Mr. MILLER. I am very much concerned, as I think all people are, with some type antimissile defense. As I get it, the only thing you say we have positively today is Nike-Zeus and you are not too certain that it has been worked to the place where it is effective.

Dr. RUINA. Yes, sir.

Mr. MILLER. There is nothing else.

Dr. RUINA. There is nothing else that far along. There is nothing else that we are sure can be implemented to the degree that NikeZeus can that is worthy of the investment that we have in NikeZeus.

Mr. MILLER. You don't feel Nike-Zeus should be abandoned?
Dr. RUINA. No.

Mr. MILLER. Do you think if Nike-Zeus originated in another department than in which is originated, in the Department of Defense, the prejudices that heretofore have been built up against it would be here, we would be further along than we are now?

Dr. RUINA. The decisions on the Nike-Zeus are based purely on technical aspects of Nike-Zeus and cost aspects of Nike-Zeus-I am not aware of where the origin of the Nike-Zeus had anything to do with its present status.

Mr. MILLER. I would like to feel as confident as you do.

Dr. RUINA. Perhaps you have a different perspective than I have. Mr. MILLER. I am not a scientist, and I am not as clever as some of my friends here. Shakespeare spoke of that. I am not requesting to pursue it further. Suffice to say in ARPA now you are working toward trying to develop Nike-Zeus

Dr. RUINA. No, Nike-Zeus is an Army program.

Mr. MILLER. Yes. That is right. ARPA is accepting it as the only thing. You are accepting it, as a scientist, as the most advanced program that we have.

Dr. RUINA. It is the only thing that we now have that is worthy of full-scale implentation for testing.

Mr. MILLER. I am very happy to hear that. I hope we go forward. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Fulton.

Mr. FULTON. The question with ARPA is not whether to go ahead on research and development; I think we all agree on that. It is a question when to make the cutoff point to put it into practical operation.

I believe when ARPA began, it was estimated it would cost $15 billion for some sort of a program. I won't go into the details. But since you have put a billion and a half dollars into research and development, the cost has come down to somewhere near $712 billion last year. Should we stop research and development at this stage in the estimation-I guess I better ask this of Dr. York-to DOD and put it into practical application, in part, or shall we start now manufacturing components which may take a 2- or 3-year leadtime before we get the system operational?

Is that the timing now, and what is your comment? That has been the Eisenhower administration and your position presently-go ahead with R. & D. and let this other hardware and practical application wait.

Do you say that?

Dr. YORK. I wouldn't see any possible decision in which we decided to stop doing R. & D. The present R. & D. program on whether or not we decide to produce and deploy, we would still continue the R. & D. program, because the largest part of the R. & D. program is the test and evaluation program at the Pacific Missile Range, Kwajalein Atoll. It would go ahead no matter what.

Mr. FULTON. We want you to do that. Should we put our main effort toward

Dr. YORK. As I pointed out earlier, that is a question for the Secretary of Defense to decide. As you know, the Secretary is reviewing, at President Kennedy's request, the defense program in a very broad way.

Mr. FULTON. So there has been no decision on the change of policy at this time by the new administration on Nike-Zeus. You are going along on the same policy.

Dr. YORK. Not yet. I don't know whether there will be, but there hasn't been very much time yet.

Mr. FULTON. Then a question on the ARPA matter. Doctor, on your statement, at the very last page, if you will refer to it, it begins at the bottom of page 3:

In materials research, ARPA is concentrating on the development of interdisciplinary laboratories for basic research in materials.

That sentence means to me that you are setting up operational laboratories of a functional nature that have a corelation with each other. It is, rather, a system of operating laboratories. The

next says:

Three of these laboratories were established in 1960 and others are expected to follow this year.

Would you put a statement in the record for us on the whole program? I won't stop for it here.

In addition, $3 million has been provided for equipment grants to some 56 universities for basic materials research.

I would take it that is a program not allied to any specific weapons system, but a general basic research program. Could you put that statement in the record, too, with the chairman's permission?

(The following statement was filed for the record by Dr. Jack P. Ruina :)

In 1959, the Federal Council for Science and Technology surveyed and reviewed the Nation's basic research effort and identified basic research in materials as one of the most critical areas of national importance in need of support. The Council recommended that the Department of Defense and other Government agencies undertake remedial action designed to strengthen basic materials research on an urgent basis, particularly through the establishment of interdisciplinary materials research laboratories at selected universities throughout the country.

An interdisciplinary laboratory is one in which the pertinent scientific and engineering disciplines are utilized collectively to study and solve common problems. Experience has shown that the materials problems we face in the missile and space age often transcend the capability of any single discipline to master in isolation; hence, we seek to bring the metallurgist, solid state physicist, inorganic chemist, and the expert in ceramics, for example, together in a joint attack against fundamental materials problems, in a single laboratory.

Mr. Fulton asked if this program involved setting up "operational laboratories of a functional nature that have a corelation with each other." They are "operational" only in the sense that the conduct of basic research is their form

of operation. They are "corelated" in that they are concerned with basic research in materials and that they are being encouraged to approach this research on an interdisciplinary basis within each laboratory rather than on the more traditional basis of compartmentalizing research by separate discipline. Three universities-Cornell, Northwestern, and Pennsylvania-were selected to participate in the program last year on the basis of their competence in fields pertinent to materials research and their ability to institue an interdisciplinary research program. They were selected by a DOD committee composed of men responsible for the conduct of basic research within the DOD. The committee also had the benefit of advice from other agencies such as the AEC, NASA, and the National Science Foundation, and from private consultants. Additional universities will be selected for participation this year. In addition to the knowledge gained through the interdisciplinary laboratory approach, we will increase the number of trained men equipped to undertake materials research, thereby contributing to the correction of a severe national deficiency.

The program of specific equipment grants to 56 universities engaged in basic materials research under DOD contract is designed to improve the quality of research already underway. Mr. Fulton is correct in stating that this program "is not allied to any specific weapons system." We are seeking generally to improve basic materials research of interest to the DOD.

With respect to Mr. Fulton's concern about the method used to determine whether a basic research program is assigned to NASA or ARPA the following comments are provided. First, as Dr. York subsequently mentioned in his testimony, these policy decisions are not made by ARPA. The projects assigned to ARPA are received from the Secretary of Defense and the Director of Defense Research and Engineering.

Second, the work done by ARPA on behalf of the DOD is concerned with matters which may be completely unrelated to the space work at NASA. We are interested in propellant chemistry and materials, for example, for application on land, sea, and air as well as in space. Inasmuch as ARPA is not a space agency, it is misleading to equate the research undertaken in ARPA with NASA's programs.

It should also be mentioned that many Government agencies are engaged in some basic research and experience to date suggests that it receives too little rather than too much support, perhaps because it is less dramatic and less likely to produce visible "results" quickly. Furthermore, contact between the scientist and the various users who ultimately apply the information he provides is an important stimulus to new thinking.

Finally, it should be noted that there is considerable exchange of data on planning and results between scientists and between agencies engaged in the support of basic research. The coordinated approach to the interdisciplinary laboratory program under the auspices of the Federal Council is a recent example.

The importance of further basic research in materials is hard to overexaggerate. Lack of adequate materials is often the primary limiting factor in the development of advanced ideas for weapons systems. Hence, it is hoped that the interdisciplinary laboratory program, which constitutes a small part of the total U.S. effort in materials research and development, will contribute to the long-term strength of our national capability in this field.

Mr. FULTON. Then you say

The ARPA program in advanced propellant chemistry research is progressing with work in fuel synthesis, oxidizers, thermodynamics, combustion, high temperatures, and the like.

If I were transposing that, I could look into NASA and see those very functions mentioned in their program development. The question then is: Would you give us your method of decision, the ratio decidendi, the method by which you decide which programs go to NASA, and, second, will you say to us how you prevent overlapping and duplication? What is the correlation so that we aren't getting everybody into the act of basic research without adequate correlation? I would agree generally with Mr. Daddario's approach. I think he questions our proliferation of these agencies so that there isn't the

person in charge who can knock a few heads together. I am afraid that each one feels that he can use these programs and then by compartmentizing we rather limit the progress and we get into overlapping and, of course, the fuss is over who does what.

If you would amplify that in the record, I won't ask for it now.
The CHAIRMAN. You want him to do that at a later date?
Mr. FULTON. Yes, in the record, not now.

The CHAIRMAN. I think if the gentleman will yield, it is very obvious that ARPA is going into basic research on a big scale.

Mr. FULTON. The question then is: What is the dividing line in policy between ARPA and NASA?

The CHAIRMAN. I would like to have the good Doctor's idea as to where is the division, and that was a point I tried to cover in a limited way, between Defense research and development and NASA research and development, in your judgment.

Dr. RUINA. I will answer the question in detail perhaps in writing and put it in the record. I might add one sentiment I have at this point about duplication, and that is, the concern for duplication, I think, is less as you get into more basic research. For example, if the B-70 were, on the one extreme, being built, both by the Army and by the Navy, I think there would be a reason for concern. If there was a mathematician at one university working on a problem that another mathematician at another university is trying to work out, I think that is worth while. The more basic the research, the less concern about duplication. There is less flexibility about how you approach programs, and I think some of the most important advances in science came about with people working in different areas.

We have people working in physical chemistry. I don't think it would be wise to try to say only one laboratory can work in physical chemistry

The CHAIRMAN. I want to say this, to compliment someone with having come out this year with a budget for basic research, research and development, covering all departments. But I do think there has to be some line of division between the various departments.

If, for instance, ARPA goes into research and development of agricultural products, I would seriously question the propriety of doing it, even though it is in pure science. I don't quite follow your distinction as to what ARPA takes and what it doesn't.

Dr. RUINA. I think one of the aspects of what sort of basic research we do is that it has to be relevant to Department of Defense requirements, and I think working in agricultural products is probably a little bit remote. The Department of Defense is not likely to be a good customer in that field.

The CHAIRMAN. I was over there at the Pentagon a number of years ago when they were demonstrating foods which had been subject to radiation because the use of foods by troops justified experimentation in agriculture.

Dr. YORK. That is not agriculture. This research having to do with food storage where the military has a special set of problems with regard to logistics of food, that is not a matter of agriculture, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. The point I am getting at is this: In the Department of Defense you can now put practically everything in Defense because everything a nation produces is needed.

Dr. YORK. At the basic research end it is a fact we are sponsoring basic research in most fields of science, not quite all, but in most fields of science we have some basic research going on.

As Dr. Ruina said, when you really get down to basic science, it isn't the same kind of problem with respect to duplication. There are certain places it is evident we are not getting along fast enough. What you do is support more people working in the field and do the best you can with the fact that you have an enormous number of individual projects, do the best you can to make sure there is no overt duplication and I would say, with the complete cooperation of the researcher. They are not anxious to be overlapping someone else, unnecessarily duplicating someone else. This sin of unnecessary duplication is one of our least sins I might comment. Much more is the question of what aren't we doing, rather than the question of what are we doing in some small detailed area.

The CHAIRMAN. I hope the doctor convinces the Space Council later on that is correct.

Mr. MILLER. Doctor, it is the same thing that has taken place in any basic research, whether it was for the Defense Department or generally during the period of the life of science. Men go into these fields where we need basic research, where we have to develop a metal that isn't going to tire. You turn everybody lose on it. If you try to give it to one group, somebody gets a little bit cramped and you are not getting far and the breakthrough is likely to come where you least expect it, isn't that true?

Dr. YORK. Yes, sir.

Mr. MILLER. After you get the breakthrough and determine the type of metal you want, then you can come to the refinement of where it is going to come about. But in basic research this is almost impossible, is it not?

Dr. YORK. That is right. The fact that there are two different people doing it means it isn't duplicated. They have two different sets of brain cells and they do it in two different kinds of ways. Even if the job assignment may be identically worded, the job will not be identical.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Fulton was kind enough to yield to us.

Mr. FULTON. That is all right. On the first page, referring to Dr. Ruina's statement:

As a rule, projects assigned to ARPA are either of interest to more than one of the military departments or lie outside the specific missions or interest of all of them.

I could see that you might have work lying outside specific missions of any of the military departments in the DOD, but I don't quite see where you have jurisdiction of R. & D. that lies outside the interest of all the sum total of the military departments in DOD. May I just comment on that?

In addition to that, you have moved into the seismology field because you are going to check earthquakes all over the world and determine the basic research in earthquakes. I realize that there is a general basic approach of the Department of Defense that things they do and the justifications they make are for weapon systems.

You come to a certain point where it is hard to make the decision. My point is, how are you making the decision and what is the point of decision between one and another?