36 



thus gave the NSF far less autonomy than the agency would have 

 received under the vetoed 1947 legislation. 



The NSF was given broad authority to fund basic research 

 within the fields of the physical, mathematical, engineering, biolog- 

 ical, and medical sciences. As recommended by Vannevar Bush, the 

 social sciences were not listed as a specific field to receive support. 

 Instead, the social sciences were only eligible for funding under the 

 category of "other sciences." Although some of the social sciences 

 received modest funding under this arrangement before 1958, it 

 was decided in that year to expand formal support by establishing 

 an Office of Social Science within the NSF. However, it was not 

 until 1968 that Congress specifically directed the NSF to sponsor 

 research in the social sciences. 2 



Although the NSF was instructed to avoid "undue concentra- 

 tion" in its award of research funds, it rejected proposals to estab- 

 lish a formal program or formula for the actual promotion of geo- 

 graphical distribution of research funds. The National Association 

 of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges was the most per- 

 sistent advocate of instituting a formula method for distributing 

 some of the NSF funds, but its position was not widely supported 

 by members of the scientific community and Congress. Instead, 

 Congress decided that merit would be the ruling factor in awarding 

 research grants and fellowships. This, of course, was the approach 

 favored by Vannevar Bush. 3 



As it became clear during subsequent Congressional hearings 

 that the NSF would focus strictly on basic research, a consensus 

 was reached that patent laws should not be addressed in the NSF 

 legislation. Thus, patent policy faded as an issue for the NSF, de- 

 spite the fact that Congressional leaders continued to argue over 

 whether patents resulting from publicly-financed research should 

 become the property of the Government or of the individuals or 

 corporations who made the discovery. Nevertheless, patents were 

 not prohibited under the 1950 NSF legislation. 4 



The 1950 legislation represented a compromise on all of the 

 major disputes associated with the creation of the National Science 

 Foundation, but it did not put an end to these disagreements. The 

 debates of this era continued to define the divisions within science 

 policymaking throughout the next 40 years. In its report on the de- 

 velopment of Federal research policy, the National Academy of Sci- 

 ences observed: 



If one proposition is fundamental to the whole postwar 

 debate regarding the structure of science and its link to 

 the government, it is that few — either in Congress or in 

 the scientific community — wished a czar of science. The 

 Act of 1950, by its construction of the National Science 

 Board and the Division Committees, expressed the judg- 

 ment of Congress that the system of advisory scientific 



2 See John T. Wilson, Academic Science, Higher Education, and the Federal Government: 

 1950-1983 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983), pp. 9-10; and England, A Patron for Pure 

 Science, pp. 266-273. 



3 See England, A Patron for Pure Science, passim. 



4 For the Congressional debates over the establishment of the NSF, see England, A Patron for 

 Pure Science, pp. 83-106. 



