502 



HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 



his new role. He never had any compunctions about asking funda- 

 mental questions. For example, NSF was a month into its 1971 hearings 

 when Davis suddenly asked NSF Deputy Director Raymond L. 

 Bisplinghoff: 



I feci I can put myself in the position of Jacob as he was trying to climb the lad- 

 der to heaven. If I ever get to the top of the ladder, that is the day I will know the 

 difference between applied and basic research. 



Dr. Bisplinghoff attempted this clarification: 



Bv basic research, we mean research we do to create new knowledge. * * * In 

 managing our basic research program in the Foundation, we judge the proposals 

 which we receive primarily on the basis of their quality and the quality of the in- 

 vestigator, and the promise of the proposal that it might lead to some new knowledge 

 in the area of science. On the other hand, applied research is research where we take 

 existing fundamental knowledge that has already been created and put it to work in 

 the solution of some problem. * * * Now we come to problem-oriented research, which 

 I would like to emphasize is the phrase which distinguishes the RAW program. 

 Here we will make a special effort to pick out several important targets which relate 

 to national needs, such as energy resources, targets which relate to the environment, 

 targets which relate to our social systems. We will focus our efforts on those targets. 



THE OMB AND APPLIED RESEARCH 



By 1971, the committee faced a new problem with respect to NSF: 

 the Office of Management and Budget began to play a forceful role 

 in directing NSF to spend more money on applied research and existing 

 projects and already-trained scientists, and less on "irrelevant" re- 

 search or training new scientists and academic support. Late in 1970, 

 OMB offered NSF a $100 million increase in its budget to be presented 

 in 1971 if other major actions were taken such as phasing out institu- 

 tional support. The "offer" was scarcely a choice, and NSF frantically 

 geared up to try and convince the committee that there was logical 

 justification for these rather radical changes. On February 2, 1971, 

 Chairman Davis sent NSF Director William D. McElroy a tightly 

 worded three-page letter pointedly reminding him of the specific ini- 

 tiatives expressed in the 1970 legislation, and asking him what had 

 been done about them. 



The 1971 hearing represented one of those triangular tugs of war, 

 with the scientific community silently cheering the committee's 

 efforts, the NSF witnesses loyally trying to hew to the OMB line, and 

 the committee vigorously attempting to preserve basic research. 

 Mosher characterized the new budget proposals as "almost revolu- 

 tionary new directions for the work of the National Science Founda- 

 tion," involving "increased emphasis on research in the social sciences 

 and very heavy emphasis on applied research. It would appear that you 

 are almost moving into a mission-type agency in some respects. * * * 

 I share some of the concern that has already been expressed here." 



