153 



They are growing very rapidly. I think the formation of a National Foundation 

 for the Social Sciences in fact would belp that process, would accelerate that 

 growth." 



Con 



Those opposed to creation of the Foundation, primarily executive 

 department and agency officials, the Bureau of the Budget, natural 

 and physical scientists, and some social scientists, especially those who 

 had worked for the Government, gave a variety of reasons : 



(1) The solution of national problems requires a unified attack by all sci- 

 entists working in concert ; artificial barriers should not be created : 



The interrelationships between the physical, biological, and social sciences are 

 so extensive and fundamentally significant that it would be an unfortunate 

 error to fail to take advantage of the opportunities for their improved coordi- 

 nation already so well initiated in the administration of the National Science 

 Foundation and the National Institutes of Health. In illustration of the need 

 for cooperation between the biological and the social sciences, it is no secret 

 that the social sciences today are environmentally biased and that they very 

 much need to increase their attention to the biological bases of human behavior." 



* * * It would be inadvisable and unlikely for the mission-oriented agencies 

 to surrender research programs directly related to their agency missions to 

 organizations unfamiliar with the requirements and without direct responsi- 

 bility for application of the results." 



(2) Social scientists would learn scientific objectivity and quicken the pace 

 of solution of methodological problems, if they worked with natural and physical 

 scientists."^ 



(3) Creation of the proposed NFSS should await results of the NAS studies."* 



(4) NSF has experience and established relationships with the social science 

 community ; social sciences would profit from support for education and training 

 (provisions for such support were not included in Harris' original bill).^ 



(5) The proposed foundation would not solve the problems of military spon- 

 sorship and ethics.** 



V. Consequences of Camelot for Government Social Science 



Military-spon.sored foreign area research 



In its first assessment, the Fascell hearings in 1965, Congress heard 

 DOD and SOKO witnesses. The committee decried militarj^ sponsor- 

 ship of foreign area research, but did not legislate explicitly on this 

 issue. It could do no more than recommend that DOD and State 

 put their houses in order. Some administrative actions taken in re- 

 sponse to the committee's recommendations were effective, others were 

 less so. It is evident that despite congressional calls for "civilianizing" 

 foreign area social science research, national security considerations 

 did, and will continue to, command congressional and administrative 

 support for DOD's sponsorship of such research. 



State Department response 



Although the subcommittee recommended that State increase its 

 component of social science research, State's share has gone down, 

 while DOD's has remained stable or increased. (See table II, p. 130.) 



The committee also directed that State and DOD effect better co- 



^ International Social Science and Behavioral Research, Hearings, op. cit., pp. 242-250. 



!>3 Donald Young. Chairman, NAS Advisory Committee on Government Programs in the 

 Behavioral Sciences. Ibid., p. 132. 



^ Leland Haworth, NSF, In National Foundations for Social Sciences, Hearings, op. cit., 

 p. 100. 



»3 Don Price, In ibid., p. 395. 



°« Fred Haviland, Institutional Social Science and Behavioral Research, op. cit., p. 154. 



^ Pendleton Herring, Ibid., p. 112. 



»3 Donald MacArthur, DOD, In National Foundation for Social Sciences, Hearings, op. 

 cit., p. 229. 



