64 ORGANIZING SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH FOR WAR 



The semiannual reviews of division programs threw a substantial bur- 

 den upon members of the Committee. Each of the twenty-one divisions 

 and panels presented its program to the appropriate reviewing subcom- 

 mittee. Some days later the Division Chief accompanied usually by some 

 members of his staff appeared before the full Committee to explain his 

 program. In the course of the exposition, he reported upon the progress 

 made since his last appearance before the Committee and answered such 

 questions as the Committee wished to ask. He then proceeded to oudine 

 his program for the next six months and to present his estimate of the cost 

 of carrying the program into effect. In a subsequent executive session the 

 reviewing subcommittee would make its report based upon its analysis 

 of the program, following which the Committee would approve the pro- 

 gram with such modifications as it deemed desirable. The Division Chief 

 was then informed of this approval and of the tentative allocation of a 

 designated amount of money for his program for the six-month period. 

 These allocations were normally made after the Committee had heard all 

 of the division and panels. 



In order that the divisional budgets might be on a comparable basis, 

 the Committee normally crowded the twenty-one reviewing sessions into 

 a two-week period which provided a very heavy schedule for the members, 

 all of whom had other duties in addition to their membership in NDRC. 

 In view of the pressure under which the program was being carried, it was 

 obviously impossible for the division estimates to be exact. In practice, 

 the Committee reserved approximately 10 per cent of its funds for alloca- 

 tion to emergency programs arising between the semiannual reviews and 

 relied upon the underexpenditures on some budgets to counterbalance the 

 overexpenditures on others to take care of programs which could not be 

 covered by the 10 per cent margin. In this way the Committee kept fairly 

 well on top of the budgetary situation without unduly restricting the ini- 

 tiative of the divisions. 



A memorandum of general instructions dated November 23, 1942, em- 

 phasized the importance of suitable and adequate reports on the part of 

 Division and Panel Chiefs in keeping the Committee informed. 



The following five kinds of technical and scientific reports were required 

 for the information of the Services as well as the Committee: 



(i) Bimonthly division and panel summaries. These were designed to 

 give a clear over-all picture of the status of all projects in the division with 

 special emphasis on progress during the period since the last report. 



(2) Contractor's progress reports. These were to be prepared as required 

 by the contract or by the Division Chief within the terms of the contract, 

 and were to be accompanied by a brief summary and comment prepared 

 by the division or section. 



(3) Contractor's final report. 



