1 34 HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 



Democrats Republicans 



Emilio Q. Daddario, Connecticut, Chair- R. Walter Riehlman, New York 



man Charles A. Mosher, Ohio 



J. Edward Roush, Indiana Alphonzo Bell, California 



Thomas G. Morris, New Mexico James D. Weaver, Pennsylvania 



John W. Davis, Georgia 

 Joe D. Waggonner, Jr., Louisiana 

 Edward J. Patten, New Jersey 



Chairman Miller dropped in on the organizational meeting, to 

 underline his full and personal support of the new venture. 



FIRST HEARINGS OF DADDARIO SUBCOMMITTEE 



Between October 15 and November 20, 1963, the subcommittee 

 held a series of nine basic hearings whose objectives were defined by 

 Daddario as follows: 



First, to review the nature of the country's overall scientific effort, and second, 

 to locate and identify the major problem areas which exist or may soon exist within 

 the science relationship of the Federal Government to industry, the universities, 

 foundations, professional societies, and among Federal agencies. 



The leadoff witness was Dr. Frederick Seitz, President of the 

 National Academy of Sciences. Many of the Nation's most prominent 

 scientists testified. 



Daddario also asked members of the Panel on Science and Tech- 

 nology to evaluate scientific research and development throughout 

 the country, how to strengthen congressional sources of information, 

 and how to more effectively utilize the Nation's scientific and engineer- 

 ing resources. 



The responses were provocative, and helped form the basis for 

 additional hearings and reports by the committee. One response from 

 Dr. G. B. Kistiakowsky, former science adviser to President Eisen- 

 hower, struck a responsive chord with the committee: 



While I cannot speak officially for the National Academy of Sciences, I feel confi- 

 dent that it would be eager to discharge its obligations under its congressional charter 

 and render assistance to your subcommittee request. 



Some of the replies warned against too much emphasis on cost- 

 consciousness, and the need to give more priority to basic research. 

 As Dr. H. Guyford Stever, professor of aeronautical engineering, 

 Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, put it: 



Basic scientists need time and freedom to think and work if they are to produce. 



Dr. Lee A. DuBridge, president, California Institute of Technology, 

 Pasadena, warned the committee: 



