Interagency coordination of Federal scientific research and development, the Federal Council for Science and Technology

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Interagency coordination of Federal scientific research and development, the Federal Council for Science and Technology report
Series Title:
Serial - House, Committee on Science and Technology ; no. 94-WW
Physical Description:
x, 447 p. : 24 cm.
Language:
English
Creator:
Library of Congress -- Science Policy Research Division
United States -- Congress. -- House. -- Committee on Science and Technology
Publisher:
U.S. Govt. Print. Off.
Place of Publication:
Washington
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Technology -- United States   ( lcsh )
Research -- United States   ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography   ( marcgt )
federal government publication   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
General Note:
Reuse of record except for individual research requires license from LexisNexis Academic & Library Solutions.
General Note:
CIS Microfiche Accession Numbers: CIS 77 H702-1
General Note:
Reuse of record except for individual research requires license from Congressional Information Service, Inc.
General Note:
"Prepared by Dorothy M. Bates ..."
General Note:
At head of title: Committee print.
Statement of Responsibility:
prepared for the Subcommittee on Domestic and International Scientific Planning and Analysis of the Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives, Ninety-fourth Congress, second session, by Dorothy M. Bates the Science Policy Research Division, Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 022396964
oclc - 02704253X
Classification:
lcc - KF49
System ID:
AA00024026:00001

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front Cover 1
        Front Cover 2
    Title Page
        Page i
        Page ii
    Letter of transmittal
        Page iii
        Page iv
    Letter of submittal
        Page v
        Page vi
    Table of Contents
        Page vii
        Page viii
        Page ix
        Page x
    I. Introduction
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
    II. A summary retrospective look and a look ahead
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
    III. Coordination of Federal scientific and technical activities before the establishment of the Federal Council for Science and Technology
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
    IV. The Federal Council for Science and Technology from its establishment until the creation of the Office of Science and Technology (1959-62)
        Page 57
        Page 58
        Page 59
        Page 60
        Page 61
        Page 62
        Page 63
        Page 64
        Page 65
        Page 66
        Page 67
        Page 68
        Page 69
        Page 70
        Page 71
        Page 72
        Page 73
        Page 74
        Page 75
        Page 76
        Page 77
        Page 78
        Page 79
        Page 80
        Page 81
        Page 82
        Page 83
        Page 84
        Page 85
        Page 86
        Page 87
        Page 88
        Page 89
        Page 90
        Page 91
        Page 92
        Page 93
        Page 94
        Page 95
        Page 96
        Page 97
        Page 98
    V. The Federal Council for Science and Technology during the existence of the Office of Science and Technology (1962-73)
        Page 99
        Page 100
        Page 101
        Page 102
        Page 103
        Page 104
        Page 105
        Page 106
        Page 107
        Page 108
        Page 109
        Page 110
        Page 111
        Page 112
        Page 113
        Page 114
        Page 115
        Page 116
        Page 117
        Page 118
        Page 119
        Page 120
        Page 121
        Page 122
        Page 123
        Page 124
        Page 125
        Page 126
        Page 127
        Page 128
        Page 129
        Page 130
        Page 131
        Page 132
        Page 133
        Page 134
        Page 135
        Page 136
        Page 137
        Page 138
        Page 139
        Page 140
        Page 141
        Page 142
        Page 143
        Page 144
        Page 145
        Page 146
        Page 147
        Page 148
        Page 149
        Page 150
        Page 151
        Page 152
        Page 153
        Page 154
        Page 155
        Page 156
        Page 157
        Page 158
        Page 159
        Page 160
        Page 161
        Page 162
        Page 163
        Page 164
    VI. The Federal Council for Science and Technology after transfer to the National Science Foundation (1973-76)
        Page 165
        Page 166
        Page 167
        Page 168
        Page 169
        Page 170
        Page 171
        Page 172
        Page 173
        Page 174
        Page 175
        Page 176
        Page 177
        Page 178
        Page 179
        Page 180
        Page 181
        Page 182
        Page 183
        Page 184
    VII. Legislative history of establishment of Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering, and Technology
        Page 185
        Page 186
        Page 187
        Page 188
        Page 189
        Page 190
        Page 191
        Page 192
        Page 193
        Page 194
        Page 195
        Page 196
        Page 197
        Page 198
        Page 199
        Page 200
        Page 201
        Page 202
        Page 203
        Page 204
        Page 205
        Page 206
        Page 207
        Page 208
        Page 209
        Page 210
        Page 211
        Page 212
    Appendices
        Page 213
        Page 214
        Page 215
        Page 216
        Page 217
        Page 218
        Page 219
        Page 220
        Page 221
        Page 222
        Page 223
        Page 224
        Page 225
        Page 226
        Page 227
        Page 228
        Page 229
        Page 230
        Page 231
        Page 232
        Page 233
        Page 234
        Page 235
        Page 236
        Page 237
        Page 238
        Page 239
        Page 240
        Page 241
        Page 242
        Page 243
        Page 244
        Page 245
        Page 246
        Page 247
        Page 248
        Page 249
        Page 250
        Page 251
        Page 252
        Page 253
        Page 254
        Page 255
        Page 256
        Page 257
        Page 258
        Page 259
        Page 260
        Page 261
        Page 262
        Page 263
        Page 264
        Page 265
        Page 266
        Page 267
        Page 268
        Page 269
        Page 270
        Page 271
        Page 272
        Page 273
        Page 274
        Page 275
        Page 276
        Page 277
        Page 278
        Page 279
        Page 280
        Page 281
        Page 282
        Page 283
        Page 284
        Page 285
        Page 286
        Page 287
        Page 288
        Page 289
        Page 290
        Page 291
        Page 292
        Page 293
        Page 294
        Page 295
        Page 296
        Page 297
        Page 298
        Page 299
        Page 300
        Page 301
        Page 302
        Page 303
        Page 304
        Page 305
        Page 306
        Page 307
        Page 308
        Page 309
        Page 310
        Page 311
        Page 312
        Page 313
        Page 314
        Page 315
        Page 316
        Page 317
        Page 318
        Page 319
        Page 320
        Page 321
        Page 322
        Page 323
        Page 324
        Page 325
        Page 326
        Page 327
        Page 328
        Page 329
        Page 330
        Page 331
        Page 332
        Page 333
        Page 334
        Page 335
        Page 336
        Page 337
        Page 338
        Page 339
        Page 340
        Page 341
        Page 342
        Page 343
        Page 344
        Page 345
        Page 346
        Page 347
        Page 348
        Page 349
        Page 350
        Page 351
        Page 352
        Page 353
        Page 354
        Page 355
        Page 356
        Page 357
        Page 358
        Page 359
        Page 360
        Page 361
        Page 362
        Page 363
        Page 364
        Page 365
        Page 366
        Page 367
        Page 368
        Page 369
        Page 370
        Page 371
        Page 372
        Page 373
        Page 374
        Page 375
        Page 376
        Page 377
        Page 378
        Page 379
        Page 380
        Page 381
        Page 382
        Page 383
        Page 384
        Page 385
        Page 386
        Page 387
        Page 388
        Page 389
        Page 390
        Page 391
        Page 392
        Page 393
        Page 394
        Page 395
        Page 396
        Page 397
        Page 398
        Page 399
        Page 400
        Page 401
        Page 402
        Page 403
        Page 404
        Page 405
        Page 406
        Page 407
        Page 408
        Page 409
        Page 410
        Page 411
        Page 412
        Page 413
        Page 414
        Page 415
        Page 416
        Page 417
        Page 418
        Page 419
        Page 420
        Page 421
        Page 422
        Page 423
        Page 424
        Page 425
        Page 426
        Page 427
        Page 428
        Page 429
        Page 430
        Page 431
        Page 432
        Page 433
        Page 434
        Page 435
        Page 436
        Page 437
        Page 438
        Page 439
        Page 440
        Page 441
        Page 442
        Page 443
        Page 444
        Page 445
        Page 446
        Page 447
        Page 448
    Back Cover
        Back Cover 1
        Back Cover 2
Full Text

[COXXITTK PRINT]



INTERAGENCY COORDINATION OF
FEDERAL SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT: THE FEDERAL
COUNCIL FOR SCIENCE
AND TECHNOLOGY



REPORT
PREPARED FOR THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON

DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL
A SCIENTIFIC PLANNING AND ANALYSIS OF THE
OMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
NINETY-FOURTH CONGRESS
..."SECONDSE IO


BY THE
ScIEcE Poucy REsFARCH DvrsioN CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE
LuIBuiiY OF CONGREI98s
Seial WW ,' ''

JAN





JULY 1976


Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology








[COMMITTEE PRINT]


INTERAGENCY COORDINATION OF
FEDERAL SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT: THE FEDERAL
COUNCIL FOR SCIENCE
AND TECHNOLOGY

REPORT
PREPARED FOR THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON
DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL
SCIENTIFIC PLANNING AND ANALYSIS OF THE

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
NINETY-FOURTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION

BY THE

SCIENCE POLICY RESEARCH DIVISION CO-NGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE
LrBRARY OF CONGRESS Serial WW






JULY 1976

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 73-526 WASHINGTON : 1976


For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 Price $3.95
















COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

OLIN E. TEAGUE, Texas, Chairman
KEN HECHLER, West Virginia CHARLES A. MOSHER, Ohio
THOMAS N. DOWNING, Virginia ALPHONZO BELL, California
DON FUQUA, Florida JOHN JARMAN, Oklahoma
JAMES W. SYMINGTON, Missouri JOHN W. WYDLER, New York
WALTER FLOWERS, Alabama LARRY WINN, JR., Kansas
ROBERT A. ROE, New Jersey LOUIS FREY, JR., Florida
MIKE McCORMACK, Washington BARRY M. GOLDWATER, JR., California
GEORGE E. BROWN, JR., California MARVIN L. ESCH, Michigan
DALE MILFORD, Texas JOHN B. CONLAN, Arizona
RAY THORNTON, Arkansas GARY A. MYERS, Pennsylvania
JAMES H. SCHEUER, New York DAVID F. EMERY, Maine
RICHARD L. OTTINGER, New York LARRY PRESSLER, South Dakota
HENRY A. WAXMAN, California PHILIP H. HAYES, Indiana TOM HARKIN, Iowa JIM LLOYD, California JEROME A. AMBRO, New York CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut MICHAEL T. BLOUIN, Iowa TIM L. HALL, Illinois ROBERT (BOB) KRUEGER, Texas MARILYN LLOYD, Tennessee JAMES T. BLANCHARD, Michigan TIMOTHY E. WIRTH, Colorado JOHN L. SWIGERT, Jr., Executive Director HAROLD A. GOULD, Deputy Director PHILIP B. YEAGER, Counsel FRANK R. HAMMILL, Jr., Counsel JAMES E. WILSON, Technical Consultant J. THOMAS RATCHFORD, Science Consultant JOHN D. HOLMFELD, Science Consultant RALPH N. READ, Technical Consultant ROBERT C. KETCHAM, Counsel REGINA A. DAVIS, Chief Clerk MICHAEL A. SUPERATA, Minority Counsel



SUBCOMMITTEE ON DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC PLANNING AND ANALYSIS

RAY THORNTON, Arkansas, Chairman

ROBERT A. ROE, New Jersey JOHN B. CONLAN, Arizona
DALE MILFORD, Texas JOHN JARMAN, Oklahoma
JAMES H. SCHEUER, New York GARY A. MYERS, Pennsylvania
HENRY A. WAXMAN, California JEROME A. AMBRO, New York JAMES J. BLANCHARD, Michigan


SUBCOMMITTEE STAFF JOHN D. HOLMFELD, Science Consultant DARcIA D. BRACKEN, Science Consultant JAMES L. GALLAGHER, Minority Technical Consultant
(TT)












LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL


HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,
TI ashington, D.C., Jidy 20, 1976.
ion. OLIN E. TEAGUE,
Chairman, Committee on Science and Technology, House of Representatives, H ashington, D.C.
DEAR AIR. CHAIRMAN: I am glad to transmit to you a background study entitled: "Interagency Coordination of Federal Research and Development: The Federal Council for Science and Technoloov."
This study provides a thorough review of the principal unit within the Executive branch of the Government, apart from the budget office, with responsibility for the coordination of Federal research and development activities. The Study covers in detail the history of this Council from its establishment under President Eisenhower in 1959 to date. It also covers the earlier organizations established for this purpose as well as the establishment during this Congress by Public Law 94-282, of the successor organization, the Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering, and Technology. Throughout this historical review, the study provides discussions of the questions of policy, results, and evaluation associated with the efforts needed to coordinate the research and development programs of our government.
We are indebted to Mrs Dorothy M. Bates of the Congressional Research Service for this excellent study. Mrs. Bates has performed a number of earlier studies in the field of science policy and science policy organization for our Committee and for other C(ommittees of the Congress. The present study measures up to the high standards of completeness and thoroughness which characterizes the research work of Mrs. Bates, and we are fortunate to have available this volume. as we begin our Special Oversight hearings on this important subject
In the preparation of the study, Mrs. Bates had the assistance of Dr. Robert Morrison who wrote two of the case studies on specific Council Committees, Mr. John Justus who wrote the case study of another Council Committee, and Ms. Karen Guarisco who compiled the Presidential statements referring to the Council.
I believe this study will be of great value to our Subcomnittee as we review the management of those Federal research and development activities which affect more than one department or agency. I commend it also to the attention of the Committee members and the members of the IHouse as a valuable work in the field of science policy.
Sincerely yours,
RAY THORNTON, Chairman,
Sabcommrnittee on Domestic and International Scientific Planning and Analysis.
(III)



















Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2013













http://archive.org/details/intecoordOOlibr











LETTER OF SUBMITTAL


THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS,
CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE, Washington, D.C., Jly 15, 1975.
Hon. RAY THORNTON,
Chairman, Stubcommittee on Domestic and International SCic;tfic Planning and Analysis, Committee on Science and Techlology, U.S.
House of Representatives, T4 'shington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I am pleased to submit the enclosed report "Interagency Coordination of Federal Scientific Research and Development: The Federal Council for Science and Technology," prepared in response to your request to our Science Policy Research Division. The report covers the origin and history of the Federal Council, traces the evolution of its organization and operations, and concludes with a legislative history of Title IV of P.L. 94-282 which established the Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering, and Technology.
The report was prepared by Mrs. Dorothy M. Bates, Specialist, Science and Technology, in consultation with Dr. Charles S. Sheldon II, Chief, and Mr. Walter Hahn, Assistant Chief, Science Policy Research Division. Dr. Robert E. Morrison, Specialist in Earth Science, is responsible for the case histories on the Interdepartmental Committee for Atmospheric Sciences and the Interagency Committee on Marine Science and Engineering. He also contributed a summary of the activity of the Interagency Task Force on Inadvertent Modification of the Stratosphere. Mr. John R. Justice, Analyst in Earth Science, wrote the case history of the Interagency Committee on Oceanography. Mrs. Karen Guarisco, Science Policy Analyst, compiled the Presidential statements referring to the Federal Council for Science and Technology, and assisted in other ways. We also wish to express our appreciation to the Federal Council for Science and Technology for making available certain information which was not in the public record concerning the period from 1970 onward.
We hope your Subcommittee will find the report helpful in your investigation of interagency coordination of Federal scientific and technical activities.
Sincerely yours,
N ORMA N BECKMAN,
Acting Director.
(v)
















CONTENTS

Page
Letter of iii
Letter of submittal- v
I. Introduction_- 1
11. A sunirnarv retrospective look and a look ahead ------------------- 5
Summary of the 5
Evaluations- of the strengths and weaknesses of the Federal Council
for Science and 10
A lool: ahead: Questions for subcommittee consideration ----------- 30
38
111. Coordination of Federal scientific and technical activities before the
establishment of the Federal Council for Science and Technology-- 41
Scientific coordinating bodies (1916-46) 41
Recommendations for Federal scientific coordination after World
War 11 ----------------------------------------------------- 42
Kilgore Report -------------------------------------------- 42
Bush Report ---------------------------------------------- 43
Steelman 45
Establishment of Interdepartmental Committee for Scientific Research
and Development (ICSRD) ---------------------------------- 46
Summary of ICSRD operations --------------------------------- 49
Termination of the 51
Evaluation of ICSRD ----------------------------------------- 53
IV. The Federal Council for Science and Technology from its establishment
until the creatioDof the Office of Science and Technology (1959-62) 57
Post-Sputnik activities to strengthen America'i scientific and technical capability ----------------------------------------------- 58
President's Science Advisory Committee recommends creation of a
Federal Council for Science and Technology 59
Special Assistant for Science and Technology and President's
Science Advisory Committee relationships ------------------ 59
"Strengthening American Science" 60
Dr. Killian's summary of the 62
Implementation of the PSAC recommendation to establish a Federal
Council for Science and Technology--------------------------- 64
Executive Order 10807 ------------------------------------- 64
Sectional analysis of Executive Order 65
Comparison 4 Executive Order 9912 with PSAC recommendations and with Executive Order 67
Interdepartmental Committee-Federal Council relationship- 67
Differences between the PSAC recommendations and Executive
Order 70
Reconciliation with other executive 70
Clarification of Federal Council authority vis-a-vis Federal
agencies ------------------------------------------------ 7T I
Amendment to Executive Order 10807 ----------------------- 71
Executive Order 10807 is the basis for title IV of Public Law
94-282 ------------------------------------------------Organization and operations of the Federal Council (1959-62) ------- 71
Advisory status of the 71
First published activities report on Federal Council in 1962_____ 7:3 Nlembership ---------------------------------------------- 7 3)
Attendance at Council meetings ----------------------------- 7.5
Meetings- 75
S-taffing and funding --------------------------------------- 75
Recapitulation of FCST functions under Executive Order 10807- 76 Functions unchanged 76
(VII)






viii

IV. The Federal Council for Science and Technology-Continued
Organization and operations of the Federal Council-Continued Page
Summary of activities, 78
1. In kind and scope, Federal Council activities have been
diverse and wide rangingZ!,__ - 78
2. The Council has utilized several avenues through which
to translate recommendations into action 88
3. The vise of interagency coini-nittees has been a principal
means for interagency prograrn planning and coordination from the Cou-.rwil's 89
4. Direct Presidential a -_,ignments to the Federal Council
constituted an important basis for action during the
earl-v years --------------------------------------- 90
5. Interagency coordination over wide subject areas is a
continuing process- 90
6. The Federal Council as a 91
Congressional pressure for executive branch science reorganization--- 91
"Science organization and the President's 92
The Kennedy 94
Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1962 transmitted to the Congress_ 9i Federal Council role under Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1962-- 96 Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1962 goes into 97
V. The Federal Council for Science and Technology during the existence of
the Office of Science and Technology (1962-73) ------------------- 99
Current relevance of a study of the 1962-73 period ------------------ 99
Establishment of the Office of Science and Technology --------------- 100
The Federal Council for Science and Technology during the Kennedy
administration ---------------------------------------------- 102
President-science adviser 102
Presidential statements concerning Federal Council activities ---- 105
Summary statement on the Federal Council during the Kennedy
administration ------------------------------------------ 107
Interim report on activities during calendar year 1963 ----------- 117
The Federal Council for Science and Technology during the Johnson
administration (1963-69) ------------------------------------- 119
President-science adviser 119
Federal Council role basically unchanged ---------------------- 120
Presidential statements concerninor Federal Council activities ---- 122 Summary of Federal Council operations, 1963-1968____________ 125
Membership ------------------------------------------ 125
Membership enlarged by amendment to Executive Order
10807 ---------------------------------------------- 125
Staff ------------------------------------------------- 125
Executive Secretary ------------------------------------ 126
OST staff on committees -------------------------------- 126
Federal Council meetings ------------------------------- 126
Annual report ------------------------------------------ 127
Federal Council committees ----------------------------- 127
Problems considered by the Federal Council, 1964-68 ----------- 127
1964 activities ---------------------------------------- 129
Long-range planning ----------------------------------- 129
1965 and 1966 activities -------------------------------- 132
1967 activities ---------------------------------------- 137
OECD review of national science policy in United States----- 138 FCST reaction to Library of Congress report on OST ------- 139 1968 activities ----------------------------------------- 142
Science advice in the I ast year of the Johnson administration- - - 142
The Federal Council for Science and Technology in the Nixon administration until its transfer from the Executive Office of the
President (1969-73) ------------------------------------------ 144
Summary remarks concerning science advice and coordination in
the Nixon administration, 144-146
President-science adviser 146
Dr. DuBridge as science adviser and Chairman of the Federal
146
Dr. David as science adviser and Chairman of the Federal
147




LX

V. The Federal Council for Science and Technology-Continued The Federal Council for Science and Technology in the Nixon Administration-Continued p, L
Pr -sident-F federal Council relazions hps,---"---------......---14S
Summary of Federal Council operations, 1969-73----------------149
Membership and attendance ----------------------------149
Meetings__ -149
Staffing 1.50
Committees-- 151
Reports_ -152
Problems considered by the Federal Council, 1969-72-155
1969 activities_ 155
1970 activities_-156 1971 activities---157 1972 activities ----------------------------------------157
Two brief case studies-158
Assisting State and local governments to make better use of
science and technology_-158
The new technological opportunities program (NTOP) and
the President's message on science and technology ---------159
Rumors of reorganization, 1972-73-160 Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1973 is sent to Congress ----------161
Transfer of the science advisory and coordinating functions
to the National Science Foundation--------------------- 164
VI. The Federal Council for Science and Technology after transfer to the k y National Science Foundation (1973-76) -------------------------165
Transfer to the NSF -------------------------------------------165
Science adviser-Federal Council relationships ----------------------166
Summary of Federal Council operations within NSF ----------------167
Physical location within NSF-167 Staffing --------------------------------------------------167
Staffing of interagency committees ---------------------------168
Creation of Operating Committee ----------------------------168
Funding 169
Funing-------------------------------------------------16
Changes in Federal Council meetings -------------------------169
Attendance at Council meetings -----------------------------170
Enlarging the Council membership ---------------------------170
Descriptive summary of the Federal Council is published ------- 171 Federal Council activity report ------------------------------171
Federal Council actions regarding its interagency committees- 171
Annual review of Committee and Council actions_ 171
New committees ------------------------------------------172
Reports and recommendations of other Federal Council committees ---------------------------------------------------- 175
Evolution of Federal Council committees, 1959-76 -------------176
Selected Federal Council activities -------------------------------180
More effective utilization of Federal laboratories ---------------180
Government patent policy ----------------------------------181
Policy statements of the Pederal Council ----------------------182
Report on the Federal R. & D. program for fiscal year 1976 .... 183 VII. Legislative history of establishment of Federal Coordinating Council
for Science, Engineering, and Technology ---------------------185
The Federal Council opposed having a statutory base in 1967 -------185 Amendment of Executive Order 10807 --------------------------- 186
Consideration and actions in the 93d Congress------------------ 186
'National Technology Resources Council proposed --------------186
National Science and Technology Resources Council proposed-- 187 Council on Science and Technology proposed ------------------188
Federal Coordinating Committee for Science and Technology
proposed ----------------------------------------------190
National Policy and Priorities for Science and Technology Act,
1974_--194





x

VII. Legislative history of establishment of Federal Coordillating
Council-Continued pa g
Science policy legislation in the 94th Congress ----------------------198
Action in the Hu--------------------198
Administration decides to reestablish science advisory office---- 199
House hearings on legislative proposals and passage of H.
1023-------------------------------------199
Senate action on S. 32 and passage of H.R. 10230 amended -------200
Federal Coordinating Group for Science, Engineering, and
Technology -------------------------------------------- 202
Conference report on H.R. 103--------------203
Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering, and
Techoloy---------------------------------204
Comparison of Tiltle IV of E.L. 94-282 with Executive Order 10807
of 19159, as amended---------------------------------------- 206
Table 1.-Comparison of the recommendations of the Steelman report arid
the provisions of Executive Order 9912 which established the
ICSRD----------------------------------------------- 74
Table 2.-Science and technology in the White House special projects fund,
fiscal years 195S-62 --------------------------------------76
Table 3.-Federal Council committees and panels, groups, et cetera,
1959-63 ----------------------------------------------- 118
Table 4.-Federal Council committees and panels, groups, 1959-68 --------128
Table 5.-Federal Council committees and panels, groups, 1959-7 3--------13
Table 6.-Federal Council committees and panels, 1959-76 ---------------177
Table 7.-Members of current Federal Council committees ---------------179
Figure 1.-Full cice-----------------------40
Figure 2.-White House Science trcue--------------102

APPENDICES
A. Statement by the President upon signing order establishing the Interdepartmental Committee for Scientific Research and Development,
and Text of Executive Order 9912, December 24, 1947 -------------215
B. Executive Order 10807, Mvarch 13, 1939, as amended by Executive
Order 11381, November 8, 1967, establishing the Federal Council
for Science and Technology ------------------------------------221
C. Executive Order 10.521, M\,arch 17, 1934, as amended by Executive
Order 10807, March 13, 1939, on administration of scientific research ------------------------------------------------------ 227
D. Executive Order 11381, November 8, 1967, amending Executive
Order 10807, M\,arch 13, 1959, relating to the Federal Council for
Science and Technology --------------------------------------- 231
E. Letter to Dr. H. Guv~ford Stever from President Richard Nixon dated
July 1, 1973, in whiich he designated Dr. Stever to be Chairman of
the Federal Council for Science and Technology -------------------235
F. -Members and observers of the Federal Council for Science and Technology, May 1976 -------------------------------------------- 239
G. Chairmen, members, observers, and executive secretaries of the Federal Council for Science and Technology, from 1959 to May 1976-- 245 H. Report on Federal Council for Science and Technology, Jun~e 1962- 257 I. Reports of the Federal Council for Science and Technology and its
committees, 19509-76----------------------------------------- 267
J. Presidential statements referring to the Federal Council for Science
and Technology. Compiled by Karen Guarisco --------------------297
K. Policy statements of the Federal Council for Science and Technology.. 329 L. The Interdepartmental Committee for Atmospheric Sciences: A case
history. Prepared by Robert E. Morrison ------------------------381
',\. The Interagency Committee on Oceanography: A case history. Prepared by John Justus ----------------------------------------- 397
N. The Interagency Committee on Marine Science and Engineering: A
case history. Prepared by Robert E. Morrison -------------------- 415
0. Text of National Science and Technology Policy, Organization, and
Priorities Act of 1976 (Public Law 94-282, May 11, 1976) -----------431











I. INTRODUCTION
The missions of the eleven departments and sixty independent agencies, boards, and commissions which comprise the executive branch and which report to the President of the United States are so broad that there is scarcely a governmental unit whose activities do not in part overlap those of one or several other agencies.' It has been aptly stated that wherever there is need for division of labor, there is need for coordination; the two are central to the understanding of the organization process.2 As division of labor has intensified, a parallel need for coordination also has intensified.
What is meant by coordination? Much has been written about the subject and it has been variously defined. Haimann has defined coordination as "the conscious process of assembling and syrchronzing differentiated activities so that they function harmoniously in the attainment of organization objectives." 3 Mooney has defined coordination simply as "the orderly arrangement of group effort, to provide unity of action in the pursuit of a common purpose." 4
"Coordination" is different from "cooperation." The latter refers to a disposition and willingness of people to help each other and work together. Coordination is an orchestrated effort to achieve a common objective. It is possible, but much more difficult, to achieve coordination without a cooperative attitude, if sufficient authority is available. Where coordination depends on voluntary compliance, its attainment is impossible without cooperation.
Within the Federal Government, a network of coordinating
bodies has been established-some within agencies, some between or among agencies, some only of Government representative-, some both Government and public. These bodies deal with subjects as
specific as protection of Federal employees from fire (Federal Fire Council), utilization of Federal library res'ources or facite. IFederal Library Committee), to such broad areas as international monetary and financial policies (National Advisory Council on International Monetary and Financial Policies) or to the entire subject of science and technology. This last area was the assigned focus of the Federal Council for Science and Teclology, the subject of this report.
The Federal Council, the top-level coordinating body for science and technology, is on the eve of a metamorphosis. Upon the approval of the National Science and Technology Policy, Organization and Priorities Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-282), on May 11, 1976, the Federal Council for Science and Technology was technically abolished, and a
I The Federal Budget groups all Federal activity in 15 main functional categories: Nat'na defnse international affairs; general science, space, and technology; natural resources, environment, and energy; agriculture; commerce and transportation; community and regional development; education, training, employment, and social services; health; income security; veterans benefits and services; law enforcement and justice; general government; revenue sharing and general purpose fiscal assistance; interest; and undistributed offsetting receipts. See U.S. Office of Management and Budget. The Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 1977. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1976, Part 5, pp. 54-166.
2 Haimann, Theo and William G. Scott. Management in the Modern Organization. Boston, IHoughton Mifflin Co., 2d ed. 1974. p. 124.
3 Ibid. p. 126.
4 James D. Mooney, The Principles of Organization, Rev. ed. New York, Harper and Row, 1974, p.5.
(1)





2

new Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering and Technology is being established. The statutory base of the new body is to a large extent drawn from Executive Order 10807 which established the Federal Council for Science and Technology in 1959. The Coordinating Council is expected to begin its new existence as a part of the Office of Science and Technology Policy being organized in the Executive Office of the President. As of mid-July 1976, the Director of this office, who will also be the Chairman of the Coordinating Council, had not been announced.*
The Federal Council for Science and Technology was an interagency body of Federal officials of policy rank from thirteen designated departments and agencies, and observers from additional Federal instrumentalities, which was established by Executive Order 10807, on .,March 13, 1959, to promote closer cooperation among Federal agencies in facilitating the resolution of common problems in science and technology to promote a greater measure of coordination, and to improve the planning and management of Federal scientific and technical programs. The Council operated through periodic meetings to discuss issues of common concern in an effort to reach a consensus on agreed actions. The bulk of Council activity was carried on through the formation of interdepartmental committees to deal with specific problem issues spanning the responsibilities of several agencies. These committees, which in turn also included subcommittees and advisory panels on still more specific problems, were evolving bodies, established when an issue required multiagency attention, and modified, merged, transferred or disbanded when specific issues no longer required attention at the Federal Council level. Although not required, the President's Science Adviser was always designated the Chairman of the Federal Council.
From its establishment until mid-1973, the Federal Council for Science and Technology was located in the Executive Office of the President. During most of this time it was aligned with the Office of Science and Technology, which served as the channel from the Council to the Congress. From mid-1973 to the present, it was located in and received staff support from the National Science Foundation.
Through calendar year 1969, annual reports on Council activities were published, providing a limited amount of information. Since then, except for a brief report in the Council's Report on the Federal R&D Program, FY 1976, there have been no consolidated reports of activity published; the only information is that appearing in bits and pieces in scattered hearings, in response to direct questions, and in connection with the release of committee reports.
This report on the Federal Council for Science and Technology has been prepared at the request of the Subcommittee on Domestic and International Scientific Planning and Analysis of the House Committee on Science and Technology to provide background information for the Subcommittee's planned Special Oversight hearings on the role and functions of the Council. The Subcommittee's continued interest in the Federal Council is a follow-on to its 1975 Special Oversight hearings on the Annual Report on Federal Research and Development Program, Fiscal Year 1976.1
*On July 21, 1976, President Ford nominated Dr. 11. Guyford Stever for this position
5 U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Science and Technology. Subcommittee on Domestic and International Scientific Planning and Analysis. Annual Report, on Federal Research and Development Program, Fiscal Ye-r 1976; Special Oversight Hearing. 94th Congress ist sess. June 3-5, July 10, 1975. Washington, U.S. Govi. f)rint. Off., 1975. 133 p.






3

A study of the Federal Council for Science andl Technology divides naturally into five tine periods:
What were the circumstances which led to the creation of the
Federal Council in 1959?
How did the Council function in the 1959-1962 periodI until
the establishment of the Office of Science and Technologpy?
How did the Council function during the existence of the
Office of Science and rreclhnoloo5T in the period 1962-1973?
How has the Council functioned since its transfer to the National Science Foundation in 1973?
What problems and issues can be identified with respect to
its successor, the Federal Coordinating Council for Lcience, Eng-ineering, and Technolo gy in the future?
The intention will be to provide sufficient background information on each time period to show the evolution of the Federal Council, to highlight accomplishments and shortcomings, and in general to brings together as much information about the Council as is possible within a limited period of time. This review of the Federal Council over the last seventeen years may point up strengths and weaknesses of the interagency coordinating mechanism. for science and technology which may be helpful in the development of the organization and operations of the new Federal Coordinating Council.
The principal sources of information for this study are materials in the public record. These have been supplemented with certain information made available by the Chairman of the Federal Council for Science and Technology and with interviews with a limited number of individuals who have first-hand knowledge of the Council and its operations.














II. A SUMMARY RETROSPECTIVE LOOK
AND A LOOK AHEAD

This chapter has three purposes. One is to summarize briefly the content of each of the sections of this report on the Federal Council for Science and Technology Following the section-by-section review is a compilation of evaluations of the Federal Council excerpted from the public record.
The third purpose is to look ahead to the new Federl Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering, and Technology which will be organized coterminous with the new Office of Science and Technology Policy in the Executive Office of the President, and by shoving similarities in the charters of the old and new Councils, to raise certain questions which the subcommittee under Chairman Thornton may wish to explore during the forthcoming hearings and subsequently. These questions may in turn suggest additional questions.

SUMMARY OF THE REPORT
Section I
This section, the Introduction, places the Federal Council for Science and Technology within its proper context. It was the principal interagency coordinating body for science and technology in the Federal Government, functioning in an advisory capacity to the President and chaired by his science advisor, from its creation in 1959 to its technical abolition with the signing of the National Science and Technology Policy, Organization and Priorities Act of 1976. With the signing of this Act a new Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering, and Technology was established which in many ways is markedly similar to the Council it replaced.
The subject of interagency coordination for science and technology is relevant to the oversight responsibilities of the Subcommittee on Domestic and International Scientific Planning and Analysis of the House Committee on Science and Technology, which has requested this historical review of the evolution of the Federal Council for Science and Technology. Five time periods are considered: Interagency coordinating bodies prior to the establishment of the Federal Council for Science and Technology; the Federal Council in the Office of the Special Assistant to the President for Science and Technologv, from its establishment in 1959 until the establishment of the Office of Science and Technology in 1962: the Federal Council as part of the science advisory apparatus in the Executive Office of the President during the existence of the Office of Science and Technology, 1962-1973: the Federal Council after its transfer to the National Science Foundation following the abolition of the Office of Science and Technology in 1973, until the passage of the National Science and Technology Policy, Organization, and Priorities Act of 1976; and interagency coordination in the future with the return of a science advisory office to the Executive Office of the President.
(5)




6

Section II
A Summary Retrospective Look and a Look Ahead, is this Section. Section III
The third section, Federal Scientific and Technical Coordination Before the Establishment of the Federal Council for Science and Technology, identifies Federal, scientific coordinating bodies from World War 1, through the World War 11 period. The purpose of this very brief review was to indicate that mechanisms for coordination of scientific activity were necessary even during a period when the Federal R&D budget was far less than it is today.
Recommendations for Federal scientific coordination after World War II in three important reports were reviewed next. These were: "The Government's Wartime Research and Development, 1940-44," report of the Subcommittee on War Mobilization of the Senate Committee on MJilitary Afffairs (the Kilgore Report); "Science, The Enidless Frontier", report of the Committee on Science and the Public Welfare to Dr. Vannevar Bush (the Bush Report); and "Science and Public Policy," report of the President's Scientific Research Board (the Steelman Report).
The Steelman Report recommendation led to the establishment of the Interdepartmental Committee on Scienttific Research and Development by President Harry Truman with the signing of Executive Order 9912 of December 24, 1947. The Interdepartmental Committee was the immediate predecessor of the Federal Council for Science and Technology, and functioned, although not at the policy level, until its abolition in 1959 by\; the Executive order which established the Federal Council. The Interdepartmental Committee's activities are reviewed, so far as they are known from the public record, as are the circumstances leading to the establishment of the Federal Council. Section IV
The section, The Federal Council for Science and Technology from its Establishment until the Creation of the Office of Science and Technology (1959-196'2), is a detailed account of the circumstances leading to the establishment of the Federal Council for Science and Technology. Its creation was a key recommendation of a December 1958 report of the President's Science Advisory Committee entitled "Strengthening American Science." In making public the report, President Dwight D. Eisenhower directed that the Federal Council be established. This was accomplished by Executive Order 10807 of March 13, 1959, which is discussed at length.
During this initial period the Federal Council activities were directed from the Office of the Special Assistant to the President for Science and Technology whom the President had designated as Chairman. Early and repeated invitations from congressional committees to the Chairman to testify regarding Federal Council actions as they affected the Federal departments and agencies for which Congress had oversight responsibility were refused because of the privileged position of the Council and Chairman as advisory to the President. Congressional investigations into the necessity for a Government-wide commission to look at the question of Federal organization for science and technology and a parallel investigation on how the Nation was organized for national policymaking for national






7

security, both under the Senate Go vernrinent~ Operatlions Commit tee, sparked a decision by President John F. K~ennedy to establish an Office of Science and Technology, which would be accountable to Congress.
It was not until after Reorg~anization Plan No. 2 of 1962 to est ablish the OST had been sent to the Congress that a report detailing the activities of the initial years of the Federal Cotuncil for Science andl Technology was made public. From this report and other limited information, the organize tion and operations of the Federal Council for this early period are reviewed. Generalizations concernling aspects of Federal Council activities which have current~ relevance and a discussion of the events leading to the implementation of Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1962 conclude this section. Section V
The operation and activities of the Fedteral Council during the period it was aligned with the Office of Science andI Technology, from July 1962 to July 1973, are reviewed in section V. The OST was headed by a Director, who was nominated by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. Each Director (there were four during this period) was designated Special Assistant to the President for Science and Technology and served as Science Adviser to the President. Each Director was also elected Chairman of the President's Science Advisory Committee, which received its staff support from OST, andI each was also designated Chairman of the Federal Council for Science and Technology. A Deputy Director and a small full-time professional and support staff, totalling at mios-t about fif ty, augmented by outside advisory panels, assisted the Director in carrying out these multiple responsibilities.
This period is reviewed under similar headings for each of the three Presidents-John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, and Richard M. Nixon-and the four science advisers who served them-Jerome B. Wiesner, Donald F. Hornig, Lee A. DuBridge, and Edward E. David, Jr. In the latter case, each of the two science advisors under Mr. Nixon is discussed separately. Since there was little public information available about the Federal Council during the 1970-1973 period, some material for this period was made available to the writer by the Federal Council for Science and Technology.
Over the eleven-year period during which OST was in existence, Presidential relationships to their science advisory units underwent a gradual deterioration, which the record attributed to a variety of factors. Among them were the changing times, emergence of new problems, differing Presidential attitudes toward science anid technology and their place in public policy formulation, and differing Presidential relationships to their science advisors. Because it was a part of the OST complex, the Federal Council -was affected by the changing Presidential relationships and attitudes toward their science advisory units. As the years went by, its accompl -ishments and those of its committees received decreasing public attention. This may have accounted, in part, for the increasing tendency to refer to the Council as an ineffective mechanism.
The concluding parts of Section V relate to Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1973 which abolished the Office of Science and Technology, and transferred its functions to the Director of the National Science
78-526-76--2





8

Foundation. Congress permitted the plan to go into effect without opposition, although with misgivings, because it recognized the President's prerogative to organize his office as he saw fit.
In a separate Presidential letter, the NSF Director in his capacity as Science Advisor was designated Chairman of the Federal Council for Science and Technology which was transferred to the National Science Foundation and received staff support from the Science and Technology Policy Office.
Section I1
The section, the Federal Council for Science and Technology after Transfer to the National Science Foundation (1973-1976), summarizes operations and key activities of the Federal Council and its committees during the period it was in the National Science Foundation under the chairmanship of Dr. H. Guyford Stever from mid-1973 to June 1976. It is intended to be a point of departure from which to consider those aspects of the existing interagency coordinating structure that might be continued as well as those that might be modified in organizing the new Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineeri.r', and Technologv.
Details concerning the physical location of the Federal Council, its staffing, funding, and methods of operation are included to provide the reader with a mental picture of the organization as it presently exists. This picture includes a brief identification of each of the fourteen interagency committees and the task force which were in existence at the signing of P.L. 94-282. Two charts are included. One shows the evolution of interagency committees of the Federal Council throughout the 1959-1976 period; the other shows member and observer agencies of the current interagency committees. Case studies of three of the interagency committees-the Interdepartmental Committee for Atmospheric Sciences, Interagency Committee on Oceanography, and
Interageney Committee on Marine Science and Engineering-are included in appendices L, M, and N.
Federal Council business during this period was to a large extent focused on the affairs of its interagency committees. This included annual reviews of the committees and consideration of their continuation as Federal Council committees, discussions of current activities and reviews of committee reports, and decisions concerning the establishment of new committees. These are summarized in this section.
Some of the subject areas considered by the Federal Council and its con0ittee are also briefly described. Among them are the more effective utilization of Federal laboratories, Government patent policy, the report on the Federal R & D program for fiscal year 1976, and an interesting and important cooperative effort between the Federal Council for Science and Technology and the Council on Environmental OQality on the subject of fluorocarbons and the environment.
This -numnarv is admittedly incomplete. When the Activities Report which t F Federal Council decided late in 1975 to have prepared is made public, additional information concerning the Council will be generally available.
Section 1I1
The final ,ection, Legislative IHistory of Statutory Authority for the Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering, and Technobi' is lgislative hisktorv of Title ITV of the National Science and




9
Technology Policy, Organization, and Priorities Act of 1976, which provides a statutory basis for the Federal Coordinating Connil for Science, Engineering, and Technology. The idea of strengthening' the Federal Council by legislation originated in the con1(sideration of S. 2495, the Technology Resources Survey and Applications Act, in tihe Ninety-third Congress. As introduced in September 197-3, this bill would have created a Cabinet-level Council to address imortant problems involving the utilization of high technology. The Council would be supported through an Ofice of Technology Applications to be established in NASA. Between introduction and reporting, S. 2495 was the subject of two series of hearings and underwent three major modifications. A second version proposed a National Science and Technology Resources Council with the Federal Council members as a nucleus. A third version assigned functions previously proposed for the Resources Council to a Council on Science and Technology, structured along the lines of the previous Office of Science and Technology, and omitted mention of the Federal Council. Firnallyv, in the version jointly reported in September 1974, a new section was included which provided for the establishment of a Federal Coordinating Cornmittee for Science and Technology as part of the Executive Office science advisory structure.
In October 1974, the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare held hearings on S. 32, and two other bills, S. 2495 and S. 1686; shortly thereafter S. 32 amended was reported and passed containing the section providing for the establishment of a Federal Coordinating Committee for Science and Technology from S. 2495.
S. 32 was referred to the House Committee on Science and Astronautics which was engaged in a parallel inquiry of Federal policy, plans, and organization for science and technology. No further action was taken in the 93rd Congress.
In the 94th Congress, the House Committee on Science and Technology held extensive hearings on draft legislation which evolved into H.R. 10230 which the Committee reported in late October and the House passed on November 6, 1975. The House bill considered interagency coordination as a function of the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy but did not consider changing the authority under which the Federal Council for Science and Technologyv functioned. The Administration endorsed H.R. 10230 and urged its early approval.
Joint hearings were held on S. 32, which was identical to S. 32 of the 93d Congress, in late October and early November 1975 by the coinmmittees on Labor and Public Welfare, Aeronautical and Space Sciences, and Commerce. In the ensuing months, S. 32 underwent further revisions before an agreed version was reported on February 3, 1976. The following day, the Senate considered S. 32 and H.R. 10230 and passed the latter bill after amending it to contain the text of S. 32. H.R 10230 went to conference February 26, 1976. On April 26, 1976, a conference report was filed, which the Senate agreed to the same day and the House followed suit on April 29. The House accepted Title IV of the Senate-passed version of H.R. 10230 which established the Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering, and Technology with only minor chan(res, streseing the advisory nature of the Council in the sectional analY-si.. President Ford signed the Act on May 11, 1976.





10

The section concludes with a comparison of the text of Executive Order 10807 of 1959 With the text of title IV of P.L. 94-282.

EVALUATIONS OF THE STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF THE FEDERAL
COUNCIL FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
It is beyond the scope of this report to evaluate the performance of the Federal Council and arrive at an independent judgment of its effectiveness. However, over the years many informed persons have discussed the Federal Council in broad terms. This section is a collection of these opinions. The items are presented in chronological order.
(A) U.S. Congress. House. Select Committee on Government Research. National goals and policies. Study number X. Report of the Select Committee on Government Research. S8th Congress 2d session. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1964. House Report No. 1941. 64 p. At pp. 35-37.


CHAPTER V

CROSS AGENCY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT POLICY FORMULATION
Another study of this committee discusses certain aspects
of interagency research and development coordination.' Here we are concerned with questions of research and development
policy which should be formulated across agency lines.
Individual departments and agencies have been delegated
the dominant role in recommending and carrying out Government research programs, but there are many areas in which coordination of these activities by means of a cohesive Government-wide policy apparatus would yield significant benefits. The line authority for such coordination within the Executive rests solely with the President's Office and appears to be implemented primarily through decisions made during the budgeting process. If that is so, the Bureau of the Budget is the President's principal vehicle in coordinating many aspects of policy across agency lines. In recent years the Bureau has been assisted in its science policy roles by the Special Assistant to the President for Science and Technology and by the Office of Science and Technology. This small staff group-which also serves the President's Science Advisory Committee and the Federal Council for Science and Technology-tries to anticipate problems, makes special analyses, serves as a medium of communication with Congress on the subject, and tries to encourage the formulation of specific agency policies and longer term plans. It has already proved of assistance to the Bureau of the Budget in assessing agency and interagency technical programs and in time may be a major factor in strengluhenino, research and development policy coordination during the budgetary
process.
I Study No. VIII.





11

Certain mechanisms have evolved within the executive to
facilitate more active interagency cooperation. Since the Government's present philosophy places dominant operating responsibility on the individual departments a"rd agencies, coordination has normally had to be attained through mediation and consensus rather than by executive direction.
Federal Council for Science and Technology
The key operating mechanism for obtaining such cooperation is the Federal Council for Science and Technology
(see ch. III).
Not all Federal research and development programs are
coordinated by the Council. Nor has it built a comprehensive committee system based on any carefully studied list of needs. Instead its committee structure has been
devised to meet certain types of issues.
In substantive programs, the Council has formed committees on oceanography, atmospheric sciences, materials research and development, high-energy physics, and natural resources, water-resources research, and behavioral sciences.
In program management, panels were appointed on scientific personnel, on patent policy, on contractor evaluation, the standing committee whose function [will be] described
later, and committees on long-range planning and science
information.
The development of Government-vide policies considering
interactions beyond the Federal Establishment are reflected in an international committee and a panel on university relationships with Federal research facilities.
The standing committee prescribed by the Executive order
and composed of scientists-administrators in the Federal service is concerned primarily with in-house management issues, and serves as a new medium of communication to all the Federal laboratory heads and to R. & D. administrative
officials.2
Staff assistance for the Council is provided by the Office
of Science and Technology and the agencies' staffs upon request. It can obtain additional advice from the National Academy of Sciences, and the President's Science Advisory Committee (of nongovernment science and technical leaders).
No single organization can hope to cure all the ailments of
interagency cooperation. This would be just as true for a proposed Department of Science which would divorce all research and development activities from the missionoriented agencies, while presumably trying to meet all their diverse needs. Second, the system is still developin r and has not had sufficient time or support to realize its full
potential.
Nevertheless the Council and its affiliated groups have
promoted a new, less parochial perspective in the agencies.
The problems uniting the Council's members-who represent the eight departments and agencies most intimately concerned-appear at least as great as those that divide them.
2 Federal Couincil for Science and Technology, annual report, January 1963.





12

And they arc realizing that a more concerted attack on certain problems may not only yield greater benefits than a more fractioned approach but may-in some cases-be the only realistic approach. This has been especially true in regard to certain technical programs of great national interest, but not of prime concern to a specific agency. In these cases the Council tries to proceed with a five-step program:
(1) Finding out what each agency is doing in the program area and deriving consistent (definitions and data,
for all agencies' activities.
(2) Developing common goals toward which all the
program' s policies and plans should be directed.
(3) Obtaining communication among the agencies of
their future plans in budgetary and substantive terms.
(4) Developing Government-wide objectives against
which to compare the aggregate of agency plans and!
collectively agreeing to fill gaps, eliminate du~plication,
and jointly use specialized facilities.
(5) In some cases, agreeing to assign or reassign major
projects to achieve total effectiveness.
Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, the Council has not been able to complete all five steps for many of the programs it is trying to coordinate. While its committees vary in maturity, vigor, and effectiveness, the Council does provide a, viable structure andl concept for certain cross- agency program coordination. But it faces many problems in carrying out its role. It has been difficult to recruit and support a qualified staff of the necessary scope and depth to carry out its activities. The Council has found it difficult to introduce new projects or technical approaches essential to its broad programns, but outside the jurisdiction or historical interest of any one agency.
in addition to coordinating substantive aspects of crossagency programs, the Federal Council also is concerned with certain aspects of Governmnent-wide research and (development management. The autonomy of the agencies has often led to widely different policies toward such things as: contract support, contractor evaluation, basic research support, cost allowability, ownership of research and development results, in-house research, use of advisory committees, and information exchange. But it needs the broader level support of Congress to eliminate useless or harmful inconsistencies among the individual agency policies. It bears repeating that Congress presently has no single group which can serve as a focal point for legislative support on such policy matters.
Below the level of the Office of Science and Tech-noloav and the Federal Council there are many other examples of cooperative relationships in the executive branch. These range from informal contacts between the scientists and engineers to formal contract commitments between agencies. Suich cooperation tends to occur easily and naturally for aspects of research and development clearly related to each agency's dominant mission. Difficulties most frequently occur in coordinating mission-oriented work when the ms





13

sions of agencies overlap and they tend to compete wifiin
the fields of overlap.
In some cases the Bureau of the Budget is experi'i"enfl,
with assigning leadership responsibility for certaiin ci o,agency programs to a single agency which has the pijine interest in some aspect of the field. That agency i held responsible for seeing that a cohesive plan exists to iategrate the necessary tecirnical work of all agencies involved and to exploit the program's results. Participation on coordinating committees and panels entails extra work for already busy people who regard their primary rewardsk a< stemming from their direct contributions to theih p)arent agencies, rather than from interagency services. Cons equently Congress must stimulate a cooperative agency management climate by seeing that such activities receive adequate attention, prestige, and reward. if Congres> .dc, .e> not give adequate weight to such coordinate activitie m its review and oversight functions, they will eventually wither
away or be performed inadequately.

(B) Beckler, David. Strategic Federal decision-making o-a R&D. Research management, v. 9, September 1966: 319-333. At pp. 330-331. [Mr. Beckler was associated with the White House staff concerned with science and technology from 1954 until 1973.]

Mr. Beckler identified eight categories of scientific and technical functions that need to be performed at the Presidential level: policy development, resource allocation, science organization, program evaluation, program coordination, policy and program initiation, international scientific affairs, and technical leadership. tis remarks on program coordination have been extracted below:


A fifth function, that is largely undertaken by the Federal
Council for Science and Technology, concerns the coordination of agency research and development programs. if one examines the so-called national program in oceanography, one will find components of research programs of some 20 different agencies. It is a composite of agency programs. How these components relate, one to the other, whether there are overlaps or gaps, whether the total adds up to a well-balanced and forward-looking national oceanographic program is a responsibility of the Federal Council for Science and Technology through its Interagency Committee on Oceanography.
The same need for program coordination is expressed in other Federal Council committees, such as atmospheric sciences, water resources research, higb energy accelerator physic., materials research, and scientific and technical information.
Aside from the coordination of research and development programs, the Federal Council is concerned with the development of common, forward-looking policies for Federal employment of scientific and technical manpower as well as
policies for the support of research at academic institutions.





14

Thus, the Federal Council serves as a common forum for
discussion among representatives of the major R&D agencies.
Although coordination by the Federal Council is an indispensable management tool for harmonizing the research and development programs of the several agencies, it works best when there is a pre-existing consensus among the agencies.
Such a consensus may not at times represent the best allocation of effort or the best conceived national research effort in the area, and it must often be subjected to additional scrutiny. The Council can recommend but cannot directly establish overall levels or division of effort since the actual resource allocation takes place in competition with other resource needs within each of the member agencies. However, it can be self-implementing when agreements are reached. Its views are taken into consideration by the Bureau of the
Budget in the development of the President's annual budget.
(C) Brooks, Harvey. The Federal establishment for science and technology: Contribution to new national goals. In U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Government Operations. Research in the service of man: biomedical knowledge, development, and use. A conference sponsored by the Subcommittee on Government Research and the Frontiers of Science Foundation of Oklahoma, October 24-27, 1966. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1967. 246 p. [At head of title: 90th Congress 1st session. Committee print.] At pp. 60-62.
* The scientific interdependence of agencies greatly
increases the need for horizontal communication between agencies at several levels and for cooperative development of broad scientific and technological capabilities. And when I speak of communication I mean not only exchange of information but mutual influence on each othei's programs and
priorities.
The Federal Government has responded in two rather
different ways to the built-in conflict between the principle of agency responsibility and the needs of horizontal commiunication within technical disciplines across agency lines.
Each has its strengths and difficulties.
The first formal method is that of the interagency coordihatino committee, usually, but not always, under the aegis of the Federal Council for Science and Technology. Such committees have been established for oceanography, for "atmospheric sciences, for water resources, for science information, for high-energy physics, for materials, and for a number of other areas in which several agencies have a major interest or in which the Government as a whole has a stake trancending individual agency responsibilities. There are also several agencies outside the Federal Council structure-the Space Council and the Oceanography Council, for example.
Such committees are what their name implies-coordinating committees-because they do not in practice dilute the responsibility of individual agencies for their piece of the overall program. On the other hand, coordinating committees can only operate effectively by consensus. They can enforce





15

their views on agencies only by persuasion, not by direction. They cannot greatly influence an agency's own interpret ationl of its mission, and they find it difficult to focus attention on problems which are of vital concern to the whole, scentfic effort of the Government, but are not of demonstrably vital concern to any one agency. They work effectively only wX-ien there is no fundamental conflict between the priorities assessed by the interagency committee and thle priorities as viewed by the component agencies. They cannot re-allocate and coordinate effort within general categories or alter the fundamental division of responsibilities or budgets between agencies. Also, they find it increasingly difficult to operate effectively as the component pieces of their program become a larger-and hence more visible-fraction of the individual agency programs. The larger such a piece becomes the more likely it is to come into basic conflict with the priorities of the responsible agency, especially in periods of tight budgets. This piece of the program thus becomes increasingly unstable with respect to annual budget fluctuations.
The big advantage of the interagency program is that it tends to guarantee responsiveness to genuine mission needs within each agency. Its disadvantage is that it ten(s to neglect opportunities and needs which appear to lie outside the scope of any one agency. The alternative approach, which has been used in the case of atomic energy and space, is to create a new agency to deal with a new technology as it emerges. This approach has the big advantage of allowing for a more comprehensive and coherent approach to a whole technological area. It provides an excellent mechanism for nurturing such a technological area when its practitioners are too few in number and too obscure in the Government hierarchy to support and defend the new technology against competing requirements in the agencies. It is somewhat doubtful whether the various peaceful applications of nuclear energy could have been developed without being nurt, ed through their early stage by an agency which was specifically charged with exploiting nuclear energy in all its ramifications without limitation to particular fields of science or particular agency missions. In a sense the AEC was given a license to operate in the field of all the other agencies and of private industry, provided only its activities were interrelated among themselves by the common theme of nuclear phenomena. Thus we had an agency which was developed around a technological theme rather than a social mission. It could and did enter the areas of biology, agriculture, metallurgy, meteorology, civil engineering, energy production, ship propulsion, space propulsion, and waste management. It developed capabilities and promoted skills which touched on almost every aspect of American society.
The difficulty with the technological theme approach is that, once it is successful, there are few tools by which the theme can be kept in proper relationship with the various social goals which it serves. The continued development of the technology tends to become an end in itself to be pursued





16

a is a national goal in it.,- own right. This is all very well. when the technological goal is a small part of the national effort, and when it is pursued on a small scale in Federal laboratories and universities. But when it becomes a major national effort, then the problem of balancing with other social goals becomes acute. What~ is lacking, of course, is a feedback mechanism which provides a measure of how much is enough. The President~ and the Congress, for example, find it very difficult to obtain a, really objective assessment of the relative benefits to be achieved through investment in nuclear power as cornparedl with the development of hydroelectric resources or improvements in coal technology. It is similarly difficult to get a clear picture of the relative emphasis which should be placed on water desalting in comparison with, say, reprocessing of waste~ waters or large scale water importation. The expertise in the various technologies involved tends to be unevenly represented in the decisioninaking process, and there is no ,automatic mechanism like the market to redirect effort into the most effective or promising channels. Except possibly in the Defense Department, there is no place in the Federal structure where the President or the Congress can go to obtain a disinterested and systematic exposition of alternatives for applied research and development programs. In principle this can be done by the staffs of the executive office agencies, the Bureau of the Budget, and the Office of Science and Tehooy but in practice these are forced to rely heavily on the analyses and arguments prepared in the agencies themselves. Furthermore, we have not as yet developed the techniques that would make such analyses possible on a sufficiently convincing and objective basis to command acceptance by the affected agencies and institutions.
In many ways the case of biomedical research has developed in a way which is intermediate between that of the technological theme and the social mission. On the one hand, the NIH has developed into an agency which is very broadly based in the life sciences, or-if you prefer--biomedical technologies. In this sense it has come to mean for the biomedical sciences what the AEC has meant for atomic energy or NASA for space science and technology. On the other hand, it is organized by disease categories, and the allocation of its resources tends to be more in terms of the perceived social importance of certain diseases rather than in terms of the opportunities for technological progress in the application of biomedical techniques regardless of disease. It is thus an interesting hybrid between the highly product-oriented reearch of Agricul 1ture and the highly technology-oriented research of AEC. The small feedback loops by which NIH e ontrols its program are rooted in scientific criteria, but the large feedback loops which govern its budget and its broad all1 ocatio-ns are primarily governed by the disease categories and health problems, and what is perceived as their social importance. This hybrid system has on the whole been remarkably effective.





17

There is no really satisfactory resolution of the issue of
interagency coordination versus technological agencies.
Probably the creation of a new agency becomes inevitable when support of a new technology reaches a sufficient fraction of the budget of existing agencies, or when the new technology is sufficiently revolutionary or has sufficiently broad potential ramifications. Certainly the breadth of application of the technology is an important criterion for the formation of a new agency. The technolocr orientation and the social orientation represent different cuts of the same complex of problems, and if we organize along one dimension we inevitably require coordination along the other.
(D) U.S. Library of Congress. Legislative Reference Service. The Office of Science and Technology. A report prepared by the Science Policy Research Division of the * for the Military Operations Subcommittee of the House Committee on Government Operations. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., March 1967. 326 p. [At head of title: 90th Congress, ist session. Committee print.] At pp. 25-7.
COORDINATION, EVALUATION, AND PROGRA- Ni LEADERSHIP
The political and scientific setting of Federal support for
research and development poses two sets of problems. The first concerns intrinsic qualities of science and technology; the rapidly increasing complexity of scientific knowledge and sophistication of engineering developments; the blurring of traditional lines between disciplines; the importance of converting scientific results promptly and effectively to meet civilian problems; and the need to develop entirely new management concepts both in the support of sciences and in the development of weapon and space hardware systems.
The second set of problems concerns the responsiveness and versatility of Government organization to meet newly evolving requirements. These difficulties are further intensified because fields of science and engineering do not correspond at all with Government departments. Rather than departments of physics, biology, or mechanical engineering, the Federal departmental structure is organized by tasks and missions that directly reflect the diversity of the Government's social, political, and economic objectives.
Federal departmentali-,im tends to foster the independent
formulation by each component of policies and programs unrelated to those of its coequals. In the application of science and technology to achieve its statutory mission, each agency draws upon the entire pool of scientific information and resources that cut across all organizational boundaries.
Without integration at the Presidential level, agencies could very well adopt policies for science and technology in direct contradiction to those of other agencies, could compete harmfully with each other for scarce manpower, and could unwittingly undertake programs that mioht either duplicate
or leave gaps in the fulfillment of national objectives.





18

The authority, missions and roles and responsibilities of individual departments constitute the predominant basis for accomplishment of Federal research and development
programs. Each department, with its own special and complex requirements, sponsors imaginative and creative research if its development programs are not to become sterile. Some diversity in administrative style must also be expected. To insist that Government processes in all agencies be identical for the sake of administrative tidiness might seriously damage the effectiveness of the R. & D. operation. N evertheless, a continuing process is required which facilitates integration of individual agency efforts under common policies, internally consistent and coordinated in execution.
In serving the President, the OST has this responsibility. If one thinks literally of a "fabric" of science and technology in Government, the strong vertical lines of authority and responsibility which lead from the President to a department head would represent the "warp" of that fabric. The horizontal lines of the OST provide the "woof." In the main, OST has chosen the Executive order-based Federal Council for Science and Technology as its coordinating agent.
In an environment of departmentalism the Council must operate to gain consensus. By and large, its techniques, applied in the context of commonly developed fact, reflect the role of mediation and persuasion rather than executive direction. Both in substance and in its desire to meet common problems by joint action, this mode of Council operation has been facilitated by steps beginning in 1961 with impetus by the President's science adviser to establish posts for a policy level official in every agency that would be concerned with science and technology. By such action there would be present at points of policy decisionmaking the requisite scientific and engineering competence, familiar with Government and with senior responsibilities. These benefits also flow into all of the scientific and technical activities of the agencies, while adding strength to the Council itself.
Not all Federal science and technology is coordinated by the Council. And it cannot be said that there is a comprehensive interlocking committee system built upon a carefully studied set of needs. Some committees have continuing responsibilities; others are ad hoe. The Council has even encountered the unusual experience in Government of having one of its committees recommend its own dissolution. In one sense, there is a deliberate attempt to keep the number of committees to manageable proportions and thus not drown in efforts to coordinate coordinators.
In appraising coordination, it is possible to construct a scale of effectiveness, with different degrees or kinds of activity.
The obvious, but not necessarily prevailing, starting point in such a scale is the interagency exchange of information on current plans. This process may find expression through an inventory of on-going work, followed by an analysis of possible duplication or gaps, and thence the quality of program content.





19

Next comes the development and understanding of conimion, goals toward which Government-wide pohicy and program p)1anifing should be directed. Related to this-, activity is the preparation of staff studies setting forth policy alternatives toget her with an evaluation of their consequences.
Third is the communication among agencies of their future plans. Such activity assumes meaning only if these plans are expressed in substantive as well as budgetary terms.
Fourth in this effectiveness index of interagency coordlination is mutual planning ahead and planning t ogether-the development of Government-wide objectives; the comparison of these targets with the aggregate of individual agency p~lanls; collective agreements to fill gaps or eliminate duplication; and finally, the joint use of specialized facilities.
The fifth and highest level of Council activities lies in assignment or reassignment of programs to optimize effectiveness of the total effort. This may involve transfer of functions or of funds, or generation of proposals to modify legislative authority.
A review of the different subject areas selected by OST or Federal Council for coordination reveals a high variability in level of activity, and in continuity. Many Council committees reflect accomplishment only at the first step of information exchange. Even with the Council's Interagency Comnmittee on Oceanography, which gained conspicuous accolades as the Council's showcase of coordination, the resolution of issues as to priorities for objectives and program components seemed realized but seldom. Few policy proposals originated in the ICO. Because the Congress felt oceanography deserved consistent and accelerated support, but found it crossed agency lines and had no agency functioning as delegated agent, remedial action was taken in the 89th~ Conigress through legislation-by establishing the new Marine Sciences Council at a Cabinet level.
This step reflects congressional appreciation of the intrinsic difficulty of interagency coordination, and a responsiveness to problems of coordinating multiagency programs where participants lack operating momentum as compared to coordination of rival agencies that demonstrate vigorous initiatives. Formation of such a special council illustrates one administrative device to produce the major impact needed to start a program or to change direction of an existing one. Bringing together the collective wisdom and power of high-ranging officials for a limited time to accelerate a field to a size and momentum that is self-sustaining may be increasingly necessary at the level of the Executive Office of the President.
Congressional action also reflected concern that oceanographic planning and coordination was based only on an Executive order and lacked statutory underpinning. It was thus subject to uncertainties in Presidential priorities that could shift violently with changes in administration, especially with changes in party.





20

The present concept of governmental structure places the
operating responsibility squarely in the hands of line agencies.
But where functions are no longer clearly separated by agency boundaries, there is an increasing need for close lateral relationships. In this context coordination need not imply dictation from the top. It may, however, reflect two significant requisites of effective Government process-the preparation of Government-wide plans on the basis of which each agency's programs may be made compatible with the broader framework, and an oversight mechanism for selfanalysis of defects in programs requiring a Governmentwide approach.
A question thus arises as to whether the Federal Council
mechanism as a science subcabinet should be made a statutory arm of OST. Under these circumstances, the same man might serve as Chairman, but as the OST Director rather than the President's special assistant. Members of the Council could then be held more accountable by the Congress for Government-wide planning than now when the Council is convened only by Executive order. This action would also resolve ambiguity between the Federal Council
and OST functions.

(E) U.S. Office of S,,ience and Technology. Federal Council for Science and 'Technology; 1967 annual report. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1968. 43 p. At pp. 13-14.
Functions of the Council
The Science Policy Research Division of the Legislative
Reference Service of the Library of Congress prepared an interesting report, The Ofice of Science and Technology, which served as a basis for review of the functions of the Federal
Council for Science and Technology by its members.
The members of the Council agreed that the structure
and authority of FCST are satisfactory, and that a legislative base for FCST is not only unnecessary but undesirable because FCST is an instrument devised for the President to use as he sees fit in the administration of the laws. Problems in making FCST more effective arise from administrative
sources and not from the nature of its formal authority.
The primary questions turn around what FCST is for and
how it is used. A number of members expressed a. preference for more general, more important and more thought-provoking discussion by FCST, as contrasted with managerial and administrative matters. In this connection, the members felt that FCST could have a more effective voice in determination of policy matters if it were presented with more analyses of policy for final discussion, modification and ratification.
The special tasks, interests and preoccupations of the agencies made it difficult for them to generate policy, but FCST is a good group for assessing the implications of and practical
problems associated with policy proposals.
There was some feeling that FCST could be used more
effectively to deal with common problems and issues, as con-





21

trasted with those having to do with the division of tak, among agencies. Planning for the post-Vietnam period a a general problem faced by all agencies was cited as a a in point.
There was a consensus on the point that the central job of both FCST and PSAC-in different ways-is to hel!p tihe President's Special Assistant for Science and Technology do the best possible job for the President. In this connection. PSAC is considered as providing an important link between the scientific, academic and foundation communities and the Federal agencies. The members thought that the central criterion for assessing FCST is whether the Special As-istent feels that FCST is meeting his needs.
The communication which FCST provides amn op the
Federal agencies is considered important, as is provision0 of a central point of appeal by FCST committees, and a point for ratification and activation of their recommend nation.
FCST is considered as particularly useful by smaller agnies and by those in which science and technology are a small part of the total mission and are thereby somewhat subortdintatcd.
The Chairman summarized his reaction to the dicsion as follows:
a. FCST is an interagency group advisory to the
President. The fact that it is advisory is not a real linitation on its utility. The fact that it is interagency means that it can in fact deal effectively only with orblemn which affect more than one and usually severe agencies.
b. The forum function is extremely important.
Discussion of problems in FCST generally stimulates a wider range of ideas than would result from bilateral discussions between OST and individual agencies.
Conversely, FCST is a useful means of conveying information and views from the President and hi
Executive Office to the agencies.
c. As a product of discussions in OST and of the
work of OST committees, it is possible to provide advice which is in fact a decision when a con-ensus can be reached. This is generally possible except when
basic differences exist among the agencies.
d. FCST has been criticized for not exercising leadership. It is difficult for an interagency group to exercise leadership. This is more of a function of OST than FCST. The Council on Marine Resources and Engineering Development, set up at a high level, is an interesting experiment in planning and action by an interagency group, and represents about as strong a test effort for this mechanism as could be devised. The problems of interagency coordination have not been solved, and the experience of the Marine Council.
FCST, and the National Aeronautics and Space Council
should be useful as administrative patterns evolve.





22

(F) Long, F. A. President Nixon's 1973 Reorganization Plan No. 1: Where do science and technology go now? Science and public affairs, v. 29, May 1973: 5-8, At p. 6.

Perhaps the most important functions of OST were its
internal studies of total U.S. programs in specific areas of science and technology, and its programs of coordination of the separate federal efforts. The Science Advisor, who was also Director of OST, served as chairman of the Federal Council for Science and Technology (FCST), the explicit coordinating mechanism for the many science and technological programs that cut across the responsibilities of the different departments and agencies of the federal establishment. The overview and coordinating responsibilities of OST were a natural response to the fact that particular fields of science were often of importance to several quite
different oriented federal agencies.

(G) Science advice for the White House [extended selections from a discussion of science policy by six Presidential science advisers at MIT, Oct. 4, 1973] Technology review, v. 76, January 1974: 8-19. At p. 13.
The following excerpt is taken from the remarks of Dr. Edward E. David, Jr., Chairman, Federal Council for Science and Technology, 1970-1973:
Concerning coordination, it is clear that one of the most
influential accomplishments of the former White House office was successfully encouraging civilian departmentssuch as the Department of Transportation, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Interior Department, and the Commerce Department-to establish their own research and development organizations and programs, just as the White House apparatus had earlier encouraged the establishment of the Office of the Director of Defense Research and Engineering and N.A.S.A. But with that success in establishing research and development capability in many civilian agencies came the inevitable territorial competition, for cooperation and coordination are simply not the norm between departments of government. However, we know that coherent programs across the boundaries can be attained with some encouragement and leadership. The Federal Council for Science and Technology (F.C.S.T.) was established with the Science Adviser
as its Chairman for this purpose.
For example, the research in environmental health that
goes on in the government today is the business of the National Institutes of Health, the Environmental Prctection Agency, the Food and Drug Administration, the Atomic Energy Commission, and several other agencies. An F.C.S.T.
Committee has been actively working with representatives from each of these agencies to create an overall program






23

having both an adequate basic, long-range side located in the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the A.E.C. and an applied side to tie to the regulatory needs of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Food and Drug Administration, and the A.E.C. One particular effort, for example, was to achieve balanced funding of the new National Center for Toxicological Re, :earch in Pine Bluff, Ark. Efforts such as these are becoming an ever-more essential function.
since most of the new civilian-oriented national programs cut across the interests of several opDeratingr agencies and departments of government.

(H) U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Science and Astronautics. 1975 National Science Foundation authorization. Hearings before the Subcommittee on Science, Research, ond Development of the... March 12, 13, 14, 15 and 1 9, 1974. 93d Congress 2d session. Was'hington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1L974. 863 p. At pp. 765-767.

Excerpt from statement of Dr. Russell C. Drew, Director of the Science and Technology Policy Office (STPO), National Science Foundation:

At this time, I would like to cite briefly just a few of the
activities in which STPO has provided advice and support to the science adviser and has provided science policy input to the overall policymaking process with [in] thle Federal establishment:
STPO represents the Science Adviser on White House
Domestic Council studies, providing a source of technical inputs on a range of domestic questions such as materials
policy and environmental quality issues.
On behalf of the science adviser, STPO has been involved
in the annual budget review process, assisting and advising the Office of Management and Budget on selected agency
R. & D. budget issues.
STPO provides staff support for the Federal Council for
Science and Technology. This council was established by Executive order in 1959 and includes as members the senior policy-level science and technology officials of the Federal Government. Its responsibilities include interagency relationships in science and technology, improved planning and administration of Federal science and technology programs, identification of research needs, better utilization of Federal facilities and resources, and furtherance of international cooperation in science and technology. From this broad charter, it is obvious that the FCST has an important role to play and it is our intention that it become a more effective mechanism for achieving these objectives. To aid in strength ening the FCST, STPO staff members have been designated to monitor and assist activities of the FCST and its many existing subcommittees. In addition, we have taken the lead in developing plans to establish new FCST committees to deal with emerging issues such as intergovernmental technology
and materials'sciences.
7 3-526-T-6---3





24

As part of our program of enhanced communication,-the office has participated in organizing the first two of a continuing series of meetings with leaders of the scientific and technical community to enable direct dialog with the Science Adviser on issues of national science policy. One meeting involved professional societies and the other, major representatives of R. & D. in industry.
It will be the policy of this office to bring our major study activity into the public domain expeditiously so that the information produced will be available to all interested parties. In this regard, we have recently published several reports which were begun under the previous science advisory structure. These include the PSAC panel report on "Chemicals and Health" and the "FCST Annual Report of Water Resources Research."
We also were involved in the fiscal year 1975 annual budget review process, assisting the 0MB and advising them on various priorities in selected agency program areas.
In this regard to the Federal Council for Science and Technology, Mr. Chairman, I would like to mention that we see a strongCr, and I think, a more vital role for this mechanism that exists within the Federal Government for coordinating and communicating among the Federal agencies. I should jist make reference to the measures within both the House and the Senate, on one of which we testified on earlier this week, concerning long-range planning and the ability to integrate all of the various science and technology resources and apply them to these particular problems. We feel this is a very important role and we see this role as one which the Federal Council can play a very important part.
Mr. MOSHER [Chas. A., Rep. Ohio]. Can I interrupt again, Mr. Chairman?
Were you just saying that you felt that the Federal Council for Sciece and Technology can play a much larger role than it has been playing?
Dr. DREW. Yes, sir.
Mr. MOSHER. Someone told me the other day it was a largely dormant organization, is that a false rumor?
Dr. DREW. I'd like to address that point because I think that if that is the cornception here, we would like to try to shed some additional light and be on the record concerning what we feel is a, if you will, a resurgent Federal Coumcil.
Mr. MOSHER. Resurgent as of when?
Dr. DREW. I will provide some history for you. Dr. Stever, when he was considering his new responsibilities, this is actually before our office existed, in the spring of last year, conducted a number of discussions with participants in the Federal Council with the objective of looking at the role that it had been playing and the role that it might play, to determine how useful it had been, what its strengths and weaknesses were, to try to get a better view of the Federal Council as a mechanism within the Federal Establishment. The results of that review with agency heads like the Administrator of NASA and others, was an agreement for a new look which






25

included the review of all of the Federal Council standing committees. That review resulted in dropping several comimittees in tightening up the olperationl of several others, taiid this decision to look at the prospects initiated several iLQw Federal Council committees.
Mr. MOSHER. When was that?
Dr. DREW. This was done in the period of April through-b June of 1973.
The Federal Council principals also decided that it wts in their interest to meet as a committee of the principals less frequently but on more important major issues, and so the Federal Council principals meet twice a year, in the sp)riing and in the fall, and conduct meetings in the interim period on an ad hoc basis on specific issues, but not as a committee of the whole.
We have felt that this is the best way to strengthen the operation and bring it to top level attention. If you get, top level people and try to have them meet hi-weekly, gradually you will reduce the level of attendance and participation.
Mr. MIOSHER. Who has the responsibility fo'c eIng those ad hocDr. DREW. This is the responsibility of the chairman. We have had several of those sessions, and we are preparing now for the next spring meeting of the FCST's principals which will be on April the 11 th. The FCST, I believe, With the sort of leadership we expect the chairman, Dr. Stever to provide, can be a much more dynamic mechanism.
MNr. MOSHER. You are assuring us that this is a resurgent operation, that is significant.
Dr. DREW, les, sir.
Mr. MOSHER. I am content, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. STEVER. May I modify that? We will assure you we will try to make it effective.
Mr. MOSHER. Are you saying that perhaps the rumor that it has been dormant has some truth to it?
Dr STEVER. In my opinion the Federal Council previously did not play a very strong role, this is when I was a member and not chairman. It does play one very important part that isn't very visible. You know, any one of the technologies or sciences we talked about here, is really very complex-a complex piece of business. There are several agencies, often many agencies, in these things and there is need for an i mmense amount of coordination and interchange. Some of these Federal Council Science and Technology committees have been extremely successful, quietly conducting the business of the country, not getting their names in the newspaper, but doing something terribly important. Dr. Robert White heads the Committee on Marine Sciences. It has been a very successful one. Dr. Todd in NSF heads one in atmospheric sciences, a very successful one. We have a number of these that work very effectively.
Now, that doesn't get the headlines, you know, they don't come out and make a great statement every time there is an






26

issue. It is, something of importance, and that role of the FOST has been played very effectively, but everybody looks to the main body of FCST and what they are doing. That is
the one we are examining at the present time.

(J) U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Science and Astronautics. Federal policy, plans, and organization for science and technology; part 11. Hearings 93rd Congress 2(1 session, June, July 1974. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1974. 826 p.

Excerpt from statement of Dr. Robert C. Seamans, Jr., President, National Academy of Engineering: (At p. 18).

How dto we now identify, and achieve consensus, on the
critical (domestic problems to be addressed by the Federal Government? Ultimately, of course, we do it through the budgtr-aporito- process. The annual budget, as modified by appropriations acts, constitutes the definitive description of current Federal priorities. This process is triggYered, on occasion, by ad hoc reaction to crisis: For example, Sputnik, civil rights, poverty, environmental degradation, imbalance of trade, and now, energy. What we (10 best is react and play catchup. We do not plan ahead
in a systematic way.
The mere identification of critical problem areas presents
little difficulty, in my opinion. One could prepare an almost inexhaustible list of writers, legislators, public officials, panels, commissions, symposia, interagency committees, White House conferences- all having identified similar national needs, goals and priorities. What is critical, however, is the organizational mechanisms for making specific program choices among competing priorities and recommendations for solutions. Here it seems to me, a distinction should be drawn between policymaking and interagency coordination.
Historically, the Federal Council on Science and Technology performed the coordinating role. While knowledgeable concerning the R. & D. activities of their respective departments and agencies, many of the members of this Federal Council have generally lacked either broad program policy jurisdiction or the authority to commit their respective agencies to program and budget decisions. At most,, it has provided an information and coordination capability and, in some cases, a bargaining forum-but not a Federal-wide policymaking or science and technology measurement instrumentality. It seems to me, therefore, that a different body is required to evaluate and rank critical domestic problems in light of their science and technology components and then recommend program assignments to the various departments and agencies for implementation. In those instances where neither departmental nor agency capability exists for the conduct of a program, organizational changes must be implemented before the program can be initiated.
What is clearly needed is an alternative to crisis-based
reactive decisionmaking.





27

(J) U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Science and Astronautics. Federal policy, plans, and organization for science and technology; part II. HearingS 93rd Congress 2d session, June, July 1974. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1974. 826 p.
Excerpt from statement, of Dr. Edward Wenk,, Jr. in which he urged that attention be given to institutional remedies needed to be incorporated in new legislation for science and technology policy. (At p. 419-420):
Third, there should be explicit provisions for coor(lination of policy as well as programs of the vast number of federal agencies involved in utilizing technology to accomplish their mission. Adding horizontal warp to the woof of vertical Lyovernment structure is a long standing problem in public management. There are very few major national goals where achievement rests on the missions and underpinning of specialized research and development of a single agency, and it makes no sense to reorganize each and every
time a new challenge arises.
Indeed, mobilizing all of the technological engines of
federal bureaucracv- to focus on common social goals is one of the most bewildering enigmas of moden-i democratic government. The problem is how to gain a sense of unity and direction when the compartmented bureaucracy, created one step at a time, is constantly stressed by pluralistic goals of our society and outside clientele. Under such battlefield conditions, the. fragmentation leads to ineffective management in achieving goals; worse, it can generate stalemate.
The fundamental process for gaining coherence is
coordination.
But few carrots and sticks are available to the President
to foster coordination. Each agency is expected to advocate its functions in the face of impediments. The constellation of federal agencies, however, may be thought of as multiprogram instruments that can be wired together in new ways to accomplish unprecedented requirements. Some of the most creative moves of the Marine Science Council arose from recognition of the potency of such cross connections, rather
than creation of new organizations.
Coordination becomes the proving ground of effective
public administration. It is the sense of community, the suppression of parochial interests to a common weal, the systemic rather than sectorial approach that ultimately tests the degree to which a public enterprise can fulfill its purpose. The proposed Council cannot intervene between the President and Cabinet officers, but it should have a license to serve as more than an umpire in helping the President to adjudicate disputes, by constructively harmonizing relevant elements in a systems approach to public administration. In an environment of departmentalism, coordination must operate through consensus. In the context of commonly developed fact, techniques employ mediation and persuasion.





28

T'he Federal Council for Science and Technology was createdl by executive order in 1959 to serve these coordinating tasks. It has had a checquered career. Among other factors, the President's science advisor as its chairman has often been too busy or sparing of his energies in stubborn, time consuming persuasion to make it work. And it has suffered by lacking sta tutory support. Paradoxically, the Congress which has a Iona record of intent about exorcisingo the devils of waste and duplication, has never taken initiatives to underpin the FCST
wvith 12 crisl ative authority. It should.

F-iK) U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Science and Technology. The national science policy and organization act of 1975. Hearings before tbe ... on H.R. 4461 and H.R. 7830. 94th Congress 1st session, June 10, 111 17, 19, 23, 1975. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1975. 1041 p. At pp. 658-659.

Excerpt from paper submitted by A. Michael Noll, Some Advice on Science Advice. Mr. Noll was a Trechnical Assistant to the Director of the Office of Science and Technology from June 1971 to June 1973:

I.B.2. (c) Vie Federal Council for Science and Technology
The Federal Council for Science and Technology had
fractionated itself into a considerable number of committees, subcom mit tees, panels and subpanels. The net result was unmanageable, and most of the panels and subcommittees were under the control of agencies rather than under the control of the Science Advisor or the OST. The FCST and its huo-e bureaucracy of committees actually formed constituencies for some of these committees thereby making it virtually impossible to eliminate them even though the problems for which the committees were originally formed
had been solved years ago. t eb ra cai rbe swt
To a, considerable extent, tebracai rbeswt
the FCST were to be expected because of the level of bureaucrats who were frequently attracted to its activities. Some of these bureaucrats decided that the quickest course to higher level jobs in the government was through chairmanship and membership on the FCST subpanels and subcommittees. For them, the task for which the committee was formed was secondary to the task of furthering their own
careers.
The reports issued by the FCST were frequently quite
self-serving to the bureaucracies involved and were frequently naive as to budgetary constraints or organizational matters.
Trhe FCST portion of the White House science advisory
mechanism was in need of tight management and control.
J.B.3. A Decision to Dismantle
Within the Executive Office of the President (EOP)
considerable battles occur between the various constituent agencies-they are definitely not all of one mind. The White House science advisory mechanism was no exception and certainly on occasion found itself in conflict with other





29

elements within the EOP. And from these conflicts, ellnies
were made.
The PSAC and FCST p)ortionls of the advisorY rnechani..in
with their many panels and committees were undoubtedly a source of concern to the various bureaucrats within the 1XJP and White House who frequently found themselves reviewing and attempting to dc-fuse the innumerable reports and recommendations issued by all these panels and coummiittees.
Thus, more friends were lost.
When the opinions of all were finally polled to determine
the future of the White House science advisory mechanism, the nays-caused in particular by the political embarrassmenits caused by the PSAC-carried the final decision: the
mechanism would be dismantled.

(L) U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Science and Technolog 2y. The national science policy and organization act of 1975. Hearings before the . on H.R. 4461 and H.R. 7830. 94th Congress 1ist session, June 10, 11, 17, 19, 23, 1975. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1975. 1041 p.

Responses of Dr. 1-1. Guyford Stever, Science Adviser t01o the President, to questions regarding the Federal Council for Science and Tehooy (At pp. 96, 62).

Q. 10. How has the Federal Council on Science and Technology been restructured? What are its present functions, and what examples can you cite illustrating their achievements
and resulting impacts of their work during the past year?
A. When I assumed Chairmanship of the Federal Council
in 1973, I initiated a re-examination of its Committee structure-the principal vehicle for Council activity. As a result, we terminated certain committees whose work was essentially completed and transferred the responsibility for several others to individual agencies whose mission responsibilities appeared to adequately encompass the responsibilities entailed. Subsequently, we formed new committees to deal with emerging problems, specifically on Social R&D, International Geodlynamics Research, and (jointly with the Council on Environmental Quality) an ad hoc task force on Inadvertent Modification of the Stratosphere. I appointed a full-time Executive Secretary and created an Operating Committee to support the Council's work at the staff level. The basic functions of the Council remain two-fold: to develop coordinated agency positions on matters of R&D administrative policy that are of mutual interest (e.g., patent policy and certain aspects of procurement policy) and to provide an "institutional shelter" for new substantive problems that involve the mission interests of two or more agencies (e.g., climate research and R&D relating to critical materials). The Council's committees published some half-dozen reports during the year just passed, embracing a variety of topics ranging from capital requirements for oceanographic research to the possibility of depletion of the stratospheric ozone layer by fluorocarbon





30

releases. Each of these reports has been influential in the formulation of technical agency R&D priorities and, in some instances in developing th .e perspectives of the Federal and State regulatory bodies, the industrial and academic research communities and international bodies of which the U.S. is a member. It should be recognized, I believe, that the very process of developing these analyses on an interagency basis has an important positive impact on the way in which the mission agencies view their responsibilities and develop their
programmatic responses.
Q. 6. How would you propose to make the Federal Council
for Science and Technology a "more effective instrument for
interagency coordination?"
A. 6. Elsewhere, I describe actions taken in the last two
years that have been designed to increase the effectiveness of the FCST. It must be remembered that the FOST is primarily a coordinating body rather than an operational or decision making group. Within this context it is possible to address specific new problems, for example, the inadvertent modification of ozone concentrations in the stratosphere. The examination of these issue-oriented questions that embrace capabilities of a number of Federal departments and agencies has proven to be useful and the initiation of additional problem focused activities is a principal way to increase the FCST
effectiveness.

A LOOK AHEAD: QUESTIONS FOR SUBCOMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
As of mid-July 1976, there is still no word on who will be nominated to head the new Office of Science and Tecnhology Policy or even on Whether a nomination will be made in what remains of the 94th Congress. Certain arrangements for the OSTP are underway but the important decisions concerning the implementation of Public Law 49-282 can only be made when a Director takes over. The choice of the Director of OSTP is important to the future of the Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering, and Technology because Public Law 94-28Q2 specifies that the Director shall be the Chairman of the Council.
The similarity of Title IV of Public Law 94-282, which established the Federal Coordinating Council, to Executive Order 10807 of March 13, 1959, which established the Federal Council for Science and Technology, was shown on the overlay which concluded the legislative history of Title IV in section VII of this report.

COM-,PARISON OF TITLE IV WITH E.O. 10807 AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FCCSET
The following sectional analysis of Title IV is a comparison with the authority of E.G. 10807 for the FCST. Because the two documents are so similar, the aspects where they differ take on added significance. Questions concerning these differences which the subcommittee may wiL-h to explore are suggested following the analysis of each section.
New Title (Sec. 401 (a)) .-The additions of the words "Coordinating" and "Engineering" to the former title raise certain questions. The addition of "Coordinating" would seem to emphasize the primary





31

function of the new Council. It may also have been added to distinguish the main function of this Council from earlier proposals that would have established a Council of Advisers on Science and Technology as a science advisory office in the Executive Office of the President.
The functions set forth in sec. 401(e) for FCCSET do not include the word "coordination" although this is certainly implied. It would appear that the functions set forth in sec. 401(e) are broader than coordination, involving also planning, administration, and cooperation. Will the inclusion of "coordinating" in the Council's title tend to limit its scope?
The inclusion of "Engineering" in the title of FCCSET, on the other hand, would seem to indicate that its focus has been considerably broadened. Former Executive Secretary John Granger observed in 1975 that the reach of the Federal Council for Science and Technology was limited to governmental problems as opposed to national problems and he said the Federal Council had not been concerned up to that time with: (1) Technology as a factor in the economy; (2) the impact of foreign technology policies on the health of our scientific and technological enterprise: (3) improving U.S. productivity; (4) technical assistance as international political strategy; and (5) engineering manpower. Will the FCCSET find it necessary to recast its functions in broader terms than heretofore?
Membership (Sec. 401(b) ).-The expansion of membership of
FCCSET from that of the original FCST reflects in large part a need to include recently-formed departments and agencies with substantial scientific and technical functions. Unlike E.O. 10807, Title IV does not designate any specific representative of any department or agency to be a member of FCCSET, but leaves the selection to the head of each designated agency, requiring only that the selection shall be an official of "policy rank."
A perennial complaint about the FCST was that its designated members (heads of agencies or assistant secretaries of departments) did not attend meetings regularly and sent lower-level substitutes, which tended to weaken the Council's ability to be effective. Attendance checks during certain periods of the Council revealed that some agencies were represented by their designated members more consistently than were others; a few sent substitutes most of the time. This was not necessarily bad for it is understood that some substitutes were as effective agency representatives as the designated members. What policy level of department and agency representatives is required to represent departments and agencies on Council affairs?
Can a department or agency be as effectively, or more effectively, represented on FCCSET business by a lower-level policy representative than was previously designated for the FCST?
fightI a Deputy Assistant Secretary for Reesearch and Development who regularly attends Council meeting,- be a better choice than, for example, an Assistant Secretary who rarely comes?
Chahrman (Sec. 401 (c)) .-Title IV designates the Director of OSTP to serve as Chairman; formerly the Chairman was designated by the President. Present authority permits the Chairman to designate another member of the Council to act temporarilv in his absence.





32

The Director of OSTP will be a busy man for he will have multiple positions under the new arrangements as lie did before. During the 1974 hearings on S. 2495, Dr. Edward Wenk, a former Federal Council executive secretary, noted as one factor in the "checquered" career of the Federal Council that; "the President's science advisor as its chairman has often been too busy or sparing of his energies in stubborn, time consuming persuasion to make it, work." Public Law 94-282 provides for up to four Assistant Directors of OSTP to be appointed. Could oine of these Assistant Directors be delegated responsibility for chairing the FCCSET?
Other represeuitation at mectiing (Sec. /101 (d)).This authority to permit the Chairman to request heads of agencies not heretofore designated as members to participate in meetings and to invite other persons to attend meetings of the Council is the same as in E.O. 10807. Should larre departments such as Health, Education, and Welfare and 11eior, fur example, have more than one representative at Council

'ihe F'ederal Council had both member and observer representatives. Can additional representation be invited on a limited basis, such as that of observer, under the new authority?
What is the optimum size for Council meetings?
Can a. policy rank official be represented by a non-policy rank substitute?
Should guests be permitted, and if so, limited in number?
Should participation by State and/or local government representatives be invited?
On the point raised by the last question, Dr. Stever, in testimony in March 1974 on S. 2495, stated that the National Science Foundation favors[] the proposal to include State and local government representatives in the Council. We believe this can be effectively accomplished by augmenting membership of the present Federal Council for Science and Technology and its subgroups."
Functions (Sec. 401 (e) and (j)).-The functions assigned to the new FCCSET are lifted almost verbatim from the functions enumerated in section 2(a) (1)-(4) and section 2(e) of E.O. 10807. One change is the insertion of "engineering" between "scientific and technological" in the text wherever these words appear. Also, the former general charge to the Council to perform "related duties as assigned by the President or by the Chairman," is retained but it is now specified that the duties shall be of an "advisory" nature.
Elements of the original assignment of functionswin E.O. 10807 which do not appear in Title IV include:
(1) The former assignment to the FCST to consider problems and developments in the fields of science and technology and related activities concerning the overall advancement of the Nation's science and technology.
(2) The further assignment to the FCST, in developing the functions presently incorporated into Title IV ((e)(1)-(4)), to consult with enumerated and other organizations and to consider the effects of Federal R&D policies and programs on non-Federal programs and institutions and vice-versa, and to consider long-range program plans.
(3) The former assignment to consider and recommend measures for the implementation of Federal policies concerning the adminisrattion and conduct of Federal programs in S&T, and





33

(4) The direction to the Chaillman of FCST to :,lI)lflit to fle President those recommendations or reports of the Coutnil which require the attention of the President.
The legislative history of this section in S. 32 as reported ,tf, 's tin intention that the new coordinating body "exercise the samric fit,!ltious as those heretofore exercised bv the Federal Council for Science and Technology." (S. Rept. 94-622) The conference report, oted 1 tat "the title adds no new functions." How can the Council exercl e tle "same functions" when these functions represent only part of the original assignment? What are the implications of the inclusion of "engineering" on the assignment to the Council?
Assistance (Sec. 401(g)).-This subsection which directs member agencies of the Council to furnish necessary assistance by detailing employees or undertaking special studies is essentially the same as the original language in E.O. 10307. Omitted, however, from Title IV is a further direction to Federal agencies to provide the Council with information and reports relating to the scientific and technological activities of their respective agencies when requested to do so by the Chairman. Is the deletion of this latter information requireient apt to lessen the Council's capability to be fully informed concerning the relevant activities of Federal agencies?
Standing Subcommittees and Panels (Sec. 401(h)).-The authority in Title IV to establish standing subcommittees and panels is found in E.O. 10807. A previous requirement that one of the standing subcommittees shall be composed of scientist-administrators to provide a forum for consideration of common administrative policies and procedures relating to Federal R&D activities was not carried over into Title IV.
There are presently fourteen committees and one task force under the Federal Council umbrella. Periodically, Federal Council chairmen have conducted reviews of standing and ad hoc committees to determine whether they should be continued, terminated, transferred to a lead agency, merged with another, or whatever. Under Dr. Stever this has been an annual affair. It is not easy to eliminate an interagency committee that has been in existence over a period of time. William Carey has observed, "Prestigious committees at the Presidential level acquire, over time, a liturgical untouchability. They outlast Presidents and administrations. If their mission or usefulness is in doubt, the time to put them to rest is in the first months of a new administration."
Interagency committees under the Federal Council could be organized without compliance with the requirements of Executive Order 11671 of June 7, 1972 on Committee Management. This Executive order lays down requirements under which interagency or advisory committees may be established, including approval of charger, specifies a termination date of two years from formation unless a determination to continue it in the public interest is made 60 days before the scheduled termination, sets out various operating procedures, including open meetings, provides for the establishment of committee management officers in departments and agencies having such committees, and other details.





34

Several questions are suggested:
Should interagency committees organized under FCCSET or those from FCST which might be incorporatedunder FCCSET be subject to the Committee Management regulations?
Should interagency committee meetings be open to the public?
Should all interagency committees to be established under FCCSET have a finite life?
What kinds of controls should FCCSET exert over committees associated with it?
Under what authority in E.O. 11671 on Committee Management were interagency committees of the Federal Council exempt from compliance?
What newx interagency committees might be needed under the FCCSET, assuming, that the Council may be given important assignments, in support of the OSTP or the President's Committee on Science and Technology? Who should pay for publication of interagency committee reports?
Should a uniform procedure be established for the promulgation of policy statements and guidelines, making clear which are interagency committee agreements and which have been approved by the FCCSET?
The Federal Council for Science and Technology is abolished (Sec.
4O 0.)-Initially, it appeared that the legislative intent was not to abolish the Federal Council for Science and Technology but to upgrade and strengthen it. The addition of Sec. 402 would appear to give the new Chairman of the FCCSET considerably more authority to restructure the Council than might otherwise have been possible. Since the Federal Council for Science and Technology was technically abolished with the signing of P.L. 94-282 on May 11, 1976, what is its present status and that of its interagency committees?

OTHER QUESTIONS RELATING TO FCCSET
Relationship of FGCSET to OSTP
The functions assigned to the Director, OSTP, and to the Office under Public Law 94-282 are much more detailed than the assignment to the former OST under Reorganization Plan No. 2. What thought is being give.-n to organizing the FCCSET to enable it to assist OSTP in the discharge of these broad functions? For example, two major new functions which would appear to require a considerable expenditure of time and resources are the preparation of the five-year projections and an annual science and technology report. Both of these tasks will be annual affairs. Both will require input from the same departments and agencies which constitute the FCCSET. The functions of FCCSET appear to be broad enough to enable it to assist in both these tasks. Would this be a feasible assignment? Could standing committees under FCCSET serve as centralized sources for channelling agency input on a continuing basis?
The "Report on the R&D Program for fiscal year 1976" which the Federal Council published with the submission of the Federal budget for that year was a new activity, and, although admittedly with shortcomings, was a useful document. The collection of these data was done after decisions on agency budget levels had been made.






3 5

In the past, the Federal Council committees have been helpful in recommending projected Federal budget levels for multi-agency R&D programs, such as oceanography, water resources, and others.
How can the FCCSET be organized for optimum assistance InI coordinating the "R&D" budget?
FCCSET assistance 'in~ Federal science, engineering, and technology
surveyy
The comprehensive assignment to the President's Committee oni Science and Technology and the relatively small staff and short time frame specified will make it necessary for the PCST to utilize many existing sources of information. Here again the FCCSET wouldI appear to provide a useful tool for the aggregation of information on many of the aspects of the Federa I science, engineerino,, and technology effort enumerated in section 303 of Public Law 94-282. How might the FCCSET be organized to assist in this effort? FCCSET interface with Intergovernmnental Scien~ce, Einginee,ring, and
Technology Advisory Panel
The former Committee on Inter-governmental Science Relations of the Federal Council, in existence from 1969 to 1972, was a catalytic force in the effort to promote a wider State interest in the potential' of utilizing science and technology in alleviating current problems and in the establishment of State science advisory offices to serve governors and State legislatures.
Hlow might FCCSET and the Intergovernmental Science, Engineering, and Technology Advisory Panel establish a mutually beneficial relationship? Should periodic joint meetings be scheduled? Should there be observers from each body at meetings of the other? Staffing the FOESET
The staffing of an interagency coordinating body is crucial to its success. Agency officials understandingly owe their first allegiance to their agencies. Few awards accrue to officials who serve the national interest over that of the agency which pays them.
Throughout the entire history of the Federal Council for Science and Technology, inadequate staffing appears to have been a problem. What is accomplished at meetings is largely dependent upon the amount of advance preparation and follow-up work. When the FCST was meeting almost monthly this was a lot of work. Staffing for the Federal Council came from the OST during its existence, and from STPO after its transfer to the NSF. OST Directors told the Congress on a number of occasions that a full-time Executive Secretary served the Federal Council, but the records seems to show that the Executive Secretary regularly had other assignments. When all of an individual's time is used for things of the moment, there is little left for reflection or planning ahead or innovation. It is understood also, that support for Executive Secretary has also always been a bare minimum.
The situation in Nlav 1976 was that the Executive Secretary also headed a section in the Science, Technology and International Aff airs Directorate of NSF. It is understood that hiis administrative assistant was the only employee working full-time on Federal Council affairs. It seems pointless to consider a larger role for the new FCCSET if it is going to be staffed on the level the Federal Council has been staffed.






36

Nor does it seem likely that a voluntary Operating Committee can fill this gap. Dr. Edward Wenk, after experience as Executive Secretary of both the Federal Council and the Council on Marine Resources and Engineering, identified "provision of sufficient professional staff to develop facts, analysis of issues, and recommendations for actionafter consultation with the agencies and other interests involved, but independent of such special interests" to be a key factor in the success of Executive Office level coordinating bodies.
What staffing level might be an optimum one to consider in or-arizing the FCCSET,
Fan dii
Th.- Federal Council for Science and Technology and its coininittees, wer~e always dependent on some other budget from which to meet its needs. Until its transfer to the National Science Foundation, it is understood that the Council (lid not have funds to publish Willia, bu st-ationery, etc.
Willa~nCar-e, former long-timne Bureau of the Budgret official,
intstiying iii 1970 on the problems of Presidential advisory committees illustrated the problem:
I shall make one more point, and be through. We have
some 3 million Government employees and a budget of $200 billion. It seems to say that a President has inexhaustible res-ources to call on. It is an illusion. When I was in the Bureau of the Budget, we never knew where to turn for the small sums needed to pay for a study or an advisory body. I spent uncounted hours going from one agency head to another, hat in hand, begging for alms to pay for advisory projects which the President wanted. The White House had no purse for this, and the grandeur of the Presidency was diminished time af ter time as he had to put the touch on the agencies or ask the advisers to pay their own expenses.
Mr. Carey urged the President have at his disposal a fund for special studies. A budget for the new FCCSET might be justified on the same basis.
Has consideration been given to this very real problem? Meetings
Title IVT does not contain the provision in E.O. 10807 which stated "The Council shall meet at the call of the Chairman," perhaps because this is a generally accepted practice. Does the omission also raise the possibility that the Council could meet on the basis of some
-other initiative?
Throughout most of its existence, the Federal Council for Science and Technology met at least every other month or more often. For the past three years, the meeting schedule was reduced to two plenary meetings each year, with provision for calling such special and ad hoc meetings as become necessary.
How often does a coordinating council with the functions of the FCCSET need to meet? If there isn't enough continuing business to meet more than twice a year, how can continuity be maintained? How is it determined what justifies calling special meetings? How ean attendance at meetings be improved? Do meetings always need





37

to be held in the same place? Would it be feaible to have members host meetings at their particular agencies from time to time? Consensus
A common comolailit of informed critics of the Federal Coi l-il i< that decisions coming from the Council are so watered-down a, to reflect the least common denominator and consequently are of limited value. What other means can be used to record agreement? For example, can the congressional committee system of recording minority views be used? Are there other ways to achieve agreement, as for example, through arbitration? Institutional memory
The experience of the Federal Council should be instructive to the new FCCSET. Perhaps because of inade-,uate staffing, the Council' records were not maintained in a form to be an authoritative basic for staff coming later on the scene. For exaj.ple, it is u'Aderstood that the lack of an authoritative record of policy statements and guidelines was a matter of recent concern to the Federal Council. FCST actions have been reported in minutes. While at one time, the minutes were detailed accounts of actions and discussions at meeting, and agreements reported therein were regarded as binding, in recent years minutes have been reduced to the barest statements of actions. Failure of the Council to report publicly on its activities in a regular and available form has further served to lower its visiobilitv. The FCST was aware of these inadequacies and was recently engaged in redressing the situation, in particular with respect to codification of policy statements and the preparation of an activities report.
What measures can the new FCCSET take to avoid this problem in the future?
Executive Priilege rersuis Open n ess
As an advisory committee composed entirely of full-time Federal employees, the Federal Council for Science and Technology was exempted from compliance with the Advisory Committee Act under section 3(2).
What is the case for voluntary compliance with the requirements of the Advisory Committee Act? What is the case for holding closed meetings?
Congressional Relationships
The imminent hearings, of the Domes:,tic and International Scientific Planning and Analysis Subcommittee on the Federal Council will undoubtedly be instructive even to those most intimately engaged on Council business and to officials in the science and technology oriented departments and agencies and the public at large.
How can meaningful relationships be maintained without at the same time prejudicing the FCCSET's role as an advisory body in the Executive Office of the President?
The Federal Council on Marine Resources and Engineering Development
as an Efective Body
The Marine Resources Council is frequently cited as an example of an effective interagency mechanism. It was established by P.L. 89-454 in 1966 and continued in existence until 1971. Again quoting William





38

Carey, the following is his explanation of how the Marine Resources Council differed from other less effective bodies and what made it more effective:
At the other end of the spectrum, we have the Federal
Council on Marine Resources and Engineering Development.
This is another interagency committee but it advises the President. What was different about it was that this Council was created by statute with a fixed-time period. Its chairman was the Vice President of the United States. Its executive secretary had a Presidential appointment. Its money came
through an appropriation.
This doesn't, necessarily mean that the Council would have
bee-n more than window dressing. In fact it has been very lively. When XMr. Humplirey had the chairmanship, he allways came. He ran the meetings as though he was still in the Congress. Before each meeting, individual members would get letter from the Vice President saying that he would be greatly disappDointed not to see them at the meetings and as a result, there was a remarkable attendance
record.
Now, the 'Marine Council was not, hesitant about advising
the President. In fact, the President got more advice than he cared to have. I think it comes down to saying that this
body was a success.
Was it because of M_\r. Humphrey, or because its secretary
had a Presidential commission, or because it had a fixed-time period on its life, or because oceanography is important, or because an appropriations hearing lay around the corner; or
did all these factors have a, bearing, on the results? Presidential Interest
Under Executive Order 10807, the Chairman of the Federal Council was authorized to submit to the President such of the Council's recommendations as required his attention by reason of their importance or character. This probably reflected the situation as it was before the establishment of OST, when the Federal Council was a part of the Office of the Special Assistant for Science and Technology.
An "expression of interest by the President in specific topic areas that cross different agency lines and have a Presidential priority, but fail to be the prime responsibility of any single agency" has been identified by an informed observer as an ingredient for success of an Executive Office level coordinating body according to Dr. Edward Wenk.
What Presidential tie-in is the FCCSET expected to have?

CONCLUSION
This contemporary history of Federal interagency coordination for scientific research and development began by calling attention to the diffusion of scientific and technical activities throughout the Federal Government, and to the necessity for coordination of effort. Over almost three decades, the Federal Council for Science and Technology, and1 the Interdepartmental Committee on Scientific Research and De-





39

velopment, which preceded it, have been charged with this coordinating responsibility-during the administrations of Presidenlits of both parties, under a succession of chairmen, and while located alternately in the Executive Office of the President and the National Science Foundation.
Figure 1 is a graphic representation of the spiral course of inter'agency coordinating responsibility for scientific research and development and science and technology since 1947. It illustrates a three-step pattern which has already been completed twice:
1. Some combination of national needs requiring scientific and techinological input points up the necessity for having an instrument to coordinate scientific and technical activities at the highest level, and such a body is established in the Executive Office of the President. This was the case in 1947, with the establishment of the Interdepartmental Committee on Scientific Research and Development, in 1959, with the creation of the Federal Council for Science and Technology, and in 1976, with the establishment of the Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering, and Teclmology
2. As time passes, attention mn the Executive Office is focused on other problems and the unsensational scientific and technical coordinating body, with little "clout," is transferred out of the Executive Office. This was the case in 1950 and again in 1-973 when the Interdepartmental Committee on Scientific Research and Development and the Federal Council for Science and Technology were transferred to the National Science Foundation.
3. The coordinating effort proceeds at this lower level until another attempt is made to upgrade the process by re-establishing another scientific and technical coordinating body at the Presidential level. This was the case in 1959 when the Federal Council for Science and Technology was established and again in 1976, when the Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering, and Technology was formed.
For the third time since 1947, a new scientific and technical coordinating body has been established in the Executive Office of the President. Will the new Federal Coordinating Council follow the spiral course of its predecessors? It is hoped that this history and the forthcoming hearings will be instructive in helping the Council to be a more effective body.
73-526--76---





40

Figure 1 FULL CIRCLE

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT


FCCSET (1976) .,W established)


/ FCST (1959)
/ (established)



/ ICSRD (1947)
(established)

l /

I jI


\ \ /



N1N ICSRD (1951)

(transferred)



FCST (1973)
(transferred)



NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

ICSRD: Interdepartmental Committee on Scientific Research
and Development
FCST: Federal Council for Science and Technology
FCCSET: Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering,
and Technology












III. COORDINATIiN OF FEDERAL SCIENTIFIC AND TECH-j
NICAL ACTIVITIES BEFORE THEjj ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FEDERAL COUNCIL FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

SCIENTIIC COORDINATING BoIIES (1916-1946)
The Federal Council for Science and Technology is only the most recent in a successionl of efforts to coordinate Federal scientific activity. A. Hunter Dupree's Science in~ the Federal Government 1 contains details of various coordinating bodies, from the era when Federal scientific activity was carried on at a much smaller scale.
Going back to the World War I period, an act of August 1916 created a Council of National Defense, composed of the Secretaries of War, N avy, Interior, Agriculture, Commerce and Labor Departments to "~coordinate ind'4tries and resources for the national security and welf are." 2 In February 1917, recognizing that it needed assistance, the Council of National Defense requested the newlv.-formed National Research Council (NRC) to be responsible for "the organization of scientific investigation bearing on the national defense and on industries affected by the war." Despite certain limitations, the National Research Council contributed an important service by functioning "as a clearinghouse of information and a focus of scientific personnel." The NRC was made a permanent institution of the National Academy of Sciences by Executive Order in 'May 1918 and one of its assigned functions was "to promote cooperation in research, at home and abroad, in order to secure concentration of effort, minimize dluplication, and stimulate progress.
After the end of the war, the National Research Council established a Division of Government Relations to continue contacts with the Government and in December 1919, the President appointed a representative from each bureau of the government involved in science to the Division. Apparently, the Division never really became active during the post-World War I period, for NRC reports contained scant information concerning it. -5
The next important coordinating effort was undertaken as the international situation worsenedl in the late 1930's and the United States began to prepare the Nation's defenses against the possibility of war with the Axis powers. In 1940 President Roosevelt established the National Defense Research Committee (NDRC) whose purpose
was to contract with universities and industrial firms for necessary weapons research. A year later, the NDRC became part of a broader Office of Scientific Research and Development (OSRD) which was
I Dupree, A. Hunter. Science in the Federal Government; a History of Policies and Activities to 1940. Cambridge, Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1957. 460 p.
2 Ibid, p. 305.
2 Ibid, p. 312.
4 Jbid, p. 323.
1 Ibid, p.83M.
(41)





42

established in the Executive Office of the President by Executive Order 8807 of June 28, 1941.
The OSRD was composed of two main components: a reconstituted NDRC for weapons research and development and a new Committee on Medical Research. One of the functions assigned to the OSRD was that of coordinating, aiding, and where desirable, supplementing the eXDerlmental and other scientific and medical research activities relating to national defense carried on by the Departments of War and Navy and other Federal departments and agencies.'
rrhe Executive Order creating OSRD also created within it an advisory Council consisting of the Chairman of the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics. the Chairman of the National Defense Research Committee, the Chairman of the Committee on Medical Research, anLd one representative each from the Army and Navy, to be designated by the respective Secretaries. The function of the Council was to "advise and assist the Director with respect to the coordination. of research activities carried on by private and governmental research groups and . facilitate the interchange of information and data between such groups and agencies." 7
Thus, the function of -the Council was to advise and assist the Director in the overall coordination of the activities of the two constituent committees (NDRC and Mledical Research) each of which was also a coordinating body within its assigned area.
Subsequently, it was found necessary to form yet another coordinating body, this one a Joint Committee on New Weapons and Equipment reporting to the Joint Chiefs of Staff and consisting of the Director, OSRD, and an Army and Navy member. This committee was charged with coordinating the development and production of new weapons and equipment by both civilian research agencies and the armed services. The history of these activities shows a record of achievements but also some difficulties.'

RECOMMENDATIONS ]FOR FEDERAL SCIENTIFIC COORDINATION AFTER WORLD WAR II
Coordination of Government scientific activity was addressed in three important reports of the post-World War II period.
KILGORE REPORT
The first was a report of the Subcommittee on War Mobilization of the Senate Committee on Military Affairs on "The Government's Wartime Research and Development, 1940-44." 1
The report referred to the "elaborate" system of formal committees, supplemented by informal contacts, which had been established to coordinate the Government's scientific activities. It noted that this coordination would end with the coming of peace, and expressed the opinion that a more permanent mechanism must be worked out in order to achieve a "balanced postwar program of Federal research."
6 E.O. 8807, see. 2c.
Ibid, sec. 6.
SBaxter, James P., 3rd. Scientists against time. Boston, Little, Brown and Co., 1946. 473 p. Chapter 2; SU.S. Senate. Committee on Military Affairs. Subcommittee on War Mobilization. Thie Government's Wartime Research aind Development, 1940-44. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., Part 1, January 1945, 326~ p.; P'art II, July 1945, 14 p. (the Kilgore Report).





43

There followed a discussion of the functions of coordination, how it might be attained, and its scope:'0
The chief function of coordination shoulld be (1) to insure
that the most important problems are receiving adequate attention; (2) to make possible the best matching of such problems with scientific workers and facilities; (3) to make significant finding's available to all interested investigators as
.rapidly as possible.
Such coordination will arise from a mutual exchange of
information on problems, men, facilities, and findings. It cannot be accomplished by decree but by mutual understanding. Where exchange of information and mutual discussion does reveal the need for definite action to achieve more efficient coordination of activity, final responsibility to assure that necessary action is taken should rest with a central scientific agency or with an over-all supervisory
agency such as the Bureau of the Budget.
The scope of such coordination should be the whole range
of Federal scientific activity. This in turn should be balanced with private activity through cooperative mechanisms and the advisory participation of leadin 'g scientists and administrators from private institutions. '
The report concluded with a statement of the need for a central scientific agency of the Government, concerning which draf t legislation had been prepared, one of whose functions would be to "provide for an efficient formulation and coordination of all . federally supported research and development work, utilizing so far as possible the existing resources of public and private research organizations, particularly nonprofit educational institutions and research foundations." 11 The legislation referred to was S. 1287, sponsored by Senators Harley M. Kilgore (W. Va.) and Edwin C. Johnson (Colo.) of the Military Affairs Committee and Senator Claude Pepper (Fla.) of the Senate Commerce Committee, to establish a National Science Foundation.
BUSH REPrORT
The second discussion of the need for coordination was in the report of a Committee on Science and the Public Welfare to Dr. Vannevar Bush which was included in his report, "Science, The Endless Frontier." 12 In addition to recommending the creation of a National IResearch Foundation, the Committee made several suggestions for reform in the Federal science structure, among them, in coordination. Th~e relevant paragraphs are excerpted below:'"

3. COORDINATION OF G GOVERNMENTAL RESEARCITThe extensive development of the sciences in recent years,
and the increasing complexity of governmental research, make it more difficult each year' to coordlinate the scientific
10 Ibid, Part IT, p. 11.
11 Ibid. p. 14.
12 Bli:,h, Vannevar. Science: The Endb1ss Frontier: a Report to the Pre, ient, Waslinton. U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1945. 184 p. Appendix 3 (Report of thle Committee on Science and thie Public Welfare (the Bowman Report)) 13 Ibid, pp. (98-99.





44

work conducted by the Government and. to integrate governmental research with that of universities, endlowed institutions, and industrial organizations. Parallel investigations of certain important research problems are to be encouraged rather than avoided, and duplication should not necessarly be the bugbear in science that it is in other types of governmental activity. Nevertheless, it becomes increasingly important that the research personnel of various governmental bureaus keep in close touch with one another and with current technical developments and public needs.
a. Coordination of research within the Government
A specific need is for an- interbureau committee or council
of representatives- of the principal scientific bureaus. Stich a committee might be set up under the Bureau of the Budget, or other appropriate auspices, to advise on interrelationships of research programs of the different agencies, and to coinpare the effectiveness of (different procedures for administering governmental research. IRecommend ations from such a committee on policies of budget procedure or of classification of scientific personnel should carry more weight than the
recommendation of a single bureau.
The practice of utilizing scientific employees of one bureau
as consultants for other bureaus is difficult under existing regulations. But if this practice were generally adopted, it would further coordination of research programs by disseminating more widely a knowledge of the related problems under investigation by various agencies and of the different methods
by which these problems are being attacked.
b. Coordination of governmental research with outside organizations
There is a widespread impression that a research project,
once started by a Government bureau, may continue long after it has served its original purpose. RAlecearch projects need continuous reappraisal in the light of scientific advance and technological developments. Orderly revision of research programs should be the normal and expected result of scientific progress. The danger that a research bureau may fail to revise its programs or its methods when they become obsolete is minimized most surely by encouraging members of the scientific staff to maintain close contact with their
professional colleagues elsewhere. ..
Note that whereas the Kilgore report appeared to vest coordinating responsibility in a central scientific agency (National Science Foundation), the Bush report favored "an interbureau committee or council of representatives of the principal scientific bureaus."
The establishment of a Federal research agency which would focus on the promotion of research in the basic sciences and on scientific education and also "coordinate and control diverse scientific activities now conducted by the several departments and agencies of the Federal Government." was endorsed by President Harry S. Truman in a special message to the Congress of September 6, 1945*i4 14 U.Sq. President. Public Papers of the Presidviils, Harry S. Truman, 1945. Washington, U.S. Govt Print. Off., 1945, pp. 292-294.





45

STEELMIIAN REPORT
Meanwhile, as legislation to create a National Science Foundation moved slowly in Congress, a third group was established to look broadly at the Federal scientific program. This was the Precldent s Scientific Research Board, est ablished by Executive Oder in October 1946 under the Director of War Mobilization and Reconverion, Dr. John R. Steelman. In the first of five reports issued between August and October 1947,'s a number of inter-related needs relating to coordination of the Federal research and development program were identified: 16
1. An over-all picture of the allocations of research and development functions among the Federal agencies, and the relative emphasis placed upon fields of research and development within
the Federal Government must be available.
2. A central point, of liaison among the major research agencies
to secure the maximum interchange of information with respect to the content of research and development programs and with
respect to administrative techniques must be provided.
3. There must be a single point close to the President at which
the most significant problems created in the research and development program of the Nation as a whole can be brought into top
policy discussions.
The Steelman report noted that the Office of Scientific Research and Development had served as the over-all instrumentality for the coordination of scientific research and development and had mobilized the Nation's scientific resources, but that its liquidation in 1947 had left an unfilled "gap." Nor could other bodies such as the newlyestablished Research and Development Board in the National Military Establishment be expected to coordinate the entire national science program.
To fill the gap, the Steelman report recommended three actions.17 The first was that an Interdepartmental Committee for Scientific Research be created, to meet the need for having a central point of liaison among the major research agencies. The Comnmittee should consist of officials within the departments and agencies concerned with scientific research and development and other officials with a direct interest in science as it related to their broader agency inission!.
It was proposed that the Committee have a rotating chairmanship, a Presidentially-designated executive secretary from the White House staff, and that additional staff assistance be provided by the agencies represented on the Committee or subcommuittees it might create.
The Steelman report saw the broad role for the Interdepartmental Committee as an instrument through which "the scientific intelligence now available within the Federal departments and agencies can be brought to bear upon maintenance of balance among the several scientific activities of the Government, and the closing of gaps in the present programs". 11 Although noting that the Corn15 U.S. President's Scientific Research Board. Science and Public Policy, Washinzton, U.S. Govt. Prii,. Off., 1947: Vol. 1, A Program for the Nation (Aug. 27, 1947, 73 p.): Vol. 2, The Federal Research Program (Sept. 27, 1947, 318 p.); Vol. 3, Administration for Research (Oct. 4. 1947, 324 p.); Vol. 4, Manpower for Research (Oct. 11, 1947, 166 p.); Vol. 5, The Nation's Medical R research (Oct. 18, 1947, 118 p.). 16 Ibid, vol. 1, p. 61.1
17 Ibid, p. 65.
Is Ibid, p. 66.





46

mittee would develop its own work program, the report enumerated three administrative problems of immediate concern which should be studied: 19
(1) A full analysis of the relative advantages of contracts
and grants as means of supporting research, with recommendations for uniform legislation.
(2) A careful review of the advantages arising from, and the
problems connected with, establishment of research coordinating
bodies within large Federal agencies.
(3) Means of improving accounting procedures throughout
the Federal Government for research and development activities.
Finally, the report noted that the Committee should not be made responsible for either the allocation of functions among the Federal departments or agencies, or for fiscal matters except in very broad terms.
The other two actions relating to Federal organization for science in the Steelman report were that (a) the Bureau of the Budget should set up a unit for reviewing Federal scientific research and developnient programs, so that an over-all picture of the allocations of research and development programs among the Federal agencies will be available; 10 and (b) the President should designate a member of the White House staff for scientific liaison, to provide a single point close to the President who can bring the most significant research and development problems into top policy discussions."
In making a case for an Interdepartmental Committee on Scientific Research, the Steelman report (dated August 27, 1947) made no mention of prior efforts which had been made to establish such a committee by legislation (S. 526) or of President Truman's veto of August 6, 1947, of this legislation which would have created a National Science Foundation and an Interdepartmental Committee on Science. The President's objection to the Interdepartmental Committee was that it would consist of agencies which are responsible to the President but would be chaired by the Director of the Foundation, a man who, under the organization contained in S. 526, would not be appointed by the President or be responsible to him.
ESTABLISHMENT OF INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE ON SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Subsequent modifications in the Interdepartmental Committee's structure recommended by the Steelman report-among them, that the chairman be selected from and rotate among the members made the Committee acceptable to President Truman. On December 24, 1947, he signed Executive Order 9912 establishing the Interdepartmental Committee on Scientific Research and Development (ICSRD). In composition, procedure, and functional assignments, the ICSRD followed the recommendations in the Steelman report, and, in fact, the statement by the President accompanying the execu19 Loc. cit.
20 The Budget of the United States Government for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1948 contained new functional classifications, and amona them was a new category "Education and General Research" (See Part IV, pp. 1333-1355). Thp first special analysis of total Federal search and development expenditures appeared as Special Analysis 11 in the Budget of the United States Government for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1955, at pp. 1157-62.
21 The President designated Dr. John R. Steelman to provide the liaison functions in the statement of December 24, 19471, qccompany;ng Executive Order 9912.





47

tive order credited the report with emphasizing the need for such a committee. The statement noted that the survey [of the Board] had pointed out "there is no central group equipped to advise on the relationships among the numerous and complex Federal scientific activitiesI or to take leadership in the solution of administrative problems common to different agencies." Because of the relationships of the Federal research program to the national welfare, and because of the "great sums" annually spent for research by the Government, the establishment of the Committee was termed "a matter of national importance."
Table 1 is a comparison of the recommendations of the Steelman report and the provisions of Executive Order 9912 which established the ICSRD.
TABLE 1
STEELMAN REPORT
RECOMMENDATIONS E.O. 9912, DEC. 24, 1947
Name. Interdepartmental Corn- Interdepartmental Committee for
mittee for Scientific Research. Scientific Research and Development.

Membership. Officials of agencies Official designated by head of folmost deeply involved in scien- loving agencies and such others tific research and development, as President may determine
such as: here af ter:
Director, Geological Survey Department of Interior.
(Interior).
Agricultural Research Admin- Department of Agriculture.
istrator (Agriculture).
Director, National Bureau of Department of Commerce.
Standards (Commerce).
Director of Aeronautical Re- National Advisory Committee
search (NACA). for Aeronautics.
Director, National Institute Federal Security Agency.
of Health (ESA).
Director of Research, Atomic Atomic Energy Commission.
Energy Commission.
Appropriate representation Department of Army, Navy,
from research activities of and Air Force and National
National Military Estab- Military Establishment.
lishmen t.
Also members from agencies Veterans' Administration.
with direct intei'es tin science,
such as: Smithsonian Institution.
Department of State.
Civil Service Commission.
Director, National Science
Foundation.

22 Text of statement and Excut-ive Order 9912 are found in Appendix A.





48

STEELMAN REPORT
RECOMMENDATIONS-continued E.O. 9912, DEC. 24, 1947-continue
C/tarman: Rotate among member Designated annually by the Presagencies. ident.
Executive Secretary: To be desig- [In statement accompanying E.O.
nated by the President from 9912: Assistant to President,
White House staff. John R. Steelman, designated
to provide liaison between President and committee and scientific community].

Additional staff assistance: Mem- Federal agencies requested to furber agencies. nish assistance and information.

Authority to create subcommittees: Chairman may establish subcomYes. mittees; members may include
persons other than from member agencies.

Areas for committee action.' Main- Recommend actions to make Fedtaining balance among Federal eral R&D programs most efscientific activities; attention to fective in promotion of national
gaps in present programs; stud- welfare.
ies of certain administrative Study and recommend changes in problems: administrative policies, proceGrants and contracts; Fed- dures, practices:
eral agency coordinating Grants and contracts.
bodies for research; and Personnel policies.
accounting procedures for Encourage collaboration among
R&D Federal R&D agencies.
Recommend means to improve dissemination of scientific and
technical information.
Obtain advice of persons outside Governments on matters of concern to Committee.
Perform such other duties as President may prescribe.

Executive Order 9912 assigned a more important role to the ICSRD than the Steelman report had recommended in the charge to the Committee to "recommend steps to make the research and development programs of the Federal Government most effective in the promotion of the national welfare." (Section 3(a)). Whereas the bulk of the duties related to improving the policy for science, this one was directed to improving the use of science in public policy.
There are many similarities between the ICSRD and the Federal Council for Science and Technology which succeeded it. These will be treated below. A significant difference we would note here is that the charter of the Federal Council did not include the broad charge made to the ICSRD by section 3(a) above.





49

SUMMARY OF ICSRD OPERATIONS
There is little in the public record concerning the ICSRD during the more than a decade of its existence. References to it appear four times in the Federal Register-in the executive orders of 1947 and 1959 which established and abolished it respectively, and in two other executive orders in 1950 and 1934. Its existence was not noted in the U.S. Govurinmcnt Organization laJ fial until after it had been abolished, when it was then included in Appendix A, along with other governmental units which have been abolished, terminated, or transferred since March 4, 1933. A 1956 National Science Foundation report on Federal science organization included the ICSRD on an organization chart of the Executive branch in equal proximity to the President and Executive Office units as the Civil Service Commission and the General Services Administration.21 However a follow-on NSF report on "Advisory and Coordinating -Mechanisms for Federal Research and Development, 1956-57" (Washington U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1957. NSF 57-13) gave the Committee a mere two paragraphs in a position next to the last entry in the 27-page document.
The following summary is a consolidation of information about the ICSRD in the public record.
The ICSRD was organized in February 1948. Dr. Alexander Wetmore, Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, was appointed the first Chairman; Dr. Thomas B. Nolan, Assistant Director of the Geological Survey, Department of the Interior, was appointed Vice-Chairman. Other members of the Committee were: 2.
Dr. James B. Fisk, Director, Division of Research, Atomic
Energy Commission;
Dr. E. U. Condon, Director, National Bureau of Standards; Miss Mary E. Switzer, Assistant to the Administrator, Federal
Security Agency;
Dr. Hugh L. Drvden, Director of Aeronautical Research,
National Advisory (omnittee for Aeronautics;
Dr. W. V. Lambert, Research Administrator, Department of
Agriculture;
Dr. J. E. Graf, Assistant Secretary, Smithsonian Institution,
deputy for Chairman Wetmore;
Dr. E. H. Cushing, Assistant Medical Director for Research
and Education, Veterans' Administration;
Maj. Gen. Henry S. Aurand, Director of Service, Supply and
Procurement of General Staff, Department of the Army:
Maj. Gen. A. C. McAuliffe, Deputy Director for Research
and Development, Department of the Army, deputy for General
Aurand;
Maj. Gen. L. C. Craigie, Director of Research and Development, Department of the Air Force;
Dr. Lawrence R. Hafstad, Executive Secretary, Research
and Development Board, National Military Establishment; and
Rear Adm. P. F. Lee, Chief of Naval Research, Department of
the Navy.
In general, the ICSRD membership consisted of research directors of the constituent agencies.
t1 U.S. National Science Foundation. Organization of tbp Ffderal Government for Scientific Activities. Wahinzton, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1956. 31.) p. At p. 18; also pp. 326-327.
24 Wetmore to Head Research Board. New York Tihnes, Feb. 15, 19-48, p. 52.





50

The ICSRD was mentioned in the 'March 1949 report of the Commission on the Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government (the First Hoover Commission) on Federal research .2' The Commission noted that the Federal Government was engaged in a wide range of research activities involving "tremendous" expenditures of funds; in 1947 these expenditures, excluding atomic energy, had totalled $625 million. Although recog-nizing the major importance of effect ive planning and coordination of research, the Commission had not made an independent study of the Federal organization for research because this had been done recently by the President's Scientific Research Board. Nevertheless, the Commission wished to call attention to "major issues" in this field, to what had been done, and to what remained to be done. The remainder of the report was addressed to the need for both intradepartmental and overall coordination of research, and for the creation of a National Science Foundation.
The Commission noted that the Interdepartmental Committee on Scientific Research and Development had been established in 1947 "to further the most effective administration of scientific research and development activities in the Federail Government" and that it had been authorized "to submit recommendations on research policy and administration directly to the President."1 26 However, after more than a year in existence, the Commission expressed the opinion that "the full potentialities of this committee [ICSRD] have not been realized since its members have not as yet attacked major problems of research policy for the Federal Government as a whole. This may be due in part to lack of staff and funds. An interdepartmental committee working alone and without staff is seriously limited in achieving adequate coordination and in developing over-all plans to completion. This points to the need for a National Science Foundation." 27 Th le balance of the report contained a justification for a National Science Foundation and concluded with two recommendations:
(a) Authority be granted to the President to coordinate
research, and to strengthen interdepartmental committee organization for this') purpose.
(b) A National Science Foundation be established.2
On June 1, 1949, the first full-time executive secretary of the ICSRD appointed, reportedly in partial response to the Hoover (Commission's recommendation to strengthen interdepartmental coordination of research .29 This position was financed successively by several different agencies. Beginning with fiscal year 1951, the Department of State and the newly\,-established National Science Foundal ion were added to the membership. The latter agency also took over support of the Interdepartmental Commiittee 30. NSF annual reports show obligations for support of the Interdepartmental Committee for this early period as follows: FY 1951, $26,101; FY 1952, $18,755; FY 1953Y $23,272.
25 U.S. Commnission on the Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government. Overseas Administration; Federal-State Relations; Federal Research; A Report to the Congress. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., March 1949, pp. 43-50.
26 ihid, p. 49.
27 Loc. cit.
2S Ibid, p. 50.
29 E. WV. Scott Gets Science Liaison Post. Washington Post, May 26, 1949. p. 2. 31 U.S. National Science Foundation. First Annual Report, 1950-51. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. OffL [1951].







A former member later described the Interdepartmental Committee's scope as having dealt primarily with "general administrative matters, personnel matters, facilitating the scientific research of the agencies. , 1,
Zn Examples of ICSRD activity included studies related to the
recruitment and retention of scientific personnel, 11 budgetary pro33
cedures, selective service, policies and procedures for the use of grants and research contracts, including recommendations for publicaas part of reSearell Coj
tion of research reports tS 31 and an inventol-v
of major scientific facilities of the Government with a view for their possible sharing by various agencies. This latter activity was undertaken in response to section 8 of Executive Order 10521 of March 17, 1954, which was directed toward the efficient use of research equipment and facilities of the Federal agencies. The Interdepartmental Committee was directed to "take necessary steps to ensure that each Federal agency encracred directly in scientific research is kept informed of selected major equipment and facilities which could serve the needs of more than one agency." A 1955 inventory was augmented by a supplement in 1957.11
Executive Order 10096 of January 23, 1950, v,-bich provided for a uniform patent policy for the Government with respect to inventions made by Government employees and a Government Patents Board to advise on the implementation of the policy, also directed the Board's Chairman and the Chairman of the Interdepartmental Committee to "establish and maintain such mutual consultation as will effect the proper coordination of affairs of common concern." No further details of this activity were found.

TERMINATION OF THEICSRD
The, unexpected and successful launch of the Soviet Sputnik in October 1957 was widely interpreted as a threat to the relative position of the United States vis-a-vis the Soviet Union. Shortly thereafter, the findings of a classified report of the Security Resources Panel 16 to the President revealed a frightening picture of the potential threat to the United States from the military supremacy of the Soviet Union.
In recognition of his need for scientific and technical advice at first hand, in November 1957, President Dwight D. Eisenhower appointed James R. Killian, Jr., President of MIT, to be a Special Assistant for Science and Technology and to serve as his science adviser. He also transferred the Science Advisory Committee from the Office of Defense Mobilization and reorganized it as the President's Science Advisory
31 Testimony of Dr. Hugh Dryden of NACA in U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences.'-, Investigation of Governmental Organization for Space Activities. Hearings before the Subcommittee on Governmental Organization for Space Activities, March-May 1959. 86th Congress Ist session. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1959, p. 76. 32 See National Science Foundation Sixth Annual Report, Fiscal Year 1956, for review of Committee activity, 11 Recruiting and retaining scientific personnel in Government service," pp. 20-21. 33 The Hafstad Report. Memorandum to Mr. W. Stuart Symington, Chairman National Security Resources Board. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, v. 6, December 1950, pp. 379-380. 34 U.S. Interdepartmental Committee on Scientific Research and Development. Report on Grants and Research Contracts. Washington, December 1950, 25 p. [Published at Oak Ridge, Tenn. by the Atomic Energy Commi ion.]
35 This inventory is mentioned in the report of the Subcommittee on Science, Research, and Development of the House Committee on Science and Astronautics, entitled Utilization of Federal Laboratories, 90th Congress, 2d session. 1968. p. 14. According to Dr. Allen V. Astin, former Director of the National Bureau of Standards "little or no use was ever made of the information." 36 U.S. ONce of Defense Mobilization. Science Advisory Committee. Deterrence and Survival in the Nuclear Age. Report of the Security Resources Panel [the Gaither Report]. Completed in November 1957; portions unofficially released December 1957; made public January 10, 1973.





52

Committee (PSAC). An initial assignment to the Committee was to make a study of what the Federal Government could do to "underwrite the strength of American science arid technology as one of our essential resources for national security and welfare." "7
Little is known about the activities of the ICSRD during this period and throughout 1958. Thle National Security Council coordinated defense-related issues and when the National. Aeronautics and Space Administration was established in July 1958, Congress also established a National Aeronaiutics and Space Council, intended to coordinate these activities.
The 1CSRD was not sufficiently high-level to perform coordinating functions at the policy level. This was in fact stated when the Panel on Research Policy of the President's Science Advisory Committee reported at~ the end of December 1958 on its assignment of a year earlier. The Panel's report, Strengthening American Science, observed that the Government's role as administrator of a vast and highly diversified research and development effort is a task of "almost incredible complexityy" Given the dimensions and complexity of the task, the report said it is not surprising that the goal of managing the Government research and development programs in the most effective manner had not yet been attained. A brief discussion followed of attempts in the past to relate the research and development activities of the various agencies to each other and to research carried on outside the Government. After commenting- on the role of the National Security Council and the Operations Coordinating Board in formulating national policies in specific areas, arid that of the National Science Foundation in the development and recommendation of national policies for the promotion of basic research and science education, the report turned to the ICSRD: 3

**'The Interdepartmental Committee on Scientific
Research and Development also has constituted a useful mechanism for the exchange of information among research and development agencies and has been a source of policy recommendations dealing principally with scientific and technical personnel problems and the administration of Federal laboratories. But these attempts have had limited objectives and the fundamental problem remains unsolved.
Each agency and department continues to formulate its own policies in science and technology with insufficient reference to the policies of others. Without in any way encroaching upon the freedom and authority of each department or agency to manage its own programs, there is still an opportunity to pull together the policies developed in different agencies of the Government with a view to integrating
and reconciling them as a whole.
To perform this integrative role, the PSAC panel recommended the creation of an interagency council "to promote coordinated policy planning and more effective management of Federal programs in science and technology." 11 Included in the Panel's recommendations
37 Statement by the President accompanying the report of the President's Science Advisory Committee, "Strengthening American Science." Washington U.S. Govt. Print. Off., December 1958, 36 p. at p. i. 88 Strengthening American Science, Ibid, pp. 10-11.
39 ibid, pp. 28-30.






53

were the proposed functions, membership, and other details concerning the council, to be knownm as the Federal Council for Science and Technology. Another series of recommendations dealt with strengthening the administration and utilization of Government~ laboratories.
The PSAC Panel did not envisage the Federal Council for Science and Technology to replace the ICSRD. In a section of the report on implementation, along with a recommendation to assure the continuing responsibi! ,-y of the National Science Foundation for developing policies for thne promotion and support of basic research and educationin the sciences, the Panel recommended that, "provisions of Executive Order 10521, and Executive Order 9912, which established the Interdepartmental Committee on Scientific Research and Development, should be reviewed to ensure that they are consonant with the responsibilities of the council." 40
Approximately three months elapsed between the President's statement accompanying the PSAC report, in which he approved establishment of the Federal Council and directed that an implementing Executive order be prepared withoutt delaxr", and the issuance of Executive Order 10807 on March 13, 1959. Two major difficulties in preparing the implementing Executive order were determining the membership of the new Council and reconciliation by Bureau of the Budget personnel of previous Executive orders with the new one."' This latter reconciliation, with its time-consuming legal and jurisdictional complexities, was reported to be the maj or pm ocedural problem faced by those concerned with the order.4
The issue concerning the ICSRD was resolved in Executive Order 10807 which established the Federal Council for Science and Technology. Section 6(a) of the Executive order revoked Executive Order 9912 of December 24, 1947, which had established the Interdepartmental Committee on Scientific Research and Development. However, Section 4 of the new order, which authorized the establishment of standing committees, directed the establishment of "at least one such standing committee . composed of scientist- administrators representing Federal agencies, [which] shall provide a forum for considei'ation of common administrative policies and procedures relating to Federal research and development activities and for formulation and recommendations thereon, and . such other related functions as may be assigned to it by the Chairman of the Council." Thus, provision was made for the creation of a new committee under the Federal Council to assure continuation of activity at the administrative level, which had been the focus of the Interdepartmental Committee on Scientific Research and Development.

EVALUATION OF ICSRD
There appears to be general agreement from the information in the public record that the Committee performed a useful and necessary role.
Its creation, which coincided with the formal termination of the Office of Scientific Research and Development of World War 11, provided an instrument through which the President was able to
40 Ibid, p. 30.
41 News of Science. Science Advisory Conimiiee's Recommendation for sciencee Cuicil Beilig Implemented by Executive Order, Science, v. 12, March 13, 1959, pp. 708-709. 42 Loc. cit





54

focus the collective attention of major science-oriented departments and a(rencies on common problems relating to their research and development programs. Until the National Science Foundation was established in 1950 and became operational, the ICSRD was the only governmental unit which was charged with the broad function of making research and development programs more effective in the national welfare, and thus melding the missions of the constituent agencies toward common objectives.
Both the National Science Foundation Act of 1950 and Executive Order 10521 of March 17, 1954, assigned to NSF functions which overlapped with those of the ICSRD. Among these were the functions assigned to the Foundation by section 3(a) (5) and (6) of the Act relating to interchange of scientific information and to evaluation of the scientific research programs of Federal agencies; and section 3 of Executive Order 10521, which directed that the Foundation "in concert with each Federal aaenev concerned, shall review the scientific research programs and -activities of the Federal Government in order . to formulate methods for strengthening the administration of such programs and activities by the responsible agencies.
An interagency committee is only as strong as the backing it receives from its constituent member agencies or the central direction under which it operates. The transfer in 1951 of the ICSRD to the
-National Science Foundation, a new agency whose budget did not exceed $15 million until fiscal year 1957, enabled it to survive, but the shift may have impeded its ability to deal with much larger agencies.
During its entire existence, the ICSRD maintained a low profile. It issued few reports and these were not widely distributed." Its existence was not noted in the U.S. Government Organization Manual until after it had been abolished. An NSF report, Advisory and Coordinating Mechanisms for Federal Research and Development, 1956-57
(Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1957. NSF 57-13), gave the Committee a mere two paragraphs in a position next to the last entry in the 27-page document.
Probably the most informed evaluation of the ICSRD is that by John C. Honey, an NSF employee, who had directed the Foundation's 1956 study of Federal organization for science:44
The Interdepartmental Committeefor Scientific Research and
Development was established by Executive Order in 1947. Its membership is made up of persons designated by the heads of the principal departments and agencies having research and development activities. Its secretariat is located in the National Science Foundation. Among other duties, it is directed to recommend steps to make the Government's research programs more effective in promoting the national welfare; to make recommendations on administrative policies and procedures affecting Federal research; and to study and report on current policies and administrative practices related
to Federal support of research.
43 No reports of the TCS RD were found in the main collections of the Library of Congress. 44 Honey, John C. Federal Government Organization arid Programs for Research and DevelopmentAn Overview. Federal Bar Journal, v. 17, July-September 1957, pp. 216-227. At p. 220.





55

In practice the JCSIRD has concerned itself largpelv with
administrative problems affecting Federal research. It has tended not to be a policy forum, in part, because its policy responsibilities as stated in the Executive Order which created it are so similar to those of the National Science Foundation as to have led at certain times to a sense of competition between the two organizations. There has perhaps, too, been a tendency on the part of some research officials who wish to keep science policy development decentralized in the hands of the individual agencies to play off
the JCSRD and the NSF against one another.
The ICSRD is an illustration of how an organizational response to the Deeds of one decade was found inadequate in another decade because of subsequent organizational responses to other needs and because of changing times.
73-526-76---5















IV. THE FEDERAL COUNCIL FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY FROM ITS ESTABLISHMENT UNTIL THE CREATION OF THE OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
(1959-1962)
On March 13, 1976, the Federal Council for Science and Technology had been in existence for seventeen years. Its legislative basis was Executive Order 10807, signed by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, in the last two years of his term in office. Any one of the four Presidents who have succeeded him could have abolished the Federal Council merely by issuing another Executive order, but no one did. Seven Presidential science advisers have served as Chairman of the Federal Council. All have recognized the necessity of having such a top-level coordinating body and have expressed a desire and intention to try to make the Council a stronger and more effective body.
The signing of the National Science and Technology Policy, Organization and Priorities Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-282) on May 11, 1976, ended another chapter in the continuing effort to provide for effective interagency coordination of Federal scientific and technical activities. The Federal Council as established by Executive order was abolished. In its place a Federal Coordinating Council on Science, Engineering and Technology has been established to be under the chairmanship of the Director of the new Office of Science and Technology Policy in the Executive Office of the President, and to perform en,merated and such other related advisory duties as the President or the chairman shall assign. It is the hope and expectation that this action will enable the Federal Coordinating Council to effect any necessary reorganization, without losing continuity.
With a legislative basis, the Federal Coordinating Council on Science, Engineering and Technology will be a joint executive- legislative product and responsible in certain measure to both.
The projected hearings of the Domestic and International Scientific Planning and Analysis Subcommittee of the House Committee on Science and Technology on the Federal Council will be occurring as the new Executive Office science advisory units are getting organized. In order to be able to make constructive suggestions about a future role for the Council, the subcommittee will need an understanding of the Council's past history. The previous section inclu(led conideiable detail about the Interdepartmental Committee for Scientific }Research and Development, the predecessorr agency to the Federal (1ouimcii In the sections which follow, the Federal Council's activities will he reviewed in three time periods: (1) from its establishment in i 959 until the creation of the Office of Science and Tecblno!ogy in 1q62, serving in an advisory capacity to the President: (2) a-; a (cor(lIiatilu body in the Executive Office of the President closely aligned witl tlle Office of Science and Technology, whose Director was res)on.iile !0
(57)






58

Congress, from 1962 to 1973; and (3) a,,; a coordinating body located in the National Selence Foundation, one of its constituent agencies, from 1973 to the, present.
This section focuses on the establishment and early years of the Federal Council. Tt contains considerable detail concerning the events ,which led up to the issuance of Executive Order 10807, because, as
-noted above, this Executive order is the basis for the statutory authority of the new Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineerin(y and Technology.
t) t!)
POST-SPUTNIK ACTIVITIES TO STRENGTHEN AMERICA'S SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL CAPABILITY
The Federal Council for Science and Technology was established in March 1959 in an atmosphere of cautious optimism. The near-panic mood of the Nation from the shock to its complacency by the launch of the Soviet Sputnik in October 1957 had calmed. With the appointment in November 1957 of a Special Assistant for Science and Technology and the enlargement, reconstitution, and transfer to the White House of the Science Advisory Committee, a channel for scientific and technical advice became available to the President and units of the Executive Office of the President.
The year 1958 had been the scene of action on many fronts to strenorthen the American scientific and technical capability. Presidential science adviser James R. Killian Jr. reviewed some of these efforts in an address of December 29, 1958, at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.1
Among them were
e The more than doubling of the National Science Foundation appropriation to increase its support for basic research and
science education;
Reorganization of research and development in the Defense
Department;
Passage of the National Defense Education Act to strengthen education in the Nation generally including scientific education;
Establishment of the Office of Science Adviser in the Department of State and the appointment of scientific attaches;
*Creation of NASA and the National Aeronautics and Space
Council to provide a civilian space program;
e Work of the President's Committee on Scientists and Engineers to improve the utilization of scientists and engineers;
Establishment of standing committees in the House and the Senate on Science and Astronautics and Astronautics and Space
Science, respectively; and
Activities of the President's Science Advisory Committee, including its just-published report recommending creation of a
Federal Council for Science and Technology.
I Report of Dr. James R. Killian, Jr. In U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Government Operations. Suberramittee on Reorganization and International organizations. Science, Program-86th Congress. Report of the ... Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1959. At head of title: 86th Congress Ist session. Senate Report No.,120, pp. 3-17.





59

PRESIDENT's SCIENCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMFME-NDS CREATION
OF A FEDERAL COUNCIL FOR SCIENCE AND TFECHINOLOGY
Dr. Killian's review of his first year as Special Assistant to the President for Science and Technology included an extended disucu's>ion. of the role and functions of the President's Science Advisory Comnmittee (PSAC) and its activity in several areas of civilian, science and technology.2 He did not touch on its activities in the defense area, which are known to have been extensive. The discussion, although historical since PSAC was abolished in 197.3, may be of current interest because of the insights it provided concerning the roles of the Special Assistant and PSAC during their first critical year in a White House advisory capacity. This is the setting in which the Federal Council began its existence. Of further interest are Dr. Killian' s comments concerning the recommendations of the PSAC report, Strengthening American Science, which recommended the establishment of the Federal Council, on the day after the report was made public.

SPECIAL ASSISTANT FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ANXD THE PRESIDENT';S SCIENCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE RELATIONSHIPS
President Eisenhower transferred the Science Advisory Committee from the Office of Defense Mobilization to the White House in November 1957. The reconstituted committee included eighteen members, including the Special Assistant.3 The majority of these members were selected from outside the Government to represent fields of science and technolotxv with which the Government was currently involved. However, besides the Special Assistant, the early PSAC included the Director of Research and Engineering of the Department of Defense as a member. Representatives of two other agencies-the Director of the National Science Foundation and the science adviser of the State Department-also sat with the Committee, according to Dr. Killian. In later years, PSAC was entirely made up of experts from outside the Government except for the Special Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, who was always selected by the group as its chairman.
PSAC was organized into panels made up of Committee members and other scientists and engineers from the scientific community. By this means, the Committee was able to utilize and provide a broader spectrum of advice than the Committee alone could have done.
Dr. Killian clarified his role and that of the Science Advisory Committee. He stated that neither the Committee nor he had operational responsibilities; nor did they have responsibility to decide policy. Their function-the Committee's and his0..is to provide answers to questions raised by the
President, to undertake assignments for him of an advisory kind, to mobilize the best scientific advice in the country, and make recommendations to him in regard to ways by
2 Ibid, pp. 7-14.
3 Twelve of the original eighteen members are still living.































































































































































































































































































































. ........ .












El'


































































- -------------





62

The suggestion to bring together the departments and agencies into a single department under a Secretary of Cabinet rank was not the answer on several enumerated grounds. What was needed was a way to preserve the individual freedom of the departments and agencies while encouraging all agencies to meld their individual efforts under broad common policies that seem both reasonable and desirable."
The report suggested that "an instrument of Government for bringing to the Special Assistant to the President for Science and Technology in an organized way, the advice and assistance of policy officials in the major research and development agencies could help immeasurably in developing policies for improving the planning and management of the scientific and technical programs of the Federal Government." 10 Such an instrument could be a new Federal Council for Science and Technology. Creation and definition of such a body became a principal recommendation of Strengthening American Science, as a way to improve Government planning and management. ,
The reports also made recommendations in four other main areas:
(1) strengthening Government laboratories (including a recommendation that each department with substantial science and technology responsibilities designate an official to represent the department at the policy level and to represent it on the Federal Council); (2) guidelines for Government-sponsored research in non-Government institutions (including industry, nonprofit institutes, and universities); (3) necessity for adequate capital support for science (including a recommendation that the Federal Council prepare projections of the capital requirements of the Federal agencies); and (4) suggestions for greater private support of research.
DR. KILLING'S SUMMARY OF THE REPORT
Dr. Killian's review of 1958 contained the following summary of the report of the PSAC Panel on Research Policy. Although he discussed first the recommendation with respect to the Federal Council, much of the summary was devoted to the Panel's other recommendations and he reiterated the conclusion of the report that the task of further strengthening American science required the participation and contribution of Government, industry, universities, foundations, and individuals:
Research policy

* the Science Advisory Committee's Panel on Research
Policy has just published a report entitled, "Strengthening American Science," which deals with the role of the Federat Government in research and development. The President has directed that an executive order be prepared to carry out the recommendation of the report that a Federal Council for Science and Technology be established to advise the Cabinet on those aspects of the Government's program which require interdepartmental and governmentwide coordination and policymakincr and which affect science as a whole. Membership on the Council will ineltide representatives of the departments and agencies which have substantial research
10, Ibid, p. 12.
H-Report of Dr. James R. Killian, Jr. op. cit.





63

activities, these representatives to be drawn from the policNmaking levels of these departments and agencies. The Council, made up of Government officers, can call for advice from the President's Science Advisoiy Committee, which 4 raxv its members largely from the Nation's scientific and en1gineri:Tg community outside of Government.
While searching for ways to improve public manage 'ment where it relates to science, the report dlevotes attention to the nurturing of important new scientific fields and the strengthening of those which are assuming new importance. eteorology is one example where additional capital funds and emphasis are necessary. Geology, geophysics, oceanography, materials research, radio astronomy, studies of the upper atmosphere, and combustion, are other examples where augmented support and effort are clearly needed.
Government operations increasingly have brought growing demands for the fruits of research and more support for actual work performed. There has been no comparable provision, however, for new instruments and facilities except in certain specialized fields. Capital deficiencies, moreover, are being further aggravated by the rapid progress occurring in the improvement and invention of the instruments of science themselves.
The Panel urges the formulation of thoughtfully conceived 'policies for the financing and planning of the great multimillion dollar research instruments of modern science, such as particle accelerators for nuclear physics, and of centralized research institutes which are needed or proposed in various fields. We are at a point where we need to bring together the best available judgment from the domains of Government, education, and science to determine how far we should go in the establishment of research institutes and what their relations should be with the universities. Unsound planning might result in weakening the universities and, by drawing away from them too many research scholars, in reducing their capacity to nurture new scholars.
The importance of the role of private support in the Nation's total scientific effort is emphasized. Private foundations are uniquely qualified to provide venture capital to grubstake new ideas and to support men as well as projects.
The growth of Federal support of science in recent years has been marked by some hesitancy on the part of private sources of funds to maintain the level of their contributions to academic and other nonprofit institutions. It would be most unfortunate if this hesitancy were to continue or spread, for there are growing opportunities for private philanthropy to contribute to the strength and freedom of American science. It is vitally important, therefore, that Government science policy does not discourage private support of science, but indeed, that it takes pains to encourage more of it.
In making public yesterday the report of the Science Advisory Committee, the President called particular attention to its conclusion that the task of further strengthening U.S. science is so broad that Government, industry, universities,





64

foundations, and individuals all have vital roles to play. The future growth of American science will depend upon increased participation and contributions by all of these types of institutions if we are to be equal to the full range of opportunities which lie ahead.'12

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PSAC RECOMMENDATION To ESTABLISH A
FEDERAL COUNCIL FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Although the President requested that the Federal Council be brought into existence "without delay", it was another three and a hall' months before the Executive order implementing the PSAC recommendation was issued. Two main problems had to be solved. One was the membership of the Council; the other was the reconciliation of already existing Executive orders to the new one.13 Resolution of these difficulties was handled by Bureau of the Budget personnel, and the final product was reviewed by the Justice Department for possible legal problems which may have been overlooked.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 10807
President Eisenhower signed Executive Order 10807 on March 13, 1959. In an accompanying White House statement, the President said:
I believe that the new Federal Council for Science and
Technology can effectively aid the objective of improving the ways in which the Federal Government uses and supports science. Moreover, the report of my Science Advisory Committee on "Strengthening American Science" also pointed to a number of opportunities for advancing our total national program. I expect the new Council to consider and evaluate these opportunities and to encourage all Government agencies further to increase the quality of their efforts in these fields. By fostering greater cooperation among Federal agencies in planning their research and development programs, by facilitating the resolution of common problems, and by reviewing the impact of government policies on the programs of non-governmental institutions, the Council should be able to contribute greatly to the development and advancement of our national
programs in these important and critical areas.
Thus, at the same time, he both welcomed the Council and gave it its first assignment-to consider and evaluate the opportunities for advancing our total national program and to encourage all'Government agencies to improve their efforts in these fields. The "opportunities"-alluded to in the President's statement were those in scientific fields such as meteorology,. materials research, oceanography, etc. for which additional support had been urged in the PSAC report.
12 Ibid. pr,. 10i-11.
13 News of Science,: Science Advisory Comnmittee's Recommendation for Science Council Being Implemiented by Executive Order. Science, v. 129, March 13, 1959, pp. 708-709.





65

SECTIONAL ANALYSIS OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 10807
A sectional analysis of Executive Order 10807 in chart form appears below:
Section 1. Establishment of Council
Name: Federal Council for Science and Technology.
Members: (1) Special Assistant to the President for Science and Technology; (2) One representative of policy rank to be named by Secretary of these departments:
Department of Defense.
Department of the Interior.
Department of Agriculture.
Department of Commerce.
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
(3) Director, National Science Foundation; (4) Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration; (5) Chairman or another member of the Commission of the Atomic Energy Commission.
Observers: Department of State; Bureau of the Bud(ret.
Chairman: To be designated by the President from time to time from among the members. Chairman to designate members to act temporarily as Chairman.
Participation by other agencies: Chairman may request representation from non-Member or Observer agencies at meetings concerned with matters of substantial interest to those agencies; Chairman may also invite other persons to attend Council meetings.
Meetings: At call of Chairman. Section 2. Functions of Council
(a) Consider problems and developments in the fields of science and technology and related activities affecting more than one Federal agency or concerning the over-all advancement of the Nation's science and technology, and recommend policies and other measures(1) to provide more effective planning and administration of
Federal scientific and technological programs,
(2) to identify research needs including areas of research requiring additional emphasis,
(3) to achieve more effective utilization of the scientific and
technological resources and f facilities of Federal agencies, including the elimination of unnecessary duplication, and
(4) to further international cooperation in science and technology.
In developing these policies the Council, after consultation, as
considered appropriate by the Chairman, with the National Academy of Sciences, the President's Science Advisory Committee or other organizations, shall consider
(i) the effects of Federal research and development
policies and programs on non-Federal programs and
institutions,
(ii) long-range program plans designed to meet the
scientific and technological needs of the Federal Government, including manpower and capital requirements, and





66

(iii) the effects- of non-Federal programs in science and
technology upon Federal research and development policies
and programs.
(b) Consider and recommend measures for the effective implementation of Federal policies concerning the administration and conduct of Federal programs in science and technology.
(c) Perform such other related duties as shall be assigned, consonant with law by the President or the Chairman.
(d) Chairman shall, from time to time, submit to the President such of the Council's recommendations or reports as require the attention of the President by reason of their importance or character. Section 3. Agency assistance to Council
(a) Each Federal agency represented on the Council shall furnish necessary assistance to the Council . Such assistance may include
(1) detailing employees to the Council to perform such functions . as the Chairman may assign to them, and (2) undertaking, upon request of the Chairman, such special studies for the Council as come within the functions herein assigned to the Council.
(b) Upon request of the Chairman, the heads of Federal agencies shall, so far as practicable, provide the Council with information and reports relating to [their] scientific and technological activities Section 4. Standing committees and panels
Standing committees and panels may be established for the purpose of conducting studies and making reports as directed by the Chairman.
At least one such standing committee shall be composed of scientistadministrators representing Federal agencies, shall provide a forum for consideration of common administrative policies and procedures relating to Federal research and development activities and for formulation of recommendations thereon, and shall perform such other related functions as Chairman of the Council may assign. Section 5. Security procedures
Chairman shall establish procedures to insure the security of classified information used by or in custody of the Council or employees under its jurisdiction.
Section 6. Other orders; construction of orders
Executive Order No. 9912: (a) Executive Order No. 9912 of December 24, 1947, entitled "Establishing the Interdepartmental Committee on Scientific Research and Development," is hereby revoked.
Executive Order No. 10521: (b) Executive Order No. 10521 of March 17, 1954, entitled "Administration of Scientific Research by Agencies of the Federal Government," is amended(1) Sections 1 and 3 are amended to clarify that the responsibility of the National Science Foundation extends to basic scientific research and education in the sciences, rather than to
all scientific research.
(2) Paragraph c of section 8 relating to the Interdepartmental
Committee on Scientific Research and Development is eliminated.
(3) A new section 10 assigns to the National Science Foundation
a leadership role in the effective coordination of the scientific
information activities of the Federal Government.





67

Relationship of Executive Order 10521 to Executive Order 10807:
(c) Provisions of Executive Order 10521, as amended, shall not limit the functions of the Federal Council under Executive Order 10807; nor shall Executive Order 10807 limit the functions of any Federal agency or officer under Executive Order 10521, as amended.
Advisory status of Federal Covncil: (d) The Council shall be advisory to the President and to the heads of Federal agencies represented on the Council. Executive Order 10807 shall not be construed as subjecting any agency, officer, or function to control by the Council.
COMPARISON OF E.O. 9912 WITH PSAC RECOMMENDATIONS AND WITHE.O. 10807
The following chart sets forth the provisions of the Executive order which established the Interpartmental Committee on Scientific
Research and Development in juxtaposition to the recommendations for the Federal Council for Science and Technology in the PSAC report, Strengthening American Science, and to Executive Order 10807 which established the Council.

INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE-FEDERAL COUNCIL RELATIONSHIP
It is obvious from the chart that in many respects the general format, recommended by the PSAC report for the Federal Council followed that in the Executive order which established the Interdepartmental Committee. Major differences were in the level of representation and in the definition of functions for the Federal Council. The intention was clearly to establish a policy-level body with broader functions than had been given to the Interdepartmental Committee. The fact that the PSAC report recommended examination of the Executive order which had established the ICSRD to ensure that it was consonant with the functions recommended for the new council indicated that it did not view the new body would be merely a substitute for the other.
Executive Order 10807 resolved the problem by abolishing the ICSRD but specifying that at least one standing committee of the Federal Council shall be composed of scientist-administrators to, provide a forum for consideration of common administrative policies. and procedures on, and recommendations relating to, Federal research and development activities.











68



a 0 W c 0
0 U Q>
Z E C .0-: E
CD _6 ma E Tv a) (D W 0
CO MO> E GI
d) Cc E:: < Wm
E C'o LL- U
E E W E W c
cu -0
QC E F- c u E
CC W 0 E c=, = W W w
V) .-a) m m -Z
-0 m a)
0 a E co
CD.- E E cu cu 0
M--
c W CO C-) ;-- w= 00
co W a
1, > M.2 bo
ODE W E 4" 0 m
U. i L;-- 0-0 c tw= N"o
E m MO =0cc U
-.0 ct, c
00 LO O'c cc 0
W a m cc
WO ci
a_ W
E 0 > 0-0 Q-0 M
o W 0 .0 a CD C4 Q C > 5 E
Lj_ CD E w a W-o CD=.- --- M W
M 3: < E CD M =-a c =
W (D! -cia- Q> W-0
U- uwu cEwg, o 4ix a) a) E.- MCLM E p W-, "0 a a CD C-= (Dt= *= co
= mow== C,30-w
60 E.,-. ww Q.---E-M w 4) U cc
0 ca... a.- w W m >1 Mo a
m W W,-== m4- 00 >,L ca W= M c a)- c 4V)= EM4- Wm cn -- UO 0 0
o- -E- m C.> W C13 w
W- CUM oE.->,w 5 wa E -2 a=) E 0 W 0 CO
oo (D 0>0 W 0 E (D E 1:3
0 W-0-0 c) cr 0 0 a (D
m cu 0 W
> E m, 8 m U E M= 0
>
CD
C) cl-WE
ow ZE -M 01- tw-= -=U=
mm m > M C .- V) M4" 4C CD 0 C d, cc m tw oo"W==UW O
W ca (D-O'- q 4)-- -=-a W
ww-CZ tw= E wm
7.24V m 4' tj
-= C-) CD MU 0 0
M 0 EUJ -*V; m
C-) .60cxv) G)Q 0 u M 4) w 0 U> *a E 01 0 W CD m
E E-0 = w cc > m cD 0 M Cc
w=WQ)(D -E CD
< m %ME=W, ,') Z
CLo.,, E o E 0 m -cr
't cu.0 E L,.ZG w -o *5; 7
CD <
-0 0 ou ca M= ow.- UMEK
x W C14 cn


w >,W W=-O
CJ
00 4)
0 4) = =
a) CL= Mo > C-0 -0 -0 CL(D
4) o CLO -0 a) m CD 0 E
< E E "o CD
1-0 CD aw -0
Q) 0 = w M 0 CD V)
L> < .0 0.1- c CO M LJ
m a W r-r 0 CL
tv,.)
Z2 O= CD 404) Q
LLLJ CLE-2 a -6
(D =.- a)
CD'5 (D 0 M
2 4) -0 E Cj- _W=
< M= M E 0
E E m-a m
MOOD E w gn .0 cj cc w W C=
M.- m 0.2 W W C4- OCO
w m 0 WMO O=E*A= w 0 = CDW W a,..- m CC. CA 0 .6-M -O"OMOM G) Q CD U -0
0 .0"o = E w "* Z; W W > C4,-a E M.= Q .- =I- .
4-.0. U 0 4) 46 000 -y m 'n -"
-6 W- = w 4) = = wcm--O= ca
wi C6 0-0 M W.- 10 4) .- two E 0
C=W (D m
cc 0 CL
E-- w ca W 0 (D E S E 4) 0 ow
E
m _0 E con a I -a) tx.(D.- 0 =3 (D >N 0
CL= > 0 E-- E
W"O =< m U
X (D 0 ou -a q "oa) 0 0
E => .0-6m= == -0 (n
c a)
M=M
4) E WE
Cl) C.) W 0 tm MW c
< E m >
C/) 4) M"O"m
z CL 0 m MO E
0 CD > W'- CL E .2 um 0 m
0 mo-500- a) o E = Cc, 0- Q') ('D =01 lad= W
WO CL-0 M -=OCD.w 0 m u -04. : E 00"
a -4- = 4- WW = E C-) 0 >,O 0 0 M WC.7 CLWW
0 CD 4) LU 0 44)WOJ--m0 0""C5 = 4
0 > maw E<= m -4-00L O(DWCD -a-Om.=o,-Q
a)c,
m C-)
v -.2:= cu a> m _-Ec-w =40 m a) m cc W o, d) 0 =4- t- ca
W 0,0 00 W.M a 0 >
W d) 'CL
o<
E W 0 CL E Lf =m
C.) 7
E "o O=U a) W ca
0 0 (D
(D j3 MO- Q>
C-) d) "0 uui-W-u (D E m "06 =M m 06L""o
0 W (D m o,
=W LL. LAJ
W

0 W 04 (A V) W m
>M- 0
(D :ca = C Q- a) .- .o .7, .2 E
-1
CT) E m mu-j 0 LA- 0 ECO E
0- uz= MC. w
o.2 E E E o
Mo 0 0E = ou
W o-< o<
W ILJ- E >
cli W c CL W 0
wi 4 I W- M -.- 0
4) >S=z = = I (D I I ==
L; I M-0 W
E=m cD Q (D > = (DCL In
E E
w = E E= r
>1 0-0 CD 0
fou .0"w-
LLJ C-17 O-Z-cm CD d)Q ID MO- -o W Q =3
E Z= I ,, : Q) co-Zm -.a"
14 L) > ci a), C6 W a) (D m
> m .WIC == -, E ::-,w
cn : 5
;;OwcnwmoE'w
OL
C:)= 0 4).*
=-a M-0 0 Cb a 0 E (D
UU -6 0
a E )%
Wc Em 0 L.L. (D E Z (D ca
E M
In W E 04 >
,X cn 0) -=.E M-m (DE >1- W.- 4) m
d)
U- > -m E E = E E
03 Mo
(D cL'> E -0 E E 4)
a) cr.20DE =2 -cD Q= E o,
x
















0A
> E

E E W
m










69



== w >-,w w ;; = -0 4) U= Cc E '_ = = 0 t.)
0 a m
4" E" U (IJ
E CLO .72 cr cc cn 0." 0> (D CD
Z < CD M t E c m E cL Z E w cto -0 0. 5. M
CD 0> > W.t: 0 (D C
E cc w -0 E
M. 0.4 w = W*Q W- w a v
-0 a In-a w C:r cn
E w_ 0 = oc' w "
= 0'a -0 -0 a w E w
0 M E ca E-0 M 0
> (D (D M(l) M': : .0-0 oU_M 0 CD >,
tm tz -= CD:5 ) w ci
cQ _= 41 OE C-0
W c -0 0 -0.!= 0.= cn U_ 0 0
0 E
U-0 0. "a mw= M
M 0.0 0 =_= a, ca. (D .- V)
to c C> CD 00 0 coo
ODU = 0 _" 0= a
cn w (n 0 .0-0 (n MO r_0 M C' C4 O) 0.- 0-0
r ma =W==w m _w 0 ba 0
E mm -om >% w
= W *.;-- 4' M 0
-0 V) -a 0 4-:= C4 :3 0 CD a m.- co (D 0 a
M.- a) 0 (D E m C w cn m C4 cc E n C D "W '" =m
C.3 W U_ -0 W W -0 0 0to; W -CC=W.04E=z
= ca C-0 E (L) (n C.
E-- cc
0 M -0 cc Q WO- 0 E 43 m EaLc- =wQ tn
(D m W .= -0 -W 0
=c =U- W _cm. r- 0 cn cn-=
'0 -6 m w 0 E MV) U U-vw
M cn =CD Z:5 E 0
(n ca tw tw w tnW U OLA_ M E- CO -ar. M W cn 0 >M
tn M -1 w 0 >% V) Q)_= - tn
= 4- ca Q U=
00 E w o E
LA. E 0 0 CL060 0 4).01 w '.; -_ w
0 M-0
CLO a) 0 co 500m>-0 5
0.-= 0 W=
E cn >'o u CD W= (D
C43 = 0 0 a) :3 OCO
m t),O= 04 E '4 C> P (L)
ca O='O --.Oca)c)v) ou 0) L> 4) V) :3 MI; = o
tn a) CL= cn M
cr= E u EIS 0 a M=.WM*0 M E -C % (D 0 e a) C) .0 M > OZ 0 'n
004 Q
0 03 4- a,- CL
E:= co-w.- cL(D M 0
0 ".4'0 CD C_> 0 tn, Q 0 Q- o = c3 E
E, LU a) Q M r
en 00,_ E
Ll WQ ;6'QO-M =Uo
Ca M M M cn
Q


u 0

>= E
E CLL)
0
Q
> 0 0
cc > (Do 0
E
(DO 0 M Q) 0
E
E-6 a) LJ CZ S-_ u
M 0 Q. M >,= 4 1
al no CD
0'.;7, tW M r- co
co M
(n W CD W.- EOOM
w ca. Q W_=
0-F4 4,
E*= 0 0 = = E
M = 0 C4 0 M.- w
CD = cn
0
E'= lu M (D IU
CL 0 = w
040, O"D w E
CD E cc Q _=
E
(v M M ca
> E ,, =.2.- CL >,
w C1 on
E ooE-a ba
E C) cr M 4- tn
0 a- (D
E mo.L) -;; Z: (n 0
0 E CD L,) CV3 c E (1)

In M ME W"
4) 2 U_ M co
-3 E 0
CL'.' 00 0 tn
CD CD
.0 0= C 0 =-;;
M

0 "a
tn t 05 w u = cn
E E (D-i; 4n
tn M-OLj_ cc







Ef
E



4n
4) M
cr E

CD
tw
m


w CD EE=
CLO w E
M

M
E E E










ca




E
E
E

cc



ca
<






'70

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE PSAC RECOMMENDATIONS AND E.O. 10807
In general, the organization and functions recommended by the PSAC panel were incorporated into the Executive order establishing the Council. The principal points of difference relate to the chairman, additional functions specified in the Executive order, a provision for establishment of standing committees and panels, and the actions taken to reconcile Executive Orders 9912 of December 24, 1947, and 10521 of March 17, 1954.
Uhairman.-The PSAC panel had recommended that the Special Assistant to the President for Science and Technology should be the chairman of the Federal Council; the Executive order specified that the chairm an shall be designated by the President from among- the Council membership. In practice, the President has always designated his Special Assistant for Science and Technology or Science Adviser as chairman of the Federal Council.
The Executive Order provided that the Council shall meet at the call of the Chairman. Another important function of the Chairman was the assignment to him in the Executive order to "submit to the President such of the Council's recommendations or reports as require the attention of the President by reason of their importance or character." (Section 2(d).) Presumably the determination of which recommendations or reports should be submitted to the President would be madle by the Chairman, in concert with the Council.
Thinctions.-The Executive order assigned two additional responsibilities to the Council-to recommend policy measures and other needs including areas of research requiring additional emphasis (identification of gaps); and, to further international cooperation in science and technology. Provision for the assignment of additional functions not specified in the Executive order was made in a general assignment to the Council to perform "such other related (duties as shall be assigned, consonant with law, by the President or by the Chairman."
Standing C~omm ittees and Panels.-The PSAC panel report was silent on the establishment, of subcommittees. However, section 4 of Executive Order 10807 authorized the establishment of standing committees and panels for the purpose of conducting studies and making reports, and directed that at least one standing committee should be composed of s cien tis t-ad minis tra tors to provide a forum for consideration of common administrative policies and procedures relating to Federal research and development activities and the development of recommendations.

RECONCILIATION WITH OTHER EXECUTIVE ORDERS
Executive Order 10807 revoked Executive Order 9912 of December 24, 1947, thereby abolishing the Interdepartmental Committee on Scientific Research and Dev elopment. It also amended Executive Order 10521 of March 17, 1954 to (delete section 8(c) which had directed the Interdepartmental Committee to maintain and disseminate informnation. on equipment and facilities for multiagency use. Sections 1 and 3 of that Executive order were further amended to clarify that the authority of the National Science Foundation extended to basic scientific research and education in the sciencies, rather than to scientific research in general. Finally,- a new section 10 was added to






71

Executive Order 10521 assigning to the National Science Foundation a leadership role in the coordination of scientific information activities.

CLARIFICATION OF FEDERAL COUNCIL AUTHORITY VIS-A-VIS FEDERAL AGENCIES
The final two sections of Executive Order 10807 defined the authority of the Federal Council vis-a-vis other Federal agencies. Section 6(c) provided that Executive Order 10521, as amended', shall not limit the functions of the Federal Council as defined in this order, nor sb al Executive Order 10807 limit the functions of any Federal agency or officer under Executive Order 10521. Section 6(d) stated unequlivocally, "The Council shall be advisory to the President and to the heads of Federal agencies represented on the Council; accordingly, this order shall not be construed as subjecting any agency, officer, or function to. control by the Council." [italics supplied.]

AMENDMENT TO EXECUTIVE ORDER 10807

Executive Order 10807 has been amended only once since its proinulgation, by Executive Order 11381 of November 8, 1967. This latter order added representatives from the newly-established departments, of Housing and Urban Development, and Transportation to member-ship on the Council and also elevated the Depaxtment of State from observer to member status.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 10807 IS THE BASIS FOR TITLE IV OF P.L. 94-282

Further evidence of the durability of Executive Order 10807 is that the statutory provisions of the National Science and Techn.ology Policy, Organization and Priorities Act (P.L. 94-282) which established the Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Enginace ring, and Technology are draw-n in large part from it. (See Section V11)..
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS OF THE FEDERAL COUNCIL FOR
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (1959-1962)'
ADVISORY STATUS OF THE COUNCIL
Section 6(d) of Executive Order 10807 defined the Federal Council's role as "advisory to the President and to the heads of Federal agencies represented on the Council . ." This meant that the Council's activities were privileged information. The advisory status of the Council was reinforced by President Eisenhower's designation of his Special Assistant for Science and Technology to be the chairman. Under the terms of the Executive order, the Council met at the call of the chairman. Thus, the Council occupied a privileged status by definition, aaid because it was under the direction. of a person who also served in an advisory role to the President.
The privileged status of the Federal Council was responsible for congressional uneasiness, frustration-, and-irritation from the beginning. It meant that the only information made public concerning the Council or its constituent bodies was that which the President wished to release. The Council could not be questioned by Congress concerning its activities or operations nor did it have to report to Congress.
73-526-76-6






72
Thl~is reticence was particularly frustrating to the Subcommittee on Reorganization and International Organizations of the Senate Government Operations Committee which since 1957 had been involved in an investigation of the need for reorganization of Federal scientific and technical activities and had introduced legislation to establish a Department of Science and Trechnology. The Subcomimittee chairman, Senator Hubert Humphrey, had invited Dr. Killian to testify at hearings during April and May 1959. Dr. Killian refused on the basis of his White House advisory role. The following letter .of 'March 31, 1959, was introduced into the May 28, 1959, hearing recordI: 14
DEAR SENATOR HUMiPHREY: I appreciate very much being
invited to testify at the hearings to be held by the Senate Committee on Government Operations and bill S. 676 to
create a Department of Science and Technology.
Under normal circumstances, I would welcome the opportuinity to testify. Under present circumstances, I believe it to be inappropriate for me to do so because of my advisory
functions here in the White House.
You doubtlessly know about the report of the President's
Science Advisory Coimmittee entitled "Strengthening Amnerican Science."
This report contained comments and recommendations
g-ermane to the hearings which the committee is holding.
It was in this report that the recommendations originated for establishing the Federal Council for Science and Technology which has now been brought into being by a Presidential Executive order.
I enclose a. copy of this report on the chance that you might
not have had an opportunity to see it.
Senator Humphrey decried the inability of Congress to get full information upon which to take constructive action. When a witness, NSF Director Alan Waterman, noted that the Council would be bringingr directly to the President those matters which need to be considered by the President personally, Senator Humphrey asked: "What does this wonderful council ever say to the Congress?" Not agreeing with Dr. Waterman's response, he continued, "Let me tell you what my view of it is. I understand the reports of those councils are Executive privilege reports. Members of Congress never see them. We see the reports as they are filtered, strained, restrained, and constrained. In other words, we see them after they have been given the working over by the Bureau of the Budget and everybody else.... we never get the real gory details. .. I use this opportunity to say that I protest this kind of treatment and withholding of privileged material. It just makes it impossible for a committee of Congress to ever get full informnation upon which to take constructive action." 15
14 U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Government Onerations. Subcommittee on Reorganization and ilultrational Organizations. Create a Department of Sci~nce and Technology. Hearings ... 86th Conigress, 1st session on S. 67%, S .586, S. IS51. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1959. 2 parts. Part 2, pp. 127I~ bid, p. 128,






73

Later on, Senator Humphrey observed, "I can understand from the Executive point of view how they would like to keep that all to themselves, but I have a feeling that only when these councils in the Executive Office of the President share frankly with legislative representatives openly, candidly, and cooperatively, that there will be real cooperation and coordination of the Federal science activities." 1
Consequently, during the 1959-1962 period, before the Office of Science and Technology was established there is little published information about the Federal Council.

FIRST PUBLISHED ACTIVIr1IES REPORT ON FEDERAL COUNCIL IN 1962
After three years of silence, the Administration in 1962 took the initiative in offering to pi epare for Congress an activities report concerning actions taken by the Executive Office science advisory units. It came about when Deputy Bureau of the Budget Director Elmer B. Staats testified before the Senate Government Operations Committee in May 1962 on pending legislation to create a Commission on Science and Technology and on Reorganization Plan No. 2,'17 to create an Office of Science and Technology. Mr. Staats' remarks were directed toward putting off action to create a Commission on Science and Technology because of improvements in organization, planning and operation of Federal science programs during the past few years, and because of further expected improvements through the reorganization plan. He reviewed some of the improvements and then made the offer: 18
I have mentioned, Mr. Chairman, only a few of the activities to give you some idea of the scope and breadth of the subjects which we have been concerned with. It occurs to me that, if the committee desired, we would be willing to consider with the Science Adviser, and with the Director of the National Science Foundation, a kind of progress report on the varied activities that we have been concerned with tryinDg to lead to some improvement in their management.
The Chairman accepted the offer. Subsequently, Mr. Staats trans mitted a document entitled, "Report on Federal Council for Science) a nd Technology" to the Chairman with a covering letter of June 2C, 1962.19 The report discussed the authority, functions, and organization of the Federal Council, included a brief summary section on Council activities, and short reports on the functions and activities of each of the seven committees which had been established to date. (Appendix H). Although brief, the report provided useful clues to subjects which had engaged the attention of the Federal Council during its first years.
MEMBERSHIP
The initial list of Council members is shown on p. 74. For comparison, a listing of the members of the Interdepartmental Committee on Scientific Research and Development before its abolition is also shown.
16 Ibid, p. 1-29.
17 U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Government Operations. Create a Commission on Science and Te-chnology. Tleariag, 87th Congress, 2d session on S. 2771. May 10, July 24, 1962. Wa hington, U.S. Govt. P ri nt. Off ., 1962. 2 parts. P art 1, pp. 22-34.
Is Ibid, p. 27.
19 Report on Federal Council for Science and Technology. In Create a Commission on Science and Technology. Hearings. I bd, part 2, pp. 159-167. Referred to subsequently as the 1959-62 report."







074

TABLE 1
COMPARISON OF INITIAL FCST MEMBERSHIP WITH ICSRD MEMBERSHIP

Interdepartmental Committee on Scientific
Federal Council for Science and Technology I Research and Development 2

Executive Office of the Presi- Dr. James R. Killian, Jr. (chairman)
dent.
Departmentof Agriculture----. Ervin L. Peterson, Assistant Secretary of Dr. Byron T. Shaw, Administrator, AgriculAgriculture. tural Research Service.
Departmentof Comre-- Lewis Strauss, Secretary of Commerce----Dr. A. V. Astin, Director, National Bureau of Standards.
Department of Defense ------ Dr. Herbert F. York, Director of Defense Mr. J. B. Macauley, Deputy Director of
Research and Engineering. Defense Research and Engineering, DOD;
Rear Adm. Rawson Bennett, Chief, ONR,
Navy; Mai. Gen. Marvin C. Demler,
Director of Research and Development,
Deputy Chief of Staff, Air Force; Dr.
Richard A. Weiss, Scientific Director.
Army Research, Army.
Department of Health Educa- Aims C. McGuiness, Special Assistant to the Assistant Surgeon General James A. Shantion, and Welfare. Secretary. non, Director, National Institutes of
Health.
Department of the Interior ----. Elmer Bennett, Under Secretary of the Dr. Thomas B. Nolan, Director, Geological I nterior. Survey (Vice Chairman).
Department of State --------Dr. Wallace Broo'e, Science Adviser (ob- Dr. Wallace Brode, Science Adviser to the
server only). Secretary of State.
Atomic Energy Commission... Willard Libby, Commissioner------------Dr. Charles L. Dunham, Director, Division of
Bureau of the Budget -------Elmer Staats, Deputy Director (observer BilganMecn.
only).
National Aeronautics and Dr. T. Keith Glenna n, Administrator -------Dr. Hugh L. Dryden, Deputy Administrator.
Space Administration.
National Science Foundation.. Dr. Alan T. Waterman, Director ----------- Dr. Alan T. Waterman(Chairman).
Veterans' Administration--------------------------------------- Dr. John B. Barnwell, Asst. Chief Medical
Director for Research and Education.Smithsonianlnttto------------------Dr. Leonard Carmichael, Secretary.

IPersons named or notice of first Council meeting, Mar. 24, 1959.
2 "Congressional Directory," March 1959.

In a few cases, the same individual represented his agency on both bodies, but for the most part the Federal Council members were of conside1'ab')T higher level. The Department of Defense had had four representatives on the Interdepartmental Committee but now had onlY one on the Federal Council.
The State Department was accorded only observer status despite the fact that one of the stated objectives of the Council was to "recommnend policies and other measures * to further international cooperation in science and technology." This situation was not remedied until 1967 when the Departmient was accorded member status.20 A third agency observer during this period was the Administrator, Federal Aviation Agen Cy.
Determrining which departments and agencies should'be represented on the Council was reported to have been one of the reasons for the delay in setting it up."' Executive Order 10807 followed the recommendations of the PSAC report, by including those agencies with the largest expenditures for scientific activity.
It is also reported that the assignment to the Secretary of each of the five departments to be represented the task of designating an official of policy rank to sit on the Council had an immediate salutary eff ect. It brought to the fore in the departments the question whether they had an official of policy rank who could represent all the scientific activity within that department. If such a person could not be found, "dutties were assigned and staff work was begun that would fill the need. This is one- of the things the Science Advisory Committee's report was designed to accomplish." 2

20 Executive Order 11381, Nov. 8, 19671.
21 Science Advikory CommPni tee's Recomnmendalion for Science Council Being Trnpleinented b~y Executive Order, op). cit., p. 708.
22 11)id, 1). 709.






75

The Commerce and Interior Departments are cases in point. In the former case, initially the Secretary represented his dlepartment;
-similarly, the Under Secretary represented the Interior Dep al'tment. Subsequently, an authority to establish one Assistant Secretary in the Department of Commerce was granted.23 This po-ition has beeni ,designated Assistant Secretary for Science and Teboor and the incumbent is the Commerce representative on the Federal Council. In the Department of the Interior a Science Adviser to the Secretary was named and this person represented the Department. 2'

ATTENDANCE AT COUNCIL MEETINGS
During this initial period, the record, of attendance by designated members of the Council was quite good. In later years this was not the case in many instances.
MEETINGS
The Federal Council for Science and Technology held its first meeting on March 24, 1959. It held eight more meetings in 1959. 'There were nine meetings in 1960; eleven in 1961; and thirteen in 1962.2
The meetings were under the direction of the Special Assistant to the President for Science and Technology and were regarded as advisory to the President. As such, they were closed to all except members, observers, invited representatives, and staff.
Meetings of the Federal Council proper were separate from meetings
-of each of the several subject area committees and panels which were
-established under the Federal Council. Limited information is available for this early period; most met several times a year and at least ,one of these committees met monthly.

STAFFING AND FUNDING
During the 1959-1962 period, the Federal Council was located in the Office of the Special Assistant to the President for Science and Technology. The Special Assistants were James R. Killian, Jr., until July 1959, Dr. George B. Kistiakowsky, from July 1959 to January 1961, and Dr. Jerome B. Wiesner, January 1961 to January 1964. There is nothing in the public record to indicate what staffing was made available to the Council beyond the Executive Secretary. According to a former staff member, total full-time professional staff serving the Special Assistant, PSAC and its panels, and the Federal Council never exceeded eight full-time professionals during the period preceding the establishment of the Office of Science and 'Technology.2
Robert N. Kreidler, a technical assistant in the Office of the Special ,Assistant, was the first executive secretary of the Council. He served until July 1961. This was not a full-time position. Mr. Kreidler is listed as technical assistant to the panel on basic research and graduate
23 P.L. 87-405, Feb. 16, 1962.
24 The Dre.Rent Interior representative is the Assistant Secretary for Energy and Minerals. 25 U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Government Operations. The Office of Science and Technology; .A Report Prepared by the Science Policy Research Division . for the Military Operations Subcomm~ittee. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1967. 326 p. [at head of title: 90th Congress 1st session. Committee print.) p. 5M.
26 Kreidler, Robert N. The President's Science Advisers. In Gilpin, Robert and Christopher Wright' Scientists and National Policy-Making. New York, Columnbia University Press, 1964, 307 p. At p. i21*-





76

education of the President's Science Advisory Committee which reported November 1960 on "Scientific Progress, the Universities, and the Federal Government."
Dr. Edward Wenk, Jr., succeeded Mr. Kreidler as executive secretary, and continued in this position through the establishment of the Office of Science and Technology until he left the Executive Office of the President to establish a new Science Policy Research Division in the Library of Congress in 1964.
Staffing for the committees set up under Federal Council aegis was provided by participating agencies as authorized by section 3 of Executive Order 10807. The 1959-62 report noted that "committee chairmen ordinarily designate members of their own organization to assist. While this staff effort is usually on a part-time basis, the scope of activities in the case of the Interagency Committee on Oceanography now involves full-time assistance."
The PSAC panel which recommended the establishment of the Federal Council had suggested the National Science Foundation and the Bureau of the Budget as possible sources of staff assistance. The record indicates that both did provide assistance but does not show how much was furnished.
Expenses for the Special Assistant, the President's Science Advisory Committee and the Federal Council's activities came out of an allocation for Science and Technology in the White House Special Projects Fund. Table 2 provides as much information concerning the Fund as is publicly available, from appropriations data or other published sources Since no breakdowns of the Science and Technology component were found, we do not know what part of these funds went for the support of the Federal Council.
TABLE 2
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY IN THE WHITE HOUSE SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND, FISCAL YEARS 1958-62
Actual obligations: Fiscal year1958 1959 1960 1961 1962
Special projects, White House Office:
$1 375,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1, 500, 000, Actual 11381,295 1,329,970 1,301,000 1,258,000
Functions:
Science and technology ------------------------------------------ 1 195,000 2435,000 3 4 698, OOD
Personnel management -----------------Public works These functions account for the balance of the Special Projects
Council on Foreign Economic Policy ------- I Fund.
Total positions, Special Projects Fund ------------- 114 120 120 5 110 5 120
Estimated obligations, fiscal year 1960 as of Feb. 29, 19GO. Source: House. General Government Appropriation for 1961, p. 90.
2 Estimated obligations. Source: Senate. General Government Matters Appropriation, 1962, p. 690.
3 Estimated expenditures. Source: Senate. Independent Offices Appropriation, 19'3, p. 117.
4 Dept. BOB, Director Staats stated that an estinl3ted Y3 of the total Special Projects Fund would be allocated to the work of the science adviser andthe President's Advisory Committee. Source: Senate. General Government Matters Appropriation, 1962, p. 689.
5 Estimated.
RECAPITULATfON OF FCST FUNCTIONS UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDER 10807
Executive Order 10807 assigned to the Federal Council three broad functions. The first was the responsibility to consider problems and developments (potential problems) in science and technology in two broad categories:





P7

(1) Those affecting more than one Federal agency; or
(2) Those relating to the over-all advancement of science and
technology in the Nation.
Recommendations by the Council for the promulgation of policies or for other actions were to be directed toward achievement of certain enumerated objectives:
(1) More effective planning and administration of Federal
programs;
(2) Identification of research needs and areas of research.
requiring additional attention;
(3) More effective utilization of Federal scientific and techinological resources and facilities; and
(4) Promotion of international cooperation in science and
technology.
The second function of the Council was to make recommend at-ion.,., on ways to effectively implement Federal policies (those already existing or those proposed) concerning both the administration and the conduct of Federal scientific and technological programs.
The third main assignment to the Council was to perform "suLch other related- duties .., consonant with law" as the President or the Chairman shall assign.
The Executive order directed the Chairman to submit to the Pre'4;;dent those recommendations or reports by the Council which by reason of their importance or character require his attention.
The 1959-62 Council report noted that the Council had been "highfily selective" in choosing topics for attention, study and continuing review. The report observed further:
The authority, missions and roles, actions and operations of
individual agencies constitutes the predominant mechanism for the accomplishment of Federal programs in science and technology. However, the Federal Council responsibility cuts across all disciplines and all agencies to deal with both science and technology to make sure that these programs develop so as to be coherent, consistent and coordinated; and neither at plurality of fragmented programs, nor merely a super imposition of individual departmental activities.

FUNCTIONS UNCHANGED 1959-1976
Throughout its entire existence, the formal assignment of fupections to the Federal Council under Executive Order 10807 rem,_-ained unchanged. However, none of the functions assigned to the Council was mutually exclusive. The establishment of the Office of Science and Technology within the Executive Office of the President and the assignment to it of functions even more broad than those of the Federal Council probably resulted in certain informal realignment-i of functions between the two units.
The functions assigned to the new Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering, and Technology tinder P.L. 94-2S2, are in large part the functions originally assigned to the Federal Council by Executive Order 10807 with these exceptions: The assignment, to consider problems and developments relating to the "over-all advancement of the Nation's science and technology" (section 2(a) of Executive Order 10807) has been omitted. Nor does the original





78

'as'-4gnment, in section 2(b) to consider and recommend measures to 'implement Federal policies concerning the administration and conduct ,of scientific and technological programs appear in the new statutory
-basis. However, the stated legislative intent is that the new Coordinating Council "exercise the same functions as those heretofore exercised by the Federal Cotincil for Science mad Technology. 11 21 This aspect is treated further in Section VII.
A further related omission from P.L. 94-282 is the direction to the 'Chairman to transmit recommendations of the Council to the Presi,dent for action (section 2(d)).

SU'11MARY OF ACTIVITIES, 1959-62
From the limited amount of information which is available about the early years of Council activity, several generalizations can be made which have current relevance:
1. In, kind and scope, Federal Council activities have been diverse and 1vide-ran.aino. The summary of Council activities from the 1959-1962 report cites activities under each of the Council's assigned functions. 'This section is reproduced below to illustrate the point and to provide ,.a ready reference for subsequent discussion of the enumerated, items :211

COUNCIL ACTIVITIES
I Planning and administration of scientific and technological programs: Interagency programs are formulated by appropriate Council Committees with recommendations for program and budget; these are then reviewed by the Council to evaluate balance, scope, consistency and match with needs
of science, as follows:
Oceanography
Atmospheric sciences
Water resources
High energy physics
2. Identification of research needs and new areas requiring
additional emphasis or coordination:
Behavioral sciences
Fire technology
Natural resources Materials research
3. Improved utilization of scientific and technological
resources and facilities of the Federal Government, including elimination of unnecessary duplication, and measures for effective implementation of Federal policies concerning administration and conduct of Federal programs:
(a) Science information- Government-wide policies
and programs.
(b) Long-range planning-Appointment of committee
and request of NSF to prepare long-range projections of demand for scientific resources; manpower, facilities and
funds.
27 National Policy, Organization, and Priorities for Science, Engineering, and Technology Act of 1976. Joint Report [To Accompany S. 321 for the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, Committee on Commerce, and Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences. 94th Congress, 2d session. Senate Rept. 94-622, ,p. 22.
28 195 -62 Report,, op. cit., p. 160.





79

(c) Problems in recruitment and retention of superior
scientific personnel in Government-both salary and
environmental factors.
(d) Conflict of interest regulations.
(e) Establishment of governmentwide policies on:
Indirect costs; page charges (policy announced October
25, 1961); Institutional grants.
(f) Problems in "quality control" over inhouse research and over assessment of proposals and monitoring
of contract research.
(g) Study and development of policies in scientific
and technical manpower.
4. International aspects of science:
(a) Guidelines for development of consistent agency
policies for oversea activities.
(b) Mobilization of other agencies talents for use by
AID.
(c) Steps to improve the image abroad regarding U.S.
science and technology.
(d) Stimulation of an international program in special
scientific areas-scientific hydrology.
(e) Steps to strengthen free world science.
The range of activities illustrates also why the Federal Council has been characterized as a "science sub-Cabinet." 29
(a) Planning and administration of interagency scientific and techo-logical programs
Oceanography.-A Subcommittee on Oceanography, later an Interagency Committee on Oceanography (ICO), was established by the Federal Council in 1959, to take over the role of a predecessor informal Coordinating Committee on Oceanography. The mission of the ICO was to develop annually a national oceanographic program in which agencies' needs in research, surveys, training and manpower, oceanographic ships, instrumentation and facilities, and international programs are coordinated and balanced. National oceanographic programs for fiscal year 1961, 1962, and 1963 were submitted to Congress. As of mid-1962, the ICO was engaged in developing 10-year projections in all agencies to be consolidated into a longrange program in oceanography, expected to be presented to the Council in 1963. In addition, activity was underway in a variety of related oceanographic problems.0 The Interagency Committee on Oceanography continued to function until 1966 when a National Council on Marine Resources and Engineering Development was established by legislation. The ICO provided staff assistance to the new Council initially. It ceased to function as a Federal Council committee in 1967. In 1971 after the Marine Council had gone out of existence, a new Interagency Com-mittee on Marine Science and Engineering was established which continues to the present.
Atmospheric sciences.-A Federal Council Interdepartmental Coinmittee f#,if0:-ospheric Sciences was appointed in August 1959. Its?i esident '
2Jerome 'n,~.~ testimony before the House Committee on Government Operations, Systems Devel-opment andrncP ', nent. Hearings, 87th Congress 2d sess. July 31, 1962, p. 150. 30 1959-62 i Durin$ cit., pp. 163-164.






80

principal activity during the early years was a continuing effort to develop a coordinated national atmospheric program. ICAS also considered and made recommendations on such special issues as support for the National Center for Atmospheric Research, continued weather reconnaissance by the Air Force, and climatological research in the Weather Bureau.'
ICAS is one of the three Federal Council committees which has had a continuous existence from 1959. (See Appendix L.)
Water resources.-Water resources research needs were initially considleredl within the Federal Council by an ad hoc subcommittee on hydrology of the Standing Committee. In June 1961 a special subcommittee on water research was appointed under the Committee on Natural Resources to participate in the broad assignment of President Kennedy to his Science Adviser and the Federal Council to "review ongoing Federal research activities in the field of natural resources and to determine ways to strengthen the total government research effort." 32 A summary of the subcommittee's initial study was transmiitted by letter to the Senate and House Appropriations Committees in April 1962.
Further progress to develop a Government-wide water resources program was impeded because of longstanding jurisdictional concerns of the participating agencies. In September 1962, Science Adviser jerome Wiesner, with the President's concurrence, appointed a special policy level task group, reporting directly to the Federal Council and assigned it the following functions:
(a) Identify problems in water management and control that
require research and development;
(b) Inventory on-going research, both basic and applied, and
compile annual budgets in water research;
(c) Develop background information to illuminate policy alternatives considering both intramural and extramural effort; and
(d) Coordinate research activities performed in different Federal ao'encies.
This~ task group completed its assignment in December 1962. Its report was reviewed by the Council and that portion of the recoinmendlations which the Council endorsed was transmitted by the President to the Congress February 18, 1963. Dr. Wiesner told the House Government Operations Committee that the report "represents the first comprehensive statement of objectives and activities of all Federal agencies engaged in water resources research, -and is intended to provide policy guidance within the executive branch, to all departments, to the Bureau of the Budget, and to my office." 14 In December 1962, the Federal Council established a standing Committee on Water iResol-rces Research, which has been continued to the present time.
Hgh Energy Physics.-In this area, as in the three preceding are as-o ceanography, atmospheric sciences, and water resourcesF~ederal Council activity was reflected in the activity of an interagency committee. This interagency committee-the Technical Committee on High Energy Physics-was established in 1959 upon the
31 Ibid., p. 164.
32 U.S. President. Special Message to the Congress on Natural Resources, Feb. 23, 9 Ybic Papers of the Prc7sidents, 1961. p. 14.
33 U.S. Congress. House Committee on Government Operations. Subcommittee o0)logy A ;Resources and Power. Water Pollut ion Control and Abatement (Part lB-National Survey). He"Ilmittee~z Congress Ist session. June 11, 1963. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1964. Pp. 1285-26 ntRe 34 Ibid., p. 1286.






S1

recommendation of a joint panel of the President's Science Advisory Committee and the General Advisory Committee of the Atomic Energy Commission to conduct a continuing technical review of planning, support, and coordination of the high energy programs of the Federal agencies.35 Initially, the Committee coordinated programs in high energy physics sponsored by the AEC, NSF, DOD, and NASA: over the years support became concentrated in the AEC and NSF. (ionsequently, in June 1969 Federal Council Chairman DuBridge disostablished the Technical Committee on High Energy Physics as a Federal Council committee. At the same time he invited it to continue to operate under other appropriate auspices and said the Council would consider any recommendations the group might wish to make even though it was not a formal part of the FCST committee structure."
(b) Identification of research needs and new areas requiring additional
emphasis or coordination.
Behavioral Sciences.-Federal Council interest in the behavioral sciences area was undoubtedly at least in part due to the inclusion of social psychology among the fields deserving greater attention by the PSAC Research Panel which had recommended the establishment of the Federal Council. A Life Sciences Panel of the President's Science Advisory Committee subsequently surveyed the current
status of the behavioral sciences; its report was released in March 1962, by the Special Assistant for Science and Technology. One of the recommendations of the Panel was that the increasing need for good behavioral data justified a re-examination of present needs and opportunities and a continuing review of ongoing activities. This should be the subject for review and study by both the Social Science Research Council and "a group broadly representative of relevant government agencies . appointed to follow current and planned
activity in this field and to provide appropriate advice in the light of the current possibilities and needs of behavioral science." 17
The Federal Council accepted the PSAC Panel's recommendations that the Federal effort in the behavioral sciences should be strengthened, and later that year established a Committee on the Behavioral Sciences "to describe and evaluate current research, to identify problems that could be approached through research in this area, and to suggest steps that would strengthen the capacity of these sciences to contribute to the solution of national problems,." 38
Firs Technology.-According to the Fiscal Year 1961-62 Annual Report of the National Academy of Sciences, a four-week summer study on means of fire prevention was conducted in 1961 under the auspices of the Academy-Research Council's Committee on Fire Re,-earch, whose activities were Government financed, and the report of the Study was to be made to the Federal Council for Science and Technology in November.
35 U.S. Special Panel of President's Science Advisory Committee and General Advisory Committee to the Atomic Enermy Commission. U.S. Policy and Actions in High-Energy Accelerator Physics. Report
. 1958. In U.S. Congress. Joint Committee on Atomic Energy. High Energy Physics Program: Report on National Policy and Background information. Washiniton, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., February 1965. 89th Congress 1st session. Joint Committee Print. pn. 135-142. 36 U.S. Office of Science and Technology. Federal Council for Science and Technology 1969 Annual Report. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1070. p. 8.
,rU.S. President's Science Advisory Committe. Life Sciences Panel. Strengthening the Behavioral Sciences; Statement by the Behavioral Sciences Subpanel. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., Apr. 20, 1962. 19 p. At p. 15.
3 U.S. Office of Science and Techi06qy. Federal Council for Science and Technology; Interim Report on Activities During Calendar Year 1963. Typescript. p. 15.





82

The Federal Council's 1962 annual report noted that needs had been reviewed for additional emphasis on federally sponsored fire research and that "recommendations were adopted that research training and information activities in this field be accelerated and the Department. of Commerce be assigned responsibility as a focal agency for basic research and for coordination of planning in other agencies." 19
Natural Rcsources.-A Federal Council Committee on Natural Resources was established in March 1961 in response to a request from President John F. Kennedy to his Science Adviser and the Federal Council "to review ongoing Federal research activities in the field of' natural resources and to determine ways to strengthen the total government research effort relating to natural resources. 11 40 In a subsequent message to Congress on conservation of March 1, 1962, and when transmitting a report on water resources research in February 18, 1963, the President reiterated the assignment. The Council's study was intended to supplement a broader study previously requested from the National Academy of Sciences. Seven subcommittees were established to examine the status of federally sponsored research and program needs. in energy, biological, water, land, and mineral resources, air as a re-source, and the economics of resources.
The completed report was transmitted to the President on May 29,, 1963. Attached appendices for each of the seven areas contained the results of the Federal inventory of research and development expendi-tures by field and agency for fiscal years 1962, 1963 and a 10-year projection to fiscal year 1973."
President Kennedy transmitted the natural resources study to theCon(rress in June 1963 with a covering letter which noted that Dr. Wiesner, Chairman of the Federal Council, had "pointed out that thisinventory of activities on natural resources research should beIR prevent inadvertent duplication of effort and overlap of functions, and sshould indicate opportunities for mutually supporting activities in the fLiture." 11 The President said the inventory was an "essential step in Government-wide planning." He called attention to the importance of coordination, in view of the fact that budget requests for resources. research and development for fiscal year 1964 totalled $1.5 billion, "of which more than $1 billion is for energy related research." Hedirected the Federal Council to "continue to provide policy level oversight and coordination in scientific and technical programs devoted to natural resources."
An immediate benefit from the natural resources study was that theinventories of Federal research activity in the several areas were completed in the fall of 1962 and contributed to the preparation of the fiscal year 1964 budget .41 Individual agencies and the Bureau of the Budget were furnished guidelines upon which to evaluate individual agency components in relation to the total Federal program."'
39 U.S. Office of Science and Technology. Federal Council for Science and Technology; 1962 Annual Report. Washinqton, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1963. p. 9.
40 Special Messa-e to the Congress on Natural Resources, Feb. 23, 1961. op. cit. 41 U.S. Office of Science and Technology. Federal Council for Science and Technology. Committee on Natural Resources. Research and Development on Natural Resources. Report. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., May 1W. 134 p.
42 U.S. President (John F. Kennedy). Letter to the President of the Senate and to the Speaker of the House Transmitting Report Research and Development on Natural Resources. Dated June 21, 19a. Released June 22,1963. Public Papers of the Presidents, 1963. pp. 496-497. 43 Research and Development on Natural Resources. Report. Op. cit. p. vi. 44 Ibid.





83

The natural resources report appears not to have had a lasting impact. Perhaps the very general nature of its title obscured the specific information contained therein. For example, the report on enercry resources appears to have been generally overlooked, and contelnporary reviews of energy studies commonly start with the Office of Science and Technology 1966 interdepartmental study, Ener gy It' & D and National Progress, which President Kennedy had requested in February 1963 before the natural resources report had been completed.
A capsulized summary of observations from the report of the Federal Council energy resources subcommittee is excerpted below : 45
. It is reasonable to assume that consumption of all
forms of energy will nearly double by 1980....
Known reserves of the fossil fuels ... constitute only about
a 50-year supply at the rate of growth in total energy consumption forecast by the Atomic Energy Commission. Undiscovered reserves . are much larger, but it will take much research and development to transform these potential resources into minable reserves. Even then these larger resources are likely to be exhausted within a couple centuries
or so. . .
The bulk of our current requirements for energy are met by
coal, oil, natural gas, and their derivatives. These sources probably will continue to supply most of our needs over the next two decades, after which nuclear sources likely will contribute an increasing part. While Federal research must focus on development of [above sources] . the Subcommittee believes that the Nation must actively investigate its potential energy resources, including those that are too costly to exploit now or do not seem to hold much promise for the
development of large amounts of power. . .
Recognizing that the future increase in total consumption
of energy requires that we develop new sources, research ought also be directed toward increasing the efficiency of
energy consumption....
... The Subcommittee believes ... the role of the Federal
Government ... should be the traditional one of filling the gaps left by private industry and other organizations. Generally speaking, this means that the Federal Government must assume responsibility for those investigations that are too large or too complex for private organizations to undertake, or that have so little promise for immediate commercial
application as to lie beyond the interest of private parties.
The energy resources report apparently was one whose time had not yet come. The Natural Resources Committee was terminated in 1965. Thereafter, special subject matter committees of the Federal Council dealt with natural resources problems.
Materials Research. The materials research area was another of the opportunities" identified in the PSAC report "Strengthening American Science' 1 46 as requiring greater attention and which President Eisenhower had directed the Council to consider.
45 Ibid., pp. 46-47.
16 op. Cit. p. 7.





84

The PSAC report noted a suggestion that a new institute might be needed to work exclusively on new metals and materials but indicated that there might be other alternative ways to deal with the question. Another solution might be to work through the universities, expanding research on materials, and providing opportunities for advanced training to meet manpower needs. At the same time, perhaps materials research should be intensified in Government laboratories of the Atomic Energy Commission, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Bureau of Standards, or the Bureau of Mines.The PSAC report was careful to phrase these ideas in the form of suggestions, not recommendations.
At its first meeting on March 24, 1959, the Federal Council established a Coordinating Committee on Materials Research and Development (CCMRD). The Committee was directed to devise programs for initiating action using existing funds and to formulate a materials plan to meet the needs of the Federal Government. Later that year the CCMRD recommended to the Federal Council that interdisciplinary laboratories for materials research be constructed on university campuses with Federal funds from agencies with responsibilities in this field and to supplement existing support of basic materials research.
Upon the Federal Council's recommendation, an interdisciplinary laboratory program was begun in fiscal year 1960, with major support from the Advanced Research Projects Agency, Department of Defense, and additional support from the Atomic Energy Commission and NASA. By the end of 1961, eleven laboratories had been established.
President Kennedy recognized the Federal Council's role in a statement of October 12, 1961, announcing the establishment of a materials research laboratory at the University of North Carolina. He said: 17
Recognizing that critical qualities of national programs in
defense and space exploration would depend on strong reinforcement of national capabilities for materials research and development, the Defense Department, acting on the advice of the Federal Council for Science and Technology and the President's Science Advisory Committee, has already established eight interdisciplinary laboratories at universities.
These new ventures.., will for the first time combine
modern progress in solid state physics, chemistry, metallurgy, mechanics, applied mathematics and other related fields....
The programs will also train unprecedented numbers and
kinds of materials specialists . .
During its first two years, the Coordinating Committee considered a wide range of materials problems, including renovation and modernization of university research facilities, inadequate funding of inhouse laboratories concerned with materials research, materials information, materials technology transfer, and manpower for materials research programs. These were discussed in a CCMRD report entitled "Problems Deserving Further Study" transmitted by the Chairman of the Federal Council in November 1961.48

47 Statement by the President Announciag a Contract for a Materials Research Laboratory at the Uni. veri'ity of North Carolina. Oct. 12, 1961. Public Papers of the President, 1961. p. 665. 4! U.S. Congress. Joint Committee on Defense Production. Eleventh Annual Report of the Activities of the . Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1961. 87th Congress 2d session. Committee Print. at pp. 35-56.







The Coordinating Committee on Materials Research and Development continued to function until it was dissolved in June 1969 by the Chairman of the Federal Council. A new group under the auspices, of the National Academy of Sciences assumed an interagency coordinating role from the end of 1969 to 1974 when a new Federal Council Committee on Materials was established.
(c) Improved qttilization of Federal scientific and technological resovrc's
and facilities.
Science [nformation.-The Executive order which established the Federal Council also formalized the assignment of a leadership role in the coordination of science information activities to the National Science Foundation. The Foundation established an interagency Federal Advisory Committee on Scientific Information. The Committee's effectiveness was impeded by the difficulties of coordinating an area in which there were wide differences regarding management and operation.
A special task force of the Federal Council reported in the spring of 1962 on the need for strengthening agency management of information responsibilities. In May 1962, the Federal Council agreed that
(a) each agency would establish a high-level focal point for scientific information functions and (b) that a Federal Council interagency Committee on Scientific Information would be created.49
Broadened in 1964 to include technical information activities as well, the Committee on Scientific and Teclnical Information continued as a Federal Council committee until it was transferred to the National Science Foundation in 1973.
Long-Range Planning.-In September 1961 the Federal Council came to the conclusion that in view of expanding national programs in science and technology and the increased competition for resources, more systematic planning on a continuing Government-wide basis was necessary. Upon its recommendation, a Committee on Long-Range Planning was established later that year. The Committee was headed by Dr. Harvey Brooks of Harvard University and received staff support from the Science Resources Planning office of the National Science Foundation. This was the only Federal Council committee headed by a non-Government employee.
An initial activity was the assignment to the National Science Foundation of the task of conducting an agency survey by questionnaire of future expenditures and manpower needs of the departments and agencies. The Committee encountered great difficulties in carrying out its functions and was discontinued in June 1969.
A further discussion of the Council's long-range planning effort is found below in the activities of the 1964-1969 period. (See p. -.)
Recruitment and Retention of Superior Scientijic Pcrsonnl in i/a Federal Service.-The scientific manpower problem had been considered with respect to particular fields by the Federal Council and many\ of its committees, since their establishment. It was of particular concern to the Council's Standing Committee. A Panel on Environment and Incentives for Research focused on problems concerning the recruitment and retention of superior scientists and engineers in the Federal service.
4 U.S. Federal Council for Science and Techn-logy. Committee on Sci;ntific Information. Status reFport on Scientific and Technical Information in the Federal Government. June 18, 1963. 18 pp. p. 3.





86

The release in January 1962 of Nicolas DeWitt's study, Education
-and Professional Employment in the USSR, spurred concern over the findings which put the Soviet Union in the lead in production of scientists and engineers. At a press conference on January 15, President Kennedy requested the Science Advisory Committee in cooperation with the Federal Council "to review available studies and other pertinent information, and to report to me as quickly as possible on the specific measures that can be taken within and without the Government to develop the necessary and well qualified scientists and eng.,neers and technicians to meet our society's complex needs."
Within a few months, the Panel on Environment and Incentives of the Standing Committee had prepared a report, The Competitionfor Quality. Part I of the report dealt with the effect of current salary levels on the Federal Government's ability to recruit and retain superior scientific and engineering personnel. An appendix contained documentary material showing the dimensions of the problem. This report was used in developing the Administration's legislative proposals for salary reform and was transmitted to Congress on July 12, 1962 in testimony of Civil Service Commissioner John W. Macy, Jr., before the House Post Office and Civil Service Committee. That year the Congress removed numerical ceilings on GS 16-18 positions.
Part 2 of the report, The Competitionfor Quality, dealt with nonsalar y factors affecting the selection, recruitment, development, and retention of superior personnel in the Federal Government, and was transmitted by President Kennedy with a memorandum to department and agency heads of May 13, 1962, instructing them to take "all practicable action" to implement the recommendations of the report. He instructed his Special Assistant for Science and Technology to report to him periodically on actions taken.
The Standing Committee's Panel on Environment and Incentives f or Research was reconstituted into a Committee on Scientific Personnel in 1962 and continued as a separate committee until 1965 when its activities were transferred back to the Standing Committee.
(d) Recommendations for effective implementation of Federal policies
concerning administration and conduct of Federal programs.
The 1959-62 report on Federal Council activities mentions involvement in a number of subjects on which Executive Office action was taken in the form of Presidential statements, PSAC reports, or Bureau of the Budget circulars and reports. However, the public record is obscure concerning the Federal Council role in the preparation of these documents. Consequently, one can only surmise that the subject references in the report relating to the following Federal Council's activities were relevant to published documents dealing with these topics during this same time period. These are tabulated below:

ACTIVITY DOCUMENT
Conflict of interest regulations. President's Memorandum of February 9, 1962, Preventing Con.flicts of Interest on the Part of
Advisers and Consultants to the
Government.





87

ACTIVITY-continued DOCUMENT-COntinued
Establishment of governmentwide Bureau of the Budget Circular No.
policy on indirect costs. A-21, Revised, January 7, 1961:
Principles for determining costs applicable to research and development under grants and contracts with educational institutions.

Establishment of governmentwide Report of the President's Science
policy on institutional grants. Advisory Committee, November 15, 1960, entitled "Scientific Progress, the Universities and the Federal Government" which the Federal Council considered and unanimously recommended be made public.

Problems in "quality control" over "Report to the President on Govinhouse research and over as- ernment Contracting for Resessment of proposals and mon- search and Development" (the itoring of contract research. Bell Report) prepared by the
Bureau of the Budget with acknowledged participation by several Federal agencies and the Special Assistant to the President for Science and Technology. By letter of April 30, 1962, the President transmitted the report to the Congress, noting that he had approved the report and had transntted it to the heads of departments and agencies "for their guidance and action."

Study and development of policies Referring to the study begun in
in scientific and technical man- February 1962 by President's power. Science Advisory Committee in
response to joint request to PSAC and the Federal Council by President Kennedy to examine the Nation's resources of scientific and technical personnel in relation to demands. The PSAC report, "Meeting Manpower Needs in Science and Technology" was published in December 1962 with the
endorsement of the Federal
Council.

73-526-76------7






88

ACTIVITY-continued DOCUMENT-Continued
Establishment of a new Govern- In contrast to the above activities,
mentwide policy on allowances where the Federal Council infor page charges in Federal re- volvement was unclear, this subsearch grants and contracts. ject was a Federal Council matter and details of the new policy
were made public in a press release from the National Science
Foundation, October 25, 1961,
entitled "Federal Research
Grants and Contracts to Allow
Page Charges Under New
Policy."
(e) International aspects of science.
The Federal Council established an International Committee in September 1959 upon the recommendation of the President's Science Advisory Committee. Five task groups explored aspects of international scientific activity, and a summary report, entitled "International Scienti-fic and Technological Activities" was presented to the Federal Council, June 20, 1961. The recommendations in the Federal Council report were strongly endorsed in a September 4, 1962 report of the International Science Panel of the President's Science Advisory Committee, entitled "Research Support Abroad Through Grants and Contracts." Subsequently, the Council endorsed a statement, "Policy Guidance for Research Investment Abroad by U.S. Agencies" which reaffirmed the basic principles of the 1961 Federal Council report and the PSAC report.
The International Committee continued as a Federal Council committee until it w as transferred to the State Department in 1973.
2. The C'ouncil has utilized several avenues through which to translate recommendations into action. In the preceding review of Federal Council activities during its first few years, we have seen that matters came to the Council from various sources:
From one of its subject committees which had studied a problem and agreed on a coordinated approach and made recommendations thereon which committee members endorsed.
From one of the member departments or agencies of the Federal
Council.
From the Special Assistant to the President for Science and Technology in his capacity as Chairman bringing up matters
arising out of his interface within the Executive Office.
From another unit in the Executive Office of the President such as the Bureau of the Budget or the President's Science Advisory Committee.
From the President himself, requesting the Council alone or in concert with other units to consider a particular matter and advise him on courses of action.
The Federal Council utilized several devices by which to publicize its recommend ations:
Endorsement of reports made by its subject committees.
Publication of reports made by subject committees as Federal
Council reports.