101 



science legislation the message had requested. In 21 days of hearings 

 before the end of 1945, the subcommittee accumulated 1,200 pages of 

 testimony, exhibits, and statements relating to National Science 

 Foundation legislation. These were followed by a preliminary report, 

 December 21, a supplementaiy appendix presenting an analytical 

 summary of the testimony, and a final report on science legislation by 

 the subcommittee, February 27, 1946. The full Committee on Military 

 Afi'airs made its report, April 9, and the Senate debated the proposal 

 July 1-3, giving the measure its approval by a vote of 48 to 18, with 

 30 not voting. 



A companion measure was introduced in the House of Representa- 

 tives,^ and was the subject of 2 days of hearings in the Committee on 

 Interstate and Foreign Commerce. However, no House action was 

 taken on either this bill nor on the version passed by the Senate, 

 and the bill died at the close of the session. 



Although the House bill provided explicitly for social science, the 

 purpose of the language was explained by its author to the committee. 

 The provision read: "Until such time as the [National Science] Board 

 may create a Division of Social Sciences * * * the initiation and 

 support by the Foundation of the social sciences shall be limited to 

 studies related to the programs of the division * * * and studies of 

 the impact of scientific discovery on the general welfare." According 

 to Representative Mills: "Actually what is in the bill is an effort on 

 mv part to limit the activities of the Foundation in the field of social 

 science." Mere omission of the words "social science," he said, would 

 not prevent the Foimdation from sponsoring research in the field at a 

 future date. Thus, "The only way that such action can be prevented 

 is for the committee in its discretion to place some limitation excluding 

 social science as one of the activities of the Foundation." ^ 



In the House hearings, Drs. Bush ^° and Isaiah Bowman (president 

 of Johns Hopkins Universit}^, and a geographer by discipline), ^^ 

 gave cautious support for the permissive approach — allowing the 

 proposed National Science Foundation to establish a division for the 

 social sciences at some future time. Dr. Detlev Bronk,^^ soon to be 

 President of the National Academy of Sciences, and physiologist. Dr. 

 Homer W. Smith, an associate of Dr. Bush m Office of Scientific 

 Research and Development (OSRD),^^ took a similar position. 



Spokesmen for the military departments did not deal at all with the 

 issue. The Secretary of Commerce, Henry A. Wallace, was represented 

 by Dr. E. U. Condon, Director of the National Bureau of Standards, 

 and vigorously supported inclusion of the social sciences in the pro- 

 posed foundation.^* Most of the other witnesses preferred that the 

 social sciences be omitted entirely from the functions or organization 

 of the National Science Foundation. ^^ 



8 TI.R. G448, 79th Cong., 2d sess. Introduced by Representative Wilbur D. Mills. 



« U.S. Congress. House. Conunittee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. National Science Foundation 

 Act. Hearings before a Subcommittee on the * * * on H. R. 6448, a bill to promote the progress of science and 

 the useful arts; to secure the national defense; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; 

 and for other purposes. May 28 and 29, 1946. 79th Cong., 2d sess. (Washington, U.S. Government Printing 

 Omce, 1946), pp. 3,24. 



w Ibid., pp. 11-12. However, in the exchange that followed. Representative Brown remarked that there 

 was "a sort of antipathy agamst social science" in the Congress, and Dr. Bowman agreed that this was true 

 also "of most of the scientists who testified before the Senate [Kilgore] subcommittee." 



11 Ibid., p. 53. 



12 Ibid., p. 72. 



13 Ibid., p. 59. 



i< Ibid., pp. 78, 80-81. 



13 Including John F. Victory, executive secretary, National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (Ibid., 

 p. 62); GeorgeE. Folk, representing the National Association of Manufactuiers (p. 67); Rev. J. Hugh O'Don- 

 nell, president of the University of Notre Dame (p. 91); and Dr. C. E. MacQuigg,of the Engineering College 

 Research Association (p. 33). 



