618 HISTORY or THi: COMMITll i ON SCIENC1 AM) TECHNOLOGY 



concerned about this point that he wrote a followup letter to Dr. 

 Stever on June 17, stating: 



I note with interest and some concern that neither you nor anyone from your 

 staff will be heard I suppose that is understandable because fit your contribution last 

 year. Nevertheless, it does seem to me thai we of the committee would benefit by 

 being brought up to date with your thinking, based on the important experience you 

 have had as Science Adviser to the President during the several very active months 

 which have passed since you last testified here. 



Dr. Stever responded with a personal statement which was incorporated 

 into the record. But Teague noted that after checking he was convinced 

 that there had been no drastic changes in the executive science machin- 

 ery since the 1973 hearings. 



THE 1974 HEARINGS 



On June 20, 1974, Teague assembled the committee for the second 

 phase of the investigation. He announced that there would be "major 

 emphasis on the views, commentary, and criticism of nongovernmental 

 witnesses." Teague then laid out a very carefully designed future 

 schedule, which was in keeping with the patient tempo which he had 

 set for the entire inquiry. After the completion of the 1974 hearings, 

 there would be "intensive staff study of the information and views 

 received"; then additional written comments would be solicited; there 

 would follow a second interim report with an "advanced set of findings 

 and possibly suggesting alternative courses of action"; finally, there 

 would be a third set of hearings. At the end of all these carefully 

 planned future activities, Teague said there might be "if warranted, 

 the promulgation of legislation to accomplish significant alterations 

 of the system." 



Teague called as the first witness in the 1974 hearings Senator 

 Kennedy, who at that time was Chairman of the Technology Assess- 

 ment Board as well as chairman of the National Science Foundation 

 Subcommittee of the Senate Labor and Public Welfare Committee. 

 Senator Kennedy expressed cautious pessimism about the reorganiza- 

 tion. He handled it with kid gloves, observing: 



When your committee held the meetings last July to review the results of these 

 actions, the impression left was that it was too early to make a meaningful |udgment. 

 I have the feeling that the hearings we are resuming today may leave you somewhat 

 more skeptical about how that process has worked. It seems to me that the lapse of 1 

 year has not witnessed much positive benefit from the reorganization. 



In the first question asked of Senator Kennedy, Hechler observed that 

 "you seem almost to praise the abolition of OST with faint damns." 

 He then asked Senator Kennedy: 



I wonder if you would feel that an organization similar to the Council of Eco- 

 nomic Advisers set up for science purposes would work within the office of the 

 President. 



