lis 



had been somewhat more friendly than m the i)revious year's hearings. 

 Dr. Bush, for example, said : 



In the last session of Congress there was considerable controversy over a pro- 

 vision in the Kilgore-Magnuson bill which would establish within the Founda- 

 tion, a Division of Social Sciences. This provision was eliminated on the floor, 

 and I beheve that was a wise move. But I do think that the controversy was 

 unfortunate. If we, as a democratic nation of free individuals are to survive, we 

 must seek to understand the forces which affect our social organizations in order 

 that they may be anticipated and guided in safe directions. 



A large amount of research is already being devoted to various aspects of the 

 social sciences, both by the Government and by private individuals and orga- 

 nizations. Much more could be done to advantage. In view of the magnitude and 

 complexity of this field, however, it seems to me that the Fovuidation should 

 fully survey it with a view toward determining those areas which could be made 

 the subject of fruitful research under its auspices. Under H.R. 1830 [which was 

 identical with the subsequently Senate-passed S. 526], this could be done, and 

 I hope it will be done. But it is well to make research in the social sciences permis- 

 sive rather than mandatory.^^ 



Although some witnesses still adhered to the idea of separate support 

 for the social sciences, Dr. Bronk continued to support the full 

 inclusion of the social sciences; "^ in addition, a rather strong move in 

 support of the permissive formula was made by a group headed by 

 Dr. Edmund E. Day, president of Cornell University and chairman 

 of the " Intejsociety Committee on Science Foundation Legislation," 

 representing 68 (or 75) scientific and educational organizations, and 

 supported by the American Association for the Advancement of 

 Science. According to Dr. Day: "It is my impression that both the 

 natural scientists and the social scientists are prepared to go along 

 with the provisions that are in these four educational bills which leave 

 [the question of the social sciences division] essentially to the Founda- 

 tion later to determine." ^"^ Responses from the participating societies 

 to a questionnaire showed that 49 percent of these professional people 

 favored specific inclusion of the social sciences in the NSF, another 

 48 percent favored permissive inclusion, and only 2 percent favored 

 their exclusion. Also, 99 percent were willing to accept permissive 

 inclusion as the solution, 94 percent were willing to accept specific 

 inclusion (i.e., a Division of the Social Sciences), and 37 percent the 

 exclusion of the social sciences from the Foundation altogether^"* 



Four of the House bills were identical with that passed by the Sen- 

 ate; there was also a different bill, H.R. 942, introduced by Repre- 

 sentative Celler of New York, that woidd have provided for a di\^sion 

 of the social sciences. The Celler bill did not receive favorable con- 

 sideration, however, and all parties appeared to be satisfied with the 

 decision to defer action, leaving the question of level of effort and 

 organizational provisions in the social sciences to the Foundation 

 itself, after it had been created. The effect of this decision, of course, 

 was to place responsibility for decisions regarding the social sciences 

 with the representatives of other scientific disciplines than the social 

 sciences. 



62 U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. National Science Foundation. 

 Hearings before the * * * on H.R. 942, H.R. 1815, H.R. 1830, H.R. 1834, and H.R. 2027, bills relating to the 

 National Science Foundation. Mar. 6 and 7, 1947. 80th Cong., 1st sess. (Washington, U.S. Government 

 Printing Office, 1947), pp. 235-236. 



63 Ibid., see pp. 70,43^4. 



64 Ibid., p. 59. 



63 Ibid., pp. 64-65. 



