149 



Senator Harris' hearings did not serve his purpose of presenting 

 a strong argument for the proposed foundation. The Bureau of the 

 Budget opposed his proposal, as did many of the social scientists who 

 testified that they would prefer the NSF proposal or that they would 

 wait to see the recommendations of the NAS Committee on Government 

 Programs in the Behavioral Sciences. Nevertheless, the hearings on the 

 bill had positive results : 



To elevate the status of the social sciences in Federal science 

 policy structure by bringing the issue of the social sciences and 

 public policy into the Congress, and to create a more hospitable 

 attitude toward social sciences as worthy of support ; 



To provide a national forum for social scientists to discuss 

 their problems — this was the first time social scientists had testi- 

 fied en masse before Congress on disciplinary' matters ; 



To stimulate social scientists to assess systematically the prob- 

 lem of Federal sponsorship and to begin a dialog between social 

 scientists and the Congress ; 



To inform the Congress with respect to the utilization of the 

 social sciences ; 



To present proposals for reform of Federal mechanisms and to 

 raise many questions deserving of answer ; 



To recognize that the social sciences have many problems in 

 common with the physical and natural sciences and to suggest 

 that a place should be found within the Federal science policy- 

 making structures for social sciences ; 



By virtue of the wealth of valual)le testimony received and not 



digested in the subcommittee of Congress, to demonstrate the 



mechanisms that had to be developed both within the Congress 



and the Administration to provide for a continuing assessment of 



the social science/Federal Government relationship. 



A complete analysis of the information presented in the hearings 



held by the Sulocommittee on Government Research is not necessary ; 



a few illustrations will serve to justify the assertions made. 



For instance, Dr. Arthur Brayfield, executive director of the 

 American Psychological Association, presented a history of the rela- 

 tionships between psychology and the government and gave a run- 

 down of the association's lobbying efforts in Washington. Anthro- 

 pologists illustrated their contributions to Federal programs, 

 especially in Peace Corps training and field operations. Dr. Brayfield 

 and Pendleton Herring of the Social Science Research Council pre- 

 sented a typology of the disciplines in the social and behavioral sci- 

 ences. Social scientists eagerly responded to the Senator's queries for 

 infonnation about the types of research for which additional sup- 

 port, was needed. For example, Kalman Silvert, president of the 

 Latin-American Studies Association and professor of government at 

 Dartmouth, suggested that social scientists could best assist Federal 

 programs if additional attention were given to research in : 



( 1 ) General problems of social change ; 



(2) Social problems of economic development ; 



(3) Problems of social integration ; 



(4) Application of theoretical categories to data gathered to further 

 elaborate general sociological theory.*^ 



•2 Ibid., pp. 56, 88-89, 69, and 229-231, respectively. 



