116 



we should back away. We have to solve the social problems one way or the other. 

 I cannot see any harm in admitting that they are legitimate problems and giving 

 the Board authority to devote some of its resources to that study.^^ 



As the debate proceeded, opponents brought out further points: 



The proposed foundation should initially be confined to the 

 fields most urgently needing support, with doubtful areas de- 

 ferred until the plan had been tested; 



There was a danger in loading too much scope into the program; 



It was uncertain as to what the social scientists would study — 

 they could not be trusted (this attitude was in marked contrast 

 with that toward the physical sciences, which aU members agreed 

 to assure full freedom of scientific inquiry) ; 



The scope of the social sciences part of the program deserved 

 further study which the Congress would not itself be qualified 

 to conduct; 



There was a danger that the Congress might find itself re- 

 sponsible for sponsoring "wild-eyed, so-called research" or the 

 use of funds to further projects of "a man addicted to certain 



isms"; 



The social sciences were not subject to close definition, were 

 not related to the physical sciences, could not be managed by 

 those qualified to direct research in the physical sciences, and 

 were not favored by the physical scientists. 



In an effort to expedite the decision process. Senator Smith of 

 New Jersey offered as an amendment a substitute bill which differed 

 from the Kilgore-AIagnuson proposal in five respects: (1) control by 

 a science board rather than an appointed administrator; (2) changed 

 provisions for regional distribution of project funding; (3) changed 

 patent provisions; (4) exclusion of the social sciences from the scope 

 of the bill; and (5) modification in the timing of the scholarship- 

 fellowship part of the program. ^* 



In support of item 4, Senator Smith produced a letter to the Presi- 

 dent from a "Committee Supporting the Bush Report," dated 

 November 24, 1945, and signed by 5,000 scientists. The committee 

 included many notable figures in the scientific community, such as 

 its Chaii'man, Isaiah Bowman, and also Bronk, Con ant, and Du- 

 Bridge. This group said it would be a "serious mistake to include 

 the social sciences * * * at this time," and recommended that a 

 separate institution be provided for their support.^^ When the Smith 

 amendment was rejected,^^ the Senate then proceeded on the following 

 day (July 3) to take up one at a time the issues raised by Smith. 

 An amendment by Senator Hart, of Connecticut, proposed to delete 

 from the NSF biU the provision for a social science division, as- 

 sistance to students of social science, and inclusion of the social 

 sciences in the scope of the Foundation. ^^ In support of his amend- 

 ment. Senator Hart again referred to its omission from the Bush 

 report, the lack of agreement as to the definition of the social sciences, 

 the complexity and expense of administering a field of such large 

 scope, and the lack of coherence between physical and social sciences. 



53 Ibid., p. 8165. 



5* Ibid., p. 8232. 



" Ibid., pp. 8237-8238. 



5« Ibid., p. 8265. Thie vote was 24 to 39 with 33 not voting. 



"Ibid., p. 8349. 



