DOCUMENT RESUME 'ED 230 414 SE 041 614 AUTHOR England, J. Merton TITLE ° A Patron for Pure Science. The National Science Foundation's Formative Years, 1945-57. NSF 82-24. INSTITUTION National Science Foundation, Washington, D.C. REPORT NO NSF-82-24 PUB DATE 82' NOTE 455p. PUB TYPE Books (010) -- Historical Materials (060) EDRS PRICE MF01/PC19 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS College Science; Federal Aid; Federal Legislation; *Federal Programs; Government Role; Higher Education; *Orgamizational Objectives; Peer Evaluation; *Policy Formation; Program Adhlinistration; *Program Development; Science Education; *Science Education History; Science Programs; *Scientific Retearch; Secondary Education; Secondary School Science IDENTIFIERS *National Science Foundation; Science Policy ABSTRACT Provided in this book is a legislative and administrative history of the National Science Foundation (NSF) during its formative years (1945-57). The 15 chapter book is organized into three parts. Partq ("The Long Debate, 1945-50")' narrates the legislative history of the Foundation's creation. Part°2 ("Beginning, 1950-54") discusses the appointment of NSF's first board, director, and staff; their early decisions on research and fellowship programs and means of administering them; and conflict over the agency's policy responsibility, culminating with the isivance of Executive Order 10521 in which NSF's duties and role in policy development and evaluation were defined. Part 3,("Cold Wer Growth, 1954-57"), beginning approximately with the executive order and ending, again apOroilimately with the orbiting of the first Soviet Sputnik in October 1957, discusses NSF's expanding educational and research programs,including venteres into international cooperation, and the continuing effort to determine the Foundation's role in the making of national science policy. The text of Executive Order 10521 concerning government scientific research, excerpts from an interview with William E. Benson (June 12,,, 1975) on peer°review in the earth science program, and NSF organizational s ructure (1950-57) are included in appendixes. Technical notes, glo ary, and subject index are also included. (JN) ******************************* *************************************** Reproductions supplied by Et*S are the best that can be made from the ori4inal document. *********************************************************************** 4 0 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUSAT1ON NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) I 1 This document has been reproduced as received from the person o0aganization originating it. LI Minor changes have been made to improvo reproduction dbality. Points of view or opinions stated in this docu- ment do not necessarily represent official NIE position or policy. o Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data England, J. Merton (James Merton), 1915- A patron for pure science. Bibliography: p. 423 Includes index. I. National Science Foundation (U.S.)History. I.Title. Q11 .N2949673E5 1982 353.0085'5 82-14368 NSF 82-24 Contents Preface and Acknowledgments vii PART IThe Long Debate, 1945-50 Introduction 3 1 Dr. Bush Writes a Report 9 2 Compromise Achieved 25 3 Division and Defeat 45 4 Veto 61 5 New FrontiersEndless or Finite? 83 Looking Backward, 1950-1945 107 rR t, IBeginning, 4 950-54 6 Board and Director 113 7 "Welcome Aboard!" 129 8 Defining a Programthe1952 Budget 141, 9 Ways and Means of Administration 161 10 Evaluation and Policy 181 End of the Beginning 203 PART IIICold War Growth, 1954-57 I I Men and Means ,,, 211 12 Quality and Quantity in Science Education 227 13 Little Science 255 14 Bigger Science -' 279 15 Policy for Science 311 How Firm a Foundation? 347 II vi CONTENTS Appendixes 1 Executive Order (10521) Concerning Government Scientific Research. 353 2 Peer Review in the Earth Sciences Program 357 3 NSF Organizational Structure, 190-57 363 Notes 367 Glossary of Abbreviations 421 Note on Unpublished Source Materials 423 Index 425 5 Preface and Acknowledgments, i Science seems so much simpler than its Machinery!" wrote a scientist worrying about taking aut administrative position in the National Science Foundation in its early days. It is the way that machinery was built) and workedin an independent federal agency that I have attempted to narrate and describe in this history. A legislative and administrative history or a federal institution during its formative years, this book does not discuss that institution's important achievementthe advancement of sciencebut I hope it will contribute to greater understanding of how the achievement was made. When I began this work Iexpected to write a single-volume history of the National Science Foundation covering the thirty-year span. from the time it was first proposed to the mid-1970s. Perhaps I should have stuck to that aim. Yet, many ideas and decisions that Ifirst thought could be treated summarilyand perhaps could have been if I had been writing only for old NSF handslater seemed to demand fuller explanation. Even so, I regret elisions of several matterS that seem important to me. I should say why I have included what many readers will consider excessive detail. As one who ha,d spent years on a university 6mpus before taking a government job, I was fascinated to learn something of how a federal agency works, how its dominant ideas and characteristics are formed, how its battlesinternal and externalare won, lost, drawn, or put off till another year. Bureaucrats ceased being "faceless," and few of those who were my associates were drones. I am convinced that the society they serve should knoyikiliore about their work. Also, my years at the Foundation, and especially the great turnover of the agency's staff and the v11 6 viiiPREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS new directions NSF has taken, have made me acutely conscious of its lack of an institutional memory. Although I have not intended this study as one for the edification of my colleagues, I hope they will find it instructive and useful. About the organization of the book: Part I, "The Long Debate, 1945- 50," narrates the legislative history of the Foundation's creation. Part II, "Beginning, 1950-54," discusses the appointment of NSF's first board, director, and staff; their early decisions on research and fellowship programs and means of administering them; and conflict over the agency's policy responsibility, culminating in a presidential order of March 17, 1954. Part III, "Cold War Growth, 1954-57," beginning approximately with the executive order and endingagain approximatelywith the orbiting of the first Soviet.Sputnik in October 1957, discusses NSF's expanding educational and research programs, including ventures into internfitional cooperation, and the continuing effort to determine the Foundation's role in the making of national science policy. Historians are too prone to detect "watersheds" as they scan the past's jumbled topography, but surely Sputnik I marks a divide between com- placency and concern in Americans' attitudes toward their scientific and educational institutions. The Soviet feat furnished a convenient stopping place for this volume and a point of departure for a second volume, which I now expect to cover the years from Sputnik to June 30, 1969. If the chronological divisions in this volume are fairly precise, some of the frequently used words are not. If pressed to define basic research, I would fall back on the brief description in Vannevar Bush's ScienceThe Endless Frontier: "Basic research is performed without thought of prac- tical ends." I apologize for the use of other terms, such as "liberal" and "conservative," whose meaning has become increasingly dubious, and for my occasional references to a perhaps imaginarY scientific "community" or scientific 4establishment." While in an apologetic mood, I also express regret to friends and colleagues, past and present, for not writing the kind of book many of them hoped for. Many fine NSF staff members and their important programs go unmentioned. I hope they understand that while they were not the intended audience for this book, their good works made NSF an institution worth explaining to a wider public. Busy colleagues, most of them much more interested in the future than in the past, have generously helped me in the research and writing that have gone into this study. But ihey have never tried to control its content or interpretations. If the book bears marks of "court history," the fault is mine alone. PREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ix I cannot name all of the people who have assisted my research and writing, but a Nw deserve special thanks. First, three women, whose importance in the Foundation's work is not revealed in my narrative but who made my account possible: Doris McCarn, secrstary to the first director (and all of his successors to 1980), who with a southern woman's sense of history vigilantly saved and carefully organized the records of his Office and helped me in countless ways; Vernice Anderson; executive secretary of the National Science Board, who performed a similar service for history and for me with the records of the board; and Mildred C. Allen, a colleague with a keen understanding ofwhat has enduring vafue, who when she retired gave me her thoughtfully culled collection of policy documents and publications, many of them the products of her own meticulous mork". I am indebted to a large number of readers of sections or chapters of the study in its early drafts. I wish to thank especially Dael ho read all my chapters and gave me valuable advice and much needed encouragement. The late Louis Levin, whose critical ability I had come to admire and apprehend when he,was my boss,)-ead Parts II and III, as did my friend and colleague Nathan Kassack. Otherswho have given me helPful suggestions and saved me fromembarrassing errors include: William E. Benson, Lee Anna Blick, Charles F. Brown, William D. Carey, Lyman Chalkley, Bowen C. Dees, Frank K. Edmondson, Estella K. Engel, Jerome H. Fregeau, William T. Golden, William J. Hoff, Gerald Holton, Walton M.