3

1 SEC. 4. (a) From appropriations made under section 2(b) 2 (other than amounts available for paragraph (6) of such sec3 tion) not less than $25,000,000 shall be made available for 4 programs designed to improve the participation of women in 5 science.

6

7 (6)

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

(b) Of the total amount authorized under section 2(b)

(1) $1,000,000 is authorized for a program of education in appropriate technology;

(2) $2,250,000 is authorized for the program Ethics and Values in Science and Technology; and

(3) $2,500,000 is authorized for the program Minorities, Women and the Handicapped in Science.

(c) Of the total amount authorized under sections 15 2(b)(1), 2(b)(2), and 2(b)(5) for equipment and instrumenta16 tion, not less than 10 per centum shall be made available for 17 grants to two- and four-year colleges for equipment and in18 strumentation costing $35,000, or less.

19

SEC. 5. From appropriations made under this Act, not 20 more than $5,000 for fiscal year 1981 and such sums as may 21 be necessary for fiscal year 1982 may be used for official 22 consultation, representation, or other extraordinary expenses 23 at the discretion of the Director of the National Science 24 Foundation. His determination will be final and conclusive 25 upon the accounting officers of the Government.

1

4

SEC. 6. Besides the sums authorized by section 2, not

2 more than $5,500,000 for fiscal year 1981 and such sums as 3 may be necessary for fiscal year 1982 are authorized to be 4 appropriated for expenses of the National Science Foundation. 5 incurred outside the United States, to be drawn from foreign 6 currencies that the Treasury Department determines to be 7 excess to the normal requirements of the United States.

8

SEC. 7. (a) Funds may be transferred among the catego

9 ries listed in section 2(b), so long as the net funds transferred 10 to or from any category do not exceed 10 per centum of the 11 amounts authorized for that category in section 2. 12 (b) The Director of the Foundation may propose trans13 fers to or from any category exceeding 10 per centum of the 14 amounts authorized for that category in section 2. Such a 15 proposal must be transmitted in writing to the Speaker of the 16 House, the President of the Senate, and the Senate Commit17 tee on Labor and Human Resources and the House Authori18 zation Committee on Science and Technology. The proposed 19 transfer may be made only when—

(1) thirty calendar days have passed after submission of the written proposal, or

(2) the chairmen of the House Committee on Science and Technology and the Senate Committee on

Labor and Human Resources have both written the

5

1

Director to the effect that the committees have no ob

3

SEC. 8. (a)(1) Section 15(c) of the National Science

4 Foundation Act of 1950 is repealed.

5 (2) Subsection (d) of section 15 of such Act is redesig

6 nated as subsection (c).

7

(b) Section 16 of the National Science Foundation Act

8 of 1950 is amended to read as follows:

9

10

"APPROPRIATIONS

"SEC. 16. To enable the Foundation to carry out its

11 powers and duties, only such sums may be appropriated as 12 the Congress may authorize by law.".

Senator SCHWEIKER. In the course of today's hearing, we will examine the responsibilities and achievements of the NSF, review the Federal commitment to the Foundation, and discuss proposed increases in authorization levels.

We have with us today a distinguished group of scientists who will address these issues. Our first panel includes Dr. Richard Atkinson, Director of the National Science Foundation, and Dr. Norman Hackerman, president of Rice University and the Chairman of the National Science Board.

Our second panel consists of Dr. Michael Pelczar, president of the Council of Graduate Schools in the United States; Dr. Thomas Wenzlau, president of Ohio Wesleyan University; and Dr. William Klein, director of the Morris Arboretum.

Before we begin, I would like to take a minute to mention that Dr. Atkinson has resigned his position at NSF and this will be his last appearance before the committee. I would like to take this opportunity, Dr. Atkinson, to commend you for the excellent work you have done as Director. We on the subcommittee have always found your relationship with us to be productive and fruitful. I wish you the best of luck in your future endeavors.

I say that as a ranking member of the minority side as well as for the majority members.

STATEMENTS OF DR. RICHARD C. ATKINSON, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION; DR. GEORGE PIMENTEL, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION; AND DR. NORMAN HACKERMAN, PRESIDENT, RICE UNIVERSITY, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD, A PANEL

Dr. ATKINSON. I will be brief because you know the Foundation and its activities well. With me at the table is Dr. George Pimentel, Deputy Director of the Foundation. On my far left is Dr. Alex Rich, a professor of biophysics at MIT and a member of the National Science Board. His face may seem familiar to you because he was featured in a recent Newsweek article on recombinant DNA research. In my written statement, I talk about some of the developments in basic research that have occurred in the past 10 years and their implications for industry. Rather than review those, let me comment on recombinant DNA research. Ten years ago, that term did not even appear in the scientific literature or in biology textbooks. But today, research on recombinant DNA, where NSF has played a key role, is mentioned in the business section of many newspapers and magazines because it is making a dramatic impact in a number of industries, particularly the chemical and pharmaceutical industries.

Let me also comment about several aspects of the NSF budget. In the fiscal year 1981 budget, there are three areas of major emphasis. One is mathematical and physical sciences; another is engineering science; and the third is related to the President's domestic policy review on industrial innovation and to existing activities of the Foundation in this area.

The emphasis upon mathematical and physical sciences is designed to correct an imbalance among various fields of basic research. From 1967 to 1980, the overall Federal support for basic research was increased by 8 percent, corrected for inflation. But

the details of that increase disclose some varying trends. Support of the life sciences is up 19 percent, of the environmental sciences, up 34 percent, and of the social sciences, up 7 percent.

But support of the mathematical and physical sciences is down 14 percent. In short, while the support of research has had a fair increase, the support of mathematical and physical sciences has fallen behind. That is why in this budget we have a strong increase for these fields: a 28-percent increase for computer sciences, an 18percent increase for mathematics, a 16-percent increase for physics and chemistry.

In the engineering sciences, the emphasis is on the pursuit of those aspects of engineering sciences that have the most scientific promise. We recognize that too much of our research support in engineering has been targeted on special, well-defined problems. That targeted work is obviously important, but it must be balanced with less directed work in the engineering sciences.

A key concern of the domestic policy review on industrial innovation was research and development that could facilitate such innovation. During the review, NSF was cited on several occasions for some of its innovative programs in areas related to industrial innovation.

Consequently, our budget contains a special thrust for what we call the industry/university cooperative research program. It features a number of activities designed to facilitate research exchanges between industrial and research scientists. We think these exchanges are healthy. Our purpose is twofold: basic phenomena discovered in the universities will be transferred more quickly to industry, and industry's interests and priorities will be clearly heard in the university science community.

Finally, let me mention the ocean margin drilling program. As you know, the National Science Foundation has supported a drilling program in the deep oceans for a decade or more. The oil industry has explored the continental shelf. Areas not yet adequately explored are the ocean margins, the areas between the deep oceans and the continental shelf. Recent developments have indicated that these are particularly important areas for scientific exploration. The Foundation proposes a major undertaking, a $700million program over a 10-year period. We have been able to gain support for this program only under the special condition that oil companies would be responsible for half of the funding; the Federal Government would be responsible for the other half. The ocean margin drilling program represents a special venture by the National Science Foundation, a venture that will be collaborative with the oil industry, but a venture where the NSF would control the program.

I will conclude with a brief quotation, from Prof. Paul Samuelson of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, a Nobel laureate in economics. About 2 months ago, he remarked that more than half of the growth in U.S. productivity is due to advances of scientific knowledge. His remark emphasizes the contribution of new knowledge to productivity.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Atkinson follows:]