0.7 The early cold war: 1950-57  (Page 4/7)

The NSB’s first meeting, on December 13, 1950, took place less than a week before Golden sent his recommendation to Truman. Aside from a perfunctory meeting with the president, the principal business transacted was election of a chairman (Conant) and an executive committee (chaired by Bronk), and selection of an ad hoc committee to draw up a list of candidates for the directorship. Minutes of the National Science Board (unpublished).

At its second and third meetings, the NSB devoted considerable attention to the defense research and presidential science advisory issues. Minutes of the second meeting, held on January 3, 1951, record that “it was the sense of the meeting that given a continuation of international tensions [defense research] might be one of the most important concerns of the Foundation for some time to come.” Ibid. However, a decision to create a Division of Defense Research was deferred pending appointment of a director. The minutes give no hint about discussion of the probable appointment of a presidential science advisor. In the course of a January 5 meeting at BoB with Golden, Elmer Staats, and William Carey, Conant reported that the board was opposed to such an appointment, as the adviser would undercut its own prerogatives and authority. Evidently the issue of NSF’s role in defense research was regarded as critical since, as Golden noted after the meeting, “somehow, NSF needs a national defense label to get appropriations and keep its Board happy.” Blanpied, op. cit ., 43

By mid-February, Truman had rejected Golden’s recommendation to appoint a science advisor, largely because of the objections of General Lucius Clay, Deputy Director of the Office of Defense Mobilization. Ibid., xxviii Instead, he had decided to establish a Science Advisory Committee to that office—SAC/ODM. In an internal memo, BoB assured itself that the NSB was satisfied with a February 14 briefing by Staats on that outcome, even though it was almost certainly a disappointment to both BoB and the scientific leadership.

There is evidence that this outcome dampened the enthusiasm of several candidates for the NSF directorship. Bronk, who had headed the board’s list, withdrew his name, in part on the grounds that he could serve more effectively as president of NAS during the Korean crisis. Eventual director Alan Waterman, originally ranked seventh on the list of candidates, had doubts at first about accepting because of the possible exclusion of NSF from defense-related research. J. Merton England, A Patron for Pure Science: The National Science Foundation’s Formative Years, 1945-57 (Washington, DC: National Science Foundation, 1982), 142-43. His and the NSB’s hesitation in this regard were at least partially allayed by Waterman’s appointment as a statutory member of SAC/ODM.

Comparative budget figures suggest that Waterman’s concerns were well founded. In December 1950, BoB estimated that the U.S. government’s total funding for basic research was on the order of $100 million for fiscal year 1951, with the lion’s share going to the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). Moreover, the Pentagon’s share was projected to increase substantially. BoB estimated that DoD’s fiscal year 1952 budget for research and development would be $1.25 billion, more than double its fiscal year 1950 level of $500 million. By contrast, the Harris amendment to the NSF Act of 1950 limited the foundation’s fiscal year 1951 appropriations to $500,000, and thereafter to $15 million annually. At its February 1951 meeting, the National Science Board set tentative fiscal year 1952 targets for research support and fellowships at $9 million and $2 million respectively. A month later it revised those respective targets to $7.5 million and $6.5 million. The remaining budget line items were for administration, publications and translations, travel to attend foreign conferences, and a survey of national research needs.