Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
1534536
label
1975/05/13 - President, Vice President, and Rumsfeld
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
1534536
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
1975/05/13 - President, Vice President, and Rumsfeld
citationUrl
collections
James M. Cannon Files (Ford Administration)
James Cannon's Meetings Files
subjects
President (1974-1977 : Ford). Office of Science and Technology Policy. (5/11/1976 - 1/20/1977)
Legislation
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
1534536
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1975-06-30
month
6
year
1975
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1975-04-01
month
4
year
1975
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
c01b36fc2c425357
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 45, folder "1975/05/13 - President, Vice
President, and Rumsfeld" of the James M. Cannon Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential
Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald Ford donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Digitized from Box 45 of the James M. Cannon Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
12:15 PM - Presidential MEeting on
Science Advisor
Vice President, CaAnon
Rumsfeld (45 min.)
Tuesday, May 13, 1975
R-Whet
"
v
Brown u m gont
Hawld put Haggety work
who Goldwine
Have
quen
puul-
/ purls
1000 - J want
Putimest 14 The Eel wh is ru, what They will current (VS 1 US fores form white or oder
110m cambin Role Road,
1) How 2) Defui 7 the VP, to consects protects
consultants
THE WHITE HOUSE
ACTION
WASHINGTON
April 24, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
JIM CANNON I've
SUBJECT:
Science and Technology
Adviser to the President
BACKGROUND:
Some time ago you requested a recommendation from the Vice Presi-
dent on a Science and Technology Adviser to the Administration.
The Vice President submitted a proposal, then conducted additional
research and submitted another proposal on March 3, 1975 (Tab I).
You then indicated an interest in having a study made of what pre-
vious Presidential science advisers had actually accomplished for
the Presidents they served. One outside analysis is at Tab II. An
evaluation by Dr. James R. Killian, Jr. who was the first adviser
to President Eisenhower and one of the best of all science advisers,
is at Tab III.
The 15-year record of the office indicates, in sum, that when a
Presidential science adviser had a clear and specific objective with-
in the President's broader goals, provided a wider range of solu-
tions for the President, and kept his own ambitions and ego in check,
he made great contributions to government and was a major political
asset.
The best example of the effectiveness of the Presidential scientific
apparatus came in the late Fifties, under President Eisenhower. It
met a visible need to catch up with the Russian space and missile
technological advances, gave a sense of confidence to the American
people, and thereby became a political plus for the President.
Today's need for scientific and technological advances to meet energy
needs appears to be somewhat analogous.
backup taba on STT folder
GERALD FORD LIBRARI
-2-
Any proposal for a Scientific Adviser would be a new spending pro-
gram, but it seems to me that it could be justified if it were related
closely to energy.
CONGRESSIONAL SITUATION
1.
Congress is likely to pass some kind of Science and Tech-
nology bill at this session. The House Committee on Science
and Technology is committed to passage of a bill creating
a Council of Advisers on Science and Technology in the Ex-
ecutive Office. On March 6, 1975 Representatives Teague
and Mosher introduced a comprehensive bill that would--
a)
write into law a national science policy,
b)
create a five-member Council of Advisers, with
a Chairman to be Science Adviser to the President,
c)
establish a Cabinet level Secretary of Research
and Technology Operations, and,
d)
form a government corporation to promote public
use of research and development.
2.
Informal discussions with House Science and Technology Com-
mittee members and staff indicates that the House Committee
is flexible and wants to work with your staff on passage of a
bill that is acceptable to you. But it appears that Chairman
Teague's Committee does want the President and his Admin-
istration to have a strong, effective and visible scientific ad-
visory group.
3.
The Senate is likely to pass a Science and Technology bill
at least as extensive as the proposed House bill.
OPTIONS
Following are three options offered by the Vice President and a fourth
recommendation by Phil Buchen which have been staffed to your
senior staff for comments and recommendations. Their responses have
been summarized and are included with each option for your consid-
eration on the following pages.
BERALD FORD LIBRARY
OPTION #1
Description:
A three-member Council of Technology and Science Advisers with
up to 20 assistants.
Cost:
$2.5 - $5 million annually.
Arguments for:
Such an approach would be a substantial commitment that would
enable initiatives in a full range of subject areas. It would be well
received by the scientific and academic community and would prob-
ably satisfy Congress.
Arguments against:
It would be a large and costly operation and difficult to integrate
into the present White House Staff.
Recommend:
None
Agree
Disagree
GERACO FORD
OPTION #2
Description:
w/on cant m you're pupeured
A single Director of Technology and Science with up to 17 assistants
as needed.
Cost:
20 displuse
Initial cost would be $1 - $1.5 million annually.
Arguments for:
A single director would provide a better reactive capacity and a
clearer identity. This option would probably be acceptable to Con-
gress, and would be less costly than what Congress is likely to
to
than Option 1.
Arguments against:
come up with. The staff would be easier to organize Coulin and integrate
Expenditures and staff additions are still large and the organization
not be set up quickly.
Recommend: Their
Cannon
"Since revious Presidential science advisers were
most Job effective in selving specific problems subject
to scientific and technological resolution I would
recommend this option, with the Director speci
ys 2),
fically directed to work with your energy group
toward reaching your energy independence goals.
But I think the spending could be/scaled down."
"An organization comparable to the former office of
x Russ Train
Science and echnology, inestablished, could have
strong positive reactions throughout the scientific
and academic community..'
Ted Marrs
"With a larger budget this office would be a poten
tially, highly productive function which can pay
its way - if properly managed - by savings through
selectivity and coordination of scientific activities."
Russ Peterson
"Important for President to have a separate and
direct input from a scientific advis thus, a single
Agree
person rather than a Councill" Not
Disayree
GERALD R. FORD
vings my Know N/W
aigsieless V of qu risiw sensio? birs vgolomfosT to Director signie A
.bebeen as
mulponil of
11800
vilsunns noillim 8.18 - 12 ed bloow 1800
:xol
6 bas vilosqeo evidoser issued 5 abivore bluow elgais A
-000 of eldsiqeese ad Vidsdorq bluow nobqo sidT
01 Visxii at isdw nadi vitaon seal DO bluow bos seerg
elsigeini brea esinsgio of Islass ad bloow lists edT ,dtive qu 01000
.1 nottgO nsdi
Stenless attismugrA
(leen it noph
10
ed/
has
egist
CALB
enottibbs
Hoja
bas
astudibneqx8
visiolup qu the ed for blyoo
popls
My
Islingh Vanolvere onte*
(nonnsO min
Brun
billongs gnavisaini eviroale from
Uploser isoigolonness bas of
edit riting nobor aids Anemmober
vers vezene THOY know of before vlisoñ
alsog pnebneque vgreno TUDY galdest brawn
beleband bluoo grubneqa IME
тепто! edit
CeanA
events bris soccio8
officialos adj INSURED ело DEST extrieoq gnows
elmebets bns
(-netoq S Luow soffio airis regous TepTa! 8 diw"
arisM beT
$180 Timithy nottaged evironboxq virigid vilsit
agnivaly yd - beganem viregorq It - YAW all
to bas
bas TOI instroqui"
hosistel вгия
signie B reudt Masivhs obligation E mort suqai merib
E nsds terist повтер
M
eeigA
Description:
A Science and Technology adviser with up to three assistants.
Cost:
$100,00 - $200.00 annually. 11
Arguments for:
Extremely simple approach whose cost would be relatively minor and
such an effort could be in place quickly. Only administrative action
would be required.
Arguments against:
This approach would have limited capability in terms of issues it could
deal with on its own and thus would have to rely almost exclusively on
outside resources. It probably would not preclude further action by
Congress.
Recommend:
Jack Marsh
"This group could get cracking quickly and instead
of trying to become the big problem solvers them-
selves, could draw on the manifold sources already
in place in a dozen existing agencies."
Bob Goldwin
"Should avoid establishing one more operative group
within the White House. There is already a vast sci-
entific enterprise in America but the President does
need to be advised and informed by an S & T Adviser.
However, three assistants are too low, just as sev-
enteen would be too many."
Frank Zarb
"Appointment of a Science Adviser, but with a small
staff, would draw favorable response from the sci-
ence community, the Congress and the public at
large."
Alan Greenspan
"Recommends this option but holds out for the pos-
sibility of a more elaborate apparatus at some future
time pending further evaluation and review."
Paul O'Neill
Supports this option, with comments (Tab IV).
Max Friedersdorf Supports this option.
Agree
Disagree
FORD & LIBRARI
ION #4
RECOMMENDED BY PHIL BUCHEN
Description:
The appointment of a Scientific and Technology Liaison Adviser to
the President who would serve simply as a point of contact between
the Administration and the Scientific community.
Cost:
Minimal (no dollar estimate)
Arguments for:
A simple step which could be taken immediately at little cost. It would
be understood as having no substantive responsibility other than
liaison and as a point of contact and therefore would not create false
expectations.
Arguments against:
Would probably not satisfy Congress and might be viewed in the sci-
entific community as no more than a token effort.
Recommend:
Phil Buchen
"The subject matter of science and technology is
much too diverse to make feasible a substantive
advisory role with anything less than the kind of
staff indicated by Option 1. Since substantive
advice is normally provided through the expertise
of the departments and agencies who, if there is
need on occasion for an additional viewpoint, can
bring an appropriate outside adviser to the Pres-
ident -- not to formulate any in-house White House
position on the subject."
Bill Seidman
"The S & T proposal falls under the umbrella of
no new spending programs, and every effort
should be made to hold the line against unneces-
sary expenditures as well as the appearance of
a new spending program. A White House staff
member designated to undertake liaison with the
already existing National Science Foundation
seems adequate. Another layer of bureaucracy
is not needed."
Agree
Disagree
FORD & LIBRARY 928410
TABI
TAB A
:
FORD
THE VICE PRESIDENT
WASHINGTON
March 3, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
The Vice President harz
SUBJECT:
Re-establishing a Science and Technology
Advisory Apparatus in the Executive Office
of the President
This is in response to your request for a memorandum concerning
the re-establishment of a science and technology advisory apparatus
in the Executive Office of the President.
INDEX
Tab A - Problem
Tab B - Background
Tab C - Functions
Tab D - Structure
Option 1 - Creation of a Council of Technology
and Science Advisers
Option 2 - Creation of an Office of Technology
and Science
Option 3 - Appointment of a Science and Technology
Adviser to the President
FORD & LIBRARY 076830
A
PROBLEM
DERALD R FIBRADA
PROBLEM
The dissolution of the science advisory structure in
the White House in 1973 was greeted with great dismay
by the scientific community. Pressure is growing
steadily from scientific community leaders for action
to restore some science presence in the White House.
A June 1974 report by a special committee of the
National Academy of Sciences, recommending the crea-
tion of a Council on Science and Technology in the
Executive Office of the President, has heightened this
pressure and has made likely Congressional action to
re-establish some kind of scientific and technical
policy organization in the Executive Office of the
President.
FORD i LIBRARY GERALD
B
B
BACKGROUND
B.FORD is LIBRARY
BACKGROUND
President Truman
The concept of providing scientific and technical advice
directly to the President in a formal way was initiated
by President Truman in 1951. The Scientific Advisory
Committee in the Office of Defense Mobilization met
occasionally with the President and, in spite of its
location in the Department of Defense, had direct access
to the President. President Truman, himself, recognized
this function of the group and dealt with them as
personal advisers.
President Eisenhower
The "Sputnik" crisis of 1957 created a political situa-
tion that made it advisable to locate a scientific
advisory structure in the White House itself. Accordingly,
the scientific advisory function which was located in
the Office of Defense Mobilization was moved to the
White House and greatly expanded. An official with
the title of Science Adviser to the President was
appointed and a President's Science Advisory Committee
was established.
The President's Science Adviser also served as Chairman
of the new interagency Federal Council on Science and
Technology, which took over the function of coordinating
all of the scientific research and technical develop-
ment going on with the Federal Government.
President Kennedy
In 1962, under a reorganization measure of the Executive
Branch, President Kennedy created a large staff office
in the White House under the Science Adviser to assist
in advising the President and in overseeing the
burgeoning Federal responsibility for science and
technology. This office, called the Office of Science
and Technology, also served as the staff arm of the
President's Science Advisory Committee.
The Office of Science and Technology and the President's
Science Advisory Committee were remarkably successful
in heightening the overall interest in scientific and
technical developments among the various Departments
of the Federal government. In fact, their creation
sparked the establishment of line offices in charge of
scientific research and development in all of the
operating Departments of the Federal government.
FORD & LIBRARY 07V830
Through the early and middle 1960s, the Office of
Science and Technology enjoyed a fairly prominent
position in the White House, as the space and defense
programs dominated the national scene. As the
national focus shifted to the economic and social
problems of the late Sixties, however, the role of
the Office of Science and Technology in national policy
formulation became less clear and its influence in
the White House less substantial.
President Nixon
During the late Sixties and the early Seventies, the
Office of Science and Technology became more and more
of a "special pleader" for its science constituency ---
advocating positions and ideologies not always
consistent with Administration policy. Instead of
serving to advise the President, the Office of Science
and Technology often became his critic.
Finally, in July 1973, President Nixon abolished the
position of Science Adviser, the Office of Science and
Technology and the President's Science Advisory Committee.
The functions of the Science Adviser were given to the
Director of the National Science Foundation and those
of the Office of Science and Technology and the
President's Science Advisory Committee transferred to
the National Science Foundation in civilian areas and
the National Security Council in military areas.
Although many scientists viewed the dissolution of
the science advisory structure in the White House as
purely politically motivated, there were several good
reasons for making some kind of change.
1. By the early 1970s, virtually all Federal
Departments had developed their own scientific
and technical arms. This significantly
lessened the need for a large scientific and
technical staff in the White House (which,
after all, had no line functions).
FORD is LIBRARY 07V830
2. The failure of the Office of Science and
Technology's staff to relate to the White
House policy formulating procedure made it
difficult to integrate that Office's
recommendations with those of other advisory
functions in the White House. Therefore, as
emerging national problems began to include
components other than "hard" technology,
the Office of Science and Technology became
less effective and useful in contributing
to Presidential-level decision-making.
3. As the Office of Science and Technology's
allegiance to its constituency grew, its
effectiveness in serving the President
diminished.
FORD & LIBRARY
C
FUNCTIONS
C
FORD & LIBRARY 07V830
FUNCTIONS
The scientific community is now generally united in the belief
that the President should have available to him an independent
source of scientific and technological judgment on a wide range
of areas, including:
-- social and behavioral sciences;
-- physical and life sciences;
-- medicine;
-- engineering;
-- international aspects of science and technology;
-- science and technology in the private sector;
-- education and training of scientific manpower.
They have pointed out that a White House science and technology
advisory apparatus could perform the following vital functions:
1. Advising the President in the formulation and review
of national policies in areas involving science and
technology development. Energy, transportation,
environmental planning, health care delivery and food
supply are examples of these.
2. Providing technical advice for the President and his
staff, including the Domestic Council, the Council of
Economic Advisers, and the Office of Management
and Budget, on specific issues and questions dealing
with science and technology.
3. Working with the Federal Council on Science and
Technology in coordinating the large existing in-house
capability of the Federal government in scientific
and technological research and development. There
are approximately 100, 000 people employed in Federal
research and development establishments, and it is
important to see that this large and sophisticated
work force is properly and effectively employed.
FORD i LIBRARY GERALD
4. Identifying and reporting on gaps in scientific
research and technological developments in the
public and private sector and initiating studies
where appropriate.
5. Providing the President with "early warning" of
problems, opportunities or developments that have
a scientific or technological component, including
some longer-range forecasting of such problems,
opportunities and developments.
6. Consulting with the President on the appointments
of various scientific and technical officials in the
Federal agencies.
Moreover, the scientific community is now in full agreement
that the proper function of such an advisory apparatus is to
advise and service the President -- not to be public advocates.
FORD & LIBRARI
STRUCTURE
D
D
FORD & LIBRARY OERALD
STRUCTURE
OPTION 1. CREATION OF A COUNCIL OF TECHNOLOGY
AND SCIENCE ADVISERS
The President could propose legislation creating a 3-member
Council of Technology and Science Advisers in the Executive
Office of the President. The Council would be similar in
function to the Council of Economic Advisers. The members
of the Council would be appointed by the President from among
the different disciplines in the science and technology fields.
The Chairman of the Council would also serve as the President's
Technology and Science Adviser.
(VARIATION: Some have proposed creation of a 7-member
Council, composed of four Presidential appointees and the
Presidents of the National Academy of Science, the National
Academy of Engineering and the Institute of Medicine serving
ex officio.)
STAFFING: The Council's staff would consist of an Executive
Assistant to the Chairman and a number of professional assist-
ants (15-20) and supporting clerical staff. The Council would
also be authorized to establish ad hoc committees composed of
governmental and/or non-governmental experts to do in-depth
analyses of selected problems and issues.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: $2.5 - $5 million annually.
ARGUMENTS FOR:
-- In essence, this is the approach embodied in the
"Kennedy bill" passed by the Senate last year. It
incorporates the recommendation of the National
Academy of Science's special committee, and is
fully responsive to the scientific community's
demands.
BERALD FORD LIBRARY
-2-
-- This assures greater depth in the science and
technology advisory apparatus and greater repre-
sentation and input from the various disciplines in
the science and technology field.
-- This would ensure an ongoing structure in the
Executive Office of the President fully capable of
rendering scientific and technological advice or
performing such other related responsibilities as
the President may assign to it.
-- The authority to create ad hoc groups permits
tapping of the resources of the scientific community.
ARGUMENTS AGAINST:
-- This structure might be difficult to integrate into
the existing White House operation.
-- It is more susceptible to "politization" both as to
its internal operation (with each of the three members
representing the views of his own constituency) and
as to its relationship with the Administration (because
of the structural autonomy of a council).
-- It would result in a visible increase in the size and
budget of the White House.
-- This structure is larger than is necessary to meet
the problem and is also unwieldy.
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
OPTION 2. CREATION OF AN OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY
AND SCIENCE
The President could propose legislation creating an Office of
Technology and Science in the Executive Office of the President.
The Director of the office would be a highly qualified scientist
appointed by the President, who would serve also as the
President's Technology and Science Adviser.
STAFFING: In addition to the Director, the office would have
a Deputy Director (for administration) and, as is required
-- up to five Assistant Directors (for various specialties);
-- up to twelve professional assistants; and
-- supporting clerical staff.
The Director would also be empowered to establish ad hoc
committees composed of governmental and/or nongovernmental
experts to do in-depth analyses of selected problems and issues.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: $1 - $1.5 million annually.
ARGUMENTS FOR:
-- This is largely responsive to the legitimate demands
of the scientific community and could, therefore, be
expected to satisfy the Congress.
-- It assures to the President and his staff the avail-
ability of a broad range of scientific and technical
expertise. This would be tremendously useful to
the Domestic Council, the Council of Economic
Advisers, the Office of Management and Budget,
et al.
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
-2-
-- This structure will help to assure the development
of an ongoing scientific and technological capacity
in the Executive Office of the President.
-- The authority to create ad hoc groups permits tapping
of the resources of the scientific community.
-- This structure is sufficiently flexible to permit
growth of in-house capacity when and as necessary.
ARGUMENTS AGAINST:
-- This would involve Congressional action to implement
(and, of course, to undo).
-- There are those who feel that this would unduly
increase the size of the President's staff.
-- Some contend that the need for a science and
technology capacity in the White House does not
justify the creation of an office.
BERALD FORD LIBRARY
OPTION 3. APPOINTMENT OF A SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
ADVISER TO THE PRESIDENT
The President could, by administrative action, appoint a full-time
Science and Technology Adviser to the President to serve on the
White House staff.
STAFFING: The Science and Technology Adviser would be author-
ized a few (1-3) professional assistants and supporting clerical
staff, but would otherwise have to rely on National Science Founda-
tion professional staff for support.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: $100,000 - $200,000 annually.
ARGUMENTS FOR:
-- This could be accomplished by administrative act of the
President.
-- It would relieve some of the pressure for Congressional
action on this issue.
-- This would make available to the President and his staff
at least some independent scientific and technological
expertise.
-- This would be relatively inexpensive and would not
significantly increase the size of the President's staff.
ARGUMENTS AGAINST:
-- This approach would satisfy neither the scientific
community nor the Congress and, therefore, it could
not be expected to avert independent Congressional
action on the issue.
-- It is doubtful whether, under this structure, the Science
and Technology Adviser could "cover the waterfront."
Therefore, pressure to increase the size and scope of
this apparatus will continue.
-- This structure is not suitable for the development of an
on-going scientific and technological capacity in the
White House.
-- This structure is not suitable for tapping the resources
of the scientific community on an interim basis since
GERALD R. FORD
the Science and Technology Adviser would not be
empowered to create ad hoc panels for special research
purposes.
PRESIDENTIAL DECISION
Proceed with further development of:
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3 Jan
Discuss gm
GERMAD FORD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 10, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JIM CANNON
FROM:
TED MARRS your
SUBJECT:
Re-establishing a Science and Technology
Advisory Apparatus in the Executive Office
of the President
Thanks for my inclusion in distribution of the paper on Science Advisory
apparatus. My thoughts are as follows:
1. There is a real advantage in the President's taking action in this matter
to prevent being preempted by establishment of a Congressional creation
which would become a focal point of advocacy and embarrassment to
this and future administrations.
2. The functions as stated are indeed vital ones, but we should have little
confidence in the scientific community's intent that the advisory role
be kept out. Also, there are strongly polarized elements in that
community which are currently jockeying for future control.
3. Of the three options offered, Option 1, the establishment of a "Council"
would be most acceptable in the highly vocal parts of the politico/scientific
world. Option 3 would probably be ineffective and unproductive and not
acceptable to the Congress or to the scientific community. Option 2
should be modified.
4. Option 2 should have a larger budget if it is intended to have a productive
ad hoc committee capability. This "Office" is a potentially highly pro-
ductive function which can pay its way (ii) if properly managed - by savings
through selectivity and coordination of scientific activities.
5. Because of the internal battles within the scientific community, considera-
tion should be given to having a well qualified administrator rather than a
well qualified scientist as the Director in Option 2 - a referee rather than
a stage. player. In any event, I would recommend keeping this open at this
GERALD LIBRARY FORD
II
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 18, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
JIM CANNON
SUBJECT:
Contributions of Science Advisers to
Previous Presidents
SUMMARY:
The Presidential scientific apparatus was a
splendid tool in the early days under President Eisenhower.
It met a visible need to catch up with the Russians, and
was an important political plus for the President.
But in time, the scientists corrected the specific
weaknesses that had at first made them necessary. Then
their proposals became more diffuse, and seemed directed at
preventing ills that had not yet materialized e.g., food
and energy. Thus they lost out to greater demands within
the White House for solutions to problems that were
immediate and pressing. To make matters worse, the
scientific community became politicized during the Vietnam
war, and was perceived as critical and unfriendly.
The 15-year record of the office indicates that
when a Presidential science adviser supported the
President's goals, broadened his range of solutions,
and kept his ego and ambitions in check, he made great
contributions to government and was a major political asset.
EISENHOWER ADMINISTRATION
James Killian of MIT became science adviser to
President Eisenhower in 1957 and was later succeeded by
George Kistiakowski, a Harvard chemist. This was
probably the most effective and influential period
for science advisers.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS:
1. Following SPUTNIK, helped assure the
U. S. public that the country's missile
and space program was in good hands and
moving ahead.
17 GERALD FORD
2. Prompted creation of National Aeronautics
and Space Administration.
- 2 -
3. Provided the scientific basis for
President Eisenhower's proposal which
ultimately resulted in the 1963 test ban
treaty.
4. Made a major impact on the ICBM program,
including emphasis on solid fuel rockets.
5. Accelerated the development of a ballistic
missile early warning system and anti-
submarine capabilities.
6. Assisted in advancing photo reconnaissance
by satellite.
7. Helped make available scientific and
technical information for dealing with
such problems as food additives and
environmental health.
8. Helped strengthen programs for the
education of U. S. scientists and
engineers.
9. Through the respect and prestige they
commanded, Killian and George Kistiakowski,
helped reassure a shaken public that the
U. S. ballistic missile and space programs
would close the "technological gap" between
the U. S. and Soviet Union.
PROBLEMS:
No major problems other than some criticism of
their focus on defense and space-related questions.
KENNEDY ADMINISTRATION
Dr. Jerry Wiesner of MIT was President Kennedy's
science adviser. Some of the successes and most of
the problems of this period were a product of Wiesner's
personal and his assertive attempts to seek a bigger and
bigger role in government decision making.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS:
1. Provided valuable guidance leading to
the rejection of a number of Pentagon
proposals which subsequent research
FORD
has shown would have indeed been mistakes.
e.g. the Dynasoar space plane.
LIBRARY
- 3 -
2. Introduced interests beyond space and
defense and focused on many other areas
of government scientific research such
as health.
PROBLEMS:
1. Bitter public debates with NASA over
techniques to be used in moon landing, which
became a personal struggle between Wiesner
and Wernher von Braun.
2. Alienated the scientific community by high-
handed attitude and suspicion that he was
ambitious to become the "Czar" of American
science.
3. Criticism of the Defense Department. For
example, he boasted that he could make a better
evaluation of defense development projects than
Secretary McNamara.
4. Expanded his authority to the point that
he was attempting simultaneously to be an
unbiased and impartial staff adviser as well
as director of a scientific operations unit
advocating specific programs.
JOHNSON ADMINISTRATION:
President Johnson's adviser was Donald Hornig, a
chemist from Princeton. Hornig has a stormy and unfriendly
relationship with the President and therefore appears to
have had very little influence on policy.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS:
1. Instituted many siginificant long-range
studies, e.g. the potential of the
oceans; the world food problem; restoring
the environment.
2. In 1965 conducted the first major assessment
of the U. S. energy situation.
GERALD LIBRARY FORD
- 4 -
PROBLEMS:
1. Despite the predictive merit of his
proposals, Hornig had little impact because
he had no access to the President and little
standing within the White House staff.
2. As the Viet Nam war expanded, the scientific
communitie's mounting opposition to the war
made it even more difficult for Hornig to
serve as an adviser.
NIXON ADMINISTRATION:
Lee DuBridge was President Nixon's first science
adviser and was succeeded by Ed David of Bell Laboratories
in 1970. The decline of influence which began during the
Johnson Administration accelerated until 1972, when President
Nixon abolished the science adviser.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS:
1. Attempted to develop practical applications
of science research.
PROBLEMS:
1. Presidential Science Advisory Committee
strongly and publicly opposed SST
proposal at a time when the Administration
was actively seeking support for the SST.
2. Acquired a reputation within the White
House for generating proposals to spend
more Federal money.
3. Scientific community regarded Ed David
as lacking credentials because of his
background as an engineer.
FORD : 07/830 LIBRARY
III
JAMES R. KILLIAN, JR.
77 MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE
CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS 02139
March 20, 1975
The Honorable Nelson A. Rockefeller
Vice President of the United States
The White House
Washington, D. C.
My dear Mr. Vice President:
In response to your request, I have
prepared the attached list of some of the contributions
to Presidential policy-making in the Eisenhower
administration made by the Special Assistant for
Science and Technology and the President's Science
Advisory Committee. At the beginning of this list,
I have summarized the longer statement which
follows. In listing these contributions made during
the period when I was a participant, may I express
some personal views bearing on the study you are
making of proposed science advisory arrangements.
I fully recognize that present circumstances
differ from those of the Eisenhower years both in the
organization of the Presidential staff machinery and in
the diversity and complexity of the issues faced by the
President.
President Eisenhower looked to his science
advisory mechanism for assistance in the national
defense area and for supporting the work of the
National Security Council. I am aware that the
National Security Council now has staff competence
and consultant panels which are providing 2 tech-
nological dimension to the examination of national
security issues. These did not exist in the Eisenhower
period. This arrangement appears to be working
GERALD LIDRABY FORD
- 2 -
effectively and to have the confidence of the Special
Assistant for National Security Affairs. I personally
do not recommend that these arrangements be
supplanted by a new science and technology advisory
mechanism but I do feel that the proposals for the
new mechanism are no less essential because these
NSC panels exist. The existing NSC arrangements
have a national security policy focus on a very limited
number of problems, and J. am convinced that there
are important issues involved in assuring a healthy
scientific and technological foundation for military
research and development, and the proposals of the
National Academy Committee are directed toward
providing this foundation.
I am also convinced that the scientific and
technical feasibility and soundness of major weapons
systems developments evaluated by objective panels
of the proposed advisory mechanism could serve the
needs of the President and the Office of Management
and Budget as well as the National Security Council
as the NSC might request. In my view it would be a
mistake to exclude the Science Adviser from the
national security area and from the deliberations and
studies of the National Security Council because of the
inseparability of policy and program considerations
and the special perspective and judgments that a
science advisory group could contribute to Presidential-
level discussion of national security issues.
In the Domestic Council area there is, of
course, much greater emphasis on problems in the
civilian sector, where developments in science and
technology in many instances offer the best hope of
long-term solutions. The existence of the
Domestic Council means that there is a focus for
scientific and technological assessments of domestic
problems and an opportunity to couple scientific and
technological considerations with economic, sociological,
institutional, and political factors, all of which must
BERMLE FORD LIBRARY
- 3 -
be brought to bear in developing options for Presi-
dential consideration. The effectiveness of the
Special Assistant for Science and Technology in
the national security area in past years was in no
small measure attributable to the existence of the
National Security Council as a mechanism for
assuring serious consideration of scientific studies.
In the latter days of the Special Assistants
and the President's Science Advisory Committee
many of the excellent, farseeing studies which were
made by the advisory setup were not systematically
considered and followed up because there was no
mechanism such as the Domestic Council and its
staff to receive and assess them. During the
Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon administrations
there were numerous important studies made by
PSAC and its panels which dealt with environmental
matters, energy policy, and the world food problem
which could have been of great value to the adminis-
tration in the formulation of policy and the taking
of initiative in areas that later came to be of great
national concern. There was a national loss in the
fact that these farseeing studies did not receive
the necessary follow-through attention.
In making these observations, I am
mindful of the arguments that by strengthening the
scientific and technical capabilities of the National
Security Council, the Domestic Council, and the
Office of Management and Budget, there may be
less need for a. separate White House level science
and technology mechanism and that a separate
mechanism might have difficulty in relating its
scientific and technological analyses to the issues
as they are perceived by those staff agencies.
These arguments were carefully examined by the
National Academy of Sciences Committee on Science
and Technology, which I chaired. The membership
FORD
- 4 -
of that Committee included a former Assistant
Director of the Office of Management and Budget
and a former member of the Council of Economic
Advisers, both of whom were experienced in the
operations of the White House staff. It was the
strongly held view of the Committee that the
scientific and technical capabilities of the National
Security Council, Domestic Council, and OMB
should be strengthened and by so doing there would
be a more effective interaction achieved and a two-
way coupling between those offices and a new
science and technology mechanism. The new
mechanism proposed can look at the totality of the
nation's scientific and technical resources in rela-
tion to national needs and by having this broader
view, can help to offset a fragmented approach
occasioned by the differing missions of the execu-
tive agencies, both at operating and Presidential
staff levels.
The reasons supporting the establish-
ment of a new science and technology mechanism
have been intensively treated in the National
Academy and other excellent reports and articles
in the past year. My interest in making the for-
going observations is to emphasize a few points
arising out of the discussions which were prompted
by the Academy report.
I am in full accord with the comments
made by President Handler of the National Academy
of Sciences when he wrote you recently emphasizing
that the mission of the new science and technology
advisory mechanism which has been proposed shoul d
be to serve the needs of the President. "It should, "
as he wrote, "not be a privileged means to represent
special interests of the scientific and technological
communities. Nor should it be a privileged advocate
FORD & LIBRARY 07V839
an 5 -
for science and technology per se. To be useful,
its analyses must recognize the essential inter-
dependence of science, technology and fiscal,
economic, social, political, and institutional
factors in developing policy alternatives."
I am grateful for this opportunity to
provide supplemental information and to recall the
many ways in which the scientific mechanism
established by President Eisenhower served him
and successive Presidents and assisted greatly
in the formulation of sound national policies.
Yours respectfully,
Jime J. R. Killian, Jr.
JRK: op
enclosure
LISAARY GERALD A. FORD
MEMORANDUM
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
May 12, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Jim Cavanaugh
FROM:
Kathleen Ryan KR
SUBJECT:
Science Advisory Issue
I have been told that there will be a "high
powered" meeting to discuss the Science Advisory issue
tomorrow.
Phil Smith of the National Science Foundation
told me today that discussion of the Teague bill (H.R. 4461)
on the Hill will begin June 10, 1975.
DD FIVA IS ЫМ
MEMORANDUM
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
May 12, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
James M. Cannon
FROM:
Kathleen Ryan KR
SUBJECT:
Schedule Proposal
Attached is a Presidential schedule proposal for your approval and
initials. Jim Cavanaugh and I think it would be a good idea for the
President to drop by the National Science Foundation's 25th Anniver-
sary reception on May 15, 1975.
his/or 4 you N mB. w
good THe Scime mint sungest P
you THAT THE it nb
1424 would
SCHEDULE PROPOSAL
DATE: May 15, 1975
FROM: JIM CANNON
VIA: WARREN RUSTAND
MEETING:
Drop by National Science Foundation's
25th Anniversary Reception
DATE:
May 15, 1975
PURPOSE:
To show your interest in and support of science.
FORMAT:
Reception, with brief remarks.
CABINET PARTICIPATION:
None
SPEECH MATERIAL:
To be prepared by Paul Theis.
PRESS COVERAGE:
Press pool
STAFF:
Kathleen Ryan
RECOMMEND:
Jim Cannon, Kathleen Ryan
PREVIOUS PARTICIPATION: On March 21, you met with the National Science
Board of the National Science Foundation.
BACKGROUND:
The Foundation, which is the Nation's principal
agency for the support of research and science,
has invited you to attend a reception and dinner
celebrating its 25th Anniversary.
There will be 250 guests from science,
engineering, industry, Congress, and government.
This would be a good opportunity for you to
announce your science advisory decision, and
also to show your continued interest in and
support of science. The black tie reception
and dinner is only a few blocks from the
White House. Before hosting the State dinner
for the Shah of Iran, you could make a
twenty-minute appearance (7:20-7:40 p.m.).
THE VICE PRESIDENT
WASHINGTON
May 13, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
THE VICE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Science and Technology
Adviser to the President
I. BACKGROUND
A number of options regarding the creation of a
Science and Technology Adviser to the President
have been presented for your review.
It seems to me that whatever option is accepted
should meet all of the following criteria:
- assure the development of an ongoing scientific
and technology capacity in the Executive Office
of the President;
- assure the availability of a broad range of
scientific and technical expertise;
- respond to the legitimate demands of the
scientific community for a technical role
in the consideration of science and science-
related policy;
- meet Congressional support for some kind of
strong, effective, and visible science advisory
group;
- demonstrate unequivocally the Administration's
commitment to using the resources of the nation's
scientific community and technology industry
to meet the overriding economic and defense
needs of our time;
-2-
- make known to the nation the Administration's
ability to develop and support new and innovative
ideas through the creation of Executive Branch
task forces - operating out of the Office of
the Science and Technology Adviser to the President -
to study, for example:
- how to increase the world's food supply
through improved oceanic food cultivation
and food harvesting;
- how to increase the nation's supply of raw
materials through the extraction of
manganese nodules from the ocean floor
in order to provide enough copper and
nickel for the next 2000 years.
II. PROPOSAL
The best way to meet these criteria - by providing
a flexible but effective capability with broad
bipartisan support and popular national appeal -
is to create an Office of Science and Technology in
the Executive Office of the President - by Act of
Congress.
The elements of this office would be, in outline,
as follows:
- Staffing:
- The Director, a highly qualified scientist,
appointed by the President; the Director
would also serve as the President's Science
and Technology Adviser;
- A Deputy Director (for Administration),
and up to five assistants for various
specialities;
- The authority to set up ad hoc committees
or task forces for various projects.
- Fiscal implications: $2.5. $2.5 million annually
- 1.5
-3-
To move this proposal along, the next steps would be
to:
- Draft legislation;
- Hold informal conversations with Congressional
leaders in order to develop a legislative
package that both the Administration and the
Congress will support.
III. RECOMMENDATION
That you approve the following steps for the creation
of a Science and Technology Adviser to the President by
Act of Congress:
- Draft legislation;
- Proceed with discussions with Congressional leaders.
Approve
Disapprove
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
MEETING ON SCIENCE ADVISER
Tuesday, May 13, 1975
12:15 p.m. (30 mins.)
The Oval Office
From:
Jim Cannon Jane
I.
PURPOSE:
To resolve organizational issue on the
Science Adviser question.
II.
BACKGROUND, PARTICIPANTS AND PRESS PLAN
A. Background: In December, you asked the
Vice President to study this issue and report
to you. Since that time various options have
been recommended by the Vice President and
others. A paper identifying these options
is at Tab A.
B. Participants: The Vice President
Don Rumsfeld
Jim Lynn
Jim Cannon
C. Press Plan:
Not to be announced.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
May 13, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JIM CANNON
FROM:
JIM CAVANAUGH
SUBJECT:
Science Advisor
It is my understanding that the following was agreed upon
at today's 12:15 meeting:
- We will have a Science Advisory.
- He will have a small staff.
- It will be established by legislation.
- President will meet with Congressional types
next week.
We are looking for a guy like Bob Goldwin --
only for Science -- one who knows scientists --
and can convene them and get their advice into
the system.
Here's what I plan to do:
- Work with Max Friedersdorf to set up Congressional
meeting for next week.
- Have "concept" paper developed to use so that people
around here know what's been agreed to. It will
also be useful in dealing with candidates for the
position.
- Do briefing paper, with Q&A's for next week's
meeting.
- Set up meeting with Bill Walker on a Candidate
Search Plan.
- Ask Jack Walker to do a proposed Functional Statement
and proposed Organization and Staffing Plan for the
new activity.
*
7
*
3
is
*
THE VICE
*
is
is
WASHINGTON
May 13, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
THE VICE PRESIDENT
had
SUBJECT:
Science and Technology
Adviser to the President
I. 'BACKGROUND
A number of options regarding the creation of a
Science and Technology Adviser to the President
have been presented for your review.
It seems to me that whatever option is accepted
should meet all of the following criteria:
- assure the development of an ongoing scientific
and technology capacity in the Executive Office
of the President;
- assure the availability of a broad range of
scientific and technical expertise;
- meet Congressional support for some kind of
strong, effective, and visible science advisory
group;
- demonstrate unequivocally the Administration's
commitment to using the resources of the nation's
scientific community and technology industry
to meet the overriding needs of our time;
- make known to the nation the Administration's
ability to develop and support new and innovative
ideas through the creation of Executive Branch
task forces operating out of the Office of
the Science and Technology Adviser to the
President - to study, for example:
-2-
- how to increase the world's food supply
through improved oceanic food cultivation
and food harvesting;
- how to increase the nation's supply of
raw materials through the extraction of
manganese nodules from the ocean floor
in order to provide enough copper and
nickel for the next 2000 years.
II. PROPOSAL
The best way to meet these criteria - by providing
a flexible but effective capability with broad bi-
partisan support and popular national appeal - is
to create an Office of Science and Technology in the
Executive Office of the President - by Act of Congress.
The elements of this office would be, in outline,
as follows:
- Staffing:
- The Director, a highly qualified scientist,
appointed by the President; the Director
would also serve as the President's
Science and Technology Adviser;
- A Deputy Director for Administration,
and up to five assistants for specialities;
- The authority to set up ad hoc committees
or task forces for various projects.
- Fiscal implications:
- $1 - $1.5 million annually;
- It should be noted that this figure is
much lower than the one contemplated by
the House and Senate bills.
-3-
To move this proposal along, the next steps would be
to:
- Draft legislation;
- Hold informal conversations with Congressional
leaders in order to develop a legislative
package that both the Administration and the
Congress will support.
III. RECOMMENDATION
That you approve the following steps for the creation
of a Science and Technology Adviser to the President by
Act of Congress:
- Draft legislation;
- Proceed with discussions with Congressional leaders.
Approve
Disapprove
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
June 3, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR :
DR. GUY TEVER
FROM :
JIM CANNON
SUBJECT :
SCIENCE ADVISER
I believe Jim Cavanaugh has already talked
with you about this.
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide
you with the elements of the President's
decision.
Attachment
I
This is the President's decision and direction
for action:
1. There will be a Science and Technology
Adviser to the President.
2. The office and staff will be authorized
by legislation.
3. There will be a single director, someone
of great ability and scientific standing.
The Director should know scientists, be
able to attract the best minds, and know
how to include their counsel in the executive
decision-making process.
4. He will have from 10-15 assistants.
5. Extensive use will be made of consultants
as members of scientific and technological
task forces for various projects.
6. The budget should be $1 million - $1.5 million
annually.
II
We certainly appreciate your assistance in
-- Drafting legislation to carry forward the
President's decision.
-- Drafting a message to the Congress.
III
In broad terms, our objectives are to:
-- assure the development of an ongoing scientific
and technology capacity in the Executive Office
of the President;
-- assure the availability of a broad range of
scientific and technical expertise;
-- acknowledge Congressional support for an effective
and visible science advisory group;
- 2 -
demonstrate unequivocally the Administration's
commitment to using the resources of the nation's
scientific community and technology industry to
meet the overriding needs of our times; and
make known to the nation the Administration's
ability to develop and support new and innovative
ideas through the creation of Executive Branch
task forces operating out of the Office of the
Science and Technology Adviser to the President.