THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Statement by

Puitip HANDLER
President
National Academy of Sciences

before the

Subcommittee on Science, Research and Technology
Committee on Science and Technology
House of Representatives

17 May 1979
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee: It is a pleasure and a privilege to
appear before you to present some personal views concerning the role of the National
Science Foundation in our national life and the manner in which the Foundation
functions.

I should start by indicating that, after service on a number of peer review panels
and a Divisional Committee of the Foundation, I was for 12 years a member of the
National Science Board including two years as its vice-chairman and four years its
chairman. But that service terminated five years ago; hence, I cannot claim intimate
knowledge of the affairs or internal operations of the Foundation at this time. As
President of the Academy and Chairman of the National Research Council, I am
responsible for the conduct of a group of significant programs supported by the Na-
tional Science Foundation. And, in that sense, I am currently the head of a grantee
organization. However, none of these programs involves direct conduct of scientific
research; all are of that character that Judge Sirica so aptly summarized when he de-
scribed the Academy as “an ally of the government.” For example, with the support of
the Foundation and, in some measure, as its agent, we manage programs of scientific
exchange with East Europe and China, serve as adhering body to international scientific
unions, maintain a registry of all persons with research doctoral degrees, manage selection
panels for fellowship programs, conduct surveys of the status of scientific fields and
represent the U.S. in the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis. On the
other hand, at no time was my own research ever supported by the Foundation. By
virtue of my position, however, | am on the receiving end of a great deal of comment
from the nation’s scientific community with respect to the state of the scientific en-
deavor, both substantively in diverse areas of science and functionally in terms of the
mechanisms for the support and conduct of science. It is out of this experience that I
speak today.

The Foundation has been a continually evolving institution. Born in the aftermath
of World War II, it was inspired by the book by Vannevar Bush, “Science, The Endless
Frontier.” In retrospect, what we then regarded as the grand vision offered in that
work proved to be remarkably limited as compared with subsequent reality. To be fair,
when that report was written atomic nuclei were thought to contain only neutrons and
protons, the cell nucleus was a total mystery, no one had yet spoken of “molecular
biology,” the transistor was yet to be invented, plate tectonics were unknown, oil
emerged from the ground in Saudi Arabia at a cost of seven cents a barrel, “sputnik”
was an unknown Russian word, and few of us had heard of “ecology ” much less
pulsars, quasars or black holes. And the man on the moon was a figment of childish
imagination.

2
The Bush report did not even begin to suggest the scale of the national scientific
endeavor, built with federal funds, that emerged so rapidly in the ’50s and *60s. Ac-
cordingly, the original mandates to NSF, deriving from the description in “Science, The
Endless Frontier,” proved to be far broader than could be implemented with available
funds; this was not a handicap to American science because support of large areas of
science became the de facto responsibilities of the concurrently growing research and
development programs of the Defense Department, the Atomic Energy Commission,
the National Institutes of Health, the Space Agency and, later, NOAA, to name but a
few.

Moreover, the original Act also foresaw significant assignments that never came to
pass, such as those which might relate to the national defense, and the requirement
that the Foundation exercise a kind of oversight of the entire federal program of re-
search and development. Even now, traces of such responsibilities are to be found in
the basic statute. I have no objection to their presence in the Act; they are a reminder
of the essential instrumentality of the NSF to our national purpose and confer author-
ity that might, one day, become necessary to the national welfare.

As the Foundation developed, there were expressed diverse views of the role of the
Foundation and of its programs. It was simultaneously to be a “balance wheel,” the
underpinning of the national research endeavor, the specific source of support for
important research at disciplinary frontiers, supporter of applied research when that
appeared to be desirable, as well as operator of programs intended to strengthen educa-
tion in science across the land. Given sufficient funds, even now that set of charges is
not an excess burden to place upon this instrument of American society.

But. built into the Foundation from time zero was a basic conflict as old as the
republic—egalitarianism vs. elitism, in this case, selective support of the very best of
science. The Science Foundation has never escaped from that crossfire. Throughout its
life there have been members of the Board, of the staff, and of its advisory bodies who
have understood that, in science, the best is immensely more important than is the
next best. Yet the Foundation has never been permitted truly to implement that
phrase as its guiding policy. Major private foundations that have at some time sup-
ported scientific research in the United States—and most of them have withdrawn,
leaving the field largely to the federal government—were always extremely selective,
supporting only the very best of science when opportunity afforded. The Science
Foundation has, similarly, been instructed by the Congress and the President to sup-
port selectively the best proposals that came before it. But, at the same time, there has
always been political pressure, again from both the President and ¢he Congress, to
assure geographically equitable distribution of the appropriated funds. The latter
charge is explicit in the NSF Act. The conflict inherent in this duality of purpose has
had several consequences. Let me explain.

The programs in science education have done much to upgrade the quality of edu-
cation in scientific disciplines in secondary schools across the land. The fellowship pro-
grams have been a critical element in the growth and development of our national
cadre of top-flight investigators. The several programs which, over the years, have been
utilized to upgrade and renew the qualifications of secondary school science teachers
have had impact in virtually every local school system. In no small measure, these pro-
grams have made possible our large national R& D enterprise and have significantly
contributed to the national level of general scientific literacy.

The political emphasis on geographical distribution in the support of research has
occasioned support of modest research activities in a great number of the nation’s
smaller colleges and universities. A substantial fraction of the funds appropriated to
the Foundation for the support of research has been so managed as to find its way to
as many as possible of the 435 Congressional Districts containing more than 1,000
colleges and universities in each of which there are departments of biology, physics,
chemistry, mathematics, psychology, economics and sociology. Please understand that,
in the doing, the operation is not nearly as crass as I made that sound. All grants have
been awarded on the basis of peer review. Be assured that the nonsensical, the trivial
and the utterly pedestrian have rarely been supported, and, I trust, never knowingly.

However, although there have undoubtedly been significant exceptions, this activity
has contributed relatively little—in a direct way—to the growth of scientific knowl-
edge, per se. Its value must be judged for its contribution to the quality of science edu-
cation in such colleges, by its effectiveness in keeping alive the intellectual interests of
the faculty and, thereby, enhancing the quality of science education in these institu-
tions, as well as by its success in attracting undergraduate students into careers in sci-
ence. Accordingly, I could wish that such activities were supported—as they certainly
should be—from a program understood to be valued expressly for its contribution to
science education and managed as a program apart. Separation of the management of
such a program would permit those responsible for the management of the basic re-
search program, proper, to address the nation’s research requirements with what I
regard as a somewhat more appropriate management philosophy.

Were it so separated, the Foundation could then be instructed, instead, to conceive
of its other responsibility as the adequate, if not generous, support of the very best to
come before it in each of the scientific disciplines within its purview. I say that be-
cause the responsiveness of the Foundation to the egalitarian political pressures that
led to the current manner of utilizing its resources, coupled to the magnitude of the
appropriations to the Foundation, has been a genuine handicap to the Foundation as
an instrument for supporting the very best of science.

Agencies such as DOD, AEC, NASA, and NIH, for example, have been in position to
fund reasonably fully the best of the proposals before them, proceeding down a list,
rank-ordered for quality, as far as their resources permit. NSF, far more constrained to
distribute its resources broadly, could not operate in that manner. Funded less gener-
ously and so constrained, NSF has found it necessary to bargain even with the most
successful applicants for support. Proposals for large new instruments, of course, could
not be treated in this way. One cannot build half a ship, half a telescope, or half of a
Van de Graaff accelerator. And having brought NCAR, Kitt Peak, and the Very Large

4

4
Array into existence, the Foundation is committed to a high level of support as long as
they remain scientifically productive. In contrast, individual successful applicants
whose work is of the kind usually termed “small science,” i.e., not tied to some very
large and expensive instrument, almost invariably receive significantly less support
than requested and for a shorter time, not because the Foundation has judged their re-
quests excessive but to spread the funds as far as they can go. Rarely is the support
provided sufficient to permit an.established investigator, or a new investigator with an
unconventional idea, the full support required in order to exploit his or her potential.
NSF encourages each grantee to stroke a single or double into left field, but very rarely
provides the means to try for a home run! Thus, although, over the years, NSF has cer-
tainly provided partial support for a considerable number of individuals who went on
to receive Nobel Prizes, there have been few, if any, Nobel Laureates who received
their full research support from NSF, even during this quarter century of American
dominance of international science.

To be sure, these circumstances have been far from tragic. The federal government
has operated a pluralistic research support system. I hope that it will continue to do
so. Grantees insufficiently funded by NSF have found additional support from other
agencies. And, while maximizing geographic distribution and stretching their resources
as far as possible, NSF staff have never permitted gross distortions of their programs -
by either process. But neither have they been able to utilize those resources to make
the most powerful possible thrust at the frontiers of science. Scientific progress is
better served by fully funding 50 first-rate scientists than by half-funding of 100 such
scientists. A wise agency would probably give about 60 of them at least 85 percent of
what they seem to require, if it but could.

But as I indicated to this Committee some weeks ago when you were conducting
hearings relative to the authorization for this year’s appropriation to the Foundation,
the total amount of money for the support of basic research, from all agencies, falls
short by a wide margin of the amount that the system in being could usefully expend
to obtain maximum scientific productivity. I will not here repeat my recital of the fac-
tors that have contributed to this circumstance. I direct it to your attention because of
its direct relevance to the policy which the Congress and the President should have in
view in developing future operational guidelines for the National Science Foundation.
While the total system was being deliberately expanded—in numbers of scientists, of
research-performing institutions, and of dollars—the approach to the support of re-
search at NSF was acceptable. Before the purchasing power of the total federal funds
for research plateaued a decade ago, the number of institutions'with graduate level and
research aspirations approximately doubled; since then the number of potential inves-
tigators has doubled again, the intrinsic costs of doing research rose by at least 50-75
percent and an ever increasing fraction of the total funds available has been required to
defray institutional indirect costs. It is out of those considerations that I suggest that
the dual charge to NSF, both geographic distribution and support of the best of sci-
ence, be reappraised.
The clock of history cannot be turned back. The rate and nature of scientific prog-
ress will surely pace the nation’s ability to assure our national security, stimulate the
industrial innovation process, protect the environment, assure an energy supply, stimu-
late agricultural productivity, and enable us to cope with the subtle forms of disease
which are now the greatest menaces to the public health. I could not have said that in
quite the same way 20 years ago. At that time, our understanding of life processes was
so superficial, we could not imagine the beautiful complexity of living organisms or
the subtlety of those aberrations which are called disease. And we were almost uncon-
scious of environmental abuse and hazard. The American scientific research endeavor,
then, was far larger and more productive than that of the rest of the world; American
technological industry was unrivaled; American military technology was in a class
apart; each year, new records were being set for yields of cereal grains per acre or per
agricultural worker; the prospects for bountiful cheap atomic energy were virtually
unchallenged; imported oil was cheap, unlimited in supply and seemingly unnecessary
to our economy. None of that is the case today. The scorecard of national success in
these matters, tomorrow, is surely going to be determined by whether we provide to
our most talented investigators the full support that their efforts require, regardless of
the fact that they are not homogeneously distributed among the 50 states.

Accordingly, I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that in reviewing the programs and
management of the NSF, and in considering its basic statutory act, the principal ques-
tion before you is: What shall the nation expect of the National Science Foundation in
the next quarter century? What should be its role? Is the progress of science and atten-
tion to our national problems to be the overriding consideration or is geographical dis-
tribution of grants? Will the nation look to NSF as a major supporter of the basic re-
search that will make possible future developments in industry, agriculture, energy,
mineral resources, materials, and medicine, or is such responsibility to be left largely to
the assorted mission agencies whose basic research budgets are always under pressure
to accommodate to one or another sense of urgency for immediate applicability? What
management philosophy is required to enable the Foundation to fulfill that expecta-
tion? You have a right to expect explicit answers from the National Science Board.
But, it is not within the authority of the Board, on its own, to adopt and implement
the major policy change which may very well be called for.

Over the years there have been repeated expressions of Congressional concern for
what has seemed to be “duplication” between the programs of NSF and those of other
federal agencies. In my view, this is a synthetic non-problem. I hold it important that
NSF support significant fundamental research in all areas and disciplines of science.
The fact that, occasionally, project titles may read alike, should not be a cause of con-
cern. Investigators at the leading edges of their fields are quite aware of what their dis-
ciplinary colleagues are doing or hope to do. The likelihood of exact duplication is
extremely small; in any case, replication is part and parcel of the scientific method. It
is only the reproducibility of results which provides credibility in the first instance and

6
allows subsequent investigators to build upon those results. In important areas of sci-
ence, it is valuable, perhaps necessary, that several alternative experimental approaches
be explored in parallel.

It is unthinkable that the NSF should remain apart from molecular biology, particle
physics, solid state physics or synthetic organic chemistry just because these disciplines
also find some support in NIH, DOE, DOD, and the Army Research Office, for exam-
ple. It is, however, imperative that, in allocating its limited resources, the Science
Foundation be highly aware of the nature and magnitude of programs in the other
agencies. And it is in this sense that the Foundation should serve as a “balance wheel.”
The alternative form of that statement is to note that, almost by default, the Founda-
tion must serve as lead agency for the support of those areas of science which are not
so intimately related to the mission requirements of other agencies that the latter, ipso
facto, serve as lead agencies. It is out of such considerations that the Foundation has
come to be lead agency in such disciplines as systematic biology, ground based astron-
omy, the basic science aspects of marine biology and oceanography, organic chemistry,
mathematics, and sociology.

Such considerations, in at least a general way, are certainly implicit in the annual
budget request of the Foundation. From time to time, the Foundation should also
make such an analysis explicit; neither I nor anyone else knows how much federal
money now supports research in chemistry, for example. If such data were available
for all disciplines and sub-disciplines the Foundation’s external advisors and the Board
could then better direct attention and funds to the areas of greatest current opportun-
ity and excitement and to those areas of greatest immediate relevance to progress in
industry, agriculture, medicine, etc. In the future, such analyses might well become
part of the Congressionally mandated Five-Year Outlook.

No chapter in the history of the Foundation has been more tempestuous than its
support of research in the social sciences. As revealed by a recent Academy study, the
NSF, in fact, provides only a very small fraction of all federal support for the social
and behavioral sciences. But only NSF has announced that it is in the business of so
doing, and only NSF deliberately supports basic social science research of such char-
acter that, one day, the social science research of other agencies may be more penetrat-
ing, illuminating and reliable. Nor has NSF been particularly bold in this regard. Since
the early days there have been various unspoken but nonetheless real taboos—sex, reli-
gion, ethnic voting behaviors, for example. And the nation is the poorer for this avoid-
ance of reality. For its part, the Congress remains uncertain of the value of social sci-
ence and continues to vacillate in this regard. Witness the fate on the House floor of
the NSF authorization Bill reported out by this Committee.

When I appeared before you on 6 March, I said, “It is almost a truism that natural
science and technology have considerably outstripped knowledge of social processes
and their management. One has only to use a series of buzz words to exemplify the
problems: population, crime, poverty, alcohol and drug abuse, child and family devel-

7
opment, education, employment, aging, cities, sex, discrimination, conflict. I would
not dare offer an agenda of studies appropriate to these matters. But it is evident that
the research agenda in social and behavioral science is shaped and defined by our
times. That understanding comes hard and slowly, if at all, reflects not the competence
of the investigators but the intrinsic difficulties of these problems, the lack of useful
non-human models, and our great reluctance to experiment using our own people as
subject. . .

“Surely we must decide whether we are as risk averse as we have behaved in recent
years. Are we, collectively, all that concerned about all forms of cancer when only the
incidence of cancer of the lung, due to cigarette smoking, has risen in our lifetimes?
What are the relative benefits and costs of the interventions on which we have been
intent? Have we or have we not been placing a dead hand on the throttle of the econ-
omy, seriously affecting productivity and innovation? What shall we expect as the con-
sequence to our national well-being of inflation, our aging population, intractable
unemployment levels, markedly increased energy costs? What will be the consequence
of the declining faith and trust in our major social institutions, especially government?
Is there an optimal level of mistrust? Can we come to terms with the ever tighter eco-
nomic interdependence of the world economy?

“The list of such questions seems well-nigh endless. Their answers seem imperative to
rational national policy. I can offer only the hope that the social and behavioral sci-
ences will find proximate answers in time to help.”

Is it not time for an enlightened Congress to declare its willingness to support the
development of the admittedly still young social and behavioral sciences so that we
may ail learn whether they can, in due course, enable us better to deal with some of
our most pressing problems? Is it not beneath the dignity of the Congress to play the
game of seemingly silly project titles?

There is also a history of Congressional concern for the role of the Foundation in
supporting “applied research.” Again, I find this concern unwarranted—providing that
the Foundation does not set specific applied mission goals for itself, as it has done,
occasionally, in the past. I would encourage the first stages of applied research growing
out of recent fundamental research, but discourage the Foundation from full-scale pro-
grams of applied research directed to stated, applied missions. By that I mean that the
NSF should support research in ecology—but environmental protection per se is the
responsibility of the EPA. The NSF may very well support research in seismology, in
earthquake prediction and on the theoretical basis for earthquake engineering. But it
is not the role of NSF to manage a full program intended to culminate in the construc-
tion of full-scale demonstration earthquake-resistant structures. The NSF should surely
support research in computer science, i.e., appropriate new softwares, as well as in
the solid state physics, cryogenics and materials science that may contribute to the
hardware of the next generation of large computers—but it should not set out to sup-
port the development of such a computer.

8
I find no difficulty in—indeed I endorse—the support by NSF of research that takes
the findings of basic research to the next stage of demonstration of ultimate com-
mercializability—“‘proof of concept”—particularly when this is done by the investiga-
tors who have themselves made the underlying fundamental observations. Thereafter,
however, the next stages should be undertaken in industrial laboratories.

There remains, however, a considerable awkwardness. The boundary at which gov-
ernment support of research and development should leave off and commercial re-
search and development should take over is rarely very certain. There may well be a
gap which, at this time, goes unfilled, resulting in missed opportunities or needless lags.
In previous times, we took a limited view of the role of government and looked largely
to industry for the conduct of the entire innovation process. But that was before
Germany, Inc., and Japan, Inc., not only competed successfully in international mar-
kets but also invaded our domestic market with such success that we now have a nega-
tive balance of trade for technology. Hence, we must rethink this position and, prob-
ably, agree to a greater role of government in the industrial R&D process. Perhaps this
should become a principal role of the Department of Commerce—but that Department
does not fill such a role today. Accordingly, I now look much more positively on an
expanded role of NSF in this regard, as we live through a time of transition.

In some part, the recent great success of German and Japanese technological indus-
try has arisen from effective marriages of university and industrial laboratories. There
are many barriers to such arrangements in our country, and I hope that the Congress
will strongly encourage NSF to experiment with alternative arrangements which might
break down those barriers without damage to the integrity of the university yet avoid-
ing direct federal subsidy of industrial research.

When I testified before you in March, I was among those who directed your atten-
tion to the difficulties arising from declining college enrollments with consequent lack
of faculty appointment opportunities for young scientists (or humanists for that mat-
ter). Again, the details need not be rehashed at this time. The Science Foundation
should be encouraged to be inventive with respect to ameliorating mechanisms that
will preserve for the country this generation of young investigators. I do not think that
the NSF statute offers any barrier to that process while I do think that NSF was
gravely in error in abandoning its postdoctoral fellowship program. But I repeat what I
indicated last time: if possible, the inventions should be of temporary character.
About 1995, the later consequences of those declining enrollments will be with us in
the form of a declining labor pool; for a decade or more, thereafter, the country will
know a shortage of scientists and of almost every other form of skilled labor. We
should not repeat the kind of error we made in overbuilding university and hospital
capacity by now erecting new institutions—or institutes—which probably cannot be
staffed two decades hence.

I also directed attention to the confused and difficult relationships between the
government and the universities. But that problem extends across all federal research-

9
supporting agencies and cannot be solved by actions taken by or on behalf of the NSF,
alone. It needs central attention at the level of the President, the Office of Manage-
ment and Budget and the Congress, so I shall say no more here.

The National Science Foundation Act has always stated that “The Foundation shall
consist of a National Science Board and a Director” —language equivalent to that used
in the charters of privately incorporated foundations and universities. It has been a
bone of contention ever since, an irritant, at various times, to the President, the Office
of Management and Budget, the Congress and the Foundation’s staff. Originally, this
description was true in the sense in which it has been true of major foundations whose
boards must give express approval to all grants made by these entities. But the funds
now annually distributed by the NSF exceed the capital of all but the very largest of
the foundations on which it was modeled. During my term of service, the Board, per-
force, retreated from this grant approval function, and that retreat was made statutory
by the Congress a decade ago. I find rather ironic the current description, in the Act,
of those grants for which the Board cannot delegate its approval authority. The provi-
sion relates specifically to the dollar magnitude of a given award. Yet, in my experi-
ence at the Foundation, it was the grants of largest magnitude which were most care-
fully justified by the applicants and most penetratingly examined by the staff. Policy
problems generally do not arise as some function of the magnitude of a given prant.

Nevertheless, I would not take exception to this limitation on the Director’s author-
ity since it does keep the Board in touch with the major granting activities of the
Foundation and keeps the staff mindful of this approval function of the Board. While I
was Chairman, we instituted a process—perhaps still utilized—wherein the Board would
review and approve all proposed grants under a new program to assure that the pro-
gram was being managed as intended, that the grants being made were, indeed, of the
character that had been visualized when the program was planned. When the Board
was so Satisfied, it delegated its approval authority to the Director. I consider this a
useful procedure and a proper role of the Board.

The present situation, however, is anomalous. The Board cannot be held account-
able for actions taken under authority it does not have. If the nation is maximally to
benefit by the very existence of the Board, I consider it far more desirable that the
Board have full approval authority for all grants—and authority to delegate any or all
of that authority to the Director as it had done in large part before the current provi-
sion was written into law. Only thus can it be held responsible—and be expected to act
responsibly. .

The functional role of the Board has long since departed from merely that as the
ultimate approving body for grant awards. It should function as an antenna, bringing
to the highest level of consideration at the Foundation the concerns of the nation, the
opportunities and the problems of research-performing institutions. The annual report
of the Board is an excellent vehicle for this function. The Board should satisfy itself
that the allocation of resources among Foundation programs optimizes the use of all

10
federal funds in support of research and are also wisely deployed to serve the educa-
tional function of the Foundation. In these senses, it should truly act as the “National
Science Board”’ rather than as the ‘‘Board of the National Science Foundation.”

Above all, at the Foundation, the Board serves two principal roles. (1) By its very
presence, it maintains the character and integrity of the institution, helping to keep
the Foundation’s staff accountable to its external constituency, assuring that objective
peer review will remain the basis for decision-making within individual programs.

(The importance of peer review seems usually to be misstated. To be sure, it is the
basis for decision-making, for choosing among alternative proposals and for weeding
out those that should not find approval. But I would guess that the judgments made
by an excellent staff, on its own—and NSF has an excellent staff—would not depart
significantly from those made by peer review. Rather, the principal role of peer review
is to serve as the mechanism for the accountability of this entire system to the nation
at large. In no other element of the entire federal apparatus does there exist so detailed
and so smoothly functioning a mechanism to assure accountability for the quality of
the enterprise as does peer review in the selection of research grantees by the federal
agencies so engaged.)

(2) The other major role of the Board is political. When necessary, the Board can
shield the Director and his staff from furious gusts in the winds of political change.
There have been such episodes during the tenure of each of the Directors of the Foun-
dation. A wise Board, led by an effective Chairman, can buffer the Foundation against
impetuous acts of retribution that can occasionally menace when some minor episode
has been magnified out of all proportion.

I shall not speak to the composition of the Board other than to indicate my firm
belief that a large fraction of the Board must consist of distinguished working scien-
tists genuinely conversant with the substance of the Foundation’s activities. And if my
sense of the appropriate future of the Foundation holds, that will be more true than
ever.

Mr. Chairman, the scientific enterprise of our country will be even more important
to the national welfare tomorrow than it was yesterday. Our national circumstances
are changing, and I hope that the National Science Foundation Act will ever allow the
Foundation the flexibility to serve the nation as those circumstances warrant.

11