sponsor’s viewpoint of f. v. hunt

Sponsor's viewpoint of F. V. Hunt Aubrey W. Pryce*

Office of Naval Research, Arlington, Virginia 22217 (Received 22 March 1973)

Hunt's relationship with the OtT•ce of Naval Research and his performance as an acoustics researcher on other Navy-related activities are discussed. Particular attention is given to "Task Order X," a series of projects carried on under Navy sponsorship over a 24-year period.

Subject Classification: 05.60; 10.60, 10.30.

INTRODUCTION

In July 1946, the Office of Research and Inventions, the forerunner of the Office of Naval Research estab-

lished a month later by Public Law 588 of the 79th Con- gress, entered into a contract Nori 76 Task Order X with Harvard University to cover research in acoustics. It was originally funded for one year, with an anticipated duration of five years, and was probably one of ONR's first ten contracts. • Twenty four years later F. V. Hunt, as principal investigator, had written his third Final Report •' on a series of contracts still respectfully referred to by many as "Task Order X." My remarks center very largely on this series of contracts.

The picture would be incomplete, however, without reference to Hunt's other Navy-related activities, which have greatly influenced the selection of problems worked on in the contract and which depended at least in part on the contract effort in later years. I refer to his wartime position as Director of the Harvard Underwater Sound Laboratory and his role as an outstanding consultant and advisor to the Navy, both directly and as a Member of • the National Academy of Science's Committee on Under- sea Warfare. His accomplishments here have been rec- ognized by the Presidential Medal for Merit 1947, by the Navy's Distinguished Public Service Award in 1970, by the Society's Pioneers of Underwater Acoustics Medal in 1965 and its Gold Medal in 1969, and by many of his peers, s-7 and it would be presumptuous to attempt to expand on them here.

I. THE INITIAL CONTRACT

W. Annis, the Scientific Officer in ONR for Hunt's first contract, recalls the initial discussions. • Hunt was well known to Captain R. D. Conrad USN, then Head of the ONR Planning Division, whose feeling was that Hunt should be given anything he asked for. Hunt re- quested $100000 a year to do research in acoustics, with apparently little further elaboration. He was somewhat taken aback when asked to elaborate on the aspects of acoustics he had in mind, and apparently felt this to be a somewhat blatant attempt by government to control science. The subsequent discussions had a great deal to do with establishing ONR positions on university research, which have gained wide respect. It is gratifying to report that over the years Hunt became a staunch sup- porter of ONR and its modus operandum, and it may well be that this was an example of Hunt's shock treatment, of which we shall see more later. It should be

added that the unwritten rule in ONR has long been that decisions on individual contract support are initiated at the scientific officer or program level and not in the Front Office.

Unknowingly perhaps, Hunt had contributed in another way to acoustics. The provisional ONR acoustics budget had been $100000, which was required for Hunt. For- tunately for other acousticians and the Navy interest, the budget was raised.

This is not the place for a discussion of government support of research. It should be recalled, however, that ONR was the first Federal agency with a major mission of supporting research at universities. This position had been promoted by a very energetic group of naval officers, one of whom was Conrad, who were anx- ious to maintain for the Navy a very close working relationship with the scientific community. The Navy's purpose was to obtain the benefit of current scientific

research output and consultation. Harvard's policy was to accept contracts for work on campus only when the supported research would promote directly the university's basic educational mission. In consequence, the university declined to accept classified work from the beginning, contending that security and the freedom of enquiry essential to the process of education are inher- ently incompatible. Harvard put higher value on training and education than on research output. While ONR's mission never included the support of education per se, the position proved acceptable because the Navy's undersea problems have always required qualified acoustics research workers and because other agencies have provided relatively little support for acoustics research.

II. MOTIVATION

In 1957 Hunt willingly agreed "to write a piece for an ONR journal about the Harvard acoustics research program." In this paper, "Motivated Easic Research: A Case Study, ,,8 which is reproduced in his last Final Re- port, he discussed the philosophy and motivation behind the Harvard program. 9 He contrasted motivated and pure basic research as follows.

"The comparison of our fund of knowledge to a great reservoir is hackneyed but useful. Each application constitutes an outlet from this reservoir, and the good applied-researcher knows that there will be less dilu- tion and a lower impedance drop if the 'fuller knowledge' he turns up can be pumped directly into an outlet channel. The basic-researcher with a leaning to-

1248 J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 57, No. 6, Part I, June 1975 Copyright ¸ 1975 by the Acoustical Society of America 1248

Redistribution subject to ASA license or copyright; see http://acousticalsociety.org/content/terms. Download to IP: 146.189.194.69 On: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 17:49:12

1249 A. Pryce- Sponsor's viewpoint 1249

ward 'purity' is content for his contribution to 'fuller- knowledge' to fall anywhere on the reservoir's water- shed; but the motivated basic-researcher has a gleam in his eye and an urge to inject his contribution of 'fuller knowledge' into the reservoir somewhere near the place where application outlets already exist or seem likely to appear."

Motivation was of course paramount in "Task Order X, "both in the initial selection of 18 problems to be worked on as opportunity permitted, and subsequently as th• effort progressed. Hunt's own extensive knowledge of Navy needs--frequently replenished by consultation and often more extensive than the sponsor's--would have been sufficient for many. I•ut he sought other in- puts. For example, he promoted the exchange of per- sonnel as Research Fellows to bring in knowledge and experience, and when necessary he obtained the clear- ance of students so that they could be aware of the appro- priate classified work and of the Navy's need.

Aside from being an elegant justification of his contract effort, Hunt's paper provided stimulating advice to the sponsor at a time when other agencies, including the National Science Foundation, had appeared to support research. It warned of the coming hazards inherent in the term "relevance." It is to be regretted that the term "motivated research" was not more generally accepted. It could have helped immensely in the heated debates on "relevance" destined to plague many of us in later years.

III. STIMULATING THE ESTABLISHMENT

An extract from an invited paper on new concepts for sonar given at an undersea warfare symposium is typi- cal of Hunt's provocative approach designed to generate authoritative, logical, and critical discussion of the is- sues.

"I should like to say at the outset that, with one exception, everything I have to say this afternoon repre- sents armchair planning and paper proposals. I do not intend, therefore, to let myself be inhibited by mere 'experimental difficulties,' nor to restrict myself by what have been regarded as feasible operation- al procedures. This is, therefore, an effort toward research instigation rather than investigation, --the shock treatment, so to speak, provided I don't blow a fuse.

"I am indebted to several of my colleagues on the Committee as well as to the staff of our Harvard re-

search group in acoustics for some of what follows, and one or two of them have consented to furnish an

account of their studies for inclusion as appendices to this manuscript. However, it is my own neck I am sticking out, and I assure you that my intention is to be provocative. If any one present can prove that I have overstated my case I will join in applauding his work, because then we will all know more about the fundamental phenomena involved."

This attitude, necessary in R & D, is equally so in administration. Here also Hunt was willing to present

a provocative position designed to shift one from the rule or accepted notion to the principle. Many of us in ONR (in Washington and in the local œoston Branch Of- fice) learned much as a result, and a healthy respect was generated on both sides.

A few incidents •ø noted by T. 1•. Dowd, the contract's scientific officer in ONR Boston from 1047 on, suffice as examples.

On occasion, it was necessary to provide access to classified information to some of Hunt's post-doctoral students. A standard statement, to be signed by the person granted access, identified certain sections of the US Civil Code by number alone. Hunt insisted that these sections be spelled out so that there was a full realiza- tion of the seriousness of violating the law.

Travel is invariably a problem in contract administration. "Task Order X" was no exception. Early on, Hunt indicated his plan to send seven or eight students to an Acoustical Society meeting; the local office objected, asserting that he had to ask permission. Hunt contended there was nothing in the contract requiring this. The question finished up in Washington. The students went. Later, he wished to send a number of his students to the International Congress of Acoustics in Stuttgart in 1959, considering it essential to their experience and research. He asked for military transpor- tation for them, indicating that he was prepared to get personal support elsewhere. After much debate they went.

ONR, with responsibility for the Navy's patents, has long been sensitive to the need for adequate reporting of patentable output from its Contract research program. Hunt was meticulous in this regard, insisting that the Navy receive proper license on any invention. He strongly objected, however, to an annual requirement imposed in earlier days for a negative report, contending that such a report could be detrimental to Harvard and the inventor if, in a later year, an invention was reported that had been worked on earlier and not reported.

Hunt was always willing to pursue an idea and provide the benefit of his advice and consultation. He strongly supported a suggestion that ONR acoustics contractors prepare an informal Christmas letter outlining their on- going work, which was distributed to University contractors within the program in order to acquaint them of their joint efforts. This proposal proved to be most valuable. Again, aware of limitations on the ONR funds available for acoustics, he encouraged planned support of younger men, who had taken university and college positions, in order to spread the word.

IV. CONCLUSIONS

In the final analysis the sponsor's concern is the output of his program. Hunt brilliantly summarized the output of "Task Order X" in his final report, •' not only justifying his support by ONR but, in large measure, that of the ONR acoustics research program as a whole, of which "Task Order X" was the hard core for over 20

years.

J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 57, No. 6, Part I, June 1975


1250 A. Pryce: Sponsor's viewpoint 1250

"Task Order X" research is documented in some 60

Harvard Acoustic Research Laboratory Technical Mem- oranda, each of which, with due respect to individual authors, bears the imprint of the master, reflecting his precision and clarity. Alongside these memoranda are over twice this number of external publications.

Thirty students who worked on "Task Order X" earned their Harvard Ph.D. 's under Hunt. Many of them re- mained to pursue post-doctoral research; seven others joined the contract effort after receiving their doctorates elsewhere. It is particularly gratifying as a sponsor to note that over 4(fro of the 51 "professionals" who received support subsequently had some direct relationship with the Department of the Navy's R & D or educational pro- grams, either as direct employees or as a university or industrial contractor.

"Task Order X," under F. V. Hunt's direction, ably fulfilled the objectives of its support. For over two decades it provided a vehicle for Hunt to exercise his rare gifts as an educator, research worker, consultant, and advisor. His devotion to the Navy, his sincerity and enthusiasm will long be remembered.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

In addition to those cited, the author wishes to express his appreciation to those who provided information, advice, and suggested topics, particularly E. P. Bledsoe,

M. M. Boehley, J. Bouyoucos, W. S. Cramer, M. Lasky, and G. W. Wood.

*Present address: NATO SAC LANT Antisubmarine Warfare

Research Centre, La Spezia, Italy. lW. Annis, personal communication. 2F. V. Hunt, "Harvard University Acoustics Research Labora-

tory Final Report 1946-1970 on ONR Contract N00014-67-A- 0298-0007, Project NR-384-903," Harvard U., Cambridge, MA (1970), AD 708 758.

3L. Batchelder, "Frederick Vinton Hunt, 1905-1972," J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 52, 52-54 (1972).

4j. V. Bouyoucos, "Frederick V. Hunt," Phys. Today 25, No. 7, 69-70 (1972).

5C. P. Boner, "Ted Hunt at Harvard Underwater Sound Lab- oratory," paper read at a banquet given on the occasion of the 29th U.S. Navy Symposium on Underwater Acoustics, New London (Nov. 1972).

6L. L. Beranek, "The Gold Medal, 1969, Frederick Vinton Hunt," J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 46, 319-322 (1969).

?J. V. Bouyoucos, "Pioneers of Underwater Acoustics Medal, 1965, Frederick V. Hunt," J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 39, 765-770 (1966).

8F. V. Hunt, "Motivated Basic Research: A Case Study," in Ref. 2, Encl. H, pp. 27-32.

9See also W. P. Raney and F. V. Hunt, "Education for Acous- tical Engineering," 1957 IRE Natl. Cony. Rec. Pt. 9, Ultra- son. Eng., pp. 3-6.

løT. B. Dowd, personal communication.

J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 57, No. 6, Part I, June 1975


sponsor’s viewpoint of f. v. hunt

Documents