132 



I wouldn't want to be waiting patiently for the results of that. 

 That would take a complete reordering of what people do. They 

 don't have the facilities for that sort of thing. You can't in a cor- 

 poration hire the kind of people that we can collaborate with in 

 universities. 



That's why we do it. We're not doing this for eleemosynary rea- 

 sons. We can't hire the kind of people that are in universities. We 

 can't get that kind of skill. Nor can they do the kinds of things we 

 can do. 



So the collaborations work. 



If our source of knowledge were cut back, we'd have to step up 

 to something more. It would take a while. Whether others would 

 is another question. They don't spend much on R right now. 



Mr. DOGGETT. Is it fair to say, then, that as important as the role 

 of private sector is, it cannot compensate for significant reductions 

 in public commitment to research and that we have to have a pub- 

 lic and private partnership, if you will, to keep this country com- 

 petitive with the rest of the world? 



Mr. Mahoney. Well, the system is working very well. And to 

 project an answer to a major upset and say, can't, shouldn't, will 

 never happen, can't ever be repaired, is too strong, I think. 



But the system is working well now and the partnership has 

 been really wonderful when it works. And it works quite often. And 

 I would agree with the substance of it, but I certainly think people 

 would have to take some action of some kind. 



Mr. DOGGETT. I have nothing further, Mr. Chairman. I know my 

 time is expired. But I think Dr. Fox had a further response. 



Dr. Fox. I was just going to say, as a director of a major chemical 

 company, I recognize that the opportunity to think about 

 leveraging responses and so forth is a really very risky experiment. 



To the extent that we must maintain a position on competitive- 

 ness in the world market, we really would put ourselves at risk if 

 we were to rely on the private sector to fill in for monies that were 

 not available from federal support for basic research. 



Mr. DOGGETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 



Chairman Walker. Mr. Cramer? 



Mr. Cramer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 



I want to come back to an issue that I think I recall Mr. Brown 

 raised. 



Your report recommends that federal science and technology 

 funding generally favor academic institutions. My question becomes 

 did the committee consider the question of oversupply or 

 underemployment of PhD scientists and engineers? 



And that's getting increased attention and I refer you to the win- 

 ter edition of Issues in Science and Technology, in a thorough arti- 

 cle in there — Graduate Education Adapting to Current Realities. 



If we're going to look at university-funded science or favor aca- 

 demic institutions, and in general, we eventually are going to cut 

 back, then what are we really doing? 



Would you care to comment about that? 



Dr. Press. We didn't address that issue in great detail, perhaps 

 because the National Academies did issue a report on graduate 

 education. 



Let me just say a few things. 



