123 



And as I said before, it's valuable, but it really isn't research and 

 development, as most other countries in the world define it. 



And so if we want to compare ourselves and see how we're doing 

 with other countries, it's the FS&T budget that counts. If you're in- 

 terested in science and technology, as it develops new ways of 

 doing things, new knowledge which will be useful to industry and 

 to the defense establishment, it's the FS&T budget that counts. 



Dr. Fox. Mr. Chairman. 



Chairman Walker. Dr. Fox? 



Dr. Fox. Another way of saying the same thing would be to ask 

 whether a particular investment really has the effect of undergird- 

 ing the strength of our industries and whether it assures our readi- 

 ness to respond to opportunities as they arise. 



To the extent that development produces a specific product and 

 is not as transferable or related to discovery, we think it should be 

 considered separately. 



It's important to consider that we don't advocate elimination, 

 but, rather, separate consideration. 



Mr. Mahoney. It would certainly be presumptuous of this kind 

 of a panel to give an opinion about how many jets ought to be de- 

 veloped in the five-year period. 



We're dealing with science procedure and policy. That's a tough 

 call. So we pushed it off to the side. 



Chairman Walker. That's very helpful. The other thing that 

 strikes me about the report is that it is not only the Administration 

 and the Congress that will have to adapt to this way of doing 

 things, as difficult as that may be, but also, the scientific commu- 

 nity is not used to working in this way. 



Scientists, for example, as they come before this Committee, gen- 

 erally oppose setting priorities within science and comparing one 

 discipline against another. And usually, what we find is that the 

 scientists who come here are very much champions of their own 

 field. They're highly competitive. And they can't always identify the 

 economic implications of their research. 



Therefore, my guess is that you're going to find a lot of people 

 who are not in the science community who are not going to agree 

 with your recommendation for centralized priority-setting and I 

 think. Dr. Press, you kind of referred to that. 



How does the Academy seek to demonstrate to scientists the 

 need to set priorities amongst the disciplines? 



Dr. Press. I know that community very well. I spent 25 years 

 among them. 



We're not going to say that physics is more important than chem- 

 istry or biology or whatever. 



Our kinds of priorities are different. Our kinds of priority con- 

 sists of evaluations and performance, meeting agency needs, meet- 

 ing national needs, meeting the needs of the American people. 



Those are the ways we would judge programs and whether or not 

 to allocate funds to them. 



So its quality control, performance, government needs, and all of 

 that. 



Chairman WALKER. My time has expired. 



Mr. Brown? 



Mr. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 



