The Brooks committee studying Harvard participation in the Cambridge Project yesterday submitted two alternative recommendations to the Faculty Committee on Research Policy, but refused to make the specifics of its report public until the policy committee reaches a decision.

Harvey Brooks, committee chairman and dean of Engineering and Applied Physics. said he expects the Research Policy Committee will announce its decision by Monday.

Brooks said the two alternatives are:

Harvard joining M. I. T. on the governing board of the Project;

Harvard refusing official affiliation with the project but allowing faculty members to participate on an individual basis.

The two positions represent the major division of opinion among the committee members. Brooks said. There was no sentiment on the committee for barring any Harvard participation in the project, he said.

Brooks predicted that if the Research Policy Committee adopts one of the proposals unanimously, its recommendation will go directly to the Corporation. If there is division within the committee, the issue will be debated by the whole Faculty, he added.

He said the committee discussed how radicals would react to their report, but the final decision was based on general principles rather than outside influences, he added.

A statement by the six Harvard members of the Advisory Committee to the Cambridge Project will appear in the report as an appendix. Brooks said. The statement, which describes the goals and the procedures of the Project, was used extensively by the committee for background information.

The statement, drafted by Karl W. Deutsch, professor of Government, and five other committee members, calls for active participation in the Project by Harvard social scientists. The Project will only be successful if Harvard and M. I. T. social scientists make full use of the research equipment which the Project develops, the statement said.

The six committee members said the Project is primarily intended to develop methods of adapting computers to social science research. However, in addition to strictly "methodological" research, some "substantive" research will be undertaken, they admitted.

Opponents of the Cambridge Project have objected to this type of research because the project is funded by the Pentagon. The statement said that the project is seeking funds for substantive research from sources other than the Defense Department. The National Science Foundation is the alternative source most often named.