Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

Individual differences and learning

The ultimate concern of the psychology of individual differences is the individual man performing at his assigned work. An understanding of his capabilities is dependent upon research which will identify the extent to which he deviates from others in the possession of certain basic intellectual and nonintellectual traits and skills-how he acquires and retains information; how he thinks and solves problems; how he differs from his fellows along personality dimensions or in the skill with which he performs certain motor functions. A knowledge of the demands imposed upon the individual by his job environment is also essential. The translation of basic information to personnel action further requires knowledge of the techniques of measurement of individual differences and the application of these in personnel selection, classification, and performance assessment.

The National Science Foundation supports general research in areas of learning theory and psychometric techniques. Some of the research is jointly sponsored by the National Science Foundation and the Office of Naval Research and the reports are issued as joint efforts. However, no other funding agency than the Office of Naval Research has the dynamic approach in developing selection methods, the search for adequate performance criteria, and the basic factors important to the training of humans.

Human engineering

The ultimate objective is "to get human engineering into the fleet." Special emphasis is placed on projected Navy man-machine weapons systems with regard to the human engineering effort planned for these systems. It promotes application of human engineering principles to the design of Navy man-machine systems, and supports man-machine systems research. In these systems, the man's role and his interaction with the equipment he uses are analyzed to determine where he can be used best in the system, what his function is as a systems component, and how the system can be designed to make best use of his capabilities. A broad view of research for predictive purposes is taken so that laboratory accomplishments will have some real value for the design of future systems. In a field which is becoming more interdisciplinary, communication between researchers and designers sometimes suffers because of lack of adequate translation between scientific languages. The preparation of human engineering handbooks for the design engineer is promoted.

METHOD OF SELECTING RESEARCH PROPOSALS FOR SUPPORT

Where several agencies are engaged in research in the same field of science and with the same institutions, there is the question of how research proposals are selected and duplication of effort avoided. Virtually all basic research proposals submitted are unsolicited. This is a major policy of the Navy. The aim is to encourage scientists to request support for work they consider important without compromising their objectives by shaping them to Navy interest. All proposals are judged by absolute standards and are not placed in competition with each other.

There are three major criteria by which proposals are measured for acceptance by the Navy. First, the scientific merit of the proposal is evaluated. This is done against the background of the importance of the scientific field and the importance of the specific area within the field and to what probable degree more knowledge will be accumulated. We ask ourselves such questions as, Is this good science? Is it likely to produce significant new scientific knowledge? All Navy research stems from some Navy requirement though at the outset the connection may not be direct. In a few cases a new scientific field that appears to have special importance to the Navy is given special consideration in order to stimulate research in that area. Examples are oceanography and radio

astronomy.

Second, the relevance of the proposed research project to the Navy mission is weighed. The knowledge to be gained from the research is evaluated from the viewpoint of how it will contribute to the long-range technical development and future evolution of the Navy. We consider whether the research is in an area in which the Navy now has or could conceivably in the future have some interest.

Third, the competence of the investigator is carefully reviewed including his background, experience, and general knowledge of the field. The size of the organization to which he is attached or the type of organization, whether

academic nonprofit, or industrial, plays no part in our consideration. In fact, all scientific dealings are directly with the investigator rather than through his organization.

There is no attempt made to establish a uniform distribution pattern in the award of Navy research contracts throughout the United States. The Navy seeks to support only the best research in any particular field. About twice as many acceptable research proposals as can be supported by our budget are received. Our preference is determined on a highly selective basis.

A variety of mechanisms are utilized in making the actual selection, using whatever means is appropriate for the scientific field involved. The same procedures, for example, would not be used for the comparatively small field of astronomy as for the broad field of chemistry.

First of all, the Navy has maintained over the years a highly competent and experienced scientific staff, which is fully capable of evaluating a wide variety of proposals. In some fields, we make use of standing advisory panels of scientists who have the highest national and even international reputations in the scientific community. The members of the panels are usually selected by the National Academy of Sciences or the appropriate national scientific society. Where appropriate, proposals are also referred to the Navy technical bureaus or laboratories for a critique.

At the same time, the Navy engages in complete coordination and cooperation with the other Government research agencies, both military and civilian. Reports of proposals received as well as actions taken are exchanged on a monthly basis. This helps to avoid duplication and assures that a research proposal will be channeled to the agency which has the predominant interest in the type of research involved. In this way, a proposal that might be turned down because of lack of Navy interest might be accepted for support by another agency.

The underlying philosophy of the Navy in contributing to the support of this Nation's research effort is to provide the knowledge that will make certain a constantly advancing Navy. At the same time, we are helping to foster a healthy nationwide scientific research program, which in itself will make it more probable that we will have radical improvements in the future Navy.

Hon. JOHN L. MCCLELLAN,

APPENDIX D

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY,

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY,
OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS,
Washington, D.C., May 22, 1961.

Chairman, Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights, Judiciary Committee, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: In the course of your subcommittee' recent hearings, Mr. Lee Loevinger, Assistant Attorney General, Antitrust Division, Department of Justice, read into the record a prepared statement which contained an appendix entitled "Failure To Report Inventions Made During Performance of Contracts." The two instances cited by the Department of Justice would seem to suggest that the Department of the Navy's pursuit of its rights in inventions made under certain contracts was prompted by others. Actually the Navy has an active contract followup program to make reasonably certain that all inventions are reported.

The General Mills inventions covered by patents Nos. 2,666,600 and 2,666,601 were known to Navy. However, the Navy's request for royalty-free licenses under the General Mills contract was resisted by General Mills on the ground that the inventions were not conceived or first reduced to practice in the performance of work under a Navy Department contract. The request for the confirmatory royalty-free licenses was made upon General Mills sometime before any inquiry by the chairman of the Select Small Business Committee and before the issuance of the patents. Considerable correspondence prior to the inquiry had already taken place between the Navy and General Mills in an effort to establish the Government's rights in the inventions. The Navy was also aware that at the time of the controversy with General Mills, there was a possibility of relating the inventions with Air Force contracts for similar balloons.

At the time of the inquiry by the Senate Small Business Committee, the matter was still in dispute between the Navy and General Mills. To expedite the matter, in view of the committee's interest therein, it was referred to the Department of Justice for such action as might be appropriate to enforce the Government's rights to any resulting inventions. This action resulted in General Mills eventually granting licenses to the inventions covered by the patents. The Farrand Optical Company v. United States was a suit for compensation for Government use of an invention covered by patent No. 2,719,459. In this case, Farrand presented, presumably as background regarding this invention, evidence concerning the Rosin invention covered by patent No. 2,588,414 and as to which Farrand was not asking compensation under this litigation.

After the conclusion of the trial phase but before the accounting phase of the suit, the Department of Justice informed the Navy of Dr. Rosin's testimony concerning his invention covered by patent No. 2,588,414 and requested the Navy to determine whether the Government was entitled to any rights under this invention.

In reviewing the circumstances surrounding the making of the Rosin invention, it was noted that Farrand entered into Navy contract NOrd-674 as of June 22, 1942, for a number of Mark 33 gunsights and the contract included a patent clause which provided that any inventions conceived during the period of the contract were to be the property of the Government. However, apparently based on a priority order reserving this type of gunsight for Air Force use, Navy contract NOrd-674 was terminated completely as of December 24, 1943, and Army Air Force contract No. W33-038-ac-1742 entered into as of that date with Farrand for the continued performance of work commenced under the Navy contract. This new contract included the patent clause of NOrd-674, modified to include a provision to reach back and cover inventions conceived during the period of NOrd-674. After completion of performance under the takeover contract No. W33-038-ac-1742, the Air Force on September 11, 1945, requested Farrand to furnish an invention report thereunder. Farrand responded by indicating that it did not believe any inventions were made in connection with its production of Mark 33 gunsights.

As a result of the review of the work under these contracts, the Navy with the Air Force concluded that, contrary to Farrand's earlier invention report under W33-038-ac-1742, the Rosin invention of patent No. 2,588,414 was conceived either during the period of the Navy contract or the Army-Air Force contract and therefore the Government was entitled to the ownership of the invention.

Farrand, assignee of patent No. 2,588,414, was therefore formally requested by both services to assign title in the patented invention pursuant to the terms of these contracts. Farrand has appealed this request and the matter is now pending before the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals.

The foregoing information is submitted in the interest of providing your subcommittee with complete information on this matter and for possible inclusion in the record of the hearings.

Sincerely yours,

о

W. S. SAMPSON, Captain, U.S. Navy, Deputy Chief.

GOVERNMENT PATENT POLICY

HEARINGS

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON

PATENTS, TRADEMARKS, AND COPYRIGHTS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

UNITED STATES SENATE

EIGHTY-SEVENTH CONGRESS

[blocks in formation]

73601

Docu

MAY 31, JUNE 1 AND 2, 1961

DIVISION

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON: 1961

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »