536 HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 



persuaded him the cut was too deep. Accordingly, the subcommittee 

 decided to use the excuse that the inflation rate was zooming up- 

 ward much faster than calculated. The subcommittee therefore backed 

 an amendment by Flowers in the full committee to restore half of the 

 cut, and the Flowers amendment was adopted. 



FLOWERS RENEWS FIGHT FOR WIDER DISTRIBUTION 



In 1977, Flowers renewed the long effort he had been making to 

 attempt to redress the balance in geographic concentration of research 

 grants and contracts. Lightheartedly, Flowers told his colleagues: 



This is the annual exercise in futility that I go through with NSF. For the benefit 

 of some of the new Members, we have heretofore in years gone by been furnished 

 with a geographical breakdown of N T SF branches. It shows exactly in what parts of 

 this great land of ours very nice grants and contracts are parceled out. Lo and behold, 

 this year they did not even have the audacity to furnish us with the information. I 

 have to conclude, friends and neighbors, that it is worse than it was before.* * * It 

 will be easier to defend these grants if maybe one or two of them went to your district. 



The solution which Flowers proposed was to make a slight change 

 in the law passed in 1968, which read: 



It shall be one of the objectives of the Foundation to strengthen research and 

 education in the sciences, including independent research by individuals, throughout 

 the United States, and to avoid undue concentration of such research and education. 



Flowers suggested that in the first line the phrase "one of the objec- 

 tives" be changed to "the objective." He explained: 



Now they have generally been looking beyond that and saying generally oh, 

 yes, that is one of the objectives but you know we have these other objectives, too, 

 and that just has to take a back seat. I am merely trying to upgrade that and let them 

 give a little bit better attention to it. 



In a horrified tone, Ottinger protested : 



Obviously, these ought to be given out first on the basis of merit. I think there 

 ought to be an attempt to concentrate. You are not trying to force them to put 

 geography ahead of all other considerations by this, are you? 



Quickly and decisively, Flowers responded: "Absolutely not." 

 At Ottinger's suggestion, Flowers weakened his amendment by 

 making it read "an objective" rather than "the objective" and it 

 sailed through without opposition. The effect on NSF remained 

 nebulous. About the only concrete result was that, working through 

 Flowers, NSF did manage to pass along advice to Alabama educational 

 institutions on how to sharpen up their proposals and applications 

 for grants. Whether or not by coincidence, there appeared to be some 

 increase in Alabama grants after Flowers had made his many protests. 

 The whole exercise, however, did not result in any substantial changes 

 toward a wider distribution of NSF funds nationwide. 



