546 HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 



111! NEED FOR BASIC RESEARCH 



At a time when most Members were measuring the economic 

 COSt benefit ratio of most Federal expenditures, Hollenbeck expressed 

 to the House a somewhat different reason for supporting the NSF 

 authorization: 



I think we miss one of the central reasons for undertaking basic research it we 

 focus solely on the economic benefits. Science is also a cultural activity like art and 

 music essentia] to our humanity. Science is not only important because it contributes 

 to the solution of practical problems for the good of mankind, but also because it 

 insists that we ask the question: What is mankind's good? 



When a scientist uncovers a new fact about climate, about the atom, the gene, 

 or about a blackhole, he implicitly questions our view ot the world; he implicitly 

 questions our individual and cultural identity. His research makes us question what 

 1; is we reall) want and what arc our real needs. That is why we, as political leaders, 

 are here today considering the authorization of the Science Foundation — because we 

 have been elected to voice the aspirations ot this generation of Americans. 



Ritter encouraged the inclusion of language in the committee- 

 report to urge the evaluation ot comparative risks of alternative 

 technological solutions, as they related to national concerns such as 

 energy, productivity, materials, environmental quality, food and drugs. 

 These new concepts helped lay the basis for a successful symposium 

 on risks and benefits which the committee staged in July 1979 in col- 

 laboration with the American Association for the Advancement of 

 Science and the Senate Subcommittee on Science, Technology and 

 Space. 



CRAZY-SOUNDING GRAM'S 



The annual debate over silly sounding grants occurred when 

 Ashbrook offered an amendment to cut $14 million from the authoriza- 

 tion for biological, behavioral, and social sciences. Ashbrook cited 

 studies of hnickv sheep, parakeet noises, and the social structure of 

 the legal profession. He observed: 



This amendment does not deal with basic, valuable research Ii deals with the 

 foolish, fringe folly of researchers who use our tax money like the dilettante squander- 

 ing his inheritance -recklessly and with little meaning or value except to pander to 

 their own snobbish tastes 



In vain. Brown, Harkm, Pease, Glickman, and Ritter detailed the 

 many worthwhile advances which had been achieved through basic 

 research grants which led to dramatic breakthroughs such as the work 

 of Dr. Jonas Sal k in developing polio vaccine. Pease explained: 



A lot of times the researchers, not being used to dealing with the public, ma) 

 leave themselves wide open to the kinds ot criticism winch a newspaperman 01 

 politician can easily use As a newspaperman myself foi 22 years, 1 know how eas) 

 it is, what a great, easy, attention-getting story it is, to pick up examples ot sup 

 posedly wasteful expenditures on scientific research. 



