PAGE 1
Annual Report to the Congress for 1981 March 1982
PAGE 2
Section Page I. Statements by the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Board, TAAC Chairman, and the Director of OTA. . 1 H. Year in Review . . . . . . . . . 9 III. Work in Progress . . . . . . . . . 39 IV. Organization and Operations . . . . . . 61 Appendixes A. List of Advisors and Panel Members . . . . . 71 B. OTA ActPublic Law92-484 ..........................10 3
PAGE 3
Section Chairman I.-Statements by the and Vice Chairman of the Board, TAAC Chairman, and the Director of OTA CHAIRMANS STATEMEMTSENATOR TED STEVENS During 1981 the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) provided technical analysis of a variety of topics emphasizing its role as shared staff to Congress. The Office released studies on issues ranging from agriculture, to MX basing, to applied genetics, in addition to conducting economic analysis of the steel, electronic, and automotive world markets. The wide range of expertise available on the staff of OTA allows it to provide technical assistance to a diverse group of committee staffs and Senate and House offices with varying interests and needs. Congress, like the rest of the Federal Government, is being pressed to do more with less. Congress must examine more issues with even greater scrutiny at the same time the resources available to do so become scarcer. Therefore, it is becoming increasingly important that research on complex technical questions facing Congress be coordinated among the various committees and between the two chambers. The Office of Technology Assessment has been successful in accomplishing this goal, thus avoiding duplication of efforts. It has also been able to provide Congress with a support staff well versed in technical matters. Congress will face a number of intricate and complicated issues this year requiring OTAS expertise and technical capabilities. I look for OTA to be involved in a number of the major issues ahead.
PAGE 4
2 l Annual Report to the Congress for 1981 VICE CHAIRMANS STATEMENTCONGRESSMAN MORRIS K. UDALL OTA was established because Congress realized that technology-related issues were assuming increasing importance in congressional deliberations. In 1981, it was evident that technology was the key to dealing with a whole host of major national needs including: l upgrading our national defense; l reducing our dependence on foreign oil; l conquering heart disease and cancer; boosting the productivity of our workers; and even providing an adequate supply of water to the West. In all these areas, it is vital that Members of Congress have an adequate understanding of the hazards and potential of technology, if we are to grapple effectively with the problems. Members, of course, cannot possibly be familiar with all the latest scientific advances and their implications for public policythus, the need for OTA. Over the last few years in particular, OTA has compiled an impressive record of accomplishment. It has produced a virtual library of authoritative, relevant, and viable studies of some of the most perplexing problems that the Government has had to face. It is perhaps worth recalling how difficult an assignment was given to this new agency. OTA was to be a part of Congress, overseen by a congressional board and servicing congressional committees; yet it was also to be nonpartisan, objective, and technically expert enough to command the respect of the professional scientific community. OTAS expertise was to cover the entire span of the physical, biological, and social sciences. It was not simply to analyze complex scientific and technological issues confronting Congressa difficult enough task. OTA was to help Congress anticipate issues that were not yet on the legislative agenda. It was to assess the full range of implications of technological changeeconomic, technical, social, environmental, political, military, health, etc.as appropriate. It was to do all this in a manner that would fit congressional timetables and committee jurisdictions. This is a very tall order, indeed. What is remarkable is the extent to which OTA is now fulfilling its mandate. I look forward to working with Chairman Ted Stevens in building on this record of accomplishment in the year ahead.
PAGE 5
Section lStatements l 3 TAAC CHAIRMANS STATEMENTCHARLES N. KIMBALL A major function of OTA is the transfer of technical knowledge from the scientific community to Congress. This is a vital and complex task. No person, even with advanced technical training, can hope to keep abreast of the significant advances in science and technology which have implications for public policy. If Congress is to continue to fulfill its responsibilities to lead this Nation, it must have accurate access to the issues presented by scientific and technological change. OTA performs this role and performs it well. In addition to its own competent staff it draws on experts in the corporate, university, and public sector communities through project advisory panels, workshops, consultants, reviewers, and contractors. The result is a uniquely comprehensive network of expertise available to help Congress deal with issues as complex and different as, for example, nuclear waste disposal or the international competitiveness of the U.S. electronics industry. Such technology also flows the other way. OTA reports have become highly valued in the private sector for their authority and utility. Issues that are of concern to Congress are also of wide interest outside the Federal Government. The extensive sale through the Government Printing Office and commercial reprinting of OTA reports is but one indicator of how valuable this agency has become both to Congress and to society as a whole.
PAGE 6
DIRECTORS STATEMENT-JOHN H. GIBBONS The range of services to Congress provided by OTA during 1981 reflects its broad charter to provide Congress with analyses of the implicationsdirect and indirectof science and technology for current legislative issues as well as long-term national problems. A few highlights are given in the following paragraphs. A more complete accounting of OTAS products and services is provided later in this report. OTA was asked to provide Congress with an assessment of options for MX Missile Basing. A wide variety of basing schemes was identified and systematically compared to disclose the several advantages and disadvantages associated with each. Projections were made of both the Soviet threat and foreseeable improvements in U.S. technology for the time period when MX would be operational. The resulting comparison showed that all available basing options have one or more serious drawbacks. This work was widely used in the legislative and executive branches during the year and promises to have continuing value. OTA also provided Congress with a comprehensive analysis of Impacts Applied Genetics. This rapidly moving field promises to be a major source of technological advances in the 1980s in such diverse areas as health, agriculture, chemicals production, and waste management. OTA concluded that current self-imposed safety regulations by researchers and producers seem appropriate; that the current U.S. lead in applied genetics technologies is threatened by vigorous foreign competition; and that new institutional arrangements, especially between universities and industry, are going to be important to the successful application of these new technologies. In contrast to the MX study, OTAS assessment on genetics was mostly oriented toward foresight rather than current legislative issues. The Government Printing Office reported particularly high sales of this report. It has also been published by the commercial U.S. press and was a featured selection in the recent offerings of the Library of Science book club. The report has also been published in England and now is being translated and printed in Japan by a commercial publisher. Legislative issues are proliferating with respect to the direct and indirect roles of Government in innovation and international competitiveness. In 1981, OTA completed several studies relevant to these issues. For example, a comparison of international competitiveness in the steel, auto, and electronics industries found that a macroindustrial Federal policy would have a number of advantages over the present collection of ad hoc and sometimes contradictory, industrial policies (U.S. Industrial Competitiveness: A Comparison of Steel, Electronics, and Automobiles, July 1981). An OTA analysis of
PAGE 7
Section lStatements 5 l l l coal exports and implications for U.S. port development highlighted the major opportunities to expand U.S. coal exports, the capabilities and problems of present deep water ports, and impacts of user-based fees as partial means of financing port development (Coal Ports and Port Development, April 1981), Energy issues remain a matter of major concern. During the year, OTA published an assessment of the prospects for Solar Power Satellites; an analysis of alternative schemes for Nuclear Powerplant Standardization; and a definitive study of Technology and Soviet Energy Availability. Several major points emerge from these and earlier OTA energy projects. First, even though demand for oil and gas is rising more slowly than it was (due both to price increases and recession) the difficulty of providing incremental gains in outputor even holding onto current production ratesis increasing, and the margin between current U.S. demand and relatively secure supply is still far from comfortable. Second, sharply higher prices have not resulted in a significantly expanded supply of these premium fuels. In contrast, response to price increases has been remarkably elastic on the demand side as various technologies are used to provide for more efficient use of energy. Third, several promising options exist to obtain more assured safety and performance in nuclear power reactors by means of standardization. One proposed alternative, electricity from orbiting solar power satellites, appears to be unacceptably expensive even under optimistic assumptions. Lastly, while the U.S.S.R. faces level or declining oil production beginning in the latter half of the 1980s, their natural gas production can offset this effect, leaving them with continuing capability to supply domestic needs and to export energy (e.g., gas to western Europe) for badly needed hard currency. OTAS first report on the microelectronic revolution was completed in 1981. Computer-Based National Information Systems: Technology and Public Policy Issues, an overview study, analyzes potential societal benefits and impacts of the new information systems made possible by advances in computer and communication technology. The growing role of information processing in U.S. society, particularly in the economy, is examined. The report explores a number of potential policy issues that Congress may need to deal with over the next decade-among them innovation and productivity, privacy, system security, vulnerability, and Federal use. Issues of health and safety have also been highly visible over the past year. The 1981 OTA Assessment of Technologies for Determining Cancer Risks From the Environment describes and analyzes cancer rates and trends, factors that are associated with cancer occurrence, methods to detect and identify carcinogenic substances, and procedures for estimating levels of human risk from such substances. It also examines the Federal laws that provide for regulal
PAGE 8
6 l Annual Report to the Congress for 1981 tions to reduce cancer risks. The report resulted in requests for testimony about subjects as varied as health risks from toxic dumps, replacements for animal tests as methods to identify carcinogens, and possible changes in food safety laws. Further, OTAS discussion of risk assessment is now being incorporated into a National Academy of Sciences study about suggested changes in the process used by the Federal Government to assess risk. OTA, as required by Public Law 98-151, must approve the protocol for a Veterans Administration study of possible long-term health effects resulting from exposure to Agent Orange in Vietnam. A draft protocol for the VA study, in September 1981, was found by OTA to be lacking in detail. The VA has returned the draft protocol to the contractor that developed it and asked for a revision. l Additional aspects of health that continue to be of prominent congressional policy concern are the cost of health care and the relationship between the benefits of specific medical technologies and their costs. Several of OTAS health studies are directly related to these concerns. Fifteen case studies of the costs and benefits of specific medical interventions were issued during 1981, covering such technologies as automated chemistry analyzers, neonatal intensive care, screening for colon cancer and cervical cancer, nurse practitioners, cimetidine, and gastrointestinal endoscopy. These case studies were prepared as part of a larger project on the feasibility and implications of using cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analysis in health care. A separate study of the Cost-Ejectiveness Analysis of Inactivated Influenza Vaccine, completed-during the year, examined the effects on life expectancy and the decreases in illness and in health care costs that might result from increased numbers of vaccinations. Now Challenges for OT A During the coming decade, the United States will face problems whose solution will require the power of human inventiveness, nurtured by an economic system that encourages innovation and productive risk-taking. The opportunities for science and technology to improve the national economy, defense, health, and environment are many. The benefits do not come without costs. OTAS job is to help Congress understand the extent of the opportunities and the potential costs and evaluate alternative approaches to reduce the risks and undesired effects. In past years, when inflation was lower and public investment for research and development was more readily available, the Nation could often afford to follow many promising paths simultaneously. Now, with mounting pressures to cut Government expenditures, more difficult choices have to be made, including not funding some admittedly very promising ideas. This new imperative means that careful analysis of options is more important than ever because the potential l
PAGE 9
Section lStatements 7 cost of being even a little wrong can be so high. Facts must be sorted out, informed consensus must be sought, and accurate, timely, unbiased information must be available to Congress on a growing list of complex, costly, and controversial issues. OTA carries out these tasks, acting as a shared resource for committees of the House and Senate. In performing its analytical work for Congress, OTA links and synthesizes the collective expertise from all sectors of the United States. Each year roughly 2,000 people from universities, private corporations, State and local government, and Federal agencies assist OTA in its assessment work. In this manner, OTA avoids duplication of existing work and acts as a catalyst to bring national wisdom to bear on congressional issues. In 1981, OTA worked on more than 30 assessments that, because of their scope and depth, typically require 1 to 2 years to complete. Work on the formal reports was accompanied by interim analytical papers and briefings, delivery of testimony in congressional hearings based on current and past assessments, and technical memoranda. Numerous discussions were held with senior analysts and policymakers, including officials from other nations who sought out OTA for advice and counsel. An internal review was made of the methods of assessment and analysis being used not only at OTA but in other institutions, including private industry. A Glimpse, Ahead Satchel Paige once expressed his philosophy of life as . Dont look back; something might be gaining on you Despite that admonition, we feel that it is essential both to look backward and forward in order to properly understand the present and to prepare for the future. OTA has this dual responsibility. What, then, do we see ahead? A year ago I wrote of molecular biology and microelectronics as typifying the advanced areas of science and technology which will deeply impact our personal and national life. I wrote of international and global impacts of human activity that constitute our growing interdependence. It is easy to be pessimistic. Each year the technological capability of nations to do violence grows. Can mankind use its technological ingenuity to lessen the danger of conflict? Many nations are mortgaging their future by virtue of providing goods and services at a rate that is not sustainable over time. What are our options to build a long-term sustainable world economy? In the past, dire outlooks for the future have more often than not been diverted by the exercise of human inventiveness through technology. What new options can technology offer to turn the tide? What are our best options to assure adequate energy and other resources for the United States? How can we best assist other nations in their struggle for economic growth? To what
PAGE 10
8 l Annual Report to the Congress for 1981 extent can we provide a high material standard of living while maintaining a high standard of environmental quality? Our hope for future success lies . not in our stars but in ourselves . (apologies to Shakespeares Mark Antony)i.e., in the unfathomed potential of human inventiveness. Our best hopes for the future, once focused on the seemingly infinite West and on rich natural resources, now lie substantially in the esoteric world of nuclei, atoms, moleculesa microscopic world of crystal lattices, big molecules, and quantum theory. This microrealm is a world that few people are presently privileged to understand even superficially, and yet all are affected deeply by the technologies that emerge from it. The increasing gulf between accelerating developments of scientific and technological knowledge on the one hand and the level of scientific literacy of our citizens on the other creates a need for dispassionate analysis and information transfer. OTAS job in this context is to continue to show that complex and controversial issues can be subjected to analysis that is accurate, understandable, and useful to Congress. Such analysis is the necessary foundation on which effective national policy can be built.
PAGE 11
Section Il.-Year in Review The assessments carried out by OTA cover a wide spectrum of major issues before Congress and the country. They examine a broad range of policy options and their potential impacts. To provide examples of the breadth and depth of OTAS work, summaries of reports published by the Office in 1981 are presented in this section. Also included are summaries of Background Papers and Technical Memoranda issued by OTA on specific subjects analyzed in recent OTA reports or on projects in progress at OTA. Background Papers and Technical Memoranda are neither reviewed nor approved by the Technology Assessment Board. The reader is cautioned that these are summaries of reports. They do not cover the full range of options considered or all of the findings presented in any individual report. Technology for Local Development Appropriate technology (AT) has been proposed by some as a solution to many of the social and economic problems created by large&, A-..-,.. scale, centralized technology. Ideally, AT emphasizes small-scale, energy efficiency, environmental soundness, community control, labor (rather than capital) intensiveness, and local resources. The AT projects examined in OTAS exploratory study exhibit a great diversity in size, complexity, and location. They range from attached solar greenhouses in New Mexico to a plant that converts municipal waste to steam heat in Akron, Ohio; from a heat-retentive house designed for low-income families in Alaska to a cooperative farmers market in Louisiana; and from an innovative wastewater treatment plant in California to small-scale hydroelectric dams in New England. These AT projects were generally successful in achieving local goals and involving local residents in the planning, construction, and management of their facilities. Several projects provided marketable training and work experience, and others improved the viability of existing local enterprises, notably the small family farm. 9
PAGE 12
I0 l Annual Report to the Congress for 1981 At the community level, these technologies promise considerable benefits in three substantive areas: 1) improving the delivery and reducing or stabilizing the cost of community services; 2) improving the profitability of small-scale agriculture; and 3) improving energy efficiency. If these and similar projects are widely replicated, they could lead to significant benefits on the national level, including: energy conservation in the residential sector, which currently accounts for over 20 percent of U.S. consumption; lower production costs and more profitable marketing techniques for small-scale farmers, which might help to slow the conversion of the Nations farmlands to nonagricultural uses; lower costs and greater flexibility in upgrading the Nations sewage treatment facilities, whose costs might otherwise be beyond the available resources of Federal, State, and local governments; increased generating capacity at abandoned or underused damsites, which could substantially increase the Nations supply of hydroelectric power; and significant savings or improved delivery in community health care services. Many existing Federal policies and programs have been relatively successful in encouraging the development and adoption of AT projects like those examined. On the basis of these case studies, there ap pears to be no need for new legislation or major increased Federal involvement, though existing programs could be made more effective in four specific areas: 1) gathering reliable data on the design, cost, and performance of the technologies; 2) disseminating this information through regional demonstration projects and through the encouragement of local networking; 3) technical assistance, including community workshops for individuals and planning aids for municipalities; and 4) financial assistance, such as tax credits or cost-sharing for individuals and risk guarantees or tax-free financing for municipalities. These case studies suggest that individuality, ingenuity, and local initiative are far from lacking in the United States.
PAGE 13
Section IIYear in Review l 11 lmpacts of Applied Genetics; Micro-Organisms, Plants, and Animals New genetic technologies developed in the last 10 years will have a maior commercial impact on the pharmaceutical, chemical, and food processing industries, probably in that order. These technologies, already in use in several industries, offer fresh approaches to filling basic needs such as health care, and food and energy supply. At the same time, they arouse concerns about possible risks to health and the environment and the effects on human values. Genetic technologies open up new possibilities for developing vaccines for such intractable diseases as hepatitis and malaria. The availability of any one of these vaccines would improve the lives of tens of millions of people. Other pharmaceutical products likely to be affected in the next_ 10 to 20 years are most antibiotics, enzymes, antibodies, and many hormones. The economic impact of genetic technologies on the chemical industry within the next 20 years is estimated at billions of dollars per year and cuts across the entire spectrum of chemical groups. These include pIastic and resin materials, synthetic rubber, pesticides, and the primary products from petroleum that serve as the raw materials for the synthesis of organic chemicals. Large-scale availability of enzymes, made possible through genetic technologies, will play an increasing role in the food processing industry. Genetic techniques can transform inedible biomass into food for humans or animals and otherwise aid in the processing of food. The application of genetic technologies to plants, combined with classical breeding methods, offers the promise of increased yield, resistance to disease, and improved nutritional value. Genetic technologies will probably not be used directly to affect animal production and products within the next 10 years. However, applications in the production of animal vaccines and hormones will likely be significant within that period. Genetically engineered micro-organisms may be developed for use in three areas that require their large-scale release into the environment: oil recovery, pollution control, and mineral leaching. Technical constraints and questions about potential effects on human health and the environment are a major obstacle to their use. No evidence exists that any unexpected harmful genetically engineered organism has been created. Still, few experts believe that molecular genetic techniques are totally without risk to health and the en-
PAGE 14
12 l Annual Report to the Congress for 1981 vironment. National Institutes of Health guidelines and current Federal laws appear adequate in most cases to deal with any risks. However, there is uncertainty about the regulation of production methods using engineered micro-organisms or their intentional release into the environment for those cases where the risk is not clear. Last years Supreme Court decision to allow human-tailored organisms to be patented will stimulate their commercial use. However, the option left room for Congress to overrule the decision, develop a comprehensive statutory approach, and decide which organisms, if any, should be patentable. Current industry activity in genetics indicates that sufficient capital is available for specific production objectives. But some high-risk or low-profit areas of interest to society, such as pollution control or enhanced oil recovery, may need Government promotion if they are to be developed. Nuclear Powerplant Standardization Standardization of nuclear powerplants can bean essential element in maintaining a viable and safe program for nuclear energy. Virtually all of the existing 71 U.S. nuclear powerplants were uniquely designed and engineered by many different companies under changing regulatory demands, utility desires, and industrial standards. Navy reactors have been more nearly standardized, but this experience is not directly applicable to commercial powerplants. Therefore, there is no experience that explicitly proves that standardizing reactors would improve public safety. Nevertheless, the belief that safety benefits would result is intuitively valid and widely accepted by experts including the nuclear industry. Some of the advantages of reducing diversity via standardization are that designers and safety analysts could better focus their efforts on perfecting existing designs; the licensing process could be stabilized; and the process for evaluating and implementing safety modifications for operating plants could be improved. There has already been a significant consolidation of designs by each company involved. This trend would be greatly accelerated by single-stage licensing. Utilities could then order plants with preapproved designs and would have to get only site-specific features licensed. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) could unilaterally implement single-stage licensing, but this change would be accelerated by congressional encouragement.
PAGE 15
Section IlYear In Review l 13 Another approach to standardization would be to have utilities use common procedures and terminology to facilitate information transfer among plants. The adoption of uniform reporting practices and industry-wide participation in review of operating experience would improve the dissemination of relevant safety and reliability information. Standardization could involve the reactor and its associated safety systems (the safety-block concept) or even the entire plant. Such standardization would, to some extent, impose designs on companies that had not developed them. This commonality would eventually provide significant safety and licensing benefits. However, it would also disrupt the commercial industry causing problems which may outweigh these benefits. Congressional action would probably be necessary if these levels of standardization are desired. Rapidly changing and uncertain safety regulations have been major impediments to standardization. A national safety goal for nuclear powerplants would greatly alleviate this problem. Debate and adoption of a quantitative definition of how safe is safe enough would provide a benchmark for determining the necessity for design changes. Currently there is a lack of orders for new plants due to both lower growth in electricity use and lack of confidence by utilities in the licensing process. Standardization can significantly assist in restoring that confidence. However, NRC is currently devoting little time to standardization. Standardization has clear potential for time and cost reductions and for gains in safety for new nuclear powerplants. At the same time, standardization is not a panacea and the other elements needed for a safe and efficient nuclear program should not be ignored. 92-921 0 82 2
PAGE 16
14 l Annual Report to the Congress for 1981 U.S. Industrial Competitiveness: A Comparison of Steel, Electronics, and Automobiles A reorientation of Federal industrial policy could help the performance of the U.S. economy. Government policies that affect the international competitiveness of American industryincluding those dealing with trade, taxes, technology, and regulationsuffer from fragmentation and lack of continuity. This puts U.S. industry at a disadvantage compared to several of our international rivals. There are no quick fixes to problems of economic efficiency and productivity, but unless the Government takes positive action, U.S. competitiveness will probably continue to deteriorate. Although the causes differ, U.S. competitiveness in steel, electronics, and automobiles has in fact declined. Steelmaker are still closing facilities, steelworkers losing their jobs. Many of the TV setsand all of the home video recorderssold in the United States are now imported. In 1980, as American automobile firms lost more than $4 billion, imports from Japan continued to-rise. In steel, productivity has not grown fast enough to offset rising wage levels. Public policies have not directly addressed modernization and productivity improvement. Even in high technology portions of the electronics industrysuch as computers and semiconductorsdomestic firms have been unable to maintain the technological advantages on which their leadership in world markets depends. Government policies in support of R&D and innovation have had only limited positive effects on high technology industriesalthough the future strength of the U.S. economy depends on their continued success. The automobile market in the United States has turned away from the larger cars that have been the heart of the domestic industry. The suddenness of this shift, which caught American automakers by surprise, was caused in part by Government policies that kept gasoline cheap and plentiful during the mid-1970s. In all three industries, the conditions of international trade and competition are changing, with overseas rivals getting stronger. Improving productivity, economic efficiency, and competitiveness have seldom been conscious objectives of Government policymakers. Such objectives cut across the jurisdictions of many congressional committees. Fashioning a more coherent industrial policy may require that Congress create a new institutional focus such as a select committee or task force. That new focus would enable Congress to ex-
PAGE 17
Section IIYear in Review l 15 plicitly consider the impacts of particular policies on the competitiveness of U.S. industries. Such policies include: taxes, for example, modified depreciation schedules for industrial plant and equipment; regulation, such as automobiles standard-setting; technology, for instance, Government funding supporting the education and training of engineers and scientists; and tradee.g., export financing and export trading companies. Moving toward a more consciously developed industrial policy does not imply Government picking winners and losers or relying on aid or support for certain sectors or firms. It does imply a broad redirection of policies affecting technology and innovation; savings and capitol investment; regulation, education, training, and economic adjustment; and international trade. Such an approachwhich OTA terms macroindustrial policy could help to maintain and strengthen U.S. competitiveness, increase employment opportunities and living standards, and moderate inflation. Environment factors have contributed to as much as 90 percent of recent cancer, according to estimates made in the last two decades. The environment, by definition, includes all influences except inborn genetic factors ASSESSM ENT OF I and represents cancer causes that are, at TECHNOLOGIES least theoretically, modifiable. At present, FOR DETERMINING CANCER RISKS FROM however, specific factors are associated with THE ENVIRONMENT less than half of all cancers. Cigarette smoking is the cause of more cancer than any other known environmental agent. Occupational exposure to asbestos and some chemicals, some medical drugs, alcohol consumption, and exposure to radia=tion also cause significant but smaller proportions of the total cancer burden. Diet is associated with a large fraction of cancer, but little is known about the mechanisms involved. Major natural components of food, such as fat, are considered more important than additives and contaminants. Viruses, aspects of sexual and reproductive behavior, air and water pollution, and consumer products are linked to some cancers. During the last half century, lung cancer mortality has increased dramatically in all races and sexes, accounting for all but a small part of the overall cancer mortality increase, Changes in mortality from cancer at other body sites have been smaller; some rising and some falling. Rates are higher and trends less favorable for blacks than for whites.
PAGE 18
16 l Annual Report to the Congress for 1981 Epidemiologic methods are used to link cancers with exposures and behaviors that, in many cases, took place decades earlier. Because of such long-delayed effects, epidemiology cannot be used to predict whether newly introduced exposures of lifestyle changes will cause cancer. The public health goal of disease prevention and congressional mandates to reduce existing exposures and to protect against new hazards necessitate using laboratory methods to identify carcinogens. The search for less expensive, quicker replacements for animal tests, which are accepted as predictive of human risk, but cost up to $1 million and 5 years to complete, has produced more than 100 different short-term tests. Certain of these tests are now used by industry for screening new chemicals, but no one test nor any known combination of tests is accepted as a substitute for animal tests. The use of shortterm tests as a basis for regulation faces stern opposition, and is, at best, some years off. Extrapolation methods have been developed to project estimates of human risk from laboratory results. The Federal Government uses an extrapolation model that attaches a higher risk to a given exposure level than do most other models. Some critics contend that it overestimates risk. At present, given limited scientific agreement, the choice of a model is a policy decision. About 100 substances have been regulated as carcinogens under laws providing for reductions in carcinogenic exposures. However, uncertainties accompanying test data and risk estimates, as well as questions about benefits associated with some carcinogens, complicate regulatory decision-making. Congressional issues include: gathering information about the occurrence of cancer; the distribution of carcinogenic risks; testing for carcinogenicity; and changes in the process used to make technical decisions for regulatory purposes.
PAGE 19
Section /lYear In Review l 17 MX Missile Basing Five different basing modes for the MX missile appear to offer the prospect of providing survivability and meeting established performance criteria for intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMS). These are: multiple protective shelter (MPS) basing; MPS basing defended by a low-altitude antiballistic missile (ABM) system called LoADS; basing MX missiles in silos and relying on launching them before they could be destroyed by a Soviet attack (launch under attack, or LUA]; basing MX on small submarines; and air mobile basing in which MX missiles would be ejected from wide-bodied aircraft and launched in midair. But each of these alternatives has serious risks and drawbacks, and no basing mode is likely to provide a substantial number of survivable MX missiles much before 1990. MPS basing would preserve the characteristics and improve the capabilities of present land-based ICBMS. The survivability of MX/MPS would depend on successfully concealing the location of a few hundred missiles among thousands of shelters. Confidence in the United States ability to do this will be limited until prototypes have been tested; if the Soviets elected to continue to increase their inventory of warheads through the 1980s, more missiles and shelters would have to be added to the Carter administrations proposed baseline MPS system of ZOO missiles and 4,600 shelters to ensure MX survivability. MPS would have severe socioeconomic and physical impacts on the deployment region, and could result in the loss of thousands of square miles of productive rangeland. Adding LoADS to an MPS system could be effective in forcing the Soviets to attack each shelter with two warheads only if both ABM defense and the MX missiles could be hidden from the Soviets and if the ABM defense system could work in the midst of exploding warheads. It is not now certain that these conditions can be met. Basing MX missiles in silos and relying on launching them before they could be destroyed (LUA) would be technically feasible. However, LUA would require that the President be in continuous contact with the warning sensors and the strategic forces, and that he be prepared to make launch decisions quickly on the basis of information from remote sensors. Possible results of LUA errors include a successful Soviet first strike or an accidental nuclear war; consequently even a small possibility of error is an important consideration. Deployment of MX missiles on small submarines would provide the United States with military capabilities nearly as good as land basing options. Such submarines would be highly survivable today and
PAGE 20
18 l Annual Report to the Congress for 1981 against all future antisubmarine warfare (ASW) threats that OTA was able to project. Small submarine basing would place far greater importance on the sea-based portion of U.S. strategic forces than in the past. This could have serious consequences if an unforeseen Soviet strategic ASW capability were developed. Air mobile MX basing would be highly survivable provided that the aircraft took off immediately after receiving warning of an attack. If the Soviets chose to attack all of the airfields at which the aircraft could land and refuel, the United States would have to use or lose air-mobile-based MX missiles within the first 5 to 8 hours of a war. The cost of the baseline MX/MPS deployment to the year 2000 is estimated by OTA in fiscal year 1980 dollars at $43 billion and could grow to more than $80 billion if the system were expanded to more than 12,000 shelters to cope with a plausible 1995 Soviet arsenal. Adding an ABM defense would reduce costs of meeting high future Soviet threats by 10 to 20 percent. Small submarine basing costs are estimated to be about $39 billion; the size of the force would not have to be expanded to meet an increased Soviet threat. Costs of an LUA system including the MX missile, warning sensors, and communications systems would be $15 billion to $20 billion. Technology and Oceanography Federal ocean research efforts to explore the ocean cost more than $2.5 billion in fiscal year 1980. Some 90 programs conducted primarily by eight Federal agencies range from basic science to resource development to the protection of the marine environment. Yet there is no comprehensive effort to plan and coordinate the development of new technologies to advance these programs. Oceanographic research is complex; no single technology system is best suited for its tasks. Federally supported technologies include ships, satellites, buoys, submersibles, and other vehicles, as well as independent instrument systems. However, most experts agree that ocean engineering capabilities are inadequate and that important technology development work is not receiving needed attention in some key Federal agencies. Congressional initiatives may be necessary to strengthen ocean technology development. For example, Congress could: establish a central office to support future ocean technology development in one or more agencies with authority to provide the expertise and project management capabilities for specific missions or program needs; call
PAGE 21
Section IIYear in Review l 19 for an evaluation of specific technology development needs not being met by established offices; establish an interagency ocean engineering strategy group with authority for technology transfer and other productive coordinating functions. Most ocean research has been conducted from ships. New technologies have not replaced the need for ships but, instead, have identified new and more productive ways to use them. Yet Federal funding for the oceanographic fleet of about 79 ships has declined rapidly. The fleet is not being adequately maintained or upgraded, is decreasing in size, and will require replacement or rehabilitation over the next 20 years. The capabilities of the Federal fleet will continue to degrade without new funds or more efficient arrangements that reduce costs. Several years of debate have failed to resolve whether more centralized management systems with greater Federal control would produce savings greater than their additional cost, especially when funding today is already unable to meet the costs of the existing system. In the future, increased attention will be given to remotely operated and other unmanned vehicles, buoy systems and moored systems, as appropriate, for many specialized ocean data collection and monitoring tasks. New data links with satellites are making buoys and moored systems more effective. Major satellite systems for oceanography could become the dominant thrust in ocean technology in the next two decades. The new National Oceanic Satellite System, now in planning, offers the potential of substantial improvements in ocean data gathering, but its projected total development cost of almost $1 billion makes current budgetary support doubtful. Federal programs have not given adequate attention to the handling of oceanographic data, collected at great expense, for public use. Existing data systems are not meeting the research needs of many oceanographers. Satellites and other remote sensing systems with the potential for generating large volumes of data will compound one area of data management in the future.
PAGE 22
20 l Annual Report to the Congress for 1981 Patent-Term Extension Proposals to extend patent terms for products subject to premarketing regulations would, if implemented, provide additional incentives for conducting pharmaceutical research and development (R&D). But evidence is insufficient to determine whether these incentives by themselves would appreciably increase pharmaceutical innovation. Patents were intended to promote innovation by providing inventors with the right to exclude others from making, using, or selling a patented invention. Because drug developers usually obtain patents before their drugs have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration, the length of the approval process can directly affect the length of time during the patent term that a new pharmaceutical is marketed (the effective patent term). Drug developers believe that pharmaceutical research is becoming less profitable as a result of shorter effective patent terms, governmental actions encouraging competition from drugs generically equivalent to drugs with expired patents, and higher costs of research. To date, the profits of the pharmaceutical industry have remained high, revenues have increased steadily, and R&D expenditures have increased to levels which more than compensate for the inflation in biomedical research costs. However, the effects of the decline in effective patent terms and the increased competition resulting from Government actions may not have been fully felt. Patent-term extension has numerous implications for society, industry, and innovation. The extension would increase the attractiveness of research on drugs for large markets; it would not increase the economic attractiveness of research on drugs for small markets. Drugs with extended patent terms would generate additional revenues when the majority of the proposed extensions are to begin in the 1990s. The long-term stability of the relationship between R&D expenditures and revenues suggests that increases in research activities would not occur until that time and that 8 or 9 percent of the additional revenues generated would be spent on R&D activities. Industry spokesmen maintain that increased R&D expenditures could be expected sooner because firms would make their research decisions on the basis of anticipated increases in revenues. As a result of patent-term extension, the prices of drugs whose patents are extended would be higher during the extended period than they would have been without the extension. Consumers would, however, benefit if more and better pharmaceuticals were developed. It is
PAGE 23
Section IIYear in Review l 21 expected that both the benefits and the additional costs would affect the elderly and the chronically ill more than other segments of society. Patent-term extension would delay and in some cases prevent the entry of firms primarily selling drugs that are generically equivalent to drugs with expired patents. The revenues of these firms are determined by the remaining market value of drugs with expired patentsand because of reduced marketing timethe remaining market values would be reduced. Solar Power Satellites Although it appears technically feasible for satellites to supply electric power to the Earth in the next century, there is too little information currently available to make a sound decision on whether to develop a solar power satellite (SPS) system. A research program could provide this information. However, the urgency of pursuing SPS research depends less on resolving technical difficulties than on the future growth rate of electricity demand, the relative cost and flexibility of competing electric supply technologies, and the speed with which the major uncertainties about the SPS can be resolved. The SPS concept envisions collecting solar energy in space and transmitting it to Earth for conversion to electrical power. Microwaves, infrared laser, and mirror reflection have all been suggested as transmission modes. Although it is not yet possible to choose an optimum SPS system, several alternatives to the reference system used for study by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration/Department of Energy offer significant improvements in size, cost, and feasibility. Major uncertainties are associated with each of the proposed systems. Predominant among these are the environmental and health effects of transmitting energy, the size and location of receivers on Earth, the health risks to space workers from ionizing radiation, and the potential interference with other users of the electromagnetic spectrum. In addition, the high cost, complexity, and possible military impacts of SPS involve institutional and political considerations. Any SPS system would also raise sensitive questions of international law and trade. Since developing SPS as a multinational rather than a unilateral system could provide significant economic and political advantages, these issues should be taken into account in SPS planning. The cost estimates to demonstrate a full-scale SPS for the systems studied by OTA exceed $100 billion. Although these estimates are now
PAGE 24
22 l Annual Report to the Congress for 1981 uncertain, demonstration costs are likely to be at least $40 billion (in current dollars). These costs are unlikely to come down for the generation of systems now under study, although it is possible that further innovations may reduce these estimates. OTA also compared several potential future electricity sources: nuclear breeder, fusion, solar thermal, solar photovoltaics, and SPS. It found that while the capital costs and uncertainties are high for all these technologies, they are highest for fusion and SPS. If future growth of demand for electricity is expected to be low, it is not necessary to initiate a specific SPS research program at this time. However, it maybe desirable to designate an agency to track research applicable to SPS, review trends in electricity demand, and monitor the progress of other electrical supply technologies. A dedicated SPS research program, started now, might range between $5 million and $30 million per year. Research should focus on those areas most critical to SPS economic, technical, and environmental feasibility with particular attention to analysis of alternative SPS systems. Since the feasibility to SPS also depends on its social, political, international, and institutional acceptability, these aspects should be part of any research program. Computer-Based National Inform ation Syste m Computers have become a major technological tool of American society during the last quarter of a century. Recent developments in computer and communication technology promise within this decade an even more radical revolution in the way that information is collected, stored, used, and disseminated. These advances offer new Opportunities, for example, to improve productivity in the manufacturing and service sectors of the economy. The development and use of computerbased national information systemssuch as those already integral to air traffic control, military command and control, and electronic funds transferwill be accelerated by major continuing advances in microelectronics, computer programing, and data communication. Small computers will become common in the home and business. Corporations will compete intensively to provide computer-based information services. The number and size of computer networks linking users and data bases anywhere in the country or the world will expand dramatically. At the same time, computer-based information systems are generating public policy issues at a rate that maybe outstripping the ability of
PAGE 25
Section IIYear In Review l 23 the Federal Government to respond. The United States appears to lack a coherent information policy to guide the updating of the numerous laws and regulations, some overlapping and some potentially or actually conflicting, that affect the operators and users of information systems. Responsibility for setting policy is diffused throughout various agencies of the executive branch and committees of Congress. Continued innovation in information technology is a prime requisite for a healthy information industry that is competitive in the world market. It also offers the tools for improving the productivity of many sectors of the economy. Innovation depends on support for research and development on civilian applications of computer technology, vitality of academic computer science, and support for research on the impact of computers (e.g., the impact on employment). New computer applicationssuch as an automated securities exchange, in-home information services, electronic publishing, and electronic mailmay introduce policy issues over secondary use of personal information, surveillance, and the possible need for new approaches to the protection of individual privacy. Also, the increasingly complicated systems now being designed and built will magnify the need for adequate protection of Federal information systems and vital non-Federal systems, and for the development of improved data security and cryptographic capability. Large-scale information systems may also affect Federal decisionmaking (the automated bureaucracy), constitutional rights (especially first, fourth, and fifth amendment rights), computer-related crime, international negotiations over the transborder flow of information and regulatory boundaries and definitions for computer-based devices and services.
PAGE 26
24 l Annual Report to the Congress for 1981 Development and Production Potontial of Federal coal Leases Coal production from mines that include currently existing Federal coal leases [Federal mines) could increase from 138 million tons in ,, Other major factors are 1979 (about 15 percent of national production) to between 410 million tons and 500 million tons by 1991. Whether or not coal production will actually rise that far depends both on overall market demand and on competition from non-Federal mines and production from new Federal leases. The extent of increased market demand, not the availability of leased coal reserves, is expected to determine the amount of coal that will be produced from existing Federal coal leases. The rate of growth in demand for electricity will probably be the single most important factor affecting demand for Western coal. coal transportation availability and cost and the growth of nonutility markets for coal, such as for-industrial use, synfuel production, and foreign exports. Over 50 percent of the coal produced in 1979 from mines with Federal coal leases came from the Powder River basin of Wyoming and Montana, which has 56 percent of the Federal reserves under lease. In 1979, Federal mines in the Powder River basin had the capacity to produce an additional 75 million tons over what was actually mined. Demand for Powder River basin coal is likely to increase significantly over the next decade. However, production capacity from existing Federal leases and non-Federal coal properties in the basin could also increase substantially. As a result, there is potential for continued significant overcapacity in the Powder River basin over the next decade. Consequently, there is considerable debate about the timing, extent, and location of renewed large-scale leasing of Federal coal lands in that region. In contrast, little overcapacity is expected in the Southern Rocky Mountain coal regions during the same period. During the 1990s, demand for Western and Federal coal may grow rapidly, particularly if coal-based synfuels and exports of coal to foreign countries become important. The Federal Government owns about 60 percent of the coal reserves in the Western States. By 1980, a total of 812,000 acres and over 16.5 billion tons of recoverable coal reserves in 14 States had been leased. More than 99 percent of these leased Federal reserves are in Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Utah, and Wyoming. The OTA report focuses on potential production from the 548 leases in these seven States. In 1980, 189 of these 548 leases, with 7.4 billion tons of recoverable reserves, were part of active mines. Another 118 existing leases (2.5
PAGE 27
Section IIYear in Review l 25 billion tons) with proposed mine plans pending approval could begin producing in the mid-1980s. No mine plans had yet been submitted for 241 leases. However, 75 of these leases (3.6 billion tons) are likely to be in production by 1991; another 65 leases (2.3 billion tons) could begin by 1991 contingent on markets for coal, including demand for synthetic fuels, and on railroad construction. There are 101 leases, with about 5 percent of the reserves, that are unlikely to be developed because of poor reserves, remote location, or environmental problems. Less than 1 percent of currently leased Federal reserves are likely to be prohibited from mining because of environmental regulations concerning air quality, water resources, alluvial valley floors, return to approximate original contour, and wildlife. Mining of between 5 and 10 percent of leased reserves could be delayed because of unresolved environmental questions, but available evidence indicates that most can be mined. Technology and Soviet Energy AvaiIability No U.S. policy of restricting Soviet access to energy technology is likely to succeed unless U.S. allies change their present views of their interests in this matter. A policy intended to bolster Soviet energy production would not succeed without significant changes in Soviet economic policy. A course of action seeking maximum commercial advantage for the United States in energy equipment sales would be aided by making the export licensing process more predictable. The vast majority of the U. S. S.R.S energyrelated imports of technology are destined for its oil and natural gas industries, but it obtains most of these from sources outside the United States. There are a few energy technologies solely available from the United States, and a few instances in which U.S. equipment is preferred. But except for advanced computers, the U.S.S.R. is either not purchasing these items, is on the way to acquiring domestic production capabilities, or has demonstrated that such imports are not essential. Moreover, the United States does not produce the large diameter pipe that constitutes the U. S. S.R.S single most important energy-related import. Western technology has been and will continue to be important to Soviet energy development. In the long term, Western exploration technology and equipment may be crucial to the oil industry. But the
PAGE 28
26 l Annual Report to the Congress for 1981 most vital area for such Western assistance is equipment for the construction of large diameter gas pipelines. This is the only area in which Soviet energy-related imports might be described as massive. Contrary to common belief, oil is not the key to Soviet energy performance in this decade. The relevant question is not how much oil the U.S.S.R. can produce by 1990, but how much energy. Predicting future Soviet energy production is a tenuous exercise, but to the extent that plausible outcomes can be identified, the Soviets own goal of a small rise in oil output by 1985 is reasonable. On the other hand, prospects for the Soviet coal industry are poor; even the relatively modest 1985 targets are excessively optimistic. Soviet targets for nuclear power are overly optimistic not because of lack of know-how, but because of shortcomings in the efficiency and capacity of producing the required equipment and constructing power stations. OTA also found that potentially large savings through energy conservation are not likely to be achieved. Gains in total energy production will therefore have to come from gas. Proven Soviet gas reserves may be likened to the oil reserves of Saudi Arabia. This is the energy sector with the best prospects and performance record, and Soviet planners have accorded it high investment priority. Gains in gas output could more than compensateboth in energy value and in hard currency earningsfor slowing growth in oil production. It is therefore highly unlikely that the Soviet Union itself or the Soviet bloc as a whole will become a net energy importer in the 1980s. The extent to which the U.S.S.R. can capitalize on its tremendous gas potential will depend on its ability to substitute gas for oil, i.e., to convert to gas in boiler and industrial applications, and to add to the gas pipeline network. The rate of construction of new pipelines, both for domestic use and for export, is the most important determinant of the extent to which Soviet gas can be utilized. Energy availability is a critical factor in the growth of the Soviet Unions domestic economy; energy exports provide over half of Soviet hard currency receipts; and subsidized energy sales to Eastern Europe are vital tools of Soviet influence in that region. From the perspective of Japan and some countries in Western Europe, Soviet energy industries are important customers for equipment and technology and a source of energy supplies.
PAGE 29
Section IIYear in Review l 27 U.S. food and Agricultural Research Syste m The structure of the U.S. food and agricultural research system may need to be changed if it is to function effectively and to meet the increased demand on its resources, The United States is widely recognized as a leader in agricultural research largely because of technologies developed through sustained public support. Scientists now are concerned that new technologies may not be keeping pace with domestic and world needs. Unless major breakthroughs occur in new technologies, the world food problem is likely to worsen. However, the U.S. food and agricultural research system is working under a number of constraints that diminish its effectiveness. These include lack of well-defined national agricultural goals, lack of a national research priorities process, underinvestment in research, confusion over roles of research participants, and a structure that inhibits the system from having a national research focus. Lack of well-defined, achievable national goals for U.S. food and agriculture is a major deterrent to formulating a national policy to guide the research community in planning its agenda. Present goals are implicit but ambiguous and open-ended, such as to provide an ample supply of food. But this has little meaning in the absence of an agreement on what constitutes an ample supply. Explicit, welldefined and achievable goals could be seteither by the research community or by Government. If set by Government, public agencies and industry could respond by planning and conducting research that would more adequately meet national needs. The United States has no satisfactory long-term process for evaluating existing research activities, potential research opportunities, and development of research priorities. Decisions are made on an ad hoc basis with insufficient coordination among Federal and State agencies. The research system could benefit from preparation of a national research agenda that could be updated at scheduled intervals. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) research expenditures are proportionately the smallest of any major Federal research agency and have remained level in constant dollars since 1967. Yet, the demands on agricultural research have increased and the cost of conducting research has increased substantially. The executive branch and Congress could reassess whether existing funding priorities in agriculture support are appropriate. Under the present research structure, USDAs role is associated with broad regional, national, and international activities, and the
PAGE 30
28 l Annual Report to the Congress for 1981 State agricultural experiment stations with local, State, and regional problems, insofar as Federal funds are concerned. However, considerable overlap exists and there is increasing concern that national issues are not receiving adequate attention. The OTA study presents a variety of options for congress to strengthen and clarify the roles of research participants. USDAs structure hinders its ability to manage and conduct research with a national focus and to be fully responsible to the agricultural needs and interests of the United States. However, within the past few months, the executive branch has moved to improve some aspects of research management within USDA, particularly in its former Science and Education Administration. Still needed are improved procedures for managing research in the Agricultural Research Service and the Cooperative State Research Service. The Agency for International Development (AID), the prime Federal agency involved in strengthening agriculture in developing nations, lacks the adequate technical skills and management structure for handling the job effectively. The OTA study indicates that AID could benefit through the establishment of technical bureaus centered around the major thrusts of AID programs. and by increased use of USDA as a technical resource. Cost Effectiveness of influenza Vaccination Influenza vaccination is a low-cost method of preventing illness and reducing productivity losses. Vaccination benefits all age groups, but is most cost effective among high-risk persons, i.e., the elderly and those with preexisting illnesses. Yet, the use of influenza vaccination is still at too low a level for society to reap substantially its potential benefits. Over the period of 1971-78, approximately 150 million influenza vaccinations resulted in about 13 more years of healthy life. This was achieved at a cost of $63 per year of life gained, and, according to this OTA analysis, about $386 million in potential productivity losses were averted. During the same period, influenza caused an estimated 127,000 deaths and cost about $1 billion for medical treatment. The illness also resulted in an average of 15 million days of work loss at an estimated productivity loss of $764 million in each of those years. Although vaccination is the medically preferred method of preventing the illness, influenza vaccine has never received widespread acceptance by either health professionals or the public. Throughout most of the 1970s only 10 percent of the Nations population received influenza vaccine; further, only about 20 percent of the population most susceptible to influenza-related illness were vaccinated. How-
PAGE 31
Section IIYear in Review l 29 ever, in 1976-77 when the Federal Government launched the National Influenza Immunization Program, these percentages doubled. In spite of the incidence of the paralytic condition Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS) associated with the so-called swine flu vaccine in 1976-77, influenza vaccines have proven to be quite safe. Subsequent to that year, the incidence of GBS among influenza vaccinees has been virtually the same as that among nonvaccinees. About 5 percent of the adult vaccinees encounter a mild reaction. OTA estimates that the clinical effectiveness of influenza vaccine was about 60 percent in 1971-78. At present, the Federal Government spends little effort to promote the use of influenza vaccine. Through its Food and Drug Administration, the Government evaluates the safety and efficacy of influenza vaccine, and through the National Institutes of Health and Centers for Disease Control it finances epidemiologic and biomedical research on influenza and influenza vaccines. If the Government decided to promote the use of influenza vaccine, it could do so in three ways: l l l The Public Health Service could fund a national campaign to stimulate private sector elements, e.g., health professionals, employers, labor unions, and the public, to increase its use of the vaccine; Congress could appropriate Federal funds for support of annual nationwide influenza immunization programs analogous to federally supported childhood immunization efforts; and Congress could authorize medicare to pay for influenza vaccinations. 92-921 0 82 3
PAGE 32
30 l Annual Report to the Congress for 1981 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUMS Coal Export and Port Development This Technical Memorandum explores four major issues: estimating the potential U.S. coal export market; development of foreign trade policy; the Federal role in dredging harbors; and the outlook for alternative technologies that might facilitate coal exports. Indications are that sizable increases in future U.S. coal exports are achievable if the Federal Government and the private sector cooperate in encouraging these exports, and if developments in other countries do not dramatically alter present trends. However, without the development of a coherent, positive coal export policy. the United States risks losing a large share of the market to other coal-producing nations. It is suggested that in order to promote U.S. coal exports, it is important reaffirm the U.S. commitment to increase domestic coal production, improve the coal transportation network, and encourage export trade. The resulting political climate would reassure importing nations as they assess U.S. reliability as a future coal trade partner. OTAS analysis indicates general agreement on the need for some changes in Federal dredging policies. The economic rationale for recovering dredging costs in some form of user fees from those who directly benefit is gaining acceptance. Technologies other than dredging that facilitate coal exports will probably be approached with caution by established industries because they are not perceived as nearterm options. Alternative technologies include: coal slurry pipelines, midstream transfer of barges or ships, barge-carrying ships, pneumatic pipelines, and shallow-draft, wide-beam ships.
PAGE 33
Section IIYear in Review l 31 Patterns and Trends in Federal Coal Lease Ownershi p, 1950-80 This Technical Memorandum is part of OTAS congressionally mandated study (Public Law 94-377] of current Federal coal leases. The full OTA report published in December 1981 is entitled: Development and Production Potential of Federal Coal Leases. Since 1920, the Department of the Interior has conducted a leasing program through which the private sector is given permission to mine coal in Federal lands. Over the past 60 years, about 17 billion tons of coal on 790,000 acres have been leased. Land currently under lease represents about 12 percent of the total coal reserves owned by the Federal Government. Federal coal lessees are contributing an increasing share of the coal industrys total productionfrom 1 percent in 1970 to 8 percent in 1979when total production from leased land was 60 million tons. Production on leased land is expected to increase substantially over the next 5 years. The history of the 528 coal leases in effect at the end of 1979 is traced and focus is placed on the coal lessees themselves: who they are, how and when they acquired Federal coal leases, and what they have done with those leases. Participants in the Federal coal leasing program between 1950 and 1980 are identified. The number of lessees participating in the coal leasing program has nearly doubled over the past 30 years and the total acreage of leased land has increased eighteenfold. In 1950, unincorporated individuals and independent corporations held 72 percent of all land under lease. Today, the percentage of leased Federal coal acres they hold has decreased to 31 percent. The holdings of subsidiary corporations, which were 26 percent of the 1950 total, have risen to 43 percent in 1980, Multicorporate entities, defined as either joint ventures or two or more companies sharing interests in leases, now hold 25 percent of leased acreage, up from less than 1 percent in 1965. The shifts in lease ownership have led to a greater variety of industries holding Federal coal leases. For 1950, OTA identified only four distinct kinds of businesses, each of which held at least 5 percent of all land under lease. Independent coal companies were the leading lease holders. By 1980, nine distinct kinds of businesses were identified as each holding at lease 5 percent of leased land, with electric utilities owning more Federal coal land than any other industry group. Integrated energy companies are the second largest lease holder today, with 20 percent of all acres under lease and producing 16 percent of all Federal coal.
PAGE 34
32 l Annual Report to the Congress for 1981 Nonnuclear Industrial Waste: Classifying for Hazard Management The management, or mismanagement, of industrial waste presents various levels of hazard to the Public. Nonnuclear industrial waste ranges from being relatively harmless to being so extremely hazardous that it must be completely isolated from humans and the environment, destroyed, or detoxified. This technical memorandum is part of a comprehensive assessment of nonnuclear industrial waste scheduled for completion in 1982. Some of the key findings of the OTA analysis are: 1) A well-designed degree-of-hazard classification system could provide a strategy for cost-effective management of nonnuclear industrial waste; 2) The objectives of a classification system are to identify with greater certainty those wastes that most severely threaten human health and environment; and 3) the benefits of using degree-of-hazard classification include concentration of regulatory action on the most hazardous wastes.
PAGE 35
Section IIYear in Review l 33 BACKGROUND PAPERS Policy Implications of the Computed Tomography (ct) Scanner: An update At the request of the Senate Finance Committee, this background paper updates the 1978 OTA report, Policy Implications of the Computed Tomography (CT) Scanner. The United States has the greatest number of CT scanners per population of any country in the world. In May 1980, there were 1,471 scanners, or 6.7 per million people. Within States, the number of scanners per million varies from 12.8 in Nevada to 2.4 in South Carolina. The dramatically rapid rate of scanner diffusion (the process by which a technology enters and becomes part of the health care system) during 1975 and 1976 set the stage for OTAS original study, An equally dramatic decline in this rate from 1978 through 1980 is the backdrop for the update. The decline in the diffusion rate has occurred during a period of changes in Federal policies toward medical technology affecting every stage of research, development, diffusion, and use of CT scanners. CT scanners, which combine X-ray equipment with a computer and TV-like picture tube to produce cross-section images of the human body, revolutionized diagnostic medicine in the United States when first introduced in 1973. Over the past 7 years, new applications of existing and new technologies have rapidly expanded the field of diagnostic imaging (making pictures of the inside of the human body). R&D in this new field is described and information on new develop ments such as ultrasound and nuclear magnetic resonance scanners is presented. Some key issues are: Can the relative advantages of the different technologies be demonstrated? Can Federal policies rationalize the use of the many technologies? Will new technologies merely be added on to existing methods, driving up costs and contributing only marginal benefits to peoples health? An examination of public policy toward CT scanning may indicate how far we are from having effective policies to promote the efficient expenditure of our health care dollar.
PAGE 36
34 l Annual Report to the Congress for 1981 The Implications of Cost-Effectiveness AnaIysis of Medical Technology Analyzes the feasibility, implications, and usefulness of cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) and cost-benefit analysis (CBA) in health care decision-making, including the current and potential use of CEA/CBA or related techniques in six health care activities: reimbursement programs, Professional Standards Review Organizations, health planning, market approval for drugs and medical devices, R&D programs, and health maintenance organizations. In addition to the main report (published in August 1980), there are five background papers: I ) Methodological Issues and Literature Review, published September 1980; 2) Case Studies of Medical Technologies, consisting of 17 individual case studies, 15 of which (listed below) were published in 1981. The final two case studies (#9The Artificial Heart; and #13Cardiac Radionuclide Imaging and Cost Effectiveness) are in press; 3) The Efficacy and Cost Effectiveness of Psychotherapy, published October 1980; 4) The Manage ment of Health Care Technology in Ten Countries, published October 1980; and 5) Assessment of Four Common X-Ray Procedures, in press. Case Study 1: Formal Analysis, Policy Formulation, and EndStage Renal Disease. Examines two instances of the use of formal analysis in the formulation of Government policies toward end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Focus is on the work of two committees, whose reports were an integral part of the ESRD policy formulation process in 1966 and 1967: 1) the Gottschalk committee, advisory to the U.S. Bureau of the Budget; and 2) the Burton committee, internal to the Public Health Service. Case Study Z : The Feasibility of Economic Evaluation of Diagnostic Procedures: The Case of CT Scanning.Computed tomographic (CT) scanning can now be used to detect diseases in other parts of the body. The use of this diagnostic technology has initiated a controversy of unprecedented proportions regarding tradeoff between the benefits and costs of CT scanning. Case Study 3: Screening for Colon Cancer: A Technology Assessment.Examines the available technologies used to screen for cancer of the colon: their development, evaluation, cost effectiveness, and use. Although cancer of the colon is second in frequency to cancer of the skin, second to cancer of the lung as a cause of death in men, and the third most common cause of cancer death in women, it is overall the most common of the lethal cancers.
PAGE 37
Section lIYear in Review 35 Case Study 4: Cost Effectiveness of Automated Multichannel Chemistry Analyzers. A multichannel chemistry analyzer is a technology capable of performing many laboratory tests simultaneously on a single sample of serum at extremely high speeds. The study reviews the evidence concerning the cost effectiveness of the three cardiac enzyme tests used to diagnose heart attacks. Case Study 5: Periodontal Disease: Assessing the Effectiveness and Costs of the Keyes Technique. Over 90 percent of the adult pop ulation in the United States is at some time afflicted with some degree of periodontal disease. The Keyes treatment technique essentially involves the use of simple and inexpensive oral hygiene measures and plaque (bacterial) control by the patient. Case Study 6: The Cost Effectiveness of Bone Marrow Transplant Therapy and Its Policy Implications.Bone marrow transplant (BMT) therapy is a relatively new medical technology used to treat aplastic anemia and acute leukemia. The data used in the case study for the CEA of BMT therapy were obtained from the UCLA Bone Marrow Transplantation Program and were collected on 107 patients with aplastic anemia and acute leukemia who were given BMT therapy. Case Study 7: Allocating Costs and Benefits in Disease Prevention Programs: An Application to Cervical Cancer Screening.Examines the financial incentives of various interested parties to fund cervical cancer screening and examines the cost effectiveness of screening under various conditions. Case Study 8: The Cost Effectiveness of Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Upper gastrointestinal endoscopy refers to looking at the upper gastrointestinal tract from the esophagus to an upper portion of the small intestine. The instrument used is a flexible fiberoptic endoscope. Case Study 10: The Costs and Effectiveness of Neonatal Intensive Care.Neonatal intensive care consists primarily of using highly sophisticated life-support systems to compensate for an infants lack of full development. The most common technologies are respirators and positive pressure breathing devices for treatment of respiratory distress syndrome, a disorder caused by the infant being born before the lungs are ready for breathing air. Case Study 11: Benefit and Cost Analysis of Medical Interventions: The Case of Cimetidine and Peptic Ulcer Disease.Peptic ulcer is a common disease that affects millions of Americans at some time during their lives. Since March 1978, cimetidine has been prescribed in approximately 60 percent of all ambulatory visits for ulcer disease. Case Study 12: Assessing Selected Respiratory Therapy Modalities: Trends and Relative Costs in the Washington, D. C., Area.In its analysis of trends in the use of different respiratory therapy methods, based on data from the Washington, D. C., area, the case study found that the number of IPPB treatments per 100 admissions
PAGE 38
36 l Annual Report to the Congress for 1981 decreased about 70 percent, and ultrasonic nebulizer treatments approximately 75 percent. The number of simple aerosol treatments increased over 300 percent and incentive spirometry treatments increased more than 100 percent. Case Study 14: Cost Benefit/Cost Effectiveness of Medical Technologies: A Case Study of Orthopedic Joint Implants.The purpose of this study is the assessment of the feasibility and potential usefulness of undertaking cost-effectiveness/cost benefit analysis (CEA/ CBA) of orthopedic joint prostheses. Case Study 15: Elective Hysterectomy: Costs, Risks, and Benefits.This study concludes that none of the analyses of the risks, costs, and benefits of hysterectomy has found it to be cost effective for sterilization or the prevention of uterine cancer. Most of the costs and risks of hysterectomy occur in the present, whereas the savings and benefits occur when uterine diseases are avoided in the future. Case Study 16: The Costs and Effectiveness of Nurse Practitioners.The concept of using nonphysician health professionals to perform basic medical services traditionally provided by physicians emerged in the mid-1960s amidst widespread concern over a perceived physician shortage. Currently there are 22,000 physician extenders in active practice: 13,000 NPs and 9,000 PAs. Case Study 17: Surgery for Breast Cancer.Statistics indicate that when breast cancer is discovered in a localized state, the 5-year survival rate is 85 percent. Almost 50 percent of women with breast cancer eventually die of the disease.
PAGE 39
Section IIYear in Review l 37 l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Subcommittee on Public Lands and National Parks: MX Missile Basing Senate Committee on Finance: The Professional Services Review Organization and its potential in medical technology assessment activities Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, Subcommittee on Energy, Nuclear Proliferation and Government Processes: Biomass Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources: National Centers for Health Statistics, Health Services Research, and Health Care Technology Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources: National Library of Medicine Report and the Medical Library Assistance Act House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Interior: Department of Energys conservation programs House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Energy Conservation and Power: Cogeneration and small power production House Committee on Energy and Commerce: OTA Assessment on Determining Cancer Risks from the Environment as it relates to the Toxic Substances Control Act Senate Committee on Judiciary, Subcommittee on Administrative Law and Government Relations: Regulatory Procedure Act of 1981 House Committee on Veterans Affairs: OTA oversight of VA Agent Orange Study House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Health and Environment: Clean Air Act and its relationship to energy development House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment: Nuclear Power Plant Standardization House Committee on Science and Technology, Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight: Energy Models and their role in energy policy analysis House Committee on Science and Technology: Needs and benefits of health data and health information systems Senate Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittees on Defense and Military Construction: MX Missile Basing House Committee on Science and Technology, Subcommittee on Energy Research and Production: H. R. 1909: Nuclear Waste Research, Development, and Demonstration Act of 1981 House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Subcommittee on Public Lands and National Parks: MX Missile Basing
PAGE 40
38 l Annual Report to the Congress for 1981 Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works: Interstate air pollution Senate Committee on Finance: U.S. trade policy House Committee on Science and Technology, Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight: Toxic substances research and the National Toxicology Program House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries: Promotion, financing, and facilitation of maintenance and deep draft improvement projects for U.S. ports House Committee on the Judiciary; Subcommittee on Courts, Civil Liberties and the Administration of Justice: Patent term extension House Committee on Science and Technology, Subcommittee on Energy Development and Applications: District heating and cooling House Committee on Science and Technology Subcommittee on Energy Research and Development: The High-Level Radioactive Waste Management and Policy Act and H. R. 1993: The Radioactive Waste Research, Development and Policy Act Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation: The High-Level Radioactive Waste Management and Policy Act and H. R. 1993: The Radioactive Waste Research, Development and Policy Act House Committee on Science and Technology, Subcommittee on Science, Research, and Technology: Use of animals in medical research and cancer testing Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources: S. 1544: The State and Local Energy Block Grant Act of 1981 Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works: Proposed legislation (S. 1706 and S. 1709) related to acid precipitation control House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Fossil and Synthetic Fuels and House Committee on the Interior and Insular Affairs, Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment: Alternatives to the Alaskan natural gas transportation system Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs: The West Siberian gas export pipeline House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations: Hazardous waste sites Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs: Agent Orange Study House Committee on Government Operations, Subcommittee on Commerce, Consumers, and Monetary Affairs: Santa Fe Internationalenergy technology transfer House Committee on Science and Technology, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations: Soviet energy availability
PAGE 41
Section Ill. -Work in Progress OTAS work is structured along three broad divisional lines: energy, materials, and international security; health and life sciences; and science, information, and natural resources. Within those broad divisions, OTA conducts studies in energy, international security and commerce, materials, food and renewable resources, health, human resources, communication and information technologies, oceans and environment, and space technology. More than 40 projects were in progress during the year, including 10 new studies. In this section, the broad concerns and schedule of each OTA division are described beyond. current work for 1982 and ENERGY, MATERIALS, AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY Energy Eficiency of Buildings in Cities This assessment focuses on the interaction of technology and policy for new and existing buildings in U.S. cities for the next two decades. The massive current stock of buildings contains a high proportion of structures, both residential and commercial, constructed in a period of low energy cost, when no attention was paid to the continuing cost of energy use over time. Improving the energy efficiency of these structures is important from the point of view of energy policy, city viability, and the interests of individual owners and tenants. This OTA study analyzes retrofit technologies, both to conserve energy and to employ renewable energy that can improve the energy efficiency of structures. Capital costs, energy savings, and factors such as reliability and maintenance are identified. A second principal portion of the study is an exploration of the type of policy most likely to actually produce an investment in the efficiency of building energy by various types of building owners. Regional factors affecting city opportunities constraints, choices of action open to Federal, State, and city governments, and the related impacts of various policy choices are explored. Delivery date: Early 1982. Call 224-8996 for further information. Requesters: House committees: Banking, Finance, and Urban Affairs; Energy and Commerce. 39
PAGE 42
40 l Annual Report to the Congress for 1981 Industrial Energy Use This project is designed to examine a series of four American industries (pulp and paper, steel, petroleum refining, and organic chemical production) for their potential to use energy more efficiently, and to predict the impact of selected legislative options on energy use and efficiency within those industries. OTA will examine the available technologies designed to improve energy efficiency, as well as the barriers to such technologys implementation. The legislative options to be examined range from tax policy changes such as accelerated depreciation to institutional changes in capital financing methods. Each options effects will be evaluated through a series of case studies in which corporation executives, consultants, and computer-modeling techniques are used to forecast the impacts of possible congressional action. Options will also be examined at the industry, industrial sector, and national energy use and economic levels using a similar series of modeling, management, and consultant evaluations. Delivery date: Summer 1982. Call 226-2152 for further information. Requesters: House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Senate Committee on Finance. Synthetic Fuels for Transportation Synthetic fuels for transportation is a project in the Energy Program to assess various synthetic fuels that can be used for transportation and automotive technology that can increase passenger car fuel efficiency beyond 1985 standards, and to compare these two options. The issue is how best to balance these approaches, as the synthetic fuel program develops and efficiency increases are contemplated, to achieve the most effective and economic path to reduced dependency on imported oil. The Energy Program will review the technical, economic, environmental, and social features of the major synthetic fuels and automotive technology (increased automobile fuel efficiency and electric vehicles) including information from reports by the Congressional Research Service, the Congressional Budget Office, and OTA studies on oil shale and biomass. In addition, potential oil savings through increased efficiency and fuel-switching in stationary uses of oil will be briefly described. Synthetic fuels and increased automobile fuel efficiency will then be compared using a variety of criteria, including consumer and investment costs, time frame for deployment, environmental impacts, and macroeconomic impacts. Selected issues related to these subjects will be discussed and policy options developed. Delivery date: Early 1982. Call 226-2152 for further information. Requester: Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
PAGE 43
Section IllWork in Progress l 41 Industrial and Commercial Cogeneration The need to reduce U.S. dependence on expensive and scarce petroleum as a primary fuel in the industrial, commercial, and electric utility sectors has created a resurgence of interest in cogenerationthe combined production of both electric power and heat or steam in one technological process. Because the total amount of fuel needed to produce both power and heat/steam in a cogenerator is less than the total fuel needed to produce the same amount of power and heat/steam in separate technologies (e.g., a powerplant and an industrial boiler), cogenerators can contribute to our Nations efforts to use fuel more efficiently. Moreover, problems faced by the electric utility industry, including rapidly rising capital costs, long leadtimes for powerplant construction, and difficulties in finding suitable sites, may make cogenerators an attractive alternative to conventional central station powerplants. This assessment will examine the role that cogenerators could play in providing electric and thermal energy for industrial and commercial facilities while distributing electricity to the utility grid. It will review the economic, environmental, social, and institutional consequences of cogeneration, with a special emphasis on the potential effects on the electric utility industrys planning and operations. Finally, the study will analyze policy options that Congress may wish to consider in addressing the issues about the development of cogeneration systems. The assessment will examine the technical features of commercial and advanced cogeneration technologies, including requirements for connecting cogenerators to the utility grid and technologies for storing thermal or electrical energy. It will then evaluate the economic and technical effects of grid-connected cogeneration systems on electric utilities using a computer model that minimizes the costs of providing electric and thermal power. A major focus of this evaluation will be the potential effects of oiland gas-fired cogenerators on overall oil/gas use. Finally, a series of issues on the incentives for cogeneration in the industrial and commercial sectors, and on the economic, environmental, and social effects of cogeneration will be examined. Delivery date: Early 1982. Cal] 228-2152 for further information. Requesters: House committees: Banking, Finance, and Urban Affairs; Energy and Commerce; Science and Technology. Strategic Technologies for an Oil Disruption Over the next decade, there is a high probability that the Nation will experience a disruption in imported oiI of a level that will exceed the capabilities of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and seriously affect the economy. This assessment will examine the opportunities and problems that characterize various technical responses that could supplement the
PAGE 44
42 l Annual Report to the Congress for 1981 Strategic Petroleum Reserve to meet such an interruption. The objective will be to determine what available resources might be expanded, the technical limitations for fuel substitution and switching, the physical constraints of stockpiling resources, and the impacts of accelerating the use of these technologies. Technologies to be considered will include enhanced oil recovery; adapting industrial boilers to dual-fuel capacity; biomass production; high-voltage transmission; hydro; wind; direct solar; vehicle retrofits; photovoltaics; retrofitting building envelopes and heating/cooling systems; retrofitting vehicles to improve mileage efficiency; and switching capacity of petroleum refineries. The study will be done at national and regional levels. The assessment will be completed in two phases. Phase I will draw on OTA staff resources to collect data on the technical capabilities and constraints of the intervention technologies, and develop a summary document on potential of the technologies to alleviate the effects of various levels of oil disruption. A workshop will be held to review the data, and a Technical Memorandum will be published. In Phase H, OTA will examine the most promising technologies in greater detail, including complicated questions such as refinery-switching capacity, burner substitution logistics, electrical grid capacity and requirements. Delivery date: Technical Memorandum, Fall 1982. Full Report, early 1983. Call 226-2152 for further information. Requesters: Senate committees: Governmental Affairs; Foreign Relations, Potential U.S. Natural Gas Availability In the past few years there has been a change in the outlook about the potential for natural gas production in the lower 48 States. Recent optimistic projections by some groups have stimulated efforts to revise current natural gas policy so that natural gas can play a bigger role in reducing this countrys oil imports. There remains, however, considerable uncertainty about how much the United States can rely on natural gas, which is tempering this optimism. This assessment is designed to help determine domestic (lower 48 States) onshore natural gas availability over the next few decades, and to help understand the factors that affect this availability. The OTA assessment will: 1) analyze the key technical and physical parameters that determine the resource base, production rates, and costs of all categories of belowground natural gas; Z ) critically review current estimates of the resource base; estimate the potential production rates of natural gas, and analyze the uncertainties in these estimates; 3) assess future technology trends, research and development needs that may accelerate these trends; and 4) analyze the institutional and policy issues appropriate for a Federal role in dealing with barriers to production. Delivery date: Spring 1983. Call 22&2152 for further information. Requester: House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
PAGE 45
Sect/on I/lWork In Progress l 43 Nonnuclear Industrial Hazardous Waste Many nonnuclear industrial hazardous wastes must be stored or disposed of with great care or they may constitute a threat to health and the environment. Information on the nature and magnitude of the hazardous waste disposal and abandoned site problem will be reviewed. The reliability and efficacy of present containment, abatement, and disposal measures will be assessed. This information, coupled with criteria and techniques to judge relative health and environmental hazards of a given waste, will assist in identifying those wastes that could be reduced at the source-by modifications in process technologies, by recycle, or by an end-use substitution. Approaches for reducing hazardous waste generation with minimal undesirable economic effects on domestic industry will be identified. This assessment has four objectives: 1) to assess criteria for defining hazardous waste and for judging the relative health and environmental hazards of a given waste; 2) to evaluate technologies for cleaning up present waste disposal sites that are hazardous to health and the environment; 3) to assess technologies and approaches for the safe storage or disposal of hazardous waste being presently generated; and 4) to assess technologies and approaches for reducing the volume of hazardous waste. The possible economic impacts on domestic industry of various approaches will be evaluated. The project will focus initially on understanding the adverse consequences of present disposal strategies and techniques, and next on ways of reducing generation of industrial hazardous waste economically. Alternative options will be developed to cope with hazardous waste disposal in the short run and hazardous waste generation in the long run. Delivery date: Technical Memorandum published November 1981; Full Report due fall 1982. Call 226-2269 for further information. Requester: House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Wood: The Material, The Resource The United States has 483 million acres of commercial forestland; 14 billion cubic feet of timber were harvested in 1976. However, the United States still imports nearly 30 percent of its softwood lumber, approximately half of the wood pulp, and significant quantities of plywood. The forest industry and Government experts state that with new technologies for improved forestry practices, better wood utilization, and new product development the United States could become at least independent of wood imports and possibly a net exporter of wood. If domestic wood production is to be increased significantly, policies will be needed to: 1) improve the management of private timberlands; 2) resolve conflicts among the users of Federal public lands; and 3] investigate new uses and applications of wood materials. New technologies for the use of wood, which is a renewable resource,
PAGE 46
44 l Annual Report to the Congress for 1981 may also hold promise as substitute for nonrenewable energy and materials resources in some applications. This assessment has six objectives: 1) explore the properties, uses, and technologies for using wood as a material and its potential for substituting for nonrenewable materials; 2) assess the future demand and supply profiles of wood and identify future problems; 3) evaluate the capability of forest management technology to increase production; 4) analyze the forest management policies on public lands in reference to wood production and other forest uses; 5) assess the national technology for wood and forestry R&D; and 6) review public policies that affect forest production and the use of wood as a material and identify policy options for the consideration of Congress. The assessment is being conducted by the OTA Materials Program with consultation among other OTA program offices and other congressional agencies. Ample use will be made of the planning documents and assessments directed by the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act and the National Forest Manage ment Act of 1976. Initial efforts will center on the identification of policy issues affecting the production and use of wood materials. A comprehensive review of wood technology and the potential for the future development of wood products will be undertaken. An assessment of the current state of forestry technology and the extent of its application in the field will be conducted. The assessment will cover a period of 18 months: from October 1981 through March 1983. Two interim Technical Memorandums are planned: 1) Technologies for Improved and Expanded Wood Utilization, and 2) Technologies for Improved Forest Management. Delivery date: Early 1983. Call 226-2269 for further information. Requester: Senate Committee on Appropriations. Impact of Technology on Competitiveness of U.S. Electronics Industry There is a growing concern that key U.S. industries are declining in their international competitive positions. The electronics industry is particularly significant because it occupies a strategic position as a technological driving force for other industries that use products like semiconductors and computers. The OTA assessment will look at three sectors of this industry: consumer electronics [where the United States has suffered heavily from Japanese competition); semiconductors (where a strong U.S. position is under challenge); and computers (where the United States still appears to lead the world). The assessment will focus on those major contributors to the competitiveness of the electronics industry that could most readily be affected by U.S. Government policy. In each case, a comparison will be made between the United States, Japan, and (to a lesser extent) West-
PAGE 47
Section IllWork in Progress l 45 ern Europe. These major factors are: 1) commercialization of research, development, and design; 2) manufacturing techniques and resources; 3) finance, including both private and public sources of funds; 4) human resources, both quantity and quaIity; and 5) governmental industrial policies. Delivery date: Summer 1982. Call 228-2012 for further information. Requesters: Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Joint Economic Committee. Strategic Command, Control, Communications j and Intelligence (C 3 I) U.S strategic nuclear forces are intended to deter hostile Soviet actions, and to do so in a way that contributes to international stability. Their ability to meet these objectives depends not only on the character and capabilities of the weapons systems themselves, but also on the character and capability of the supporting C 3 I systems. Specifically, both deterrence and stability may depend on: 1) the reliability with which a Soviet attack can be detected; 2) the timeliness and quality of the information about such an attack that can be assembled; 3) the speed and reliability with which this information can be communicated to the National Command Authorities; and 4) the immunity to disruption of communications between the National Command Authorities and the strategic forces. The technical difficulty of making strategic weapons themselves survivable was a major focus of OTAS study of MX Missile Basing. The problems of assuring the reliability and survivability of the systems that control these weapons are at least as difficult. The purpose of the study is to assess the technical capabilities and vulnerabilities of present U.S. strategic C 3 I systems. The study will identify needs and opportunities for improvement in the present systems, with special emphasis on additions to the system that could usefully be made in the near term with available technology. Promising avenues of research for future improvements will also be identified. In order to carry out a meaningful study in the short time available, the study will be limited to: 1) central strategic forces, excluding European-based nuclear forces or general purpose forces; 2) the period of several hours after launch of the first enemy missile; and 3) situations in which the President is located at the White House, Camp David, or another prepared location at the time the attack begins. Delivery date: Summer 1982 (Classified). Call 228-2020 for further information. Requesters: Chairman, Technology Assessment Board. Senate Committee on Appropriations. 92-921 0 82 Q
PAGE 48
46 l Annual Report to the Congress fOr 1981 Impacts of Technology on Productivity of the Croplands and Rangelands of the United States Were it not for technological advances, world agriculture would never have been able to keep pace with world population growth. Historically, U.S. technology has had a pronounced positive impact on increasing the productivity of croplands and pastures. U.S. dependence on a continuing supply of renewable natural resources compels it to maintain the stability of the ecological systems from which the resources arise. Now, however, there is increasing documented evidence showing that human activities are straining parts of the biological and physical systems and that the lands productivity is in jeep ardy. This land productivity assessment examines the effect of presently used technologies on the capacity of the cropland and rangeland resource base to sustain high levels of production, and on emerging technologies that might be used to offset adverse effects of some of the established technologies. The assessment includes evaluations of: 1) the adequacy of available data on the effect of technologies on land productivity; and 2) new technologies that have potential for restoring, maintaining, or improving the productivity of the cropland and rangeland resource base. Selected case studies were developed to indicate how society is affected directly and indirectly where long-term productivity of agricultural ecosystems is being altered through innovative applications of technologies. Delivery date: Early 1982, Call 224-8996 for further information. Requesters: House Committee on Agriculture, Senate committees: Environment and Public Works; Appropriations. Water-Related Technologies for Sustaining Agriculture in U.S. Arid and Semiarid Lands Freshwater is a controlling factor of U.S. agricultural productivity. In recent years, the availability of high-quality freshwater for agriculture, especially in the arid and semiarid United States, has become a major concern. In particular, competition for available water sup plies, overdraft, of underground aquifers, and deteriorating water quality have contributed to severe water supply problems for arid and semiarid U.S. agricultural lands (those receiving about 20 inches or less of rainfall annually). The principal farming systems in arid and semiarid U.S. lands are irrigation agriculture, dryland farming, and ranching. Irrigation agriculture is one of the most seriously affected by reduced water sup plies. This farming system accounts for over 80 percent of all consumed water withdrawn from streams and underground aquifers. About 90 percent of U.S. irrigated land is in the 17 Western States
PAGE 49
Section IIlWork in Progress l 47 where water is in short supply. In California, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, Wyoming, and Idaho, for example, over 80 percent of the crops are produced with irrigation. Agricultural water supplies suffer from declining water tables as well as agricultures inability to compete on the open market for the water that is available. Energy costs become a particular critical factor as water must be transported from greater distances or lifted from deeper aquifers. In addition, many conventional agricultural systems use available water inefficiently. The seriousness of the problem necessitates an assessment of present and emerging water-related technologies and their potential for sustaining arid and semiarid agriculture in the United States. This assessment will focus on the opportunities of present and emerging technologies to provide long-term sustainable agricultural productivity by increasing efficiency of water use and reducing agricultural water demands in arid and semiarid U.S. lands. The ability of such technologies to improve water quality of agricultural runoff and the associated socioeconomic impacts also wilI be examined. Technologies considered will include those that require modification of existing systems to maintain the present style of agriculture and those that involve fundamental changes through the adoption of low-water-demand biological technologies and systems. The assessment will include a critical review of data on the magnitude of the arid/semiarid water problem, potentials for alternative supplies, and possible legal and institutional mechanisms supportive of the adoption of sound agricultural water-related technologies. Delivery date: Spring 1983. Call 226-2192 for further information. Requester: House Committee on Agriculture. Technologies for Sustaining Tropical Forest Resources Each year 1 to 2 percent of the worlds remaining tropical forests are converted to other land uses or to wasteland. Where cleared land is developed for sustained agriculture, deforestation can be beneficial. But most land now being cleared cannot sustain farming or grazing with available technologies, so it is abandoned after a few years. Often the forests do not regrow because of highly weathered soils and harsh climates. Thus, highly productive but underused forest resources are giving way to grasslands and deserts of low productivity. Deforestation has economic and environmental consequences that jeopardize U.S. imports of agricultural germ plasm, pharmaceuticals, chemical feedstocks, foods, drugs, animals for medical research, tropical hardwoods, and veneer and wood products. Also in jeopardy are U.S.-funded development projects in tropical countries, U.S. migratory wildlife species, and stability of global climates. Tropical deforestation places pressure on world oil supplies and is an important causal factor in the increasing number of refugees seeking U.S. entry. The U.S. Agency for International Development (AID), the United Nations (U. N.) agencies, and the World Bank have increased funding
PAGE 50
48 l Annual Report to the Congress for 1981 for forestry several-fold in the past 5 years. American corporations and nonprofit institutions also have been increasingly involved in the search for solutions to tropical deforestation problems. Most importantly, many tropical nations governments recognize that deforestation constrains their economies and their development options; they are now making institutional changes to slow deforestation and to accelerate reforestation. The United States is recognized for its leadership in bringing the deforestation problems to world attention and for the technical versatility it has to address the problem. Sustaining tropical forest resources can be helped or hindered by applications of certain technologies. OTA will assess: 1) dimensions of the tropical deforestation problem; 2) impacts of technologies, both conventional and new, that the United States may apply to enhance use and management of forest resources; 3) the role that U.S.-funded agencies, such as AID, Peace Corps, the U. N., and the World Bank, play in developing improved technologies; 4) improved mechanisms for transferring such technologies to tropical nations and to tropical regions of the United States; and 5) the special strengths of U.S. institutions in relevant science and technology. Delivery date: Spring 1983. Call 228-2192 for further information. Requesters: House Foreign Affairs Committee. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Evaluation of Veterans Administration Agent Orange Protocol The epidemiologic study by the Veterans Administration of the long-term health effects resulting from exposure to agent orange was mandated in the Veterans Health Programs Extension and Improvements Act of 1979 (Public Law 96-151). The same law requires OTA to review the study design. An advisory panel was assembled to carry out the review. The panels first report was made in September 1981. Delivery date: Indeterminate. Call 228-2070 for further information. Requester: Mandated by Public Law 98-151. Strategies for Medical Technology Assessment Technology assessment is gaining increasing acceptance as a means of rationalizing health care. This trend has been stimulated by the rapidly rising costs of health care and technologys contribution to those costs. Since assessments can be expensive and time-consuming and can result in delaying the diffusion of beneficial technologies, and since not all technological developments can be systematically assessed, it is critical to select: 1) the right technologies to be assessed; 2) the optimum stage of technological development; and 3) the appropriate assessment methods. It is also important for the information gained from assessments to be disseminated in a timely and efficient manner. Currently, there is no coherent Federal policy regarding the selection
PAGE 51
Section IllWork in Progress l 49 process, and there are major problems with information dissemination. These issues are critical because many Federal agencies, as well as private organizations and individuals, depend on information from assessments to make decisions. This study examines the appropriateness and validity of existing assessment methods, such as controlled clinical trials, epidemiological studies, consensus exercises, and computer models, with the intent of identifying alternative strategies for assessment. In addition, the MEDLARS information and retrieval system of the National Library of Medicine is evaluated with respect to the appropriateness of indexing, storage, and retrieval of useful information. The uses of that information by both governmental and private sectors are then examined in relation to the safe, efficacious, and efficient use of medical technologies. Delivery date: Early 1982. Call 228-2070 for further information. Requester: House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Technology and Handicapped People Approximately 45 million Americansincluding 10 million childrenhave significant mental or physical handicaps. Technologies for aiding handicapped people are numerous, varied, and often complex and expensive. Such technologies are designed to alleviate, eliminate, or prevent the effects of handicapping conditions. They can be used to provide mobility and independence, restore or improve functional abilities, and help enable handicapped individuals to lead more productive and fulfilling lives. The Federal Governments involvement in this area is extensive. A multitude of programs and agencies develop, evaluate, provide, pay for, and deliver technologies. Other actionssuch as civil rights and education opportunity lawsprovide conditions and incentives for further development of and investment in technologies for the handicapped. Yet there are serious questions about whether technologies for the handicapped are being developed and used in as effective and efficient a manner as possible. Inadequate information exists regarding the overall process of technological development and use. Individual aspects of the technological process also remain troublesome. For example, what is the appropriate role for sophisticated technologies as opposed to (or in concert with) the soft areas such as human service delivery systems that ultimately may determine the effectiveness of technologies? What methods exist for assessing the costs and benefits to society or to handicapped individuals of investment in or use of various technologies? What is the state of knowledge in regard to such costs and benefits? What effect will advances in medical technology have on the number and types of handicaps?
PAGE 52
50 l Annual Report to the Congress for 1981 This assessment will provide information on general issues, such as the state of the art of evaluating efficacy, safety, and costs. In addition it will address definitional problems and their implications. Most critically, it will examine several theme issues in depth. For example, what are the causes and the effects of todays emphasis on sophisticated technology? Delivery date: Early 1982. Call 228-2070 for further information. Requester: Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources. Health and Safety Control Technologies in the Workplace One hundred million Americans work. Each year there are some 2.3 million disabling injuries and 13,200 accidental deaths in the workplace, and perhaps 100,000 people die from job-related diseases. Efforts to reduce this toll involve employers, labor organizations, nonprofit institutions, insurance companies, and Government agencies. To a major extent these efforts are directed at developing and applying control technologiesengineering controls, worker education programs, and personal protection devices. New industrial plant construction and modernization of existing plants is expected to result from interest in increased productivity and reduced energy consumption. Such construction may offer opportunities for installing new technologies to reduce workplace health and safety hazards. This assessment would develop information about research and de velopment, diffusion, application, and evaluation of workplace control technologies. Engineering controls, worker education programs, personal devices, and interrelationships between them will be described and their role in worker protection evaluated. One product of the assessment would be a series of options. These are l l l expected to address: improving data about workplace accidents and illnesses, aiding development of appropriate technologies, their diffusion, application, and evaluation, and making control technologies available to small firms at a price they can afford. Delivery date: Early 1983. Call 228-2070 for further information. Requester: House Committee on Energy and Commerce. World Population and Fertility Planning Technologies: The Next Twenty Years World population has passed 4.4 billion and is expected to double in 70 years. Growth of this magnitude has major implications for the global biosphere and for international economic and political stability. Because of the consequences of rapid population growth-such as increasing demands for food, energy, and jobsmost governments and international agencies have adopted policies and initiated programs in the last 20 years to modify birth rates.
PAGE 53
Section IllWork In Progress l 51 OTAS study of global population examines how Government policies and programs view planned birth technologies, and how new international population assistance has changed world population growth in the last 20 years. It projects probable impacts of population growth from 1980 to 2000 on food, energy, jobs, income, and other aspects of quality of life; and it assesses present and prospective birth technologies and factors determining their future development and use. The assessment focuses on the Third World, where 92 percent of population growth in the next two decades will occur and where their governments seek to slow growth. It includes a research agenda relevant to their problems and ends with the policy alternatives open to the United States in dealing with world population issues. U.S. domestic population policies are not included in this assessment. Delivery date: March 1982. Call 224-8996 for further information. Requester: The OTA Director, with approval of the OTA Congressional Board. Comparative Assessment of the Commercial Development of Biotechnology Biotechnology refers to the use of biological techniques such as recombinant DNA technology, cell fusion, fermentation, and enzyme technology to produce chemicals, pharmaceuticals, or other substances to act on the environment to increase the quality of life (as in pollution control), or to improve the characteristics of economically important plants and animals. Advantages of biological production over the alternative methods of chemical production or extraction of substances from living tissues include reduced dependence on petroleum substrates or on large quantities of sometimes scarce plant, animal, or human tissues. Estimates or yearly potential markets for substances that could be produced from applications of recombinant DNA technology in just the chemical and pharmaceutical industries are $15 billion and more in the next 20 years. The potential of biotechnology has stimulated a great deal of corporate activity in the United States in the last 2 years. Many new small firms have been formed and large corporations are developing capability in biotechnology. Foreign activity in the field is intense, especially in Japan, West Germany, France, and the U.S.S.R. This assessment will evaluate whether biotechnology and associated research and development are developing in the United States in such a way that this Nation is likely to be in a competitive position with other nations in the years ahead. The keys to competitive development of the biotechnology industry in the United States are basic research and the transfer of basic research into commercial ap plication. One major influence on development of the industry in the United States is Government policies on funding of research, patents, health and safety regulations, antitrust laws, and taxation. Equally important and significantly influenced by Government policy are industrial/academic relationships and their influence on funding, research, manpower training, and information flow. New developments in the technology and in support technologies are important to the growth of
PAGE 54
52 l Annual Report to the Congress for 1981 the industry and will also be examined as part of this assessment. Analysis along the same dimensions as those above will be conducted for selected other countries in order to estimate the probable U.S. position in the biotechnology industry in the next 10 years. It is also important to consider areas of application in the public interest. Attractive commercial applications may so engage industry that some areas, of great public benefit but higher commercial risk, could languish. The possible Government role in such areas will be investigated. Delivery date: Interim Report, spring 1982; Full Report, summer 1983. Call 228-2090 for further information. Requesters: House Committee on Science and Technology. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Genetic Screening and Cytogenetic Surveillance in the Workplace One of the most difficult problems in regulatory policymaking is determining what is a safe level of exposure to chemicals in the workplace. For any particular chemical, the scientific evidence on risk is often conflicting, and the cost of each incremental lowering of exposure levels becomes increasingly expensive. Further, because of the natural variability of humans, what may be safe for one person, or even the vast majority of people, may be hazardous to another. Accordingly, some occupational health specialists have advocated both genetic screening and cytogenetic surveillance of workers as a means of identifying high-risk individuals and environments where the entire work force may be at risk. The use of these techniques is controversial because the ability to actually identify high-risk workers is a matter of scientific dispute and the identification of such workers, if possible, could place their interests in opposition to those of the company. This assessment will examine the following questions: What is the technological state of the art? Do the claimed associations in fact exist between certain recessive genes or chromosomal abnormalities and increased risk of harm from certain chemicals? If these associations exist, do genetic screening and cytogenetic surveillance offer a costeffective way to enhance worker health and safety, given the economic and technical fact of life that workers will face some exposure to chemicals? What are the alternatives, regulatory or otherwise? What responsibilities might companies have toward high-risk workers? How might these tests be done in order to protect the interests of all parties? Four specific conditions for which screening tests are available will be examined in detail. They are G-6-PD deficiency, methemoglobin reductase deficiency, alpha-1-antitrypsin deficiency, and aryl hydrocarbon hydroxylase inducibility. Delivery date: Summer 1982. Call 226-2090 for further information. Requester: House Committee on Science and Technology.
PAGE 55
Section /l/Work In Progress l 53 SCIENCE, INFORMATI0N, AND NATURAL RESOURCES Radio frequency Use and Management: Impacts From the World Administrative Radio Conference of 1979 More than 150 nations representatives met in Geneva, Switzerland, for 11 weeks in late 1979 to review and adjust the global allocation of uses of the radio magnetic spectrum. This major world meeting changed frequency allocations, adopted new definitions, planned additional future world and regional conferences, and modified the international radio regulations of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). This study reviews the U.S. preparations for and participation in that conference, identifies its major results and projects their impacts, and looks at the future role of ITU and the U.S. participation in ITU and such future conferences. Delivery date: Early 1982. Call 224-8996 for further information. Requester: Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Societal Impact of National Information Systems The National Information Systems project includes three information system case studies and an overview study. The overview study examined the use of computer technology in national information systems, computer-related public policy issues that Congress is likely to face over the next few years, and key trends in the underlying technology and industry structure. The case study on computerized criminal history (CCH) records assesses the major issues and impacts associated with the principal alternatives for a national CCH system. The case study on electronic message systems (EMS) examines the impacts of EMS on the mainstream and on a possible U.S. Postal Service role in electronic mail. The case study on electronic funds transfer (EFT) analyzes the possible impacts of EFT on privacy, security, and equity. Delivery date: Overview study published October 1981. EFT, EMS, and CCH case studies, early 1982. Call 22&2240 for further information. Requesters: Senate Committee on the Judiciary. House committees: Judiciary; Post Office and Civil Service. The Patent System and New Technological Enterprises The climate for generating new technologically based enterprises in the United States has worsened during the past decade. Economists differ in their appraisals of the exact contribution such firms make to innovation, employment, and economic progress; however, it is possible that the contribution level is high and that technologically based enterprises are essential to the growth and revitalization of our society. Fledgling entrepreneurs and independent innovators are frequently dependent on, and influenced by, the patent system to a much
PAGE 56
54 l Annual Report to the Congress for 1981 greater degree than are large, established firms. In almost all aspects of the patent systeme.g., prosecution, interferences, licensing, litigationsmall firms and individual inventors face far more difficult obstacles and economic choices than do the large firms. The importance of new technologically based firms to the future economic vitality of the United States underscores the need to assess the impact of the patent system on the generation and stimulation of such enterprises. Delivery date: Summer 1982. Call 228-2249 for further information. Requesters: House committees: Small Business; Judiciary, Senate Committee on the Judiciary. Information Technology and Education Over the last decade, the educational system has been increasingly pressed to meet a variety of new needs on a constant or even shrinking budget. The Federal and State governments now require that schools provide equal educational opportunities to groups traditionally outside the mainstream, such as the handicapped. Changing needs for job skills and changing demographic conditions also present new demands for education and training beyond the ages traditionally considered as the educational years. Information technology potentially provides opportunities for education systems to improve productivity and quality of instruction, and to offer more flexibility both in content, and in the time and place of offering. Previous attempts to enlist technology in education have had mixed outcomes, but the markedly lower cost and increased capability of new and projected computer technology, coupled with advances in telecommunication services, imply the need for a new look at educational use of technologies. The study will identify and project relevant technology and R&D activity, and the providers and users of curricula, and educational technology, and assess the likely impacts of selected alternative policies on the use of information technology. Delivery date: Spring 1982. Call 228-2240 for further information. Requester: House Committee on Education and Labor, The Use of Models for Freshwater Resources Management: Planning and Policy Our Nations water resource policies affect many domestic problems in the United States todayfood production, energy, regional economic development, environmental quality, even our international balance of trade. As the country grows, and excess water supplies diminish, it becomes increasingly important to manage existing sup plies with the greatest possible efficiency. In recent years, successful management and planning of water resources has increasingly been based on the results of mathematical models. The OTA study of water resource models is not an assessment of mathematical equations or computers, but of the Nations ability to
PAGE 57
Section IIIWork in Progress l 55 use models to more efficiently and effectively analyze and solve our water resource problems. The assessment considers not only the usefulness of the technologythe modelsbut the ability of the Federal and State water resource agencies to effectively apply these analytic tools. The capabilities of water resource models vary greatly from issue to issue. In a number of areas, further research and development is needed, but in other areas, usable and reliable tools currently exist. However, as often occurs, these technologies have outstripped the capabilities of Federal, State, and local agencies to support and effectively use them. Today, model use is increasing the efficiency and lowering the cost of water resource management, but the potential for further improvement remains great. The OTA report presents options which focus on ways of improving Federal, State, and local use of available technologies to analyze and resolve water resource problems. Delivery date: In press. Call 226-8996 for further information. Requester: House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. High-Level Radioactive Waste Management and Disposal More than three decades into the nuclear age, this country still has no permanent disposal facilities for commercial high-level radioactive waste. This assessment focuses on technologies for disposal of commercial high-level waste (spent fuel or solidified waste from reprocessing). A clear understanding of the problem of managing radioactive waste from its generation to final disposal requires comprehensive analysis of the interactive relationships among possible storage and disposal technologies; transportation systems; regulatory considerations; and Federal, State, and local jurisdictional prerogatives. The OTA study is using a systems analysis technique to evaluate a range of strategies for developing and deploying a commercial high-level radioactive waste disposal system. Other waste forms are considered to the extent needed to determine how their management and disposal will affect commercial high-level waste disposal plans and to provide a basis for analysis for the impacts of, and management problems presented by, a full-scale waste disposal system. Delivery date: Early 1982. Call 226-2132 for further information, Requesters: House committees: Merchant Marine and Fisheries; Science and Technology; Foreign Affairs. Senate committees: Energy and Natural Resources; Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Impacts of Atmospheric Alterations Many present-day human activitiesparticularly the burning of fossil-fuelsare altering the Earths atmosphere in potentially harmful ways. The precise nature and extent of such activities are unclear.
PAGE 58
56 l Annual Report to the congress for 1981 However, the potential consequences are severe enough to merit careful congressional consideration of domestic and international Federal policies. Some of the consequences, such as acid rain, are occurring today. Others, such as global climate changes due to increasing carbon dioxide concentration, may appear within the next century. Increasing sulfur and nitrogen oxides and their transformation products (acid rain and oxidants) may damage thousands of lakes, decrease crop and forest productivity, deplete soil nutrients, damage buildings and monuments, and have adverse effects on human health. The assessment will characterize the potential benefits of acting now to abate long-range transport air pollution and the potential costs of action that may be premature. The study will: 1) identify the resources potentially at risk, as well as the societal concerns about the loss of these resources; and 2) identify broad pollution control strategies, and discuss their costs, potential effectiveness, and societal effects. OTA will develop a range of plausible, regionally oriented impact scenarios that describe the potential environmental and social consequences of transported pollutants, and actions that might be taken to control them. These scenarios will not attempt to forecast the future, but instead, present a range of plausible consequences of these changes, in terms responsive to near-term congressional decisions. Delivery date: Summer 1982. Call 228-2131 for further information. Requesters: House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. Assessment of Approaches to Wetlands Use Both the development and the preservation of wetlandsswamp, marshes, bogs, and other areas that are periodically saturated with water offer benefits to individual users of wetlands as well as to society as a whole. For example, when drained or filled, some wetlands may be converted into highly productive farmland or choice residential or commercial property. Valuable oil, gas, and timber resources may also be extracted from some wetland areas. Many other technological activities, such as the construction of dams, levees, breakwaters and jetties, and bridges and highways, often take place in wetlands. Similarly, undeveloped wetlands may provide flood control, fish and wildlife habitat, erosion protection, pollution control, and ground water recharge. In the past, the values of undeveloped wetlands have largely been ignored or seen as less than those of developed or technologically modified wetlands. As a result, approximately 30 percent of the Nations original wetlands have been modified in some way by various technological activities. During the last decade, the importance of the natural functions of wetlands has received increasing recognition. In response to concerns about wetlands, many Federal and State laws now
PAGE 59
Section IllWork in Progress 57 influence the development and regulate the use of wetlands through measures such as acquisition, economic incentives, and permitting. Proposals to develop wetlands have frequently led to controversy. To provide a framework for future debates on this issue, OTA will evaluate: the effects of technological activities on wetlands, technological and nontechnological options for mitigating undesired impacts, l the functional values of different types of wetlands, problems associated with weighing the benefits of technological activities in wetland areas against the functional values of the wetlands that may be lost, and l various approaches to wetlands use. Delivery date: Early 1983. Call 226-2130 for further information. Requester: Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Space Policy and Applications The assessment explores the adequacy of the Nations present and future civilian space technology base. It examines the possible reliance on that base for applications of space technology in the 1980-2000 time frame. The focus will be on current and anticipated uses and management of remote sensing, communications satellites, materials processing in space, and the utilization of the space transportation system. A range of program and policy options will be developed, together with their societal, institutional, and economic implications. International impacts and cooperation and the U.S. space technology-based competitive position will also be considered. The study has cross-cutting ties to the ongoing OTA assessments of solar power satellites, land productivity, and telecommunications, each with important space technology facets. Delivery date: Early 1982. Call 226-2209 for further information. Requesters: Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. House Committee on Science and Technology. Global Models, World Futures, and Public PoIicyA Critique The purpose of this assessment is to examine global models as a tool for long-range strategic analysis and policy development, The findings and recommendations of five major modeling studies, including Global 2000, are compared and evaluated. Delivery date: Early 1982, Call 224-8996 for further information, Requester: OTAS Congressional Board.
PAGE 60
58 l Annual Report to the Congress for 1981 TechnologicaI Innovation and Health, Safety, and Environmental Regulations This assessment examines the effects of health, safety, and environmental regulation on the rate of productivity growth and on technological innovation in several sectors of the economy. The study also examines alternative regulatory policies with regard to their likely effects on private sector innovation. Delivery date: Early 1982. Call 224-8996 for further information. Requester: Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Impact of Advanced Air Transport Technology This assessment examines the impact of introducing or not introducing advanced high-speed aircraft into our future commercial fleet and of other potential commercial aircraft developments. The assessment is being conducted in four parts: 1) advanced high-speed aircraft (completed), which examines the economic, energy, environmental, and societal impacts of introducing advanced subsonic and/or supersonic aircraft into the future commercial fleet; 2) air cargo systems, which studies the role, importance and impact of advanced aircraft technology on the air cargo systems; 3) air service to small communities, which is an inquiry into recent trends in air service to small communities and the possible influence of advances in commuter aircraft technologies on this service; and 4) program management and financing alternatives of advanced high-speed aircraft, which examines alternative means for financing and managing the development and production of an advanced supersonic or subsonic commercial air transport. Delivery dates: Part 1, published April 1980; Part 2 (in press); Part 3 (in press); Part 4, early 1982. Call 228-2182 for further information. Requesters: House Committee on Science and Technology. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Airport and Air Traffic Control System Increasing levels of air traffic have led to problems of congestion and delay at many of the Nations large hub airports, and continued growth of commercial and general aviation will spread these problems to other airports in the future. The rate and incidence of growth will be affected by a number of factorssuch as general economic conditions and the future evolution of the deregulated airline industrythat are difficult if not impossible to foresee. There are, however, a number of steps that might be taken to alleviate these problems by increasing the effective capacity of the airport and air traffic control (ATC) systems. Potential ATC system components include enroute automation, collision avoidance, data link, and microwave landing system. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) currently plans to spend $2.4 billion for enroute computer modernization alone over the
PAGE 61
Section IllWork In Progress 59 next decade, and users will have to spend billions more for equipment to operate in this new environment. Airport traffic-management alternatives include a number of proposals for increasing the efficiency with which airport facilities are used, such as reliever airports, peakhour landing fees, stub runways, and automated terminal area metering. This assessment examines the likely future evolution of domestic aviation and examines both the FAAs proposals and other alternatives for meeting the increasing demand for airport and ATC services through the year 2000. Delivery date: Early 1982. Call 226-2200 for further information. Requesters: House Committee on Appropriations. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
PAGE 62
Section IV.-Organization and Operations Created by the Technology Assessment Act of 1972 (86 Stat. 797), OTA is a part of and is responsible to the legislative branch of the Federal Government. OTA received funding in November 1973 and began operations as the second session of the 93d Congress convened in January 1974. The act provides for a bipartisan Congressional Board, a Director, and such other employees and consultants as may be necessary to conduct the Offices work. The Congressional Board is made up of six Senators, appointed by the President pro tempore of the Senate, and six Representatives, ap pointed by the Speaker of the House, evenly divided by party. In 1981, Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) and Cong. Morris Udall (D-Arizona) served as the Chairman and Vice Chairman, respectively, of the Board. The two posts alternate between the Senate and House with each Congress. The Board members from each House select their respective officer. The Congressional Board sets the policies of the Office and is the sole and exclusive body governing OTA. The Board appoints the Director, who is OTAS chief executive officer, and a nonvoting member of the board. The act also calls for a Technology Assessment Advisory Council comprised of 10 public members eminent in scientific, technological, and educational fields, the Comptroller General of the united States, and the Director of the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress. The Advisory Council advises the Board and the Director on such matters as the balance, comprehensiveness, and quality of OTAS work, and OTAS nongovernmental resources. In providing assistance to Congress, OTA is to: identify existing or probable impacts of technology or technological programs; where possible, ascertain cause-and-effect relationships of the applications of technology; identify alternative technological methods of implementing specific actions; identify alternative programs for achieving requisite goals; estimate and compare the impacts of alternative methods and programs; present findings of completed analyses to the appropriate legislative authorities; identify areas where additional research or data collection ments; and undertake such necessary. is required to provide support for assessadditional associated activities as may be 61 92-921 0 82 E )
PAGE 63
62 l Annual Report to the Congress for 1981 INITIATiON, PROCESSING, AND FLOW Or ASSESSMENTS OTAS primary function is to provide congressional committees with assessments or studies that identify the range of probable consequences, social as well as physical, of policy alternatives affecting the uses of technology. Requests for OTA assessments may be initiated by: the chairman of any standing, special, select, or joint committee of Congress, acting alone, at the request of the ranking minority member, or a majority of the committee members; l the OTA Board; or the OTA Director, in consultation with the Board. The authorization of specific assessment projects and the allocation of funds for their performance is the responsibility of the OTA Board. The Board early establishes priority areas of study, and approves individual assessment projects within those areas. To help in making these decisions, the Board considers recommendations and plans developed by OTA staff, and applies the following general selection criteria developed in consultation with the Advisory Council: l l l l l l l l l l l Is this now or likely to become a major national issue? Can OTA make a unique contribution, or could the requested activity be done effectively by the requesting committee or another agency of Congress? How significant are the costs and benefits to society of the various policy options involved, and how will they be distributed among various affected groups? Is the technological impact irreversible? How imminent is the impact? Is there sufficient available knowledge to assess the technology and its consequences? Is the assessment of manageable scopecan it be bounded within reasonable limits? What will be the cost of the assessment? How much time will be required to do the assessment? What is the likelihood of congressional action in response to this assessment? Would this assessment complement or detract from other OTA projects? Assessment reports emerge from the combined effort of a staff with appropriate expertise, citizen advisory panels of experts, consultants, contractors, and other congressional information agencies. A particular assessment project may involve exploratory meetings, workshops of advisory panels, staff analyses, and consultant studies. Different approaches are used. The method employed, personnel involved, and the skills tapped depend on the technology under study, the requesting client, the nature of the issues at stake, and the time available for and the setting of the project. Required to consider the
PAGE 64
Section IVOrganization and Operations 63 needs of Congress, the vast range of technological issues, and the resources available for a study, OTA remains flexible in its assessment methods. All OTA assessments strive to be objective, fair, nonpartisan, and authoritative. They must also be timely so as to meet congressional schedules. ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE The Office is organized into three operating divisions, each headed by an assistant director. The three divisions are Energy, Materials, and International Security; Health and Life Sciences; and Science, Information, and Natural Resources. They encompass assessments grouped in the areas of energy, food and renewable resources, human resources, health, materials, international security and commerce, oceans and environment, communication and information technologies, and space technology. See chart detailing OTAS organizational structure. OTA Organization Chart Energy Program International Security & Commerce Program Materials Program Food & Renewable Resources Program Health Program Biological Applications Program a m Communication & Information Technologies Program Oceans & Environment Program Space, Transportation, and Innovation Program b a changed from Human Resources Program, March 1982. b changad from Space Technology Program, March 1982.
PAGE 65
64 l Annual Report to the Congress for 1981 Staff professionals represent a wide range of disciplines and backgrounds, including the physical, biological, and environmental sciences, engineering, social sciences, law, and public administration. Professionals from executive branch agencies, detailed to OTA on a temporary basis, and participants in several congressional fellowship programs also contribute to the work of the Office. Private Sector Involvment The private sector is heavily involved in OTA studies as a source of expertise and perspectives while an assessment is in progress. Contractors and consultants are drawn from industry, universities, private research organizations, and public interest groups. OTA works to ensure that the views of the public are fairly reflected in its assessments. OTA involves the public in many waysthrough advisory panels, workshops, surveys, and formal and informal public meetings. These interactions provide citizens with access to information and help OTA identify contrasts between the perspectives of technically trained and lay citizens. OPERATIONS Publishing Activities During 1981, OTA delivered 53 published documents to Congress. These included: 14 assessment reports; 11 summaries; 16 background papers; 3 technical memorandums; 3 working papers (appendixes); 2 staff papers; and 4 administrative reports. In addition, OTA had input in the preparation of a committee print on Background Papers for Innovative Biological Technologies for Lesser Developed Countries for the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. Requests for Publications The Publishing Office processed over 21,303 (averaging 58.4/day) separate mail and phone requests for OTA publications during the calendar year. Of this total, 2,219 were requests from congressional offices, and 19,084 requests from various Government agencies and the private sector.
PAGE 66
Sect/on iVOrganization and Operations 65 Private Sector Reprinting To date, 24 OTA publications (in whole or in part) have been reprinted, by commercial publishers or private organizations for various audiences. Out of the 24 reprinted publications, three publications (Energy From Biological Processes, vol. II, The Effects of Nuclear War, and Impacts of Applied Genetics) have been reprinted by more than one commercial publisher. Among the publications reprinted are: l Westview Press Impacts of Applied Genetics: Micro-Organisms, Plants, and Animals Assessment of Technologies for Determining Cancer Risks From the Environment Energy from Biological Processes, Vol. I Technology and Soviet Energy Availability l Praeger Publishing Co. Nulcear Proliferation and Safeguards Ballinger Publishing Co. The Direct Use of Coal: Prospects and Problems of Production and Combustion Energy From Biological Processes, Vol. II: Technical and Environmental Analyses l McGraw Hill Enhanced Oil Recovery Potential in the united States An Assessment of Oil shale Technologies Energy From Biological Processes, Vol. II: Technical and Environmental Analyses World Petroleum Availability: 1980-2000-A Technical Memorandum l Allanheld, Osmun Publishing Co. Technology and East West Trade The Effects of Nuclear War Residential Energy Conservation, Vol. I l Olympus Corp. The Implications of Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Medical Technology, Background Paper #2, Case Study #5: Periodontal Disease: Assessing the Effectiveness and Costs of the Keyes Technique l The Society for Microbiology Impacts of Applied Genetics: Micro-Organisms, Plants, and AnimalsSummary
PAGE 67
66 l Annual Report to the Congress for 1981 l Smith Kline Corp. The Implications of Cost Effectiveness of Medical Technology, Background Paper #2, Case Study #n: Benefit and Cost Analysis of Medical Interventions: The Case of Cimetidine and Peptic Ulcer Disease National Association of Medical Directors of Respiratory Care The Implications of Cost Effectiveness of Medical Technology, Background Paper #2, Case Study #12: Assessing Selected Respiratory Therapy Modalities: Trends and Relative Costs in the Washington, D.C. Area Cheshire Books The Effects of Nuclear War l Friends of the Earth Energy From Biological ProcessesSummary l University of American Medical Students, Department of Family and Community Medicine Forecast of Physicians Supply and Requirements c Federal Emergency Management Agency The Effects of Nuclear War International Interests The United States International Communication Agency published an abridgement of Chapter 2, Introduction Concepts of Appropriate Technology from OTAS publication An Assessment of Techno~ogy for Local Development in a magazine published three times a year in both Spanish and English. Additionally, Asahi Shimbun Publications, Japans leading newspaper publishing company, had requested permission to translate and publish OTAS publication Impacts of App]ied Genetics: Micro-Organisms, Plants, and Animals. The translation will be done by researchers specialized in this field at Tsukuba University one of Japans most authoritative universitiesand staff members of the Science Department of Asahi Shimbun.
PAGE 68
Section IVOrgan/zatlon and Operations l 67 Sales of Publications Government Printing Office. Sales of OTA publications by the Superintendent of Documents are continuing to be quite popular with the public. The Superintendent of Documents sold 26,206 OTA reports for an estimated gross income of $200,000 for the period January 1 through December 31, 1981. Summary of Sales of OTA Publications Through the Superintendent of Documents, GPO (July 1976 through December 1981) As of 12/80 As of 12/81 12 mos. difference Number of individual titled publications put on sale to the public . . . . 105 138 +33 Total number sold. . . . . . 124,789 150,995 + 26,206 Estimated GPO gross receipts from sales a . $551,379 $749,442 +$198,063 a Based on a single copy selling price. National Technical Information Service. -NTIS Sells scientific reports and papers that are, generally, not in great demand but are useful for scientific researchers. NTIS is the outlet for OTAS assessment working papers and contractor reports, plus those reports that are out of print by GPO. Summary of Sales of OTA Publications Through the National Technical Information Service (July 1976 through December 1981) A S of 12/80 AS of 12/81 Number of individual titled publications put on sale to the public . . . . 102 143 Total number sold (hard copy). . . . . 5,200 } 16,171 6,329 (microfiche). . . . . 10,971 13,818 } 20,147 Estimated NTIS gross receipts from sales. . $77,183 $112,435
PAGE 69
68 l Annual Report to the Congress for 1981 Organizational Roster of OTA Staff as of December 1981 OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR John H. Gibbons, Director Sue Bachtel, Executive Assistant Barbara OBryan, Secretary Congressional and Institutional Relations Marvin Ott, Director CIR Eugenia Ufholz, Assistant to Director CIR Patricia Halley, Secretary Medical Services Rose McNair, Resident Nurse ENERGY, MATERIALS, AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY DIVISION Skip Johns, Assistant Director Teri Miles, Division Assistant Energy Program Richard Rowberg, Program Manager Thomas Bull, Project Director Virginia Chick, Secretary Alan Crane, Project Director Marian Grochowski, Secretary Nancy Naismith, Project Director Steve Plotkin, Senior Analyst Mary Procter, Project Director Pidge Quigg, Administrative Assistant Jenifer Robison, Project Director Joanne Seder, Research Assistant Edna Saunders, Secretary Paula Stone, Senior Analyst David Strom, Analyst Richard Thoreson, Senior Analyst International Security and Commerce Program Peter Sharfman, Program Manager John Alic, Project Director Martha Caldwell, Analyst Ronnie Lee Goldberg, Analyst Helena Hassell, Secretary Henry Kelley, Senior Associate Dorothy Richroath, Editorial Assistant Jacqueline Robinson, Administrative Assistant Materials Program Audrey Buyrn, Program Manager Patricia Canavan, Secretary Carol Drohan, Administrative Assistant Julie Gorte, Analyst Joel Hirschhorn, Project Director Karen Larsen, Analyst Suellen Pirages, Senior Analyst HEALTH AND LIFE SCIENCES DIVISION David Banta, Assistant Director Ogechee Koffler, Division Assistant Food and Renewable Resources Program Walter E. Parham, Program Manager Phyllis Balan, Administrative Assistant Alison Hess, Research Assistant Barbara Lausche, Project Director Michael Phillips, Project Director Bruce A. Ross, Project Director Phyllis Windle, Analyst Health Program Clyde Behney, Program Manager Anne Kesselman Burns, Analyst Virginia Cwalina, Administrative Assistant Lorraine Ferris, Secretary Michael Gough, Project Director Bryan Luce, Project Director Judith Randal, Consultant Ann Rose, Senior Analyst Gloria Ruby, Analyst Jane Willems, Project Director Human Resources Program Gretchen Kolsrud, Program Manager Susan Clymer, Administrative Assistant Jeff Karny, Analyst Frank Packer, Research Assistant Louise Williams, Project Director Barbara Winchester, Secretary Ray Zilinskas, Analyst
PAGE 70
. Section IVOrganization and Operations 69 SCIENCE, INFORMATION, AND NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION John Andelin, Assistant Director Doris Smith, Division Assistant Samuel Hale, Executive Assistant John Burns, Senior Editor William E. Davis, Senior Analyst Scott Finer, Analyst William Mills, Senior Associate Marsha Fenn Mistretta, Administrative Assistant Paul Phelps, Analyst John Young, Project Director Communication and Information Technologies Program Sam Hale, Interim Program Manager Prudence Adler, AnaJyst Norman Balmer, Project Director Marjory Blumenthal, Analyst Jeanette Contee, Wordprocessor Elizabeth Emanuel, Administrative Assistant Linda Garcia, Analyst Shirley Gayheart, Secretary Larry L. Jenney, Project Director Zalman Shaven, Senior Analyst Jean Smith, Analyst Donna Valtri, Analyst Rick Weingarten, Project Director Fred Wood, Project Director Oceans and Environment Program Robert Niblock, Program Manager William Barnard, Senior Analyst Kathleen Beil, Administrative Assistant Rosina Bierbaum, Analyst Thomas Cotton, Senior Analyst Robert Friedman, Senior Analyst Daniel Kevin, Analyst Valerie Lee, Analyst Jacqueline Mulder, Secretary Linda Wade, Secretary Space Technology Program John Andelin, Acting Program Manager Paula Walden, Administrative Assistant Ray Williamson, Project Director OPERATIONS DIVISION Bart McGarry, Operations Manager Ann Woodbridge, Management Analyst Loretta OBrien, Data Base Administrator Janice Perocchi, Manager/Systems Planning Group Administrative Services Thomas P. McGurn, Administrative Officer Susan Carhart, Director of Contracts and Legal Counsel Alexandra Ferguson, Contract Specialist Susan Klugerman, Conference Center Coordinator Lisa Raines, Contract Specialist Financial Services Alban Landry, Controller Joan Camino, Supervisory Accounting Technician Stacy Newman, Manager, Financial Operations Group Information Center Martha Dexter, Manager, lnformation Services Suzanne Boisclair, Information Technician Vermille Davis, Information Technician Diane Rafferty, Assistant Manager, lnformation Services
PAGE 71
70 l Annual Report to the congress for i981 Personnel Office William Norris, Personnel Officer Lola Craw, Personnel Specialist Denise DeSanctis, Personnel Assistant Katherene Mason, Assistant Personnel Officer Public Communications Office Jean McDonald, Press Officer Annette Taylor, Assistant to Press officer Publishing Office John C. Holmes, Publishing officer Kathie S. Boss, Assistant Technical Specialist Debra Datcher, Administrative Assistant Joe Henson, Deputy Publishing Officer
PAGE 72
Appendix A List of Advisors and Panel Members ENERGY, MATERIALS, AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY DIVISION Energy Program Dispersed Electric Generating Technologies Advisory Panel James J. Stukel, Chairman Director Public Policy Program College of Engineering University of Illinois Roger Blobaum Roger Blobaum & Associates William H. Corkran General Manager The Easton Utilities Commission Claire T. Dedrick California Air Resources Board Steven Ferrey Energy Counsel National Consumer Law Center, inc. Todd La Porte institute of Government Studies University of California Evelyn Murphy Evelyn Murphy Committee Theodore J. Nagel Senior Executive Vice President and Assistant to the Chairman American Electric Power Service Corp. Thomas W. Reddoch Associate Professor of Electrical Engineering University of Tennessee Bertram Schwartz Senior Vice President Consolidated Edison Co. of New York Harry M. Trebing Director Institute of Public Utilities Michigan State University Thomas F. Widmer Vice president Engineering Thermo Electron Corp. Robert H. Williams Center for Energy and Environmental Studies Princeton University Energy and the Cities Ad visory Panel William Reilly, Chairman President Conservation Foundation Francis Hooks Burr Partner, Ropes & Gray Vernon Friason F&H Services Lenneal Henderson School of Business and Public Administration Howard University Michael Hogan Hogan Associates George Latimer Mayor City of St. Paul Hewitt Lovelace Public Safety Director Greensboro, N.C. Neal R. Peirce Contributing Editor National Journal George Peterson Director of Public Finance The Urban institute John H. Robson Vice president Marquette Fuels, Inc. Terry L. Sinnott Commercial Sales Manager San Diego Gas and Electric Victoria J. Tschinkel Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation State of Florida James A. Walker Commissioner Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission Joseph Widmayer Executive Vice President Complete Building Services, Inc. 71
PAGE 73
72 Annual Report to the Congress for 1981 Industrial Energy Productivity Advisory Panel Herbert Fusfeld Director Center for Science and Technology Policy New York University E. Milton Bevington President Servidyne, Inc. Harold Bogart Carlton Burtt Equitable Life Assurance of the U.S. William U. Chandler Director Energy Conservation Project Environmental Policy Institute William Cunningham AFL-CIO Research Department Gordon Geiger Mining and Materials Division Chase Manhatten Bank, N.A. J. M. Leathers Dow Chemical Co. Harvey N. Morris Harvey Morris Associates John Myers Department of Economics Southern Illinois University Rudolph G. Penner Resident Scholar American Enterprise institute R. B. Pool Kaiser Aluminum & Chemicals Corp. Rosalie Wolf international Paper Co. Synthetic Fuels for Transportation Advisory Panel Hans Landsberg, Chairman Resources for the Future Harvey O. Banks President Water Resources Division Camp Dresser McKee, Inc. Ellen Berman Consumer Energy Council of America Leslie Burgess Vice president Fluor Corp. Frank Collins Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union, AFL-CIO Thomas F. Edgar Professor Department of Chemical Engineering University of Texas Louis Frick Planning and Intelligence Manager Chemicals and Pigments Department E. I du Pent de Nemours & CO., Inc. Robert P. Howell Consulting Engineer Chairman, Synfuels Task Force, Sierra Club Sheldon Lambert Shell Oil Co. John L. McCormick Environmental Policy Center Edward Merrow Rand Corp. Richard K. Pefley Chairman Department of Mechanical Engineering Santa Clara University AUan G. Pulsipher Tennessee Valley Authority Robert Reilly Executive Director Business Strategy Development, Corporate Strategy and Analysis Staff Ford Motor Co. Fred Wilson Coordinator Alternate Energy Texaco, Inc. John J. Wise Vice President Planning Mobil Research & Development Co. Automobile Fuel Efficiency Advisory Panel Michael J. Rabins, Chairman Professor Mechanical Engineering Department Wayne State University Maudine R. Cooper Assistant Vice President for Public Policy National Urban League, Inc. John Ferron Executive Director Research & Dealership Operations Group National Automobile Dealers Association
PAGE 74
Appendix AList of Advisors and Panel Members 73 Donald Friedman President Minicar, Inc. Herbert Fuhrman National Institute for Automobile Service Excellence James M. Gill The Ethyl Corp. R. Eugene Goodson Professor Hoover Universal, Inc. Charles M. Heinen John B. Heywood Professor Massachusetts Institute of Technology John Holden Ford Motor Co. Mary Ann Keller Vice President Paine, Webber, Mitchell & Hutchins Paul Larsen Chief Engineer Truck and Coach Division General Motors Corp. Robert D. Nell Consumers Union Kenneth Orski Vice President German Marshall Fund of the United States Howard Young United Auto Workers Solidarity House Solar Power Satellite Policy Issues Study Advisory Panel John P. Schaefer, Chairman President University of Arizona Paul Craig Professor of Applied Science University of California S. David Freeman Chairman Tennessee Valley Authority Eilene Galloway Independent Consultant Karl Gawell Solar Energy Research Institute Peter Glaser Vice President Arthur D. Little, Inc. Jerry Grey Administrator for Public Policy American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Grant Hansen President SDC Systems Group SDC Corp. Russell Hensley Vice President, Technology Diversified Business Division Aetna Life & Casualty Maureen Lamb J. C. Randolph Director, Environmental Programs School of Public and Environmental Affairs Indiana University Graham Siegel Advanced Systems Tennessee Valley Authority John J. Sheehan Legislative Director United Steelworkers of America Robert Uhrig Vice President Advanced Systems and Technology Florida Power & Light Co. Frank von Hippel Senior Research Physicist Center for Energy and Environmental Studies Princeton University Charles Warren Attorney Oil Disruption Workshop Attendees Al Alm John F. Kennedy School Harvard University David Bjornstad Economic Analysis, Energy Oak Ridge National Laboratory Wilson Clark Applied Energy Research, Inc. Bob Craig Keystone Center Charles Ebinger Center for Strategic and International Studies Georgetown University
PAGE 75
74 Annual Report to the Congress for 1981 Ed Krapels James Plummer Private Consultant Electric Power Research Institute Terry Lash Emilio Varinini Scientists Institute for Public Commissioner Information California Energy Commission David Montgomery John Weyant Resources for the Future Energy Modeling Forum Knut Mork Stanford University University of Arizona International Security and Commerce MX Missile Basing Advisory Panel Harry Woolf, Chairman Director Institute for Advanced Study Stanley Albrecht Professor and Editor of Rural Society Department of Sociology Brigham Young University Stephen T. Bradhurst Director Nevada MX Project Field Office Russell E. Dougherty General, USAF (Retired) Executive Director Air Force Association Sidney D. Drell Professor and Deputy Director Stanford Linear Accelerator Center Henry M. Foley Professor Department of Physics Columbia University Kenneth E. Foster Associate Director Office of Arid Lands Studies University of Arizona Sanford Gottlieb Daniel O. Graham Lt. General, USAF (Retired) Director of Special Projects American Security Council William Kincade Executive Director Arms Control Association Gordon Kirjassoff President Edwards & Kelcey Kenneth C. Olson Project Manager Utah MX Coordination Office Kenneth Smith Lockheed Chief Engineer (Retired) John Toomay Major General, USAF (Retired) William Van Cleave Director Defense and Strategic Studies University of Southern California Jerome Wiesner Institute Professor Massachusetts Institute of Technology James R. Woolsey Shea & Gardner Technology and Soviet Energy Availability Advisory Panel Clifford Case, Chairman Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle E. C. Broun, Jr. Hughes Tool Co. Robert Campbell Indiana University Leslie Dienes University of Kansas John Garrett Gulf Oil Exploration & Production Marshall Goldman Wellesley College and Harvard University Gregory Grossman University of California at Berkeley Robert Jackson Dresser Industries Stanley Lewand Chase Manhattan Bank Richard Nehring The Rand Corp. Richard Pipes (until January 1981) Harvard University
PAGE 76
Appendix AList of Advisors and Panel Members 75 Dankwart Rustow City University of New York Henry Sweatt Honeywell Corp. Allen S. Whiting University of Michigan Electronics Advisory Panel Katherine Seelman, Chairperson Division of Church and Society National Council of Churches Jack Acton Staff Executive Sector Planning General Electric Co. Steve Beckman Research Associate International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers A. Terry Brix Market Coordinator BattelleNorthwest Laboratories Richard P. Case Director of Technical Operations Systems Products Division IBM Corp. Ruth Schwartz Cowan Associate Professor of History SUNY-Stony Brook William Kay Dairies Executive Vice President American Retail Federation Leonard Dietch Vice president Product Development Zenith Radio Corp. Isaiah Frank William Clayton Professor of International Economics Johns Hopkins University F. Willard Griffith, 11 Chairman and Chief Executive Officer CC International Robert R. Johnson Vice President Engineering Burroughs Corp. Richard A. Kraft President Matsushita Industrial Co. E. Floyd Kvamme National Advanced Systems Geraldine McArdle Board Member Consumer Federation of America Charles Phipps Assistant Vice President of Corporate Development Texas Instruments, Inc. K. M. Poole Head, Integrated Circuit Planning Department Bell Telephone Laboratories Benjamin M. Rosen Vice President Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc. Kate Wilhelm Author Robert B. Wood Director of Research International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Michael Y. Yoshino Professor of Business Administration Harvard Business School U.S. Industrial Competitiveness: A Comparison of Steel, Electronics, and Automobiles Advisory Panel Alan K. McAdams, Chairperson Professor Graduate School of Business and Public Administration Cornell University Steve Beckman Research Associate International Union of Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers Milton Deaner Vice President, Engineering National Steel Corp. William E. Dennis Senior Vice President American Iron & Steel Institute John Holden Energy Planning Ford Motor Co. Robert Johnson Vice President, Engineering Burroughs Corp. Maryann N. Keller Vice President Paine, Webber, Mitchell, Hutchins, Inc. E. Floyd Kvamme National Advanced Systems Daniel Luria Research Associate United Auto Workers
PAGE 77
76 Annual Report to the Congress for 1981 Thomas P. Rohlen Research Associate Stanford East Asian Forum H. Paul Root Director of Economic Studies General Motors Corp. Federal Coal Leasing Advisory Panel Lynton K. Caldwell, Chairman Department of Political Science Indiana University James Boyd Ex officio Private Consultant C. Wayne Cook Chairman Department of Range Science Colorado State University Lloyd Ernst Manager, Operations Western Fuels Association Inc. Thomas France Private Consultant Gerrie Greene Legislative Representative National Association of Counties James R. Jones Vice President Environmental Affairs Peabody Coal Co. Carla Kish Regional Representative Western Organization of Resource Councils Jonathan Lash Senior Project Attorney Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. Alfred Petrick, Jr. Petrick Associates Jack Simon Director Illinois State Geological Survey Daniel J. Snyder President Colorado-Westmoreland, Inc. Joseph Yancik Vice President, Research and Technical Services National Coal Association Gary R. Saxonhouse Professor Department of Economics University of Michigan Caroline Ware Member of Board National Consumers League Progra m Nonnuclear Industrial Hazardous Waste Advisory Panel Myron Tribus, Chairman Director, Center for Advanced Engineering Study Massachusetts Institute of Technology David Anderson Corporate Director Environmental Affairs Bethlehem Steel Corp. Frank Collins Physical Chemist and Consultant Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers International Union Jeffrey Diver Senior Environmental Counsel Waste Management, Inc. Philippa Foot Department of Philosophy University of California Thomas H. Goodgame Director of Corporate Environmental Control Research and Engineering Center Whirlpool Corp. Diane Graves Conservation Chairman N.j, Chapter of the Sierra Club Sam Gusman Senior Associate Conservation Foundation Rolf Hartung School of Public Health University of Michigan Robert L. Judd Director Office of Appropriate Technology Kenneth S. Kamlet Assistant Director for Pollution and Toxic Substances National Wildlife Federation Terry Lash Director of Science and Public Policy Keystone Center
PAGE 78
Appendix AList of Advisors and Panel Members 77 David Lennett Attorney Environmental Defense Fund Joe J. Mayhew Manager of Solid Waste Programs Chemical Manufacturers Association John M. Mulvey Director of Engineering Management Systems Princeton University School of Engineering/Applied Science Steven J. Picco Assistant Commissioner Regulatory and Government Affairs New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Delbert Rector Acting Chief Environmental Services Division Michigan Department of Natural Resources Gerard Addison Rohlich LBJ School of Public Affairs University of Texas at Austin Kenneth J. Rothman Harvard School of Public Health Reva Rubenstein Manager of the Institute of Chemical Waste Management National Solid Wastes Management Association W. Earl Tatum Director of Environmental Affairs E. I. du Pent de Nemours & Co. George M. Woodwell Director of the Ecosystems Center Marine Biological Laboratory Wood: The Material, The Resource Advisory Panel Larry Tombaugh, Chairman Dean Department of Forestry Michigan State University Darius Adams Department of Forest Management Oregon State University Clark Birddey School of Forestry and Environmental Studies Yale University Carroll Brock M. J. Brock & Sons Merle Conkin National Forest Products Association M. Rupert Cutler Senior Vice President The Audubon Society Judge Ormond S. Danford Private Forest Land Owner Robert D. Day Fellow Resources for the Future Kirk Ewart Director Governmental and Environmental Affairs Department Boise Cascade Corp. R. Rodney Foil Director Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station Carter Kiethley Executive Director Wood Heating Alliance Peter Kirby The Wilderness Society Dudley Kircher World Headquarters Mead Corp. Bruce Lippke Weyerhaeuser Corp. Norma Pace Senior Vice President American Paper Institute Carl Reidel Environmental Program University of Vermont Henry Webster Director Forest Management Division Michigan Department of Natural Resources John Zivnuska Department of Forestry and Resource Management University of California
PAGE 79
78 l Annual Report to the Congress for 1981 Stephen H. Berwick Chief Scientist HDR Sciences Cy Carpenter President Minnesota Farmers Union Eliot Coleman Mountain School Johanna Dwyer Director Frances Stern Nutrition Center New England Medical Center Richard L. Hall Vice President Science and Technology McCormick & Company, Inc. Laura Heuser Agricultural Council of America J. Frank McCormick Professor and Director The Graduate Program in Ecology The University of Tennessee R. Dennis Rouse Dean School of Agriculture Auburn University Daryl B. Simons Associate Dean for Engineering Research College of Engineering Colorado State University Thomas Sporleder Department of Agricultural Economics Texas A&M University William Stapp Program Chairperson Behavior and Environment School of Natural Resources University of Michigan Sylvan Wittwer Director and Assistant Dean College of Agriculture and Natural Resources Michigan State University U.S. Food and Agricultural Research Advisory Panel Aileen Adams Consumer Consultant Paul Baumgart Corporate Economist and Vice President Safeway Stores, Inc. Roger Blobaum Consultant William Burns Director of Research United Food and Commercial Workers International Union Carl W. Carlson Consultant Nick Carney Director Division of Agriculture Department of Natural Resources State of Alaska Tony J. Cunha Dean School of Agriculture California State Polytechnic University Susan De Marco Consultant Robert Di Marco Director of Central Research General Foods Corp. Harold Dodd President Illinois Farmers Union Lewis C. Dowdy, Chancellor North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University Thomas F. Jones Vice President for Research Massachusetts Institute of Technology Jarvis E. Miller Consultant Albert H. Moseman Consultant, IADS Lewis F. Norwood Director of Affiliate Relations National Association of Retail Grocers of the United States William A. Reiners Department of Biological Sciences Dartmouth College
PAGE 80
Append/x AList of Advisors and Panel Members l 79 James E. Tillotson Vice President Technical Research and Development Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc. Harold L. Wilcke Consultant Ralston Purina Co. Water-Related Technologies for Sustaining Agriculture in U.S. Arid and Semiarid Lands Adviaory Panel James B. Kendrick, Jr., Chairman Vice President Agriculture and University Services University of California Alton A. Adams, Jr. Adams & Associates Thomas G. Bahr Director Water Resources Research Institute New Mexico State University Wilbert H. Blackburn Department of Range Science Texas A&M University Harold E. Dregne Department of Plant and Soil Science Texas Tech University Chester E. Evans Larry J. Gordon Deputy Secretary New Mexico Health and Environment Department Robert M. Hagan Department of Land, Air, and Water Resources University of California David E. Herrick Western Agricultural Research Committee Helen Ingram Department of Government University of Arizona Cyrus McKell Director of Research Plant Resources Institute Michael F. McNulty Director Tucson Active Management Area Arizona Department of Water Resources Milton E. Mekelburg Rancher Clifford J. Murino President Desert Research Institute Alice Parker Secretary and Treasurer P&P Farms, Inc. Cynthia Reed Rancher Luis Torres Program Director Northern New Mexico American Friends Service Committee Casey E. Westell, Jr. Director of Industrial Ecology Tenneco, Inc. Norman K. Whittlesey Department of Agricultural Economics Washington State University Impact of Technology on Productivity of the Land Advisory Panel David Pimentel, Chairman Department of Entomology Cornell University Delmar Akerlund Akerlund Farm Biological Enterprises Steve Brunson Director National Association of Conservation Districts William Dietrich Senior Vice President Operations Green Giant Co. James V. Drew Dean, School of Agriculture Director, Agricultural Experiment Station University of Alaska George R. Hawkes Advisor Product Environmental Affairs Ortho-Chevron Chemical Co. Earl O. Heady Department of Economics Iowa State University John H. Herman Attorney at Law Dayton, Herman, Graham & Getts Maureen K. Hinkle National Audubon Society William H. Hinton Farmer Garry D. McKenzie Divison of Polar Programs National Science Foundation
PAGE 81
80. Annual Report to the Congress for 1981 William R. Meiners Conservationist Resource Planning and Management Associates, Inc. John Moland, Jr. Director Center for Social Research Southern University Richard E. Rominger Director Department of Food and Agriculture State of California Edwin L. Schmidt Department of Soil Science University of Minnesota F. C. Stickler Director Product and Market Planning Deere & Co. Glover B. Triplett, Jr. Department of Agronomy Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center Ralph Wong Rancher Technologies for Sustaining Tropical Forest Resources Advisory Panel Leonard Berry, Chairman Center for Technology, Environment. and Development Clark University Eddie Albert Hugh Bollinger Director Plant Resources Institute University Research Park Robert Cassagnol Director Division of Natural Resources Department of Agriculture Haiti Robert Cramer Gary Eilerts Appropriate Technology International John Ewel Department of Botany University of Florida Robert Hart Winrock International Petit Jean Mountain Susanna Hecht Department of Geography UCL A Marilyn Hoskins Department of Sociology Virginia Polytechnic Institute John Hunter Department of Geography Michigan State University Norman Johnson Vice President North Carolina Region Weyerhaeuser Co. Jan Laarman Department of Forestry North Carolina State University Chuck Lankester UN Development Programme Robert Owen Christine Padoch University of Wisconsin Don Plucknett CGIAR World Bank Allen Putney ECNAMP West Indies Lab Jeff Romm Department of Forestry University of California Richard E. Schultes Harvard Botanical Museum Harvard University John Terborgh Department of Biology Princeton University Henry Tschinkel Regional Forestry Advisor Regional Office for Central American Programs Water Assessment, Field Workshop: Irrigation Agriculture, Berkeley, Calif. Lars W. J. Anderson USDA Aquatic Weed Control Research Botany Department University of California Neil H. Berg Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station U.S. Forest Service Sheldon Boone U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service Brent Cluff Water Resources Research Center University of Arizona William Ehrler U.S. Water Conservation Lab Department of Agriculture
PAGE 82
Appendix AList of Advisors and Panel Members l 81 Paul E. Fischbach Department of Agricultural Engineering University of Nebraska Robert M. Hagan Department of Land, Air, and Water Resources University of California, Davis R. Keith Higginson Higginson & Associates, Inc. James B. Kendrick Vice President Agricultural and University Services University of California, Berkeley Gary Nabham Meals for Millions Foundation J. Herbert Snyder Department of Economics University of California at Berkeley Water Assessment, Field Workshop: Rangeland Agriculture, Salt Lake City, Utah Kay H. Asay USDA/ARS Crops Research Lab Utah State University Wilbert H, Blackburn Range Science Department Texas A&M University Al A. Dyer Department of Forest and Wood Science Colorado State University Richard E. Eckert Renewable Resources Center University of Nevada James E. Ellis Natural Resources Ecology Lab Colorado State University Dennis Hansen Plant Resources Institute Floyd E. Kinsinger Executive Secretary Society for Range Management John L. McLain Resource Concepts, Inc. David R. Patton Rocky Mt. Forest and Range Experiment Station Forestry Sciences Laboratory Arizona State University William Sisson U.S. Department of Agriculture New Mexico State University Work Group I: Management of Food and Agricultural Research James Albrecht Vice President for Business Development The Nestle Co. William P. Flatt Dean, College of Agriculture University of Georgia Hugo O. Graumann Retired U.S. Department of Agriculture Robert Judd Managing Director National Soybean Crop Improvement Council Roy L. Loworn Retired North Carolina State University and U.S. Department of Agriculture Thomas S. Ronningen Director-at-Large Northeast Regional Association of State Agricultural Experiment Station Directors University of Maryland John Stovall Deputy Director Joint Planning and Evaluation Science and Education Administration U.S. Department of Agriculture Work Group II: Structure, Evaluation, and Funding of Food and Agricultural Research C. L. Duncan Vice President Campbell Soup Co. B. R. Eddleman Director National and Regional Research Planning and Analysis, SAES Mississippi State University Earl Glover Retired U.S. Department of Agriculture R. J. Hildreth Managing Director Farm Foundation James Kendrick Vice President Agriculture and University Services University of California, Berkeley
PAGE 83
82 l Annual Report to the Congress for 1981 E. F. Knipling Retired U.S. Department of Agriculture Vernon Ruttan Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics University of Minnesota Work Group III: Determination of Food and Agricultural Research Priorities Thomas Army Deputy Administrator Agricultural Research U.S. Department of Agriculture Charles E. French Coordinator of International and Interagency Programs Development Support Bureau Agency for International Development Keith Huston Director-at-Large North Central Regional Agricultural Experiment Station Directors Ronald D. Knutson Department of Agricultural Economics Texas A&M University Donald Kuesel Vice President and Director of Quality Assurance and Research Larsen Co. John P. Mahlstede Associate Dean College of Agriculture Iowa State University Water Assessment, Field Workshop Dryland Agriculture, Denver, Colo. Alfred L. Black Director USDA Agricultural Research Service Northern Great Plains Research Center Theodore Downing Anthropology Department University of Arizona James Engibous Department of Agriculture and Soils Washington State University Chester E. Evans Richard Felger Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum Michael Glantz Head, Environmental and Societal Impacts Group National Center for Atmospheric Research James Krall Plant and Soil Science Department Montana State University Ronald Newton Department of Plant Sciences Texas A&M University Robert W. Pearcy Botany Department University of California, Davis Norman Rosenberg Director Center for Agriculture, Meteorology, and Climatology Agricultural Engineering Building University of Nebraska Robert A, Stewart Laboratory Director USDA Agriculture Research Service Conservation and Production Research Lab Dryland Agriculture Work Group Washington, D.C. Bruce Beattie Department of Agricultural Economics Montana State University Ernest French Superintendent North Dakota State Agricultural Experiment Station Joe Goodin Department of Biological Sciences Texas Tech University John Hanks Soils and Biometeorology Department Utah State University Jim Heyser Research Associate Department of Botany and Plant Pathology Colorado State University Bob Papendick Research Leader USDA/ARS Washington State University Robert A. Stewart Research Leader USDA/IARS Conservation and Production Research Lab
PAGE 84
Appendix Alist of Advisors and Panel Members .83 Irrigation Agriculture Work Group Washington, D.C. Don Alford Stanley Davis Department of Hydrology and Water Resources University of Arizona Paul Fischbach Department of Agricultural Engineering University of Nebraska Anthony E. Hall Department of Botany and Plant Sciences University of California Marvin Jensen National Research Program Leader Agricultural Research Service U.S. Department of Agriculture Ron Lacewell Department of Agricultural Economics Texas A&M University Joe Lord President J.M. Lord, Inc. Peter Wierenga Department of Agronomy New Mexico State University Rangeland Agriculture Work Washington, D.C. Farrell Branson U.S. Geological Survey, WRD Bruce Godfrey Department of Economics Utah State University Dan Laster Group Roman L. Hruska U.S. Meat Animal Research Center Bill Laycock Forage and Range Management Research Crops Research Lab Colorado State University Brian Sindelar Animal and Range Science Department Montana State University Paul T. Tueller Director Knudtsen Renewable Resources Center University of Nevada Warren Whitman Professor Emeritus Botany Department Agricultural Experiment Station North Dakota State University of Agriculture and Applied Sciences Socioeconomic/Legal/Environmental Work Group Denver, Colo. Harvey Banks Director Water Resources Division Camp-Dresser and McKee Bruce Beattie Department of Agricultural Economics Montana State University Bruce Godfrey Department of Economics Utah State University Joe Goodin Department of Biological Sciences Texas Tech University Ron Lacewell Department of Agricultural Economics Texas A&M University Dwight Metzler Secretary Kansas Department of Health Ray Moses Moses, Wittemyer, Harrison, and Woodruff, P.C. John Sheaffer President Sheaffer and Roland, Inc. Bill Stini Department of Anthropology University of Arizona Joe Warburton Desert Research Institute
PAGE 85
84 l Annual Report to the Congress for 1981 Health Program Advisory Committee Sidney S. Lee, Chairman Michael Reese Hospital and Medical Center Stuart H. Akman Florence Heller School Brandeis University Robert M. Ball Institute of Medicine National Academy of Sciences Lewis H. Butler Health Policy Program School of Medicine University of California Kurt Deuschle Mount Sinai School of Medicine Zita Fearon Consumer Commission on the Accreditation of Health Services, Inc. Rashi Fein Center for Community Health and Medical Care Harvard Medical School Melvin A. Glasser Committee for National Health Insurance Patricia King Georgetown Law Center Joyce C. Lashof School of Public Health University of California Mark Lepper Vice President for InterInstitutional Affairs Rush-Presbyterian-St. Lukes Medical Center Margaret Mahoney President The Commonwealth Fund Frederick Mosteller Department of Biostatistics School of Public Health Harvard University Beverlee Myers Director Department of Health Services State of California Mitchell Rabkin General Director Beth Israel Hospital Frederick C. Robbins President Institute of Medicine Rosemary Stevens Department of History and Sociology of Science University of Pennsylvania Kerr L. White Deputy Director for Health Services Rockefeller Foundation Technology and Handicapped People Advisory Panel Daisy Tagliacozzo, Chairman Department of Sociology University of Massachusetts Miriam K. Bazelon Public Representative Tom Beauchamp Kennedy InstituteCenter for Bioethics Georgetown University Monroe Berkowitz Disability and Health Economics Research Rutgers University Henrik Blum University of California, Berkeley Frank Bowe Public Representative Jim Gallagher Martha Porter Graham Center University of North Carolina Melvin Glasser Committee for National Health Insurance Ralf Hotchkiss Public Representative John Kimberly Yale School of Organization and Management Yale University Robert Leopold Department of Psychiatry Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania LeRoy Levitt Vice President for Professional Affairs Mount Sinai Hospital A. Malachi Mixon, III President and Chief Executive Officer Invacare Corp. Jacquelin Perry Rancho Los Amigos Hospital Barbara W. Sklar Mount Zion Hospital
PAGE 86
Appendix AList of Advisors and Panel Members l 85 William Stason Veterans Administration and Harvard School of Public Health Gregg Vanderheiden Trace Research and Development Center University of Wisconsin Michael Zullo Corporate Partnership Program U.S. Council for International Year of Disabled Persons Assessment of Technologies for Determining Cancer Risks From the Environment Advisory Panel Norton Nelson, Chairman Department of Environmental Medicine New York University Medical School David Axelrod N.Y. Commissioner of Health Peter A. A. Berle Berle, Butzel, Kass & Case Theodore L. Cairns Paul F. Deisler, Jr. Vice President Health, Safety and Environment Shell Oil Co. George S. Dominguez Director of Government Relations CIBAGeigy David Doniger Natural Resources Defense Council A. Myrick Freeman Bowdoin College Robert Harris Environmental Defense Fund Priscilla W. Laws Dickinson College Mark Lepper Vice President for Inter Institutional Affairs Rush-Presbyterian-St. Lukes Medical Center Brian MacMahon Department of Epidemiology School of Public Health Harvard University Robert A. Neal Director, Center in Environmental Toxicology Vanderbilt University School of Medicine Vaun A. Newill Research and Environmental Health Division Exxon Corp. William J. Nicholson Mount Sinai School of Medicine R. Talbot Page California Institute of Technology Margaret Seminario Department of Occupational Safety and Health, AFL/CIO Alice S. Whittemore Division of Epidemiology School of Medicine Stanford University Michael Wright Safety and Health Department United Steel Workers of America Agent Orange Study Protocol Review Advisory Panel Richard Remington School of Public Health University of Michigan Margit Bleecker Division of Occupational Medicine The Johns Hopkins Medical Institutes School of Hygiene and Public Health George L. Carlo Epidemiology, Health and Environmental Sciences Dow Chemical U.S.A. Neal Castagnoli, Jr. Department of Chemistry & Pharmaceutical Chemistry University of California Theodore Colton School of Public Health Boston University James Davis Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States Frederic Halbert Public Representative George B. Hutchison School of Public Health Harvard University Patricia King Georgetown Law Center Lewis Kuller Department of Epidemiology Graduate School of Public Health University of Pittsburgh
PAGE 87
86 Annual Report to the Congress for 1981 Claire O. Leonard School of Medicine University of Utah John F. Sommer, Jr. The American Legion John F. Terzano Vietnam Veterans of America Monte C. Throdahl Senior Vice President Environmental Policy Staff Monsanto Co. H. Michael D. Utidjian Corporate Medical Director American Cyanamid Co. Strategies for Medical Technology Assessment Advisory Panel Lester Breslow, Chairperson School of Public Health University of California Morris Cohen Director of Technology Assessment Department of Medical Methods Research The Permanence Medical Group Richard Cooper Williams and Connolly, Inc. D. V. dArbeloff Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Millipore Corp. Harvey Fineberg School of Public Health Harvard University Jerome D. Frank The Henry Phipps Psychiatric Clinic The Johns Hopkins Hospital William Goffman School of Library Science Case Western Reserve University Leon Greene Vice President New Product Technology Smith Kline & French Laboratory, Inc. David Harrier Orthopedic Surgeon Stanley B. Jones Vice President Blue Cross/Blue Sheild Association F. Wilfiid Lancaster Graduate School of Library and Information Science University of Illinois Louise B. Russell The Brookings Institution Herbert Semmel President Consumer Coalition for Health Robert M. Veatch Kennedy Institute of Ethics Richard W. Vilter American College of Physicians College of Medicine University of Cincinnati Kenneth E. Warner School of Public Health University of Michigan Richard N. Watkins Staff Physician Group Health Cooperative Carol Weiss Graduate School of Education Harvard University Kerr L. White Deputy Director of Health Sciences Rockefeller Foundation Strategies for Medical Technology Assmsment Boston Univemity Workshop Participants Robert Austrian Department of Research Medicine School of Medicine University of Pennsylvania Ralph DAgostino Department of Mathematics Boston University Harvey Fineberg School of Public Health Harvard University Leonard Saxe Department of Psychology Boston University Alexander M. Walker Sydney Farber Cancer Institute School of Public Health Harvard University John E. Wennberg Department of Community and Family Medicine Dartmouth Medical School John W. Williamson Department of Health Services Administration School of Hygiene & Public Health The Johns Hopkins University
PAGE 88
Appendix Alist of Advisors and Panel Members .87 Paul M. Wortman Institute for Social Research University of Michigan Technology and Handicapped People Workshop Participants Claus Bahnson Woodrow Wilson Center Smithsonian Institution Jane Baird Committee on Education and Labor U.S. House of Representatives Louis Bransford Public Service Satellite Consortium Terry Chase Bureau of Social Science Research Fay Cook School of Education Northwestern University Debra Cornelius RRRI-ALLB Joan Costello School of Social Service Administration University of Chicago Judy Cravens NCCMHC Sam Crouch Center for the Study of Welfare Policy University of Chicago Kay Ellis RRI-ALLB William English Rehabilitation Training Center University of Oregon Helen Picard Department of Psychology George Washington University Robinsue Frohboese Committee on Labor and Human Resources United States Senate James Garrett World Rehabilitation Fund Eva Gavillan Washington, D.C. Tom Gilhool Public Interest Law Center Joe Gilmore Director for Personnel Preparation Office of Special Education John Gliedman New York Herman Goldberg Acting Director Office of Special Education Richard Harris Office of Handicapped Services Ball State University Deborah Jennings National Association of State Mental Retardation Program Directors Tom Joe Center for the Study of Welfare Policy University of Chicago Evan Kemp Disability Rights Center Mike Kuber U.S. Council for the International Year of Disabled Persons Mary Lang Legal Assistance Program SUNY School of Law Sharon Lansing Management Instruction Resources Dick Lash New York Joyce Lazar National Institute of Mental Health Richard Beinecke U.S. Council for the International Year of Disabled Persons Robert Lichter Graduate Program of Science and Technology Ron Mace Barrier-Free Environment Paul Marchand Government Affairs Office ARC Susan McElroy U.S. Council for the International Year of the Disabled Persons Sheila McVeigh Albany, New York Sharon Menkveld Department of Orthopedics Childrens Hospital Sharon Mistier Office of General Counsel Community Services Administration Tom Nerney Executive Director Connecticut Association of Mentally Retarded Citizens
PAGE 89
Mark Ozer Ozer Associates Washington, D.C. Jody Palmour Washington, D.C. David Park National Park Service Department of Interior Charles Picard U.S. Council for the International Year of Disabled Persons Joe Piccolino New York State Department of Vocational Rehabilitation Carolyn Del Polito American Society of Allied Health Profession s Margaret Porter Department of Health & Human Services Ruth Purtilo Institute of Health Professions Massachusetts General Hospital Myrta Quadra New York Reese H. Robrahn Director American Coalition of Citizens With Disabilities, Inc. Cheryl Rogers Center for the Study of Welfare Policy University of Chicago Ann Rosewater Committee on Education and Labor U.S. House of Representatives Helga Roth Office of Handicapped individuals U.S. Department of Education Larry Scadden Acting Director National Institute of Handicapped Research Washington, D.C. Leslie Scallet Harold Yuker Hofstra University Gail Schultz The Washington Business Group on Health Lynn Schultz National Mental Health Association Stanley Smits College of Business Administration Georgia State University Shirley Starr National Alliance for the Mentally III Raymond Starr Office of Congressman Solarz Tom Strax Moss Rehabilitation Hospital Tom Stripling Paralyzed Veterans of America Jule Sugarman U.S. Council for the International Year of Disabled Persons Jack Tringo Office of Special Education Irving Zola Department of Sociology Brandeis University Lois Weithorn National Mental Health Association Human Resources Program Biotechnology Advisory Panel Zsolt Harsanyi Howard Bremer E. F. Hutton Patent Council Michael Hooker Wisconsin Alumni Research Federation The Johns Hopkins University Brook Byers Peter Hutt Kleiner, Perkins, Caufield & Byers Covington and Burling Robert Fildes David Jackson Biogen, Inc. Genex Corp. Julian Greaser William Maxon Massachusetts Institute of Technology Upjohn Co. Ralph Hardy Laura Meagher E. 1. du Pent de Nemours & Co. North Carolina Biotechnology Center
PAGE 90
Appendix AList of Advisors and Panel Members .89 Robert Miller University of Texas at Dallas Dorothy Nelkin Cornell University Norman Oblon Oblon, Fisher, Spivak, McClelland & Maier, PC David Padwa Agrigenetics David Parkinson Falk Clinic Phillip A. Sharp Center for Cancer Research Massachusetts Institute of Technology William J. Whelan School of Medicine University of Miami John Zysman University of California, Berkeley Genetic Screening Advisory Panel Arthur D. Bloom, Chairman College of Physicians and Surgeons Columbia University J. Grant Brewen Allied Chemical Corp. Eula Bingham Department of Environmental Health University of Cincinnati Patricia Buffler University of Texas School of Public Health Ira Cisin Social Research Group George Washington University Burford W. Culpepper Medical Division E. I. du Pent de Nemours & Co. James D. English United Steelworkers of America Neil Holtzman Johns Hopkins Hospital Paul Kotin Thomas O. McGarity School of Law University of Texas at Austin Rafael Moure Oil, Chemical, and Atomic Workers Union Robert F. Murray, Jr. Howard University College of Medicine Elena Nightingale Institute of Medicine National Academy of Sciences Gilbert Omenn The Brookings Institute William N. Rom Rocky Mountain Center for Occupational and Environmental Health University of Utah Medical Center Stuart Schweitzer Program in Health Planning and Policy Analysis UCLA School of Public Health Robert Veatch The Kennedy Institute of Ethics Georgetown University World Population Advisory Panel Philip R. Lee, Chairman Health Policy Program School of Medicine University of California Leona Baumgartner Kenneth Boulding Institute of Behavioral Science University of Colorado Wilbur J. Cohen Lyndon Baines Johnson School of Public Affairs University of Texas Cyril Crocker School of Medicine Howard University Arthur Dyck Harvard Divinity School William N. Hubbard, Jr. President The Upjohn Co. Snehendu B. Kar School of Public Health University of California Nathan Keyfitz Harvard University Center for Population Studies Marjory Mecklenburg* American Citizens Concerned for Life Deborah Oakley School of Nursing University of Michigan Kenneth J. Ryan Boston Hospital for Women Nafis Sadik United Nations Fund for Population Activities Carol Tauer Department of Philosophy College of St. Catherine l Resigned February 1981 to assume position at the Department of Health and Human Services.
PAGE 91
Faye Wattleton President Planned Parenthood Federation of America Impacts of Applied Genetics Advisory Panel J. E. Legates, Chairman Dean, School of Agriculture and Life Sciences North Carolina State University Ronald E. Cape Cetus Corp. Nina V. Federoff Department of Embryology Carnegie Institution of Washington June Goodfield The Rockefeller University Harld P. Green Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver and Kampelman Halsted R. Holman Stanford University Medical School M. Sylvia Krekel Health and Safety Office Oil, Chemical, and Atomic Workers International Union Elizabeth Kutter The Evergreen State College Oliver E. Nelson, Jr. Laboratory of Genetics University of Wisconsin David Pimentel Department of Entomology Cornell University Robert Weaver Department of Agricultural Economics Pennsylvania State University James A. Wright Plant Breeding Division Pioneer Hi-Bred International Norton D. Zinder The Rockefeller University SCIENCE, I NFORMATION, AND NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION Technological Innovation and Health, Victor H. Frankel Safety, and Environmental Regulation Department of Orthopedics Advisory Panel University of Washington Donald F. Hornig, Chairman Herbert I. Fusfeld Director, Interdisciplinary Programs in Director Public Health School of Public Health Harvard University John R. Bartlit Chairman New Mexico Citizens for Clean Air and Water Joseph B. Bidwell* Executive Director GM Research Laboratory John R. Blizard Manager Government Affairs Corning Glass Corp. Robert M. Collins Center for Science and Technology Policy Graduate School of Public Administration New York University R. Eugene Goodson** Hoover Universal, Inc. Peter Barton Hutt Covington & Burling Joseph T. Ling Vice President for Environmental Affairs 3M Co. Claire Nader Consultant President and Chairman of the Board Roger G. Nell Cobe Laboratories, Inc. Professor David J. Fogarty Director, Division of Humanities an d Senior Vice President Social Sciences Southern California Edison Co. California Institute of Technology l Replaced William G. Agnew, Technical Director. l l A~lia~ with Purdue University during term on panel.
PAGE 92
Appendix AList of Advisors and Panel Members l 91 Frederick J. Rarig* Vice President and Associate General Council Rohm & Haas Co. Charles H. Tupper Director, Safety Department International Brotherhood of Electric Workers Jaqueline Warren* l Natural Resources Defense Council James W. Young Manager of Regulatory Affairs Zoecon Corp. Airport and Air Traffic Control Advisory Panel Raymond L. Bisplinghoff, Chairman Vice President and Director of R&D Tyco Laboratories Jesse Borthwick Executive Director National Association of Noise Control Officials Secor D. Browne Secor D. Browne Associates, Inc. Jack Enders president Flight Safety Foundation, Inc. Robert Everett president The Mitre Corp. Matthew Finucane Aviation Consumer Action Project William T. Hardaker Assistant Vice President Air Navigation/Traffic Control Air Transport Association William Horn, Jr. National Business Aircraft Association, Inc. Jack D. Howell Air Line Pilots Association, International Alton G. Keel, Jr. Assistant Secretary of the Air Force Research, Development and Logistics Clifton A. Moore General Manager City of Los Angeles Department of Airports Thomas L. Oneto Planning Ol%cer Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association Robert E. Poli President Professional Air Traffic Controllers Association Gilbert F. Quinby Consultant Janet St. Mark President SMS Associates David S. Stempler Airline Passengers Richard Taylor Vice President Association Boeing Commercial Airplane Co. David Thomas Consultant General Aviation Manufacturers Association Space Program Advisory Panel Jerry Grey, Chairman Hugh Downs Administrator of Public Policy American Broadcasting Co. American Institute of Aeronautics Terry Dawson, Jr. and Astronautics The Analytic Sciences Corp. Fred E. Bradley Director Daniel J. Fink Advanced Space Program Senior vice President McDonnell Douglas Astronautics Corporate Planning & Development General Electric Co. Sam Brown Arnold Frutkin John G. Burke Director, Market Development Department of History Pacific-Canada Division University of California The Burroughs Corp. Hal Clement (Harry Stubbs) Author Currently retired. **Affi1iated with Environmental Defense Fund during most of term on panel.
PAGE 93
Eilene Galloway Honorary Director International Institute of Space Law of the International Astronautical Federation Ivan Getting Consultant Willis M. Hawkins Senior Advisor Lockheed Corp. Ida R. Hoos Research Sociologist Space Sciences Laboratory University of California James A. Lovell President Fisk Telephone Systems, Inc. Michael B. McElroy Abbot Lawrence Retch Professor of Atmospheric Chemistry Division of Applied Sciences Center for Earth & Planetary Physics Harvard University James A. Michener Author Bernard J. OKeefe Chairman & Chief Executive Officer EG&G, Inc. Thomas O. Paine President and Chief Operating Officer Northrop Corp. Merton J. Peck Chairman Department of Economics Yale University Marcia Smith Science Policy Research Division Congressional Research Service Martin Summerfield President Princeton Combustion Research Laboratories, Inc. Verner E. Suomi Director Space Science & Engineering Center University of Wisconsin Anthony F. C. Wallace Professor Department of Anthropology University of Pennsylvania Roy A. Welch Professor Department of Geography University of Georgia Space Policy Atternativea Workshop Attendees Jerry Grey, Chairman Administrator of Public Policy American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Russell Drew President Science and Technology Consultants Louis Friedman Planetary Society Ronald Konkel Planning Offices National Bureau of Standards John Logsdon Technoscience Association Arthur Morrissey Senior Policy Analyst, Space Affairs Office of Science and Technology Policy Executive Office of the President Willis Shapley Robert Shaw Manager, New Business Exxon Enterprises Jerome Simonoff Vice President Citibank David Williamson Assistant for Special Projects NASA Headquarters Satellite Communications l nd Remote Senaing Commercialization Workshop Attendees Ralph Bernstein IBM Scientific Center Dennis Burnett COMSAT Charles Dannaman Space Operations Group General Electric Co. David Ferguson Material Resources information System Task Force Information Systems and Services Robert Greenberg Leonard Jaffe Computer Sciences Corp. Vladimir Naleskewicz Satellite Systems Engineering Charles Sheffield Earth Satellite Corp.
PAGE 94
Appendix Alist of Advisors and Panel Members l 93 Don Walklet Terra-Mar Associates R. Gordon Williams TRW Electronics and Defense Materials Processing in Space Workshop Attendees Darrell Branscome Staff Director Committee on Science and Technology U.S. House of Representatives Joseph E. Coleman Program Development Manager McDonnell Douglas Astronautics Co. David Cummings Executive Director Universities Space Research Associations Donald Edgecombe (Alternate: Alfred Robinson) Battelle Columbus Laboratories Charles Fritts Evaluator National Productivity Group U.S. General Accounting Office Laurence Gilchrist Staff Officer Space Applications Board National Research Council James A. Kirk Associate Professor Department of Mechanical Engineering The University of Maryland John Logsdon Director Graduate Program in Science, Technology, and Public Policy George Washington University Louis Testardi Director Material Processing in Space Divison NASA International Commercialization Workshop Attendees Jean-Pierre Fouquet Scientific Attache for Space Affairs Embassy of France \ Tadahico Inada NASDA Representative Embassy of Japan Ryo Kimura International Space Division Science & Technology Agency Embassy of Japan Sebastian Lasher lntelsat Wilfred Mellors Director Washington Office ESA Kenneth Pederson Director International Affairs NASA Headquarters Space Transportation Workshop Attendees W. C. Armstrong Northrop Services, Inc. William French United Technology Corp. Chuck Gould Rockwell International Corp. Don Ingram Grumman Aerospace Corp. Gilbert Keyes Boeing Aerospace Co. Gilbert Moore Thiokol Corp. Morgan Sanborn Rockwell International Corp. Charles Tringali Lockheed Corp. Robert White General Dynamics Corp. James Wilson McDonnell Douglas Astronautics Kenneth Zitek Martin Marietta Aerospace Corp. Remote Sensing Workshop Attendees Wolf Drews World Bank Roland Inlow OAO Ahmed Meer Department of State James Nycum U.S. General Accounting Office Charles Parrish Executive Vice President Earth Resources Data Analysis Charles Paul Agency for International Development Irv Pikus National Science Foundation
PAGE 95
94 l Annual Report to the congress for 1981 Bruce Rado Bill Wigton Georgia State Department of Department of Agriculture National Resources Rich Williams Ed Risley U.S. Geological Survey Department of the Interior Robotics Workshop Participants Roy Amara, Chairman President Institute for the Future Paul Aron Executive Vice President Daiwa Securities America, Inc. James K. Bakken Vice President of Operations Support Staffs Ford Motor Co. Donald C. Burnham Retired Chairman Westinghouse Electric Corp. Laura Conigliaro Bache Halsey Stuart Shields, Inc. Robert W. Duffy Vice President Corporate MFG Services Honeywell, Inc. Joseph Engelberger President Unimation Corp. & Consolidated Control Corp. Donald F. Ephlin Vice President International Union United Auto Workers Bela Gold Research Program in Industrial Economics Case Western Reserve University Margaret Graham Professor Harvard Business School John Kendrick Department of Economics George Washington University Robert B. Kurtz Senior Vice President General Electric Co. Ronald L. Larsen NASA RTE-6 Alvin P. Lehnerd Vice President-New Products R & D Black and Decker Manufacturing Co. Eli S. Lustgarten Vice President Paine Webber Mitchell Hutchins Inc. Reginald Newell Director of Research I.A.M. Gordon 1. Robertson President Control Automation, Inc. Bernard M. Sallott Director of Technical & Governmental Activities Society of Mfg. Engineers Harley Shaiken Research Fellow Science, Technology and Society Program Massachusetts Institute of Technology Ken Susnjara President Thermwood Corp. Patent System Advisory Panel Donald Banner Schuyler, Banner, Birch, McKie & Beckett J, Fred Bucy President Texas Instruments, Inc. C. Marshall Dann Dann, Dorfman, Herrell & Skillman Henry Grabawski Department of Economics Duke University Seymour Hollander General Legal & Patent Counsel Bell Laboratories Auzville Jackson, Jr. Vice President Research & Technology Robertshaw Controls Co. Norman A. Jacobs President Amicon Corp.
PAGE 96
Append/x AList of Advisors and Panel Members l 95 Willard Marcy Vice President Patents Program Research Corp. Simon Mencher S. K. Mencher Assocaciates, Inc. Thomas E. Osborne President Logic Design William E. Riley Director of Marketing Battelle Development Corp. M. Robert Showalter President Automotive Engine Associates Richard H. Stern Baker & Hostetler John P. Sutton Limbach, Limbach & Sutton Gerald Udell Faith Center David S. Urey General Attorney-Patents United States Steel Corp. Information Technology and Education Advisory Panel Willis Adcock Assistant Vice President Texas Instruments, Inc. Joel N. Bloom Director Franklin Institute Science Museum and Planetarium Colleen Cayton Development Officer Denver Public Library Robert L. Chartrand Senior Specialist in Information Technology and Policy Congressional Research Service The Library of Congress Mark Curtis President Association of American Colleges L Linton Deck Superintendent Fairfax County Schools Sam Gibbon Executive Producer Childrens Television Workshop Harold Howe, 11 Gutman Library Harvard Graduate School of Education Robert Hoye Director Instructional Technology University of Louisville Judy Lozano Superintendent of Southside School District Maurice Mitchell Chairman of the Board National Public Radio Sarah Resnick President Media Systems Corp. Vic Walling Policy Analyst Stanford Research Institute Nellouise Watkins Director, Computer Center Bennett College Joe Wyatt Vice President, Administration Harvard University Telecommunication Advisory Panel Richard B. Marsten, Chairman Board on Telecommunications & Computer Applications National Research Council General L. E. Adams Executive Vice President Armed Forces Communications and Electronics Association Roger C. Aude Executive Officer International Communications Assocociation Ruth S. Baker-Battest Attorney at Law K. Woodward Benekert Chairman of the Board of the U.S. Transmission Systems International Telephone & Telegraph Corp. A. G. W. Biddle President Computer & Communications Industry Assocociation James B. Booe Assistant to the President Communications Workers of America
PAGE 97
Kurt Borchardt Harvard Program on Resources Policy Harvard University Warren Braren Associate Director Consumers Union Willard T. Carleton Professor Information Department of Finance University of North Carolina Joseph V. Charyk President Communications Satellite Corp. Ralph L. Clark Consultant Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Harry Dannals President American Radio Relay League Lee L. Davenport Vice president, Chief Scientist General Telephone & Electronic Corp. Francis DeRosa Vice President RCA Global Communications, Inc. William D. English Vice President Satellite Business Systems James Fellow President National Association of Educational Broadcasting Emanuel Fthenakis President American Satellite Corp. George Gray Special Representative for Government Relations National Association of Broadcasters Jerry Gray Administrator for Public Policy American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Walter R. Hinchman Walter Hinchman Associates, Inc. Edward W. Hummers, Jr. President Federal Communications Bar Association Manley Irwin Professor Whittemore School of Business and Economics University of New Hampahire Charles P. Johnson Vice President Independent Data Communications Manufacturers Association, Inc. c/o General Data Communications Industries, Inc. Jack Kinn Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Lane Kirkland President American Federation of Labor & Congress of Industrial Organizations Jo Ann Klimschot Research Associate Common Cause Arthur Korff Director, Cable Television Department International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Norman Lerner President Transcomm, Inc. Richard Long Executive Director North American Telephone Association George Mansur President Aeronautical Radio, inc. Rev. Donald C. Matthews General Executive Ofiice of Communications Telecommunications Consumer Coalition United Church of Christ Billy B. Oliver Vice President Engineering Planning AT&T Long Lines Department Billy B. Oxley Senior Vice President for Distribution National Public Radio Edward W. Page (Ex officio) Department of Computer Science Clemson University George E. Pickett Executive Vice President United States Independent Telephone Association G. R USIM U Pipe Translational Data Reporting Service, Inc.
PAGE 98
Appendix AList of Advisors and Panel Members l 97 Ithiel De Sola Pool Professor Department of Political Science Massachusetts Institute of Technology Paul Reardon Deputy Director Economic Policy Center Chamber of Commerce of the U.S. Michael Ridder President Commodity News Service Bert C. Roberts, Jr. MCI Telecommunications Corp. Lawrence Roberts President Telenet Communications Corp. Robert W. Ross Senior Vice-President National Cable Television Association Robert L. Schmidt President National Cable Television Association John Shattuck Director American Civil Liberties Union Samuel Simon Executive Director National Citizens Committee for Broadcasting Larry Singer Attorney at Law Fager & Singer John Sodolski Vice President Electronics Industry Association Reinhard Stamminger President Future Systems, Inc. Bernard Strassburg Robert Sutliff Representative for the Governors Office of New York Chief Systems Planner New York Public Service Commission Harry M. Trebing Director Institute of Public Utilities Graduate School of Business Administration Michigan State University Carver L. Washburn Vice President, Business Development Western Union Corp. Ron Wheatley Computer and Business Equipment Manufacturers Association Val J. Williams President National Association of Business and Educational Radio Lee Wing Executive Director North Carolina Agency for Public Telecommunication Elizabeth L. Young President Public Service Satellite Consortium Education Technology Marketing Workshop Participants Sarah Resnick, Chairman President Media Systems Corp. Dick Ballard TALMIS George Blank Creative Computing Robert C. Bowen President School Publishing McGraw-Hill Book Co. Dee Brock PBS Beth Brown Consultant Christopher Dede University of Houston Seymour Eskow President Rockland Community College Samuel Y. Gibbon, Jr. Childrens Television Workshop Dustin Heuston Chairman WICAT, Inc. Jim Johnson Office of the President University of Iowa Sharon Lansing Linda Roberts Consultant Department of Education Richard Robinson President Scholastic, Inc.
PAGE 99
98 l Annual Report to the Congress s for 1981 Telecommunication, Technologies special Panel Edward W. Page, Chairman Department of Computer Science Clemson University Paul Baran Cabledata Associates Douglas Crombie Director Institute for Telecommunication Sciences U. S. Department of Commerce John Clark Director, Space Applications and Technology RCA Corp. Burton I. Edelson Vice President of Systems Technology COMSAT Corp. Robert K. Geiger Director, Development Martin-Marietta Aerospace Dean Gillette Executive Director Systems Research Bell Telephone Laboratories Richard G. Gould President Telecommunication Systems Richard Marsten Board on Telecommunications & Computer Applications National Research Council Geogory E. Masterson Assistant Technical Director Computer Systems International Telephone & Telegraph Corp. Wilbur Pritchard President Satellite Systems Engineering, inc. Joe Sobala NASA Headquarters David L. Solomon Deputy Assistant Technical Policy and Operations Department of Defense Harry J. Talberth Group Leader Communications Engineering The MITRE Corp. Charles K. Watt Deputy Director of Defense Test and Evaluation Office of the Secretary of Defense National Information Systems Overview Advisory Panel Susan Nycum, Chairperson Gaston Snow& Ely Bartlett Roy Amara President Institute for the Future Paul Baran President Cabledata Associates Harold P. Belcher General Manager Advanced Mail Systems U.S. Postal Service Robert L. Chartrand Congressional Research Service The Library of Congress Kent Colton Presidents Commission on Housing Donald Dunn Engineering-Economic Systems Department Stanford University Maurice W. Gregg Senior Vice President, Finance National Retail Merchants Association The Gap Stores, Inc. Jeremiah Gutman New York City EFT Commission & ACLU Privacy Commission Levy, Gutman, Goldberg & Kaplan J. Robert Harcharik President Tymnet, Inc. Rob Kling Assistant Professor Department of Information and Computer Science University of California, Irvine John C. LeGates Director Program on Information Resources Policy Henry Lucas Chairman Computer Application and Information Systems Graduate School of Business Administration New York University Daniel D. McCracken Arthur S. Miller Sharon Nelson
PAGE 100
Appendix Alist of Advisors and Panel Members 99 Phil Nybarg MCI G. Russell Pipe European Director Translational Data Report Amsterdam, Holland Ithiel De Sola Pool Department of Political Science Massachusetts Institute of Technology James Rule State University of New York Stony Brook Richard M. Schmidt American Society of Newspaper Editors Sherry Turkle School of Humanities and Social Sciences Massachusetts Institute of Technology Ron Uhlig Manager Business and Services Planning Bell Northern Research Lab Jacques Vallee President INFOMEDIA Carl Vorlander Executive Director National Association of State Information Systems Fred W. Warden Willis Ware The Rand Corp. Iram Weinstein System Planning Corp. Alan F. Westin Electronic Funds Transfer Advisory Panel Kent Colton, Chairman Presidents Commission on Housing Wayne I. Boucher Roland R. Eppley, Jr. President Eastern States Bank Card Association John Fisher BANC ONE First Bank Group of Ohio, Inc. Maurice W. Gregg Senior Vice President, Finance The Gap Stores, Inc. Jeremiah S. Gutman Levy, Gutman, Goldberg & Kaplan Michael Levine Citibank Allen Lipis President Electronic Banking, Inc. Howard Mandelbaum Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. John McDonnell, Jr. Eastern Regional Manager Tymnet, Inc. Susan Nycum Gaston Snow & Ely Bartlett William H. Riley James Rule Department of Sociology State University of New York Jerome Svigals IBM Willis Ware The Rand Corp. Bob Zimmer Counsel Electronic Money Council National Information Systems Technology Advisory Panel Paul Baran, Chairman President Cabledata Associates Craig Fields Senior Program Manager ARPA Vico Henriques CBEMA Lance Hoffman Department of Electrical, Engineering and Computer Science School of Engineering and Applied Science The George Washington University Dean Gillette Executive Director Systems Research Division Bell Telephone Labs, Inc. Kas Kalba President Kalba Bowen Associates, Inc. Theodore Myer GTE Telenet Daniel McCracken Phil Nyborg MCI Dorm B. Parker Senior Management Systems Consultant SRI International
PAGE 101
Ron Uhlig Manager Business and Services Planning Bell Northern Research Labs Frederic Withington Arthur D. Little, inc. Paul G. Zurkowski President information Industry Association National Crime Information Center Advisory Panel Arthur S. Miller, Chairman Professor Joe Armstrong Jerry Berman Legislative Counsel Washington Office American Civil Liberties Union Gerald Caplan Professor National Law Center The George Washintong University Robert Gallati College of Criminal Justice Northeastern University Lance Hoffman Department of Electrical, Engineering and Computer Science School of Engineering and Applied Science The George Washington University John J. Kennedy Director, Peter W. Rodino institute of Criminal Justice Jersey City State College Steve Kolodney Executive Director SEARCH Group, inc. Barry Mahoney Institute for Court Management Jeffrey A. Meldman Sloan School of Management Massachusetts Institute of Technology Arthur R. Miller Professor The Law School Harvard University Christopher Pyle Mount Holyoke College James Rule State University of New York Richard M. Schmidt American Society of Newspaper Editors Carl Vorlander Executive Director National Association for State Information Systems Iram Weinstein System Planning Corp. Elyce H. Zenoff Professor The National Law Center The George Washington University Radio frequency Use and Management Impacts From the 1979 World Radio Conference Advisory Panel Thomas E. Nelson, Chairman Ambassador Jacob Beam Nolan Bowie Paul Dembling John M. Eger Vice President Strategic Planning and International Development CBS James C. Fletcher Federal and Special Systems Group Burroughs Corp. Walter R. Hinchman Walter Hinchman Associates Harvey J. Levin Hofstra University Edgar T. Martin Ithiel De Sola Pool Professor Department of Political Science Massachusetts Institute of Technology Raymond E. Spence M. Jon Vondracek Director of Communications Center for Strategic and International Studies Georgetown University Admiral Grover M. Yowell WARC-Taak Team 6 Advisory Panel George Codding Ronald S. Eward President MarTech Strategies, Inc. Richard Gould Telecommunications Systems
PAGE 102
Appendix A-list of Advisors and Panel Members l 101 Heather E, Hudson Director Telecommunications Applications Academy for Education Development, Inc. Nicholas Marzella Future Systems, Inc. Harley Radin Leonard R. Raish Attorney at Law Fletcher, Heald & Hildreth Reinhard Stamminger President Future Systems, Inc. John A. Stein Future Systems, Inc. Patent Term Extension and the Pharmaceutical Industry Advisory Working Groups James F. Flug Lobel Novins & Lament Henry Grabowski Marcia Greenberger Center for Law & Social Policy Ronald W. Hansen University of Rochester Graduate School of Management Peter Hutt Covington and Burling Kenneth N. Larsen President Zenith Laboratories, Inc. David H. MacCallum Paine Webber Mitchell & Hutchins Robert Moser Executive Director American College of Physicians Joseph Oddis Executive Director American Society of Hospital Pharmacists Mick Riddiough Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Associations Lewis Sarett Senior Vice President Science and Technology Merck and Co., Inc. Leonard G. Schifrin Department of Economics College of William and Mary William Vodra Arnold and Porter Fred Wegner NRTA-AARP William A. Zellmer American Society of Hospital Pharmacists Patent Information Retrieval Workshop Participants Jim Arshem Science and Engineering Division Denver Public Library t Patricia Wilson Berger Chief Library & Information Services National Bureau of Standards R. H. Blaker E. I. du Pent de Nemours, Inc. Anne Kornbau George Lewett Director OERI National Bureau of Standards P. James Terrango Pergamon International Information Corp. Dan Wilde NERAC Mansfield Professional Park Jan Williams Monsanto Co. Education Technologies Federal Workshop Participants John Cameron Public Telecommunication Facility Program Department of Commerce Joe Lipson National Science Foundation Tom Loftis Director Office of Training Office of Personnel Management Arthur Melmed National Institute of Education Department of Education Andy Molnar National Science Foundation William OConnor Continuing Education & Staff Development Services Department of Medicine and Surgery Veterans Administration 92-921 0 S2 7
PAGE 103
l02 l Annual Report to the congress for 1981 Linda Roberts Fred Wood Educational Policy Fallow Department of Agriculture Division of Educational Technology U. S. Department of Education Andy Zucker Department of Education Alvin Tucker Director of Training and Education OASD (MRA & L) Pentagon Nuclear Waste Advisory Panel Hans Frauenfelder, Chairman Department of Physics University of Illinois Seymour Abrahamson Department of Zoology University of Wisconsin Frank Collins Private Consultant Floyd Culler President Electric Power Research Institute J. William Futrell Environmental Law Institute Edward Goldberg Scripps Institution of Oceanography University of California William W. Hambleton Director Kansas Geological Survey The University of Kansas Harriet Keyserling Terry Lash Private Consultant Kai Lee Institute for Environmental Studies University of Washington Jeanne Malchon Peter Montague Center for Environmental Studies Princeton University Glenn Paulson Vice President for Science National Audubon Society Howard Raiffa Harvard Business School William A. Thomas University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Mason Willrich Vice President-Corporate planning Pacific Gas and Electric Co. Donald Wodrich Rockwell International John Yasinsky General Manager Advanced Power Systems Divisions Westinghouse Electric Corp. Impacts of Inadvertent Atmospheric Alterations Mvisory Panel Norton Nelson, Chairman New York University Medical Center Thomas H. Brand Edison Electric Institute Robert Wilbur Brocksen Manager Ecological Effects Program Electric Power Research institute Jack George Calvert National Center for Atmospheric Research David Hawkins Natioal Resources Defense Council, Inc. Edward A. Helme National Governors Association Richard L. Kerch Consolidation Coal Anne LaBastille Commissioner Adirondack Park Agency Gene E. Likens Professor of Ecology Section of Ecology and Systematic Cornell University Donald H. Pack Carl Shy Professor of Epidemiology School of Public Health University of North Carolina Lester Thurow Sloan School of Management -.Massachusetts Institute of Technology George H. Tomlinson, II Domtar, Inc.
PAGE 104
Appendix B OTA Ac t Public Law 92-484 92nd Congress, H. R. 10243 October 13, 1972 An Act 86 STAT* 797 T O establish an Office Of Technology Assessment for the Congress as l id in the Identification and consideration of existing and probable impacts of technological application; to l mend the National Sciene Foundation Act of 1950; and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled That this Act may he cited as the Technology Assessm ent Act of 1972. FINDINGS AND DECLARATION OF PURPOSE Sec. 2. The Congress hereby finds and declares that: (a) As technology continues to change and expand rapidly, its applications are-(1) large and growing in scale; and (2) increasing extensive, pervasive, and critical in their impact, beneficial and adverse, on the natural and social environment. (b) Therefore, it is essential that to the fullest extent possible, the consequences of technological applications be anticipated, understood, and considered in determination of public policy on existing and emerging national problems. (c) The Congress further finds that : (1) the Federal agencies presently responsible directly to the Congress are not designed to provide the legislative branch with adequate and timely information. independently developed relating to the potential impact of technological applications, and (2) the present mechanisms of the Congress do not and are not designed to provide the legislative branch with such information. (d) Accordingly, it is necessary for the Congress (1) equip itself with new and effective means for securing competent. unbiased. information concerning the physical, bioIogical, economic. social and political effects of such applications; and (2) utilize this information factor in the Iegislative assess whenever appropriate as one ent f atum Fedndi%$?%%% Congress particularly in those instances where the ernment may be called u n to consider support for. or manager ment or regulations of. technological applications. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT SEC. 3. (a) In accordance with the findings and declaration of purr puce in section 2. there is hereby created the Office of Technology Assessment (hereinafter referred to as the Office) which shall be within and responsible to the legislative branch of the Government. (b) The Office shall consist of a Technology 7? Assessment Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) whic shall formulate and promulgate the policies of the Office, and a Director who shall carry out such policies and administer the operations of the Office. (c) The basic function of the Office shall be to provide early indications of the probable beneficial and adverse impacts of the applicat ions of technology ConF and to develop other coordinate, information which may assist the 7 ongrvss. Tn rarrying out such function, the Office shall: ( 1 ) identify existing or probable impacts of technology or technological programs; Technology Assessment Act of 1972. Technology Assessment Board. Duties.
PAGE 105
104 Annual Report to the Congress for 1981 Pub. Law 92-48 4 -2 86 STAT. 798 October 13, 1972 Information availability, 81 Stat. 54. Membership. v where possible asecertain cause-and-effect relationships; (8) ldenti alternative technological methods of implementing (4) identify alternative programs for achieving requisite goals; (5) make estimates and comparisons of the impacts of alternative methods and programs (6) present findings of completed analyses to the appropriate 1 legislative authorities; (7) identify areas where additional research or data collection is required to provide adequate support for the assessments estimates described in paragraph (1) through (5) of this subsection; and (8) undertake such additional associated activities as the appropriate authorities specified under subsection (d) may direct(d) Assessment activities undertaken upon the request of: (l) the chairman of any standing, special, or select committee of either House of the Congress or of any joint committee of the Congress, acting for himself or at the request of the ranking minority member or a majority of the committee members; (2) the Board; or L (8) the Director, in consultation with the Board. (e) Assessments made by the Office, inclnding information surveys studies reports. and findings related thereto, shall be made available to the initiating committee or other appropriate commit! tees of the Congress. In addition, an such in information, surveys, studies~ reports, and findings produce by the Office may be made available to the public except where [1 Y (1) to do so would violate security statutes; or (2) the Board considers it necessary or advisable to withhold such information in accordance with one or more of the numbered Paragraphs in section 552(b) of title 5, United States Code. Technology ASSESSMENT Board Sec. 4. (a) The Board shall consist of thirteen members as follows: (I) six Members of the senate, appointed by the President pro tempera of the Senate, three from the majority party l nd three from the minority party; (2) six Members of the House of Representatives appointed by ssi the peaker of the House of Representative three from the majority ( tl? r y and three from the minority party; and 8) e rector, who shall not be a voting member. (b) vancies in the membership of the Board shall not l ffect the power of the remain i members to execute the functions of the Board and shall be filled in the same mannner as in the case of the original appointment. (c) The Board shall select a chairman and a vice chairman from among its members at the beginning of each Conress. The vice chairman shall act in the place and stead-of the chairman in the absence of the chairman. The chairmanship and the vice chai alternate between the Senate and the House of Represen rmanhip shall tatives with each Congress The chairman during each even-numbed Congress shall be selected by the Members of the House of Representatives o n the Board from among their number. The vice chairman during each
PAGE 106
Appendix B--OTA Act l 105 October 13, 1972 -3 Pub. Law 92-484 shall be chosen in the came manner from that House of Congress other than the House of congress of which the chairman is (d) The Board_ is authorized to sit and act at such places and times meetings. during the Sessions, recesses, and adjourned ~ = b 0 L&?f:::L5 2 n & : ~ -~T s boo4 paand docum enq to ~ rmO+*d+lirpw timq to such teatimony, to procure J=%%=; and to* such expenditure u it admsabl~ make mch rules mi~ ite organization aad procedure ae it &me neoemmy except that no recommendation ddl be reported fmm the Board unk a majority of the 130erd mt Subpenu mey be M over the signature of the cheirman of the Wad or of l y voting memher designated by him or by the Boud and nm he served by such k L mm or pereone as mA be deeignsted & euch c irman or member. chairman of the L rd or any vtiing mesnher thereof may ndminieter aatha or allkmatiane to witneaea Dxwxmlx Am) ImPrrr IxXMmw ilk. %. (s) % Director of the O&E of Techn~@Y ~ent skll be appointed by the Roerd and ehall serve for l term ?f xix yearn unb eooner removed b the Boerd. He shall receive tic pay / at the rate provided for leve III of the Exeeutive l SAednle under mtion 5814 of title 5, United States Code. (b) In addition to the powers and dutiea X in him by this Act, the Director till exmciee such powers and duties u may bP delegated tohim th6Boerd. (c) ?% e Director mav a point with the appnwal of the Bmr4 l r Deputy Director who &l r rform such functions as the Director may preecribe and who Ad be Acting Director during the aknce or incapacity of the Director or in the event of a tmcuq in the 06ce of Director. The De utv Dim@or shall receive Mc pay at the rate $ provided for level I 0{ the Ikecutivn .Schodule unckr sertion 6815 of title 5. Lnited States Code. (d) Witheq the Diqr nor the Deputy Director shall cin %h%&= ~ fiO n pi tkWO f ~ u~ Dmctor, the cue mey be; nor ehall Director or Deputy r@m, exceptowith the l pprov+ 0! the Boenl, hold q olllce w+ or act m an C8 or inetltution mth which &e &?#&%&%%%%%%% amangrment nnder this ActAur31mrm Txx C-(X SIC. 6. (s) The OIEce shall have the authority, within the limits of available l p ropriationq to de l ll things ~qy to carry out the provisions o this Art, including. hut withent hemg limibd tq the authorit b (J nuke full m of Competmt p?rmnlw 1 and or#z8tiaQa outside the = public or prim tack fo= or make ~her (9) *r into contmA8 ~ or @Jker a ~ for the conduct of the work JE!aSwith &y a@ency or mstnmwntality of the Unitd f#st~ with any ,%t*, t?mt~, MO**. Subpam. AppoAntmo14. capolm@*iam. 83 S-t. 863. hplwun rutmow Contlmdh
PAGE 107
Pub. ~W 92-484 -4 October 13, 1972 86 STAT. 600 or -on or epyo politioal euMivb~adtbeqof$ or with any =rfim~~ ~ Corporstli %0 uc8tlod inetitutio@ ut roimburermen~ wi u t Y rfomance or other bun 8nd Without rqard to eeotion 37000 Revimd ti~ 3 (41 .Sc. 5) ; ) -d-p?%Z%*%&&%&wfwf to +Iogy ~ T 8648 of the Revised Statuta ~!du*w 81 U.s.c. 599); Volllntuyd ~ neomuy for the oond~ of the work of tlp &%e md. lOvid@ transpor&tiom and ~ m authomsed by 80 S*%. 4$9J mctaomi 670$ of title 5, United Stata Q for pemm eerving 93 SM. 190. witkut comPen6atia* (5) acquire by pur&r+ ~ loaq or gi~ md hold and dieKle ~qfororresulting from r&%?#&ri~ of by ~ Ieaeq or 10U+ d ~ M b Act; and (6) prescribe euoh rules and regul+iti~f a#t_t necemuy T V-thtl operation ando Rnoldkoantlw (b Contmotore end other ~=~ into oontmcte and other Owpentiolb Poa901mol ddail. ?kborohip. to Under Uiieeectlon Whioh lnvohe Ooda to UKJ GommUMnt %%%&in ouch booke and mlatad reoorde u will faCilitataepMM&tive l dit in 8uoh detail and in euoh mumer z.>bv&E2&&$c
PAGE 108
Appmdlx B-WA Act l 107 October 13, 1972 -5 Pub. ~W 92-484 86 -AT *1 (1~] Tk COuncil u P quest by the kk+, ehall(1) review an meke mcanman datlam to & Bo@rd m 84vitiaa undertaken by the OIBce or OQ the initiatk thereof in acmrdance with section 8(d); (i?) IOVi@W end make ~tothewmtbe tidings of eny esmemmt made by or for the OMoe* and (8) undertake auoh additiond rekt@d taeka as tk &vi IWy dimcL (c) The counal by nmjori~ V* ahd elect frcun ~ta memti~ a point+ under aukim (a) (1) of thin aactkn l CkWnUI J%Urman who ahBll serve for euoh time uid under eu@ oonditi: u the council may praecrih In the dsence of the 0 in the event of his incapacity, the Vice Ch&mn shelled: 9 (hsirmen. -. d) The term Of & of each member Of the ~ !) qJ)Oiilti U un er subaa+cm (& 1 shall be four yeUS exoapt thk q S@ Y member l p a Vacency Ooourring prior to the eqmtaon o~rbbxmn r which hiep mdaceuor wus pointed ehdl ha appoiutad remainder of such tam No L be Sppointed s mmlbar of the Ckmnoil Jlnder on (a. (1) more than twica Ternm of the ~~*;~&-=~~~&y&=$~ (e)(1) The membem of the Council othe~*ti~~_u under aubeection (s) (1) till raceive no 3 membere of the Council. but ahsll be SIIOW necesaa ;= (or, in the alternative, mil~ fw~~~o:~n~el owned v and l per diem in lieu of euba@ence dbed in *ione 57fE2 and 5704 of title 5, United States C*% A &her neceesa~ expeneea incurred by them in the perhnance of duties veeted m the Council. without regard to the pmviaione of mlbchapter 1 of chapter 57 d section 57S1 of title 5. United States ~and regulations promulgated thereunder. (2) Themembemofthe Cmmcil ap intedunderaubaectmn % (s)(1) &l receive compensation for each T engaged in the actual p. nnance of duties vested in the Camci at rates of pay not in exa Genaal S&dub of section .5839(s) of title 5, I&ad Stetem Code, of& &ilv equivalent of the hiuheet rate of bic Y S& b b and in addition ehdl be mimbureed for travel, mhaisbnm andother naceaarv expenses in the mwmer provided for Other membme of tk Guncil under peragrap h (1) of thiseubemtion. SW. U (B) To carry out the objeotivea of this Act, the Libmrian of (amgreea is *llthOd.d to mdce 8VUbbk to the @be Such aarvk end Ilseietance of &l c ,ongmaeional Rrnmh .Service as msy b sppmpriate snd feasible. .() b kh eervicea and anutake mub available to* OIBoe eimll inc ud~ but. not be limited @ all of the services and aa@anoa which CUtiu. Chimall ad Vioo MImmh Tom 0? OmO.. Tnvol upomo8. 80 std. 498J 83 Stit. 190. 5 tsc 5701. Capamdhab the co %- ional Rawch .Rervica is othwwiaa authorized te provide tot C%ngreaa. (c) Nothing in this section ehall alter or modify any aarvkea or respmaibiliti other than than performed for the O&e+ which the % (Ymgrmiond eaaarrh .Servim under law perfonnn for or on lmhalf
PAGE 109
IW Annua/ Report to the Congress for 1981 86 STAT. 802 Pub. hW 92-484 -6 October 13, 1972 Soimtifio progms, rimming. 92 .%8** 360. 64 Std. 156; 32 Stat. 365. 42 KC 1873. of the (ongreas. The librarian is, however, tiuthorized to establish within ths Congressional Research Service such additional diviaions, grou or other or r 1? nizational entitiee as may bP neccmary to carry f~ut, t e purpose of t is +ct. (d) 5ervIcea and aesl~nceemwde avnilable to the Ot3ce by the Conp~oMl R=mh. Servwe.m accordance with this section ma y be prov~ded with or without rcnmburaement from funda of the (ltli~ aa agreed upon by the Board and the Librarian of (lmg~ 171TLIZAT10N OF THE OEN-F3AL ACCOUN.TXSO OFFNE S EC O. (a) Financial and administrative services (includin~ thotw related to budgeting, accounting, financial re tiing, personnel, and procurement) and such other services as may c appropriate shall be provided the Otliceby the General Accountm 05ca (b) Such emwicea and assistance to the & ce shall include, but not be limited to, all of the services and assistance which the General Accountin O&c is otherwise l uthorized to provide to the Congresa. K (c) Not mg in this acction shall alter or modify any aervicea or rvsponaibilitieq other than those r rformed for the OfBce, which the General Accounting O&J under aw performa for or on behalf of the (%33 resa. ($ services and assistance made available to the Otlice by the General Accounting O&e in accordance with this section mav be provided with or without reimbursement from funds of the Oi&. as agreed upon by the Board and the Comptroller General. (MIRDINAT14}S WITH T}II! NATIONAL SC11!NC3! SW) UNDAYION. 5hw. 10. (a) The Oflice aid maintain l continuing liaison with the National Science Foundation with respect to(1) grants and contracta formulated or activated ~{ttim~oundation which are for purpcm+ of technol~ ameasm ~~a~~~~;~;~~~~lnation ina~oftechnol ; ~. % mumxmry dupkation or over appimg of remarch activities in the development of technology aemmment technique and pm m~ r (b) Section 3(b) oft e National Science Foundation Act of 1950~ as amended 49 U.S.C. 1862(b ), ia amended to read as follows: k b(b) The oundation is au L orised to initiah and support apeciflc scientdic activitiaa in connection with matters relating to international cooperation, national eecurity, and the td?ecta of acimtific ap~liationa up-m atxiety by making contracts or other armngemente (mclud. gran~ 10s R%l 3 and other forms of aaaistance) for the conduct of au wtivitiea. en initiated or supported purauant to mqucxds made by t Jm other Federal department or agenc including the 05CQJ of Techno ogy Aaaeaam f ent, such activities shal be financed whenever feasible from funds transferred to the Foundation by the requdng ofRcial as provided in section 14( ), and any such activities shall be unclassified f ond shall he identified y the Foundation as being undertaken at the request of the appmprinte otllcial. .\ NW?AL REP03rr Sm.. 11. The OUice shall submit to the Conan annual m. R r %-hich shall include. but not h limited to. an evaluation of tachno ogy iisaeaament techniques tmd identification, insofar ns may Lw feasible, of tcchnologicnl arvaa and programs requiring future anal-yeia. Such Ixpti zANII k submitted not later thun Narch 15 of esch yenr.
PAGE 110
Appendix B-OTA Act l 109 October 13, 1972 -7 Pub. Law 92-484 86 STAT. 803 Appropriations Sec 12. (a) To enable the Office to carry out its powers and duties them is hereby authorized to be appropriated to the Ofice, out of in the Treasury not otherwise app a &%&OO in the ag#ega ~%cal appropriated, to ta for the two 1* and Jtana SO, 1 ~ and tbedter ~ June 80, auch auma aa may ba (b) Appro nationa made purauui 7 t to the authori@ s%?% aahxdon (8 shall rem8in ~ wdakde for obligati r tqendi*or for ob Y 3 ion and expenditure for auch @. or perioda u may be apsciil in tha Act making aucb l pproprldaona Approved October 13, 1972 LmIsLmvs ms?mvs HXJSE RSPORTSS No. 92d69 (Cam. oa Soiamo ~ Ast romutios) d [ No. 92d43d C-. of Conforonoo). SENATE RSFORT No. 92.1123 C-. on MU and hinirbmtion). 201@~SIONAL REcORD, Vol. llS (1972)8 Fob. 8, OOMidOFOd Uld tiSOd *ISO. Sopt.14J oomldorcd d pa,sod s-to, ammhd. scpt.22, soMt* -d to Oontazwmo rapcu% %. 4, Nowo agrood to Oonforomo report U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1982 0 92-921
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID EIAF6WXR0_6TV91P INGEST_TIME 2017-05-24T20:59:56Z PACKAGE AA00055446_00004
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
|