ated the Steelman recommendation in 1949, and in 

 1950 NSF was finally established. 324 



Several agencies developed basic research pro- 

 grams prior to NSF's formation, and questions 

 arose concerning the new Foundation's relation- 

 ship with these existing activities. During the de- 

 bate on the NSF legislation, a proposed division 

 of national defense was eliminated and it was left 

 to the Secretary of Defense to initiate a request if 

 he needed the help of NSF for national de- 

 fense. -^-'i There were no clear provisions regarding 

 NSF's relationship with the basic research pro- 

 grams of ABC and NIH, but Alan Waterman, as 

 the first Director of NSF, was concerned with 

 insuring the adequacy of the total national effort 

 and developing a rounded program for the Foun- 

 dation rather than preventing others from doing 

 what research they found necessary. 326 xhe fol- 

 lowing historical account describes NSF's early 

 planning and policy formation: 



Initially, at least, the NSF was given two sets 

 of functions: to develop national science policy 

 including contributions of other agencies, and 

 to implement that policy, as needed. However, 

 immediately after its establishment, the Foun- 

 dation encountered effects of an economy drive 

 and then the diversion of the Korean war that 

 limited its ability to carry out its extensive re- 

 sponsibility. . . . (P)lanning and some pro- 

 grams were undertaken ... in support of the 

 three primary components of a scientific capa- 

 bility: research, manpower development, and 

 communication. From a variety of options, the 

 Foundation chose to support research through 

 grants for individual projects rather than 

 (through) programs (of) general institutional 

 support. Grants have been selected on the basis 

 of merit of research proposals by review panels 

 comprising the Nation's leading experts in the 

 respective field. 327 

 The Act of 1950 specifically prohibited the Foun- 

 dation from operating any laboratories or pilot 

 plants. 328 



In 1954, Executive Order 10521 reiterated the 

 Foundation's responsibility for science policy, a 

 responsibility which had been given little empha- 

 sis until this time. As part of the reaction to Sput- 



'-"Ibid.. pp. 9. II. 



325Waterman. A. T.. Introduction to I960 reprint of Science, 

 the Endless Frontier, pp. xii-xiii. 



'2*lbid., pp. vii-xii, especially xii. 



'-^U. S. [library of Congress, The National Science Founda- 

 tion: A General Review of Its First I.'' Years (GPO: Washing- 

 ton, D.C.. 196,'i), p. 3. Hereinafter referred to as First 15 

 Years. 



'->*National Science Foundation Act of ly.'iO. sec. 14 (c) (re- 

 numbered sec. 15 (c) in 1958). 



nik. President Eisenhower and, later. President 

 Kennedy took a series of steps which resulted in 

 the partial transfer of the "national policy respon- 

 sibilities of NSF which had been assigned by 

 Congress, but which it could not or would not 

 implement, "329 to a new Office of Science and 

 Technology in the Executive Oflfice of the Presi- 

 dent. The 1965 review, from which the above quo- 

 tation was drawn, reported NSF's accomplish- 

 ments of the first 15 years: 



In the first instance, the fact that the United 

 States has sustained its World War II preemi- 

 nence in science is now universally accepted 

 ... It is also generally believed that the influ- 

 ence of the Foundation was far out of propor- 

 tion to its budget .... Judging from annual 

 reports of Dr. Alan T. Waterman, its first 

 Director, it is clear that he saw the role of the 

 Foundation as one of setting the tone and na- 

 tional standards, and serving as a catalytic 

 agent without undue interference, to assure the 

 quality of U.S. science while other agencies 

 assumed more the role of massive support . . . 

 the present strength of U.S. science speaks to 

 the overall accomplishment. 330 



This report was prepared in 1965 for seven 

 weeks of hearings before the Subcommittee on 

 Science, Research, and Development of the 

 House Committee on Science and Astronautics. 

 The hearings, recorded in House Report No. 1236 

 of January 1966, resulted in a bill introduced by 

 Congressman Emilio Daddario in March 1966 to 

 implement the recommendations of that report. 331 

 A similar bill with some amendments initiated by 

 the Senate's Special Committee on Science be- 

 came law in July 1968. 



The 1968 Act 



This act significantly broadened the Founda- 

 tion's authority and increased the responsibility of 

 the National Science Board in the area of science 

 policy. Of particular significance to this report is 

 the provision that the Board render an annual re- 

 port to the Congress, through the President, on the 

 status and health of American science. 332 



Another very important change designated in 

 the 1968 Act was the specific inclusion of support 

 for the social sciences as one of the Foundation's 

 responsibilities. The 1950 Act had not mentioned 

 the social sciences, but Bush's initial recommen- 



"'*F/rsf 15 Years, p. 6. 

 ""Ibid., pp. 6-7, 9. 



^^'From statements by Mr. Daddario quoted in Sctiaffter, 

 pp. 220-222. 



"-Schaffter. pp. 226-227. 



COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS AND HISTORICAL TRENDS 363 



