lead to political influence or lobbying for the 

 distribution of funds, or if any consideration 

 should dictate the administration of funds other 

 than the inherent worth of a project or the 

 capabilities of a scientist, or if the funds should 

 fluctuate considerably in amount with the 

 political fortunes of an administration or the 

 varying ideas of Congress, then government 

 support would probably do more harm than 

 good. . ." 14 



The call for more government research, 

 including basic research, was generally sup- 

 ported by scientists. In 1933 the American 

 Chemical Society, while "recognizing fully the 

 need of and approving drastic economy in all 

 government expenditures," found it, "a duty, as 

 patriotic Americans and scientists, to empha- 

 size the importance of fundamental scientific 

 research to the rehabilitation, progress, and 

 prosperity of nations. . ." 15 The journal In- 

 dustrial and Engineering Chemistry editorially 

 urged that "if you believe in the conduct of 

 fundamental research in the laboratories sup- 

 ported by federal appropriations, then say so in 

 some tangible form where it will do good." Such 

 research, the journal felt, was peculiarly 

 appropriate for government: "Federal 

 laboratories in particular should confine 

 themselves to fundamentals when the result can 

 be generally utilized, and should studiously 

 refrain from undertaking work that can be 

 better done in the industries." 16 



During these New Deal years a number of 

 bills were introduced into the Congress to 

 increase the Federal subsidy to scientific 

 research — none of which received any strong 

 backing from the Administration. In 1934 

 Representative J. H. Hoeppel of California 

 proposed legislation to establish Federal 

 research fellowships with the goals of support- 



ing unemployed researchers and aiding finan- 

 cially distressed institutions of higher educa- 

 tion. 17 An official of the University of California 

 said in support of the bill that his own school, 

 "like many other institutions," was "in the 

 embarrassing position of having to refuse the 

 services of highly desirable research workers 

 on account of lack of funds." 18 Three years later 

 the then Representative (afterward Senator) 

 Jennings Randolph of West Virginia introduced 

 a bill specifically "To aid and promote scientific 

 research of a basic character upon which the 

 inception and development of new industries or 

 the expansion of established industries may be 

 dependent." 19 



Persistent efforts of the National Bureau of 

 Standards to obtain specific authorization for 

 new programs in basic research in chemistry 

 and physics failed also, as did efforts to 

 establish a permanent appropriation for 

 engineering experiment stations.- In the 

 Department of Agriculture, however, Secretary 

 Henry A. Wallace was quoted as saying that a 

 "great corps of able men delving into mysteries 

 merely for the love of such delving — we call it 

 pure science — are after all, the chaps who are 

 laying the foundation for the revolutionary 

 practical developments which come maybe a 

 generation later." In this case, more success was 

 apparent. The Bankhead-Jones Act of 1935 not 

 only provided for new funds and facilities for 

 basic research in agriculture, but also, at the 

 insistence of the bill's sponsors in the USDA, 

 gave new flexibility in spending to allow 

 researchers to follow more immediately the 

 developing directions of their work. 21 



" Karl T. Compton, "Science and Prosperity," Science, 80 



(November 2, 1934), 393-394. 



'Quoted in "Raise Your Voice," Industrial and Engineering 



Chemistry. 25 (May 1933). 477. 



"' "Research at I'tiblic Expense." Industrial and Engineering 



Chemistry, 25 (March, 1933), 243. 



" ].H. Hoeppel to the President, April 21, 1934. Records of 

 the Secretary of Commerce, File 96499, National Archive 

 Record Group 40. on H.R. 6968. 



" Monroe E. Deutsch commenting on H.R. 6968 to Secretary 

 of Commerce Daniel Roper, March, 9, 1934, Ibid. 

 IS H.R. 1536, 75th Cong.. 1st sess. (January 5, 1937). 

 20 See Carroll W. Pursell. |r.. "A Preface to Government 

 Support of Research and Development: Research Legisla- 

 tion and the National Bureau of Standards, 1935-41." 

 Technology and Culture, 9 (April. 1968), 145-164. 

 -' See Carroll W. Pursell. )r.,"The Administration of Science 



8 RESEARCH IN THE UNITED STATES 



