The National Bureau of Standards Becomes the National

CHAPTER ONE A UNIQUE INSTITUTION CHANGE COMES TO A MIDDLE-AGED AGENCY In 1968 the National Bureau of Standards was about to lose a Director who nearly had become an institution himself. With that loss the nature of the agency would begin to change, although no one could foresee the manner of change, so subtle were its beginnings. Allen Astin, leader of the Bureau for a decade and a half, was a scientist of the old school, not different in material ways from his four predecessors as Director: his most precious possessions were his scientific and personal integrity; his devotion to the institution was absolute; the efforts of his hours, days and years hewed to the goal of providing useful purpose for his staff and obtaining for them the best working environ- ment he could provide. In the exercise of his duties Astin had asked no quarter from his superiors. And in truth, he had received but little. A more desired commodity, however, he had been granted in abundance by all who crossed his path—respect for his ability and for his unflinching honesty. Our story begins with Astin's last year as Director. Most of his work is chronicled in the volume that serves as companion to this one.' As we assess the institution that he left behind, however, we shall see that its uniqueness in 1968 derived in no small measure from the careful and devoted nurture of Allen Astin and his predecessors. The end of Astin's career as Director came as the Nation's funding of scientific research and development had ceased to grow at a double-digit rate. In fact, by every mark, funding of basic science and both civilian and military research and development reached a standstill during this period.2 The events that had led to the flagging of support for America's scientific establishment were linked tightly to the origins of impending change for the National Bureau of Standards. Gradually, during the decades of the l950s and 1960s, America began to lose the world dominance won at so great a price in World War II. The post-war boom in the U.S. economy had fueled a corresponding jump in its standard of living, with America leading a world-wide increase in trade. But the party became noticeably quieter as the strain of war—first in Korea, then in Vietnam—coupled with a multitude of problems within the Nation's borders to unsettle the lives of ordinary Americans. Growing 'EIio Passaglia with Karma A. Beat, A UNIQUE INST1TUTJON: The National Bureau ofStandards, 1950-1969 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1999). 2 Deborah Shapley and Rustum Roy, Lost At The Frontier: U.S. Science and Technology Policy Adrift, (Philadelphia: ISI Press, 1985), pp. 4-5, Figs. IA, lB. IC. inflation and interest rates, anti-trust actions, worry over pollution and loss of natural resources, all these factors created doubt in the minds of U.S. citizens that more and more science would provide the quality of life that they wanted for themselves and their children.3 As a result of environmental and health concerns, Americans demanded better protection from the poisonous side effects of U.S. industrial production. There began a series of ecologically based actions by the Congress—the Land and Water Act of 1964, the Water Pollution Act and the Clean Air Act of 1965, the Clean Water Restoration Act of 1966, and later the Environmental Protection Act, the Toxic Substances Control Act, the Occupational Health and Safety Act, and amendments to the Clean Air Act. This legislation would engender compliance costs estimated at $63 billion for the year 1976 and $100 billion by Not until 1980 would the balance of payments shift dramatically to the negative for the United States, but worrisome signs abounded in 1968. As Astin prepared to retire, many members of Congress contemplated ways in which they could help American industry maintain leadership in the world economy. The solution seemed to lie in helping U.S. industry to apply modern technology more effectively. NBS was known— to the relatively few Congressmen who knew it at all—as a center of technical compe- tence. It was the Nation's "problem-solver" as well as the final authority on measurement standards. If NBS were to exert more leadership in applying new technology, perhaps it could play a larger part in keeping America's production strong... But we get ahead of ourselves. Let us take the time to examine the National Bureau of Standards to see why, indeed, it should be known as a unique institution. ORIGIN OF THE NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS The Federal agency that is now called the National Institute of Standards and Technology was created as the National Bureau of Standards by the 56th Congress of the United States. The chartering legislation, reported in "The Statutes at Large of the United States of America," Volume XXXI, Chapter 872, page 1449, was approved on March 3, 1901, during the second session of the 56th Congress. The shorthand reference to the chartering act is 31 Stat. 1449 (the act is now known as Public Law 56-177); it occupies less than two pages of text. The ten relatively short sections of Public Law do not appear remarkable from the distance of ninety-odd years, but they outline in succinct form a strong, laboratory-based agency with well-developed functions and a small but highly technical staff. Paul Johnson, Modern Times: The World From the Twenties to the Nineties, Revised Edition, (New York: Harper Perennial, 1991), Ch. 19. "Robert DeFina, Public and Private Expenditures for Federal Regulation of Business (St. Louis: Washington University, 1977). Murray L. Weidenbaum, Governmental Power and Business (Stanford, 1980). Reproduced in Appendix A. 2 The birth of the National Bureau of Standards followed a surprisingly long gestation. However, by virtue of the comprehensive powers given to it by its chartering legislation, the infant agency was able to develop quickly into an effective organization. The only ingredient that Congress, on its own, could not supply was spirited and forward-looking leadership. Fortunately, that ingredient quickly materialized in the person of Samuel W. Stratton, whose contributions will be discussed shortly. Constitutional Authority The founding fathers provided to Congress all the authority it needed for the creation of a National Bureau of Standards more than a century before its actual founding. This authority is explicit in the U.S. Constitution. There can be no doubt that the men who wrote the Constitution recognized the importance of uniform standards of measurement to ensure an equitable and orderly commerce for the new country, for they juxtaposed that authority with the basic monetary authority. The text of Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution reads, in part: "The Congress shall have Power. To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures.. Following the organization of the major executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the new government, the Congress quickly acted to regulate the coinage of the new nation. A United States Mint was established by congressional action on April 2, 1792, a scant three years after the inauguration of George Washington as the first President. Curiously, however, the Congress was hesitant to act on its co-equal authority with respect to weights and measures, despite the clear and growing need for uniformity in manufacture and commerce and despite specific requests from President Washington. "Customary Standards" The need for Congress to "fix the standard" for weights and measures arose in sub- stantial part from the complex state of industrial and commercial measurements prior to the 19th century. Early citizens of the United States, harking back to origins throughout Europe and, to some extent, in lands beyond, made use of a staggering variety of measured quantities and their scales. The "inch," the "hand," the "foot," the "yard," the "fathom," the "chain," and the "rod" were just a few of the linear measures in use during that time. Area was measured in terms of the "perch," the "square inch," the "square meter," the "acre," and the "hectare," among others. Volumetric measures included the "fluid ounce," the "gallon," the "peck," the "dry quart," the "bushel," the "cord," and the "firkin." Weight units were as diverse as the "grain," the "pound," the "troy ounce," the "ton," the "short ton," and the "long ton." The relationships among the various industrial and commercial measures were tenuous at best. Even merchants with the most honest intentions could not deliver uniform amounts of their goods to their customers for want of adequate measuring devices. The occasional instance of a vendor's greed, added to the difficulty of accurate measurement, made shopping a punishing exercise indeed for the early consumer! 3 A Baltimore city inspector tested a grocery store scale for accuracy, about 1920. Photo appears courtesy of the Maryland Department of Agriculture (Weights and Measures Section). The variety of coins that were intimate parts of the lives of America's citizens at the time it became a nation was not nearly so large as the panoply of weights and measures. Why did the Congress quickly choose to set up a system of coinage and a mint to regularize the monetary system, yet hesitate to select or concoct a standard set of commercial and manufacturing measures? From a distance of nearly two centuries, this inconsistency is puzzling. As the decades passed, various Congresses, urged on by a citizenry suffering under the chaotic state of U.S. measurement standards, made only halting efforts in the direction of establishing a National Bureau of Standards.6 The Congresses received periodic requests for action on standards from representatives of U.S.

Load more