research methods, science education techniques, and curriculum development, and these areas are appropriate for Foundation-sponsored innovative research. 5. What is your view with regard to the relative roles of project grants and institutional grants in support of scientific research and education? 5. Both are important and for different reasons. The project grant approach, in my opinion, must continue to be the basic method of support of research in the institutions. This assures the high degree of quality and competitiveness that is so important as a motivational influence in doing good science. However, institutional grants are of increasing importance in order to assure the proper degree of institutional strength and responsibility to assure that our institutions continue to grow and be strong. In my opinion, institutional grants might well grow to a considerably greater proportion of the total support provided by NSF. 6. The recent Report of the House Committee on Science and Astronautics, accompanying its authorization bill, stated that: "The Committee views the research program in biology as vital to the Nation's need for generating the basic research to be used in arresting and reversing the steady deterioration of our environment. The international biological program goes a long way toward understanding the interaction of man on his environment, but the Committee believes the Foundation should also consider increasing its support of environmental and systematic biology." What is your view en this matter? 6. I am in agreement with the statement in the recent House Report on the MSF Authorization Bill that the Foundation should consider increasing its support of environmental and systematic biology. In my view it is essential to further the work in these basic biological fields in order to be successful in our fight for better mastery of and use of our environment. However, the budget picture will have to change to permit such expanded and vital work to be supported at the level it deserves. 7. What steps can be taken to keep top-notch teachers in the classrooms, to assure that first-rate scientists are not prevented by their research activities from making significant contributions to the educational process? 7. Let me start by stating that I am not at all sure the underlying premise is accurate. I have seen no evidence that research activities are preventing our best scientists from making significant contributions to the educational process. In the first place, research itself is one of the best teaching devices that I know. Secondly, new teaching concepts which have strengthened the core curriculum and the teaching process which more and more brings together students from undergraduate, graduate, and postdoctoral levels is enriching the educational experience at all levels. 8. What steps can be taken to make it possible for promising young postdoctoral scientists to compete effectively for research grants of their own, as opposed to serving as research associates on projects directed by more senior scientists? S. In my opinion, the cream of the young researchers are those that have spent one or two years as postdoctoral associates with senior scientists. This gives them the experience and a capability which I believe qualifies them to compete successfully for research projects on their own. There has been a recent survey which indicates that at least in one area of science the young postdoctoral scientists are competing effectively for research grants. Of course, the recent cutbacks in NSF funds has had an adverse impact on the total number that are supported and consequently the total number of recent postdoctoral scientists competing successfully is smaller. I would hope that this is very temporary and will change. It is very important that these very well qualified young people should be encouraged to continue to improve their capabilities in their respective areas of scientific research and that opportunities be provided for them to make independent contributions as they reach appropriate levels of scientific maturity. 9. Last year's revision to the NSF Act broadened the scope of international science activities in which NSF may engage, permitting NSF to further national objectives abroad by supporting scientific activities relating to international cooperation and foreign policy. Do you expect to make use of this provision to develop any new programs? 9. I believe very strongly that the Foundation's International Science Activities should be extended. I propose to discuss this with the State Department in order to develop ways in which the Foundation can foster activities in the International Science area. Here again, the immediate budget problems of the NSF will be a problem but I have considerable hope that much can be done even with modest funding. 10. What scit of growth and development do you envisage for NSF's programs, both in size and character, over the six year period of your appointment? 10. The restricted budgets of the Foundation for the last several years have resulted in a deficit which I would estimate at from 200 million to 300 million dollars that should be quickly made up and then the normal growth should resume. The increased cost in order to keep pace with inflation and because of the more sophisticated and expensive equipment needed to do certain of the research work would indicate that an annual increase of 9 to 10 percent would be needed just to maintain an even level of effort. In this connection, it should be recognized that the number of institutions is increasing steadily, that many of these institutions reach a level of competence which merits Foundation support, and that both long-established and newer institutions face the responsibility of educating an ever-increasing number of students. Consequently, in addition to the 9 to 10 percent increase previously noted as necessary, a modest annual growth rate of around 5 percent would seem reasonable to take care of new opportunities opening up in the sciences and to provide support for the increasing number of scientists. Thus an overall annual growth rate of around 15 percent (following the catch up of the accumulated deficit) would appear to be appropriate for normal growth. This, of course, does not cover a further increment which I believe should be built into NSF budgets so that its share of Federal research support at universities can reach a level of about % of the total Federal support. This is urgently necessary, in my opinion, so that the Foundation can properly discharge its function as the principal agency responsible for the health of academic science. I want to emphasize that basically the system which relies upon unsolicited proposals, which is the mainstay of the Foundation's support of basic research, is excellent and should continue. There are, however, many new challenges and opportunities in broadening support of research in areas vital to problems of our society where positive action may be taken. I see many opportunities for positive action in expanding research in connection with environmental and societal problem areas. I will actively seek such opportunities. 11. Critics of the Foundation have charged that it has functioned in a largely passive manner, responding to the pressures and priorities established by the academic scientific community. What changes in this image do you anticipate under your leadership? 11. It is my intention to institute a fresh look at the various programs of the Foundation as soon as possible in order to assess this problem. In other words, I believe a fresh appraisal would be helpful to me and to the National Science Board in this regard. It would be my hope that the Foundation would have a very close and effective relationship with all parts of the academic scientific community as well as to the country as a whole, the Administration, the Congress, etc., but I expect that the Foundation will attempt to exercise appropriate initiatives. 12. This Committee, as is its counterpart in the House, is concerned with improving the communication channels between the scientific community and the Congress. What approach do you propose to follow in this regard? 12. Relationships between the academic scientific community and the Foundation are excellent. The Foundation expects to utilize effectively these close relationships to acquaint academic administrators and scientists with the importance of making both their accomplishments and their needs known to the Congress. In my view, the Congress needs to be given more opportunity to learn what Federal support of science has been accomplishing and what further support would benefit the Nation's scientific strength. The Foundation's own capabilities in this important area will be strengthened. We expect to be in a better position to communicate more effectively both with the academic science community and with the Congress. Coming from the community of academic science, I hold the sincere conviction that there must be a major improvement in communication between representatives of academic science and the Nation's legislative representatives who must make so many vital decisions in the area of public policy. The CHAIRMAN. Now, the hearing will recess, but I am calling an executive committee hearing at 9:30 in the morning to consider these three nominations. Thank you all. The hearing is adjourned. (Whereupon, at 1 p.m., the hearing in the above-entitled matter was concluded.) |