115 



The report explained : 



The initial limitation with respect to the support of research in the social sciences 

 has been included in the bill because none of the studies which served as a back- 

 ground for this legislation had considered the research needs of these fields.^' 



V. The Decision Process — Senate and House 



The Senate took up the Science Foundation bill, S. 1850, on July 1, 

 1946. Senator Kilgore as floor manager, explained the need for the 

 legislation, described the abundant support it had received in the hear- 

 ings from scientists, business, labor, and other public figures, and 

 indu'ectly accounted for the change in tone as between the preliminary 

 and final reports of his subcommittee when he said : 



* * * After all the hearings were concluded [early in November 1945], a commit" 

 tee was formed, consisting of leading scientists, to study the bill. I think the com- 

 mittee was headed by A'annevar Bush and Dr. Isaiah Bowman as cochairmen. We 

 met with Dr. Bowman and Dr. Bush in a conference in which all points in dispute 

 with reference to the bill itself were ironed out, and we departed from the confer- 

 ence with both sides satisfied as to the details of the bill.^o 



However, Senator Johnson of Colorado (one of the sponsors of the 

 bill and very much in sympathy with its purposes) took exception to 

 the bill's provision for a division of the social sciences. Senator 

 Kilgore explained that the sciences were inseparable, and that the 

 bill provided merely for a study of the relevance of the social sciences 

 for the total program. Senator Magnuson offered assurance that there 

 was "no intention of embarking upon a vast program into the realm 

 of the social sciences" but that some areas of research unavoidably 

 overlapped. But Senator Johnson protested that to include social 

 sciences made the scope of the program vague and unmanageable.^^ 



Senator Fulbright evidently sensed an antipathy toward the social 

 sciences which he thought might be based on a misconception with 

 the study of the social sciences ''being confused with what we com- 

 monly think of as politics, socialism, or some form of social 

 philosophy." In attempting to clarif}^ the issue. Senator Fulbright 

 quoted an "able scientist" whom he had consulted the day before, who 

 had defined social science as "one individual or a group of individuals 

 telling another group how they should live." ^^ This explanation was 

 not well received and in his further explanatory^ statement he revealed 

 both his own ambivalent attitude toward the social sciences and its 

 source : 



At the request of the physical scientists, we incorporated a special provision 

 in the bill in an effort to try to prevent the Division of Social Sciences getting 

 out of hand, so to speak. I have no fear of that, however. I only hope this provi- 

 sion will give some prestige to social science, that it will sort of recognize that 

 field of study as a legitimate thing in our society, and I hope it will encourage 

 some of our more inteUigent 3'oung people to go into that field. I think it is sadly 

 understaffed. I know there are many crackpots in that field, just as there were in 

 the field of medicine in the days of witchcraft, but it is not something from which 



4» Ibid., p. 31. 



5" Senator Kilgoie's statement is taken from the Congressional Record (July 1, 1946), p. 8144. In intro- 

 ducing the legislation. Senator Smith explained that framing it he had had the benefit of advice from 

 "* * * Dr. Vannevar Bush, Head of the Office of Scientific Research and Development, which Office the 

 Foundation would replace; President James B. Conant of Hai-vard University and H.D. Smyth of 

 Princeton University, author of the Smyth report on atomic energy (Gerald G. Gross, "New Science 

 Drive Beiun in Congress," Washington Post, Feb. 8, 1947). 



" Congressional Record, op. cit., pp. 8157-8158. 



52 Ibid., p. 8164. J 



