Chapter 9.
The Expansion Era
A
n event in the Soviet Union in
1957 had a significant long-term
influence on Forest Service research,
marking the starting point for the greatest expansion period ever. In October,
the Soviet Union launched Sputnik, a
tiny satellite orbiting the Earth. It was a
wakeup call that the United States was
behind in the exploration of space; and,
more ominously, behind in the development of weapons in the Cold War. The
U.S. began a strong effort to strengthen
the teaching of science and math within
the educational system, and to increase
the research capabilities of the national
defense establishment inside and outside the Federal Government.
The Forest Service research program
was a beneficiary of the Federal
Government’s reaction to Sputnik. But
it was a coat-tail effect stemming from
Cold War concerns more than a heightened concern about natural resources.
The environmental movement had not
become a strong political force at the
time.
Other factors were involved in
this unprecedented period of growth
of Forest Service research funding,
facilities, and personnel. One of
those was Senator John Stennis of
Mississippi. Stennis, chairman of the
Senate appropriations committee,was
a timberland owner and thus had an
interest in forestry. He realized both
the increasing importance of forestry
to the economy of the South and the
potential of research to advance the
forest products industry. As chairman
of the appropriations committee he had
the political power to see that Forest
Service research funding increased, and
he used it.
Harper’s Influence
Deputy Chief for Research Vern
L. Harper was a major factor in the
expansion of Forest Service research.
Although some of his direction was
controversial within the research
organization, Harper responded to the
heightened Congressional interest in
research with a plan for expansion that
was right for the times. The plan, calling
for expanding research programs and
building laboratories and other facilities
as part of the Forest Service’s Program
for the National Forests, was submitted
to Secretary of Agriculture Ezra Taft
Benson. Benson was a staunch conservative, interested in reducing government
programs, yet he backed several funding
increases for Forest Service research
(Hartzer 1981).
It never hurts to be a good host
for your boss, and Benson’s support
of research may have been fostered
somewhat by a lengthy summer vacation
at Priest River planned and conducted
by Station personnel. Priest River
Superintendent James W. Hanover gave
this account (Wellner 1976):
The experimental forest had the unique
and pleasant experience of being ‘home’
for Secretary of Agriculture Ezra Taft
Benson and his family for six weeks
during 1957. The distinguished guests
occupied the Lodge from July 2 to
August 13. Secretary Benson’s summer
at the forest enabled him to become
familiar with Forest Service programs
by means of extensive and local trips
scheduled for him. The Secretary spent
many hours relaxing and enjoying
the station’s scenery and facilities.
Secretary of Agriculture Ezra Taft
Benson was ready for a ride on a horse
loaned to him by Station personnel
during a 6-week family vacation at
Priest River in 1957 (Utah Historical
Society collection).
Harper served on a committee with
other USDA research administrators that
produced a 1960 report, An Evaluation
of Agricultural Research. It contained
recommendations for changes in
research direction and expansion within
USDA. As part of these exercises, he
prepared a list of suitable sites for Forest
Service research laboratories, mostly located on university campuses, and gave
it to Congress. The list became the basis
for Congress, interested third parties,
and the Forest Service to push a rapid
expansion of programs and facilities.
Forest Service research programs had
doubled from 1954 to 1960 and doubled
again by 1966, even using deflated
–85
dollars. The latter period, especially,
saw construction of many Forest Service
laboratories (Storey 1975).
Yet another factor was the role
Station Directors played in encouraging
political support for increased funds and
facilities. Federal employees are prohibited from lobbying, and as part of the
executive branch of government they are
obligated to support the President’s budget proposal to Congress. But answering
questions was not only permissible, but
required when Members of Congress
were making the inquiries. The Station
Directors provided information about
funding needs to Congress directly or
through third parties. This proved to be
an effective technique in encouraging
Congress to increase the research funding above levels recommended in the
President’s budget proposal.
The research center concept, adopted
beginning in 1946, was coming into
serious question by the mid-1950s.
Deficiences noted were some superficial research, some center leaders
becoming too independent, and certain
administrative tasks being duplicated
unnecessarily at several places within
a Station. Forest Service Research
hired a consulting firm to examine the
entire administrative structure. Among
its many recommendations was one to
continue the research center concept.
Harper found that unacceptable. In a
major decision, the Chief and Staff
backed Harper, rejected the recommendation, and adopted instead a
project-based system. Project Leaders
emerged as the key people in accomplishing research objectives.
The project-based organizations
allowed transfer of some administrative tasks to Station Headquarters and
increased the depth of research. Also,
geographic boundaries became less significant (Steen 1998). The adjustments
took considerable time and were not
greeted with enthusiasm by everyone.
Harper and his counterparts in the
Agricultural Research Service and the
Economic Research Service began
86–
to push for “man-in-the-job” peer
review for the evaluation of scientist
grades. This was an effort to evaluate
scientists on the basis of their research
accomplishments, rather than on their
administrative responsibilities. The
research grade evaluation guide that
resulted treated Forest Service scientists
more along the lines of university
faculty than as traditional bureaucrats
whose salary levels usually were based
on organization size.
Before the Research Grade
Evaluation System went into effect,
the ability of a scientist to advance
depended on willingness to transfer.
Al Stage recalled being told when he
was contemplating buying a home at
Moscow that “you could figure on 3 to
5 years at one place and then you’d be
moving on” (Stage 2003).
Stage said the only way a scientist
could advance was by gaining broad
experience, presumably through several
transfers, and then moving into research
administration. The broad experience
could qualify a person to become a
research center leader. From there, a
move was possible to the Washington
Office or to Station Headquarters as a
Division Chief.
Stage said, “With the advent of the
Research Grade Evaluation System you
could advance in place. You could get
more money for doing the things you really loved to do—better….What it did is
give individuals a lot more control over
their destiny. It gave the administration a
lot less control over who was where.”
Forestry Schools Grow
Relationships between the Forest
Service and the university forestry
schools were generally good at this time.
The late ‘50s saw the start or expansion
of natural resource research programs
at many of the schools. The McIntireStennis Act provided federal funds
for forestry research to the land grant
universities based on a formula tied to
the acreage of commercial forest land
within their respective States. Formula
funding of this sort tended to favor the
schools in States with large forest acreages, and was not necessarily related to
the research capability of the university.
However, McIntire-Stennis funds were
important for expanded research at the
existing forestry schools, and for the
initiation of research at a number of
newly created forestry schools.
The expansion of natural resource
research within both the Forest Service
and the universities was greatly facilitated by passage of the Government
Employees Training Act (GETA) in
1958. This act provided an opportunity
to send researchers back to graduate
schools for further graduate or postdoctoral training. It proved to be a
major step in upgrading the scientific
skills of the Forest Service research
staff. Even before passage of the act,
Harper had pushed advanced training to
the extent that about 10 percent of the
research staff was involved in graduate
education. These numbers peaked at 20
percent in 1967, but fell to 5 percent
in 1974 because nearly 75 percent of
the professional research employees
had advanced degrees by then (Storey
1975). Thirty percent of those taking
graduate training in 1962 did so under
GETA. By 1974, 97 percent were under
GETA.
Research expansion was coincidental
with that of other Forest Service programs, particularly those in the State and
Private Forestry (S&PF) arena. Research
administrators had some concern that
the build up of S&PF programs and the
interest in those programs at the Chief’s
level could make things difficult for
research expansion. Some even thought
funding for the S&PF programs could
eventually exceed that for the National
Forest System. While those situations
did not come to pass, the concerns
reflect the type of internal competition
common in government agencies
(Pechanec interview, 1993).