495 



nical briefings resulting from its statutory obligation for approving of 

 budgets for atomic research. 



Assessment.— The enthusiasm for this field among many eminent 

 physicists is unmistakable. Congressional support has been maintained 

 at an increasing rate. The quality of factual information about research 

 programs, hardware requirements, time phasing of expansion, and 

 expected results, has been consistently high, specific, and coherent. Few 

 issues or dissents have occurred. 



Commentary. — The indication is that as required energ}^ levels of 

 accelerators rise, funds allocated to the field will be concentrated in a 

 declining number of installations, with fewer students, more specialized 

 technologists, and a select group of highly qualified researchers. No 

 ultimate goal can be foreseen; the quest appears endless, with costs 

 continuing to rise. There is always the possibility that invention of 

 some new principle of particle acceleration will render obsolete the 

 large investments in existing research hardware. Members of a panel 

 of scientists that discussed in 1965 the problem of setting the level of 

 Government support for high energy physics took notice of the fact 

 that every scientific discipline had a practically unlimited capacity to 

 absorb funds, while the available resources for all remained finite. One 

 paper proposed that the criteria of social gain resulting from basic 

 research might become more relevant in the future. 



CASE nine: the office of coal research 



Bachground. — U.S. mining and processing of coal as a source of 

 thermal and electrical energy declined after 1947, in markets, employ- 

 ment, and numbers of producing units. Competing fossil fuels and 

 atomic energy threatened to reduce its share of markets still further. 

 Hard-hit coal-producing areas sought relief. Enormous reserves of 

 coal remained available in the United States. Vigorous Government- 

 sponsored applied research had made possible an abundance of atomic 

 energy at competitive prices. 



Problem. — To encourage applied research programs to improve the 

 competitive position of coal in traditional markets, and to develop new 

 economically vial^le uses for it. 



Access to Congress. — The President's National Materials Policy 

 (Paley) Commission had recommended development of a research plan 

 for coal. Several other presidential commissions had also called for this 

 action. Impetus within the Congress developed from implementation 

 of a resolution by Eepresentative Saylor, whose Pennsylvania constitu- 

 ency included many coal mining cormnunities, for a congressional in- 

 vestigating committee on coal research. 



The ffl'(7f.<f.— Representative Saylor's resolution authorized a special 

 subcommittee of the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs 

 to investigate the need for a coal research program and how to estab- 

 lish it. On the basi.s of a substantial investigation, the subcommittee 

 recommended, August 1957, creation of an independent coal research 

 and development commission to find new uses for coal, expand existing 

 uses, reduce production and distribution costs, and aid smaller pro- 

 ducers. An Office of Coal Research (OCR) was created in the Depart- 

 ment of the Interior, by an act of July I960. A year later, little action 

 had been taken to implement the measure but by 1968 the agency had 



