And I have been involved in that program, but I know nothing about the patent problems concerned with this. And I can't give you any evidence in that regard.

Mr. WRIGHT. You mentioned, in addition to the medical research field I think you also mentioned that you do research which overlaps the research that NASA does, too.

Dr. WEISS. Well, it is not overlapping in the sense that our interests are essentially the same. In the missile programs of the Army, we certainly are concerned with the environment through which the missile flies and the communications requirements of missiles, which then gives us a strong interest in meteorology and ionospheric physics, and the general disposition of wind and wind velocity at high altitudes. And so, of course, is NASA.

And as I mentioned, the very things that the Army looks for in the development of its equipment, that is, portable and rugged and lightweight and small size with a high capacity for information, are the very things that the space people are concerned with, because the premium put on payloads, I mean the ratio of propellant to lift, that is extremely important. So the things that they do in this field have a direct application to the Army's program, and the things the Army does would be of direct application to that, you see.

Mr. WRIGHT. It is true, is it not, that when you do it with a private contractor, the contractor gets title to the inventions, and when NASA does it in the first instance the Government gets title, are you aware of that?

Dr. WEISS. Yes, sir.

Mr. WRIGHT. Do you regard that as a desirable situation?

Dr. WEISS. I would like to express a view here. It seems to me that I wouldn't be so much concerned about a lack of uniformity as I would be a lack on consistency in principles as to what was trying to be accomplished.

I confess I don't know why the National Aeronautics and Space Administration has the type that it has. I am aware of why the DOD has it, at least I think I am. And I find it difficult to resolve that.

Mr. WRIGHT. You can't tell us what you think the impact of that difference has been on your program or NASA?

Dr. WEISS. Well, I just speak from personal experience. I heard it expressed yesterday, that there appears to be more willingness on the part of the technological base of the country to do business with the Department of Defense than with NASA, but this is strictly hearsay, and I have no way of corroborating that at all.

Mr. WRIGHT. I gather if you were a contractor you would much prefer the kind of provisions that you give the contractor to those that NASA gives it, is that right?

Dr. WEISS. Well, I suspect so. But I never had a chance to read the documentation of NASA. I am familiar with what it is in DOD, and it is rather formidable.

Mr. WRIGHT. In general, I suppose that any contractor likes to deal with the agency of the Government which is most generous in dealing with him, doesn't he?

Dr. WEISS. Well, I would suspect that was a sound observation, sir.

73601-61-pt. 1-6

Mr. WRIGHT. Now, AEC, in that area, I gather that if the Army does any research at all in the nuclear field, you do Mr. Bannerman feels, you are bound to use the irregulations for it?

Dr. WEISS. Really the work is done by the AEC for

Mr. WRIGHT. In those areas, you do have complete coordination in terms of disposition of invention rights as well as in your other matters, don't you?

Dr. WEISS. Well, we don't do the work, the Atomic Energy Commission does the work, but there are things, however, that we do involving nuclear energy which we do independently and the Atomic Energy Commission would borrow from them, as, for instance, in the field of nuclear instrumentation, the development of individual handheld weapons for, say, the combat soldier, in the event that he is exposed to radiation on the battlefield, the Army develops its own instrumentation and has no need to have this done by the Atomic Energy Commission, but does draw upon the scientific store of knowledge that the Atomic Energy Commission generates in its own laboratories.

I am talking about such things as dosimeter and survival meters and radiation meters.

Mr. WRIGHT. Do you feel your research has been handicapped at all by conforming to AEC patent policy in accordance with AEC procedures rather than ASPR regulations?

Dr. WEISS. This is a field that in research we haven't had too much experience. I have had personal experience in the nuclear instrumentation development program, and I have never noticed any problem in this area.

And, of course, in the development of reactors, this is the responsibility of the Atomic Energy Commission, and I feel quite sure that the policies of the Commission are generally adopted in this regard. Senator MCCLELLAN. Do you have any suggestions with respect to legislation?

I believe I asked you that, though, awhile ago.

Dr. WEISS. The only comment I have, sir, is that it seems difficult to resolve this question from the standpoint of uniformity of procedure.

It might be that it could be done from the standpoint of uniformity of principles which would try to spell out what the intent of the agencies was in setting up their patent policy the way they did.

Senator MCCLELLAN. You do agree-speaking about principles now, broad principles and policies-it does seem to me that the same contractor contracting in the same field or area of research with two Government agencies ought to have the same treatment from either of them.

In other words, the Government ought not to have with this agency one policy and over here another policy with its other agency, the right hand has one policy and the left hand another, dealing with the same contractor. Do you agree we ought to try to resolve that? Dr. WEISS. It seems to me that this occurs in numerous other instances than this.

Senator MCCLELLAN. I am not saying that this does not occur many places in Government, but I am saying, as a matter of factI am talking about principle-as a matter of principle, the Govern

ment ought to find a way to deal with that contract or on the same terms in one agency as it would in other.

Dr. WEISS. Wel, sir, I would say as one outside who wanted to do business with the Government, I would certainly agree that this would be desirable if it suited my purpose. However, I would probably not recognize the need for these variances on the other side, which is on the department side.

I think I would say that they ought to be resolved. I think it would be desirable for it to be resolved.

Senator MCCLELLAN. I am not saying at the moment how they should be resolved. I am simply pointing up that the same contractor, contractor X, comes to the Defense Department and makes a contract in research with the Army, as the case may be, and in that contract it is provided he is able to take advantage of any patent or discovery or invention that may grow out of the research he is doing, he goes over and makes that contract with the Atomic Energy Commission to do research in a certain field, or with Health and Welfare Department, if it is a health matter, and there the Government says, "Well, we want to take title to the patent on all inventions," from the standpoint of the Government, the Government in such a situation is not being consistent, and the broad principle-a broad principle, if that prevails, would say that the Government should be consistent.

Now, whichever is right and whichever is wrong, one, they are not both right, if it is all in the same field, or they are not both right to the extent that it is inconsistent. And consistency would be right, the right course and the right policy to achieve.

I think you would agree with that, broadly speaking.

Dr. WEISS. That certainly appears to be a reasonable goal.

Senator MCCLELLAN. I can appreciate, we are in a difficult area here, we are in a highly technical area, and we are saying it is not going to be easy to resolve.

I do not think we are going to be able to resolve it, but the thing that is presented here, it has come to our attention that such a situation exists, and with the help of the best informed we can find who are available to testify, give us the facts, and give us comments and recommendations, we are going to try to find a solution to this.

Gentlemen, I wish to thank you for your appearance. I appreciate the help you have tried to give us.

Of course, we may ask you to come back in the course of this, we may find something else we would like to interrogate you about. But, now, you are excused.

The committee only has authority within the consent of the Senate to sit until 12 o'clock. And it is now at that second. But we do hope to receive authority to reconvene this afternoon, and we will recess until 2:30.

If we do not get permission, then we will resume hearings in the morning at 10 o'clock. But I think we will get permission, and I anticipate we will resume hearings at 2:30.

(Whereupon, at 12 noon, the committee recessed, to reconvene at 2:30 p.m., the same day.)

AFTERNOON SESSION

Senator MCCLELLAN. The committee will resume.

Admiral Coates, come around, please.

Admiral, state your name, your present position with the Navy, and how long you have been in the service, and so forth, just a background

statement.

STATEMENT OF REAR ADM. L. D. COATES, CHIEF OF NAVAL RESEARCH, DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY; ACCOMPANIED BY CAPT. ROBERT A. FITCH, USN, ASSISTANT CHIEF, OFFICE OF NAVAL RESEARCH FOR PATENTS, AND PATENT COUNSEL FOR THE NAVY; AND DR. SHIRLEIGH SILVERMAN, DIRECTOR OF THE RESEARCH GROUP, OFFICE OF NAVAL RESEARCH

Admiral COATES. Senator McClellan, I am Rear Adm. Leonidas D. Coates, Chief of Naval Research. I have held that position since the first of February this year. My total naval service is 31 years.

With your permission, I would like to introduce Capt. Robert A. Fitch, who is Assistant Chief of the Office of Naval Research for Patents, and Patent Counsel for the Navy; and Dr. Shirleigh Silverman, Director of the Research Group of the Office of Naval Research. Senator MCCLELLAN. Very well, Admiral, Captain Fitch and Dr. Silverman, we are very glad to have you.

You have a prepared statement, have you, Admiral?
Admiral COATES. Yes, I do, sir.

Senator MCCLELLAN. Would you care to insert it in the record and highlight it, or do you prefer to read it in full?

Admiral COATES. I would like to read the statement, sir.
Senator MCCLELLAN. Very well. You may proceed.

Admiral COATES. Mr. Chairman, I understand that this committee for the purpose of this hearing, is primarily interested in basic research conducted by Navy contractors.

The object of the Navy research program is to insure the most modern and effective force for maintaining freedom of the ocean areas of the world, equipped and prepared to carry out all missions assigned.

The Navy's research program, both basic and applied, is oriented to the Navy's own needs and it is not out intention to seek information in areas not germane to Navy interests. Because of the great diversity of Navy missions, involving as they do, operations on, under, and over the seas, the Navy's interests necessarily extend, to some degree into most of the major fields of science. The knowledge generated, however, is added to the sum total of human knowledge for the edification and use of everyone.

In 1947, the Scientific Research Board report to the President emphasized the lesson learned in World War II in its statement that:

The security of the United States depends today, as never before, upon the rapid extension of scientific knowledge. So important, in fact, has this extension become to our country that it may reasonably be said to be a major factor in national survival.

This statement is true today and the Navy's basic research program is designed to provide the knowledge upon which future technology

must draw for the weapons and other devices to defend the Nation against aggressors.

Basic research is defined as that type of research which is directed toward an increase in knowledge in science. It is research where the primary aim of the investigator is a fuller knowledge or understanding of the subject under study. The scientist is free to explore any and all avenues as he seeks to create new knowledge, discover new facts, or an understanding of the subject under investigation.

In basic research knowledge is the prime objective; thought of application of this knowledge to the solution of specific problems is usually latent. Knowledge or facts themselves, while requiring highly creative ability in their discovery, are not inventions as understood in the patent law and consequently the bulk of the basic research output is not subject to private ownership, but is knowledge put into the public domain by papers published in scientific journals.

Only rarely does an idea in theory find direct application to a Navy problem in the first instance. Applied research relies upon basic research for the knowledge necessary to solve technical problems of the future. Thus, for basic research, the questions pertaining to patentable inventions are of relatively less importance. The services do, however, anticipate those instances in which a basic research investigator does make an invention by the inclusion of a patent rights clause which retains for the Government a royalty-free license.

The Navy has never considered the determination of the extent of the commercial use made either of patents owned by the Government, or secured by contractors on inventions arising under Navy research and development contracts and in which the Government has a royalty-free license as its responsibility or germane to its functions; this for the reason that the Navy seeks patent protection primarily for defensive purposes.

Each application filed, whether by the Navy or by the contractor, on inventions arising from Navy-financed research and development, is protection for the Navy against the possibility of a subsequent inventor securing a patent on the same invention, independently conceived, and subjecting the Navy to the payment of royalties thereon. There has never been any indication that the Government has had any desire to exercise its right to exclude its citizens from the use of Government-owned patents. On the contrary, the Attorney General has ruled that only revocable, nonexclusive licenses may be granted under Government-owned patents, and that the grant of an exclusive license would be a disposal of Government property requiring statutory authority (34 Op. Atty. Gen. 320).

While bills have been introduced in the Congress to provide the necessary authority, none has been enacted. In addition, the Chairman of the Government Patents Board has made known to the general public that Government-owned patents are available to all applicants on a royalty-free basis, and the Department of Justice has made public its policy of not enforcing Government-owned patents against any unlicensed user.

In view of the foregoing, it is readily understood why the Navy has so little information on the extent of use of Government-owned patented inventions. Anyone desiring to use a Government-owned invention may do so without fear of being prosecuted for infringe

ment.