SCIENCE, RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, !<)<,, w 139 



ings were held or statements made. As a result, there was a better 

 than average cooperative spirit within the subcommittee. 



The informal discussion between the committee and the NSF 

 personnel was long overdue. Chairman Miller felt that "it appeared 

 best not to begin a general review of the Foundation until the incoming 

 group had a chance to get its bearings." Haworth, replacing Alan T. 

 Waterman as Director, was entitled to a honeymoon. So the committee 

 broke him in rather easily by asking the NSF to conduct a series of 

 studies on science education, to show (1) what had happened to 

 science education in the 20th century; (2) where the country stands; 

 and, (3) what should be done in the future to overcome the difficulties. 

 The reports were delivered as follows: 



"Science Education in the Schools of the United States," March 1965. 

 "Higher Education in the Sciences in the United States," August 1965. 

 "The Junior College and Education in Sciences," June 1967. 



GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION 



During 1964, the committee itself produced a series of useful 

 reports on the allocation of Federal research funds and the geo- 

 graphic distribution of Federal R. & D. funds. Geographic distribution 

 was a subject which every Congressman understood; the Congressmen 

 from California and Cambridge, Huntsville and Houston, clamored 

 that their disproportionate shares were only due to the fact that they 

 had created "centers of excellence," and that those suggesting there 

 should be more equitable geographic distribution were, only attempting 

 to tear down the centers of excellence and replace them with medi- 

 ocrity. At the same time, there was a hue and cry from the Middle 

 West, from the Appalachian area, and other underfed sectors whose 

 Congressmen articulated the fact that enhanced employment always 

 followed Federal research dollars. 



The discussion of geographic distribution got so hot that the 

 Daddario subcommittee asked the National Science Foundation to 

 produce yet another report on the subject. The NSF reported factually 

 on the geographic trends in Federal research dollars, 1961-64, in a 

 report released to the committee in 1964. The report and preliminary 

 groundwork laid the basis for the committee hearings from May 5 to 

 June 4 on both geographic distribution and the issue of allowable 

 indirect costs in Federal grants. 



The committee brought out some of the glaring inequities in the 

 geographic distribution of Federal contracts. One of the recommenda- 

 tions made in its October 1964 report was that "the country should 

 work to raise the level of all our colleges and universities without 

 lessening the support of those strong schools which are recognized as 

 being centers of academic excellence." The committee later was 



