PAGE 1
Annual Report to the Congress: Fiscal Year 1984 March 1985
PAGE 2
Section Page I. Statements by the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Board, TAAC Chairman, and the Director of OTA. . 1 II. Year in Review . . . . . . . . . 7 111. Work in Progress . . . . . . . . . 49 IV. Organization and Operations . . . . . . 51 Appendixes A. Technology Assessment Advisory Council . . . . 61 B. List of Advisors and Panel Members . . . . . 63 C. OTA ActPublic Law 92-484 . . . . . . 116 111
PAGE 3
Section Chairman I.-Statements by the and Vice Chairman of the Board, TAAC Chairman, and the Director of OTA CHAIRMANS STATEMENTCONGRESSMAN MORRIS K. UDALL In the period of one decade, the Office of Technology Assessment has proved itself to be an influential organization in an international network of people and organizations who are concerned about the technical, social, and economic impact of a high-technology information society. OTA has proved its worth to its initial critics and it has more than gratified those of us who nurtured the agency through its early years. During fiscal year 1984 the agency has helped Congress wrestle with such diverse subjects as postal zip codes, the causes and cures of airport delays, and the policy choices necessary for a useful space program.
PAGE 4
. 2 l Annual Report to the Congress for 1934 VICE CHAIRMANS STATEMENTSENATOR TED STEVENS As we complete the 98th Congress it is apparent that Congress will continue to need technical analysis of issues which it will face in the coming year. Many of the issues which the 98th Congress faced will be revisited in the 99th Congress. These include: natural gas policy, clean air legislation and the problem of acid rain, and the cleanup of hazardous waste sites, just to name a few. These are in addition to the many budget and defense decisions which will have to be made decisions which also include some technological considerations. The incoming Congress will be closely examining all programs in the executive and the legislative branches to ensure that they are meeting the goals in the most efficient method possible. OTA should be able to assist in that process. Congress will also examine it along with the other congressional support agencies to ensure they are providing the type of information Congress requires to meet the new and changing demands facing our Nation.
PAGE 5
Section lStatements 3 TAAC CHAIRMANS STATEMENTCHARLES N. KIMBALL In the more than seven years that I have served on the Technology Assessment Advisory Council, OTA has grown from a small experimental agency to one with an international reputation for high-quality work. Under the leadership of the Technology Assessment Board and Dr. John Gibbons, the agency has attracted and retained a high calibre staff, and recruited many of the Nations outstanding people to serve on advisory panels and participate in workshops. With this annual report I will complete four years as Chairman of TAAC and am pleased to turn over leadership responsibilities to Dr. William J, Perry, managing partner of Hambrecht & Quist, Inc., of San Francisco, and former Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering. The TAAC has also selected as Vice-Chairman Dr. David S. Potter, Vice President and Group Executive of General Motors Corp. and former Under Secretary of the Navy. This year the Technology Assessment Advisory Council examined the utilization of OTAs work by Congress and the public. We believe that congressional confidence in OTAs ability was reiterated when it assigned the Office the task of selecting the members of the Prospective Payment Commission and responsibility for overseeing the Commission, as mandated by the Social Security Amendments of 1983. The Council also met with the staff of OTAs program areas to talk about how they plan their work. We found that these programs are paying the price of their success in being useful to Congress. Over the past several years there has been a steady increase in the number of committees served, and in request for full assessments, short responses and special analyses. Studies required by legislation are having a significant impact on the OTA staffs ability to plan ahead and schedule work within the program areas. TAAC urged OTA to expend greater effort to minimize the number of such mandated studies and to cooperate with other congressional agencies in so doing. OTA has now proved its ability to provide critical and helpful analysis of tough technical issues that concern Congress. In view of this success, TAAC believes that OTA may want to increase the number of studies involving broad national issues. Members of TAAC also believe that OTA should draw on its past and ongoing assessments to provide Congress with broader strategic advice on important national and international issues. For example, they suggested that OTA incorporate insights from its extensive experience in energy technology analysis to complete a broad assessment of the kind of energy policy issues that are likely to be serious over the next decade. They also suggested that OTA assess several broad strategic approaches to health policy. In summary, OTA has moved out of its initial survival stages and is regarded far and wide as an agency of competence and respect. I am pleased to have been associated with it during this process.
PAGE 6
4 Annual Report to the Congress for 1984 DIRECTORS STATEMENT-JOHN H. GIBBONS In my past career as an experimental physicist, I could give a direct and unambiguous answer to the question, How are things going? Sometimes Id have to give a rather disappointing response; on other occasions the response was honestly enthusiastic. But it was a rare occasion when I didnt have a well-defined basis for my reply. When that same question is asked of me as OTAs Director, I have to think a lot longer before deciding how to respond, because the work at OTA and the measure of its progress is much more complicated. Nevertheless, its a fair question, important to address periodically. After five years as Director of OTA, I am pleased to write about that question in this report to Congress. OTA is in the midst of some of the thorniest technical issues before Congress. The fact that it is contributing to these debates is one of the best indications of how OTA is doing. As it has grown in capability and trust, OTA has moved from the periphery of the hot issues into the center of most of those that involve technology. The breadth of the congressional agenda linked to technology is overwhelming. While many of OTAs peers in academia and industry despair at the thought of doing meaningful analysis on so many issues within the short time available to us, Members and staff of Congress, who must deal with far more encompassing issues and even shorter times, often wonder why OTA seems to need so much time. Thus OTA plays an intermediary rolebetween the perspectives of different stakeholders in private and public sectors, and between levels of detail. We must dig into the finer points of an issue in order to synthesize, integrate and translate issues in terms of necessarily broad public policy decisions. The current pace of developments in science and technology is astonishing, and may be accelerating. For example, recent progress in science stretches from the megascale of understanding the universe, the Sun, and the planet Earth, to the microscale of elementary particles, crystals, exotic solids, and living molecules. These features seem to stand out: First, the participants in this grand adventure now span the globe; simultaneous, independent discovery by researchers in different countries is now commonplace. The United States no longer dominates the field. It competes for leadership and is successfully challenged in numerous fields. This situation is not all bad, for it creates opportunities for the United States to learn as well as teach in the international domain. Second, the rate at which many of the advances in basic science are successfully converted to technology has never been faster, and this is particularly the case in the United States and Japan. Third, this rapid
PAGE 7
Section /Statements l 5 conversion of knowledge into technology reinforces the great dilemma virtually all powerful new ideas can (and usually will) be used for both constructive and destructive purposes. For example, the same computer and electronics technology used to dramatically improve medical diagnosis or to help save billions of barrels of oil each year can be used by a criminal to steal large sums of money or divert private information on individuals which can threaten our basic liberties. The complexity of societythe degree of interdependence between people; the extent to which the commons, such as air and water, are used; population density; rate of introduction of new chemicals and forms of life; etc.is also expanding around the globe. It therefore may be that the governance to ensure freedom, justice, and care for the environment needs even greater insight in the future. Little wonder, then, that the U.S. Congress is under constant pressure to deal with the growing number of policy issues related to science and technology. The process of decisionmaking becomes particularly confusing when the technical experts disagree. Most key questions of policy are, however, largely trans-scientific, not satisfied by purely technical answers. Analysis can reveal the technical or economic impacts of a particular course of action, but understanding the social and cultural impacts, the most value-laden dimensions of major issues, requires interpretation of that analysis, the most difficult part of our legislators jobs. OTA was created, in part, to provide an in-house, nonpartisan source of expertise for all committees so that conflicting views might be understood. Thus OTA tries to set the facts straight, illuminate areas where strong consensus exists, and to explain where and why knowledgeable experts disagree. When it works, that process raises the level of the policy debate. Analysis will continue as long as the issue is unresolved. Criteria to measure success in OTAs business are not as definitive as the marketplace is for industry, or peer recognition is for scientific research, But there are some figures of merit that stand out in evaluating OTAs progress: How relevant to Congress are the issues being addressed? How accurate, comprehensive, and nonpartisan is the analysis? How helpful is the content of the findings? How timely are the results? Responses to these questions can be interpreted from the strong interest shown by Committees and Members (we served over 64 committees and subcommittees in fiscal year 1984); resources provided OTA to support its work (143 slots and $14.65 million were appropriated for fiscal year 1984); requests for testimony and briefings (more than 75 in fiscal year 1984]; active support from the private sector, academia, and public interest groups (about 1, ZOO noncongressional experts helped OTA in fiscal year 1984); and intense interest from a growing number of foreign governments (in fiscal year 1984 we had high level visits from 23 different nations). 38-855 0 85 2 : QL 3
PAGE 8
6 l Annual Report to the Congress for 1984 By these measures OTA seems to be doing fine. We understand that we mustand shouldearn our keep year-by-year. But it is particularly gratifying that OTA is being utilized by such a diversity of committees and that so much international attention seems to be focusing on this small congressional investment in improving its understanding of complex issues and opportunities in technology.
PAGE 9
Section Il.-Year in Review The assessments carried out by OTA cover a wide spectrum of major issues that Congress and the country are facing. A brief summary of each report published by the Office during the year* is presented in this section. The reader is cautioned that these are synopses of reports. They do not cover the full range of options considered or all of the findings presented in any individual report. Effects of Information Technology on Financial Service Systems Information processing and communication technologies, together with consumer response and economic, legal, and regulatory factors, have dramatically-transformed the financial service industry in the last 10 years and challenged the premises of current Federal policies rooted in the 1930s. Todays financial service industry and its competitive structure differs markedly from that of the 1970s, and is expected to continue changing at a significant rate at least through this decade. Reliance on advancing technologies to deliver services and products such as credit, deposit-taking, investment, and insurance, has increased rapidly. Even the smallest firms can afford the key technologies and can compete with larger firms in providing sophisticated services. Automated teller machine networks have reduced the significance of geographic restrictions on the operations of banks, and have offered opportunities for new entrants, such as food and merchandise retailers, to the financial services industry. Systems providing access to funds from virtually any place in the Nation, regardless of where they are deposited, are now being developed and are likely to be in use in the next few years. They will be based on advanced communication technologies including satellite relays, video cable, fiber optics and cellular radio. Banks, savings and loan associations, and credit unions probably will concentrate on processing transactions and place less emphasis on gathering deposits and providing financing. In the future, branches will *Fiscal year 1984 (October 1983 to September 1984). 7
PAGE 10
8 l Annual Report to the Congress for 1984 be dominated by a variety of machines, with institutional personnel serving more of an advisory role than actually handling customer transactions. Many financial services will be delivered to customers at convenient locations, possibly on their business or home terminals, with little need for visiting a providers office. The rapid transformation of the structure of the financial service industry raises significant questions for Congress about whether much of present public policy will be relevant and appropriate for an increasingly automated industry. Although fundamental policy objectives such as fostering institutional stability and integrity or protecting consumers may remain the same as in the past, the focus of future regulation may well have to be different. policies that assume a specific structure of the industry or service mix seem to be particularly vulnerable to unanticipated effects when new technologies are introduced. For example, the assumption that only banks would take deposits, and thus need regulation to protect depositors, was undermined when firms other than banks used technology to offer similar services such as money market accounts. Changes in the financial service industry will both benefit consumers and create problems for them. New delivery systems are designed to be more convenient, but consumers will have to be better informed to understand and to choose among the wider range of available options and services. Because financial service providers can now use price as an instrument for competition, more and more services will be priced explicitly. Consumers may be offered an increasing range of choice and pay only for services used. Though consumers may not perceive differences between the offerings of various financial service providers, the existing legal/regulatory structure does not always cover the activities of nontraditional providers. These unregulated services often do not provide the same protections to consumers. Public policy issues stemming from the changing nature of the financial services industry involve access to services, system security, privacy, and effects of fundamental changes now under way in the telecommunications industry. Despite broader choices for most consumers, some may find their options more constrained. For example, pressures for electronically transmitting payrolls directly into deposit accounts and the increasing role of the credit card as evidence of financial responsibility are making it difficult for individuals to avoid interaction with a financial service institution. Yet, some people prefer not to deal with financial institutions altogether, and others have not been accepted as customers. Lack of access to some electronic financial services may implicitly limit or deny access to other goods and services. Over the long run, guaranteed access to some minimal level of financial services maybe essential for all people.
PAGE 11
Section IiYear in Review l 9 Increasing use of electronic systems for delivering financial services heightens potential threats to individual privacy. Existing law provides some protection from intrusion on financial data by the Federal Government, but virtually none from the use of this information by States and local governments or private parties and organizations. In addition, the privacy policies of some other countries are more stringent than those of the United States. Restrictions on international transmission of data could lead to problems for American financial service firms doing business overseas. Recognition of the problems of system security and integrity is becoming more widespread. It is clear that providers of financial services have become so heavily dependent on information processing and telecommunication technologies that the failure of automated systems under some circumstances could be very serious. However, the true magnitude of security problems is not known, and additional information is needed before developing public policy alternatives. Because telecommunications is a key component of financial service delivery, fundamental changes now under way in the telecommunications industry will directly affect the price and the mix of financial services that will be offered. TechnoIogy Transfer to the Middle East The report examines advanced technology transfers in five sectors (petrochemical production, commercial aircraft support systems, nunologies. clear power, medical services, and telecommunications) to six Islamic countries in the Middle East (Algeria, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia). The U.S. portion of the Middle East market for advanced technology equipment and services is more likely to shrink than expand, although U.S. companies have maintained about 20 percent of the machinery and equipment market over the past 10 years. Middle Eastern buyers have in some cases developed the capability to operate and maintain imported advanced civilian technologies, but in most cases they have not yet significantly adapted or developed these techTechnology transfer: Although the experiences of the Middle Eastern countries differ widely, all of them have faced significant problems in effectively utilizing new technologies. Some success is seen in the efficient operation of commercial aircraft by local workers, but technology absorption has been much more limited in the petrochemical and nuclear sectors. Middle Eastern countries have attempted to im-
PAGE 12
10 l Annual Report to the Congress for 1984 prove their ability to utilize and bargain for imported technology through policies that regulate business activities and develop local technical skills. Technology trade: The value of machinery and equipment exported by industrial countries to the Middle East increased from $2.2 billion in 1970 to about $42 billion in 1982, an eightfold rise in dollars of constant purchasing power. Western European and Japanese firms are strong competitors with U.S. firms. Japan increased its share from 9 percent in 1970 to 23 percent in 1980, while West Germany maintained a share of approximately one-fifth of the market and France saw its share decline from 18 to 9 percent during the period. Not only has the era of explosive growth in technology trade with the region ended, but the U.S. share is also likely to decline for several reasons. U.S. trade, which is centered on Egypt and Saudi Arabia, could be adversely affected by the end of megaprojects, decisions by recipients to diversify suppliers, expanded U.S. export restrictions, or increased export subsidization by other suppliers. The factors most strongly influencing contract awards are the strategies of the firms supplying technology, but policies of supplier governments (including financing, export controls, and economic assistance) have also been important in some cases. Policy Options: Future prospects for U.S. technology trade depend in part on choices facing U.S. policymakers. In the United States, tension between commercial and political interests has precluded the formulation of a consistent approach to civilian technology transfer. Japan and some West European countries have emphasized economic interests in their policies, which have generally supported technology trade with the Middle East. If U.S. policy makers decide to establish more consistent policies, a number of approaches could be considered: 1) denying and providing technology selectively in order to achieve political goals, Z ) decoupling commercial technology trade from political interests, and 3) promoting commercial technology transfer. If export controls on civilian technologies are expanded, potential customers may be pushed toward other suppliers. But comprehensive promotion of technology transfers would require considerable government support. In order to establish a more consistent approach, policymakers would have to carefully balance commercial, economic assistance, and political/strategic aims. Major findings concerning technology transfer in the five sectors follow. 1) petrochemical productionThe Gulf States, with inexpensive feedstocks and state-of-the-art technology, will be major petrochemicals producers by 1990. Their exports are expected to account for ap-
PAGE 13
Section IiYear in Review 11 proximately 20 percent of commodity chemicals traded worldwide. Western Europe and Japan will be most affected by the shifts in the worldwide market, but U.S. firms can adjust by concentrating on production of specialty and second-tier products. 2) Nuclear powerNo nuclear power reactors are currently operating in the Middle East, nor are there likely to be any in operation before the 1990s. The availability of hydrocarbons for power production and the small size of electricity grids are among the factors limiting nuclear power development in the region. Most of these countries have not committed themselves to nuclear power programs. No Islamic country in the Middle East is likely to have the capability to develop nuclear weapons on a wholly indigenous basis before 1990, and most would find it impossible to do so before the turn of the century. Proliferation of nuclear weapons would be most likely to occur through the use of research reactors and small-scale enrichment and reprocessing facilities to produce small amounts of weapons-grade materials over a long period of time. Only a few have obtained sensitive facilities which could be used to build nuclear weapons. In the decade ahead, the prospects for nuclear proliferation will increase, as indigenous capabilities are improved and as new suppliers who are not parties to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty enter the market. 3) Medical services U.S. firms have been major suppliers of hospital management in Saudi Arabia, winning a 70-percent share of the $500 million market in 1981. U.S. firms have also been important suppliers of medical equipment throughout the region. Yet, in the future, the market share of U.S. firms in medical equipment may shrink unless improvements are made in after-the-sale service. While hospital management will remain important in Saudi Arabia, the most pressing needs in the Middle East will be for preventive and less-sophisticated health care. AID health projects have contributed to improvements in Egyptian health standards; programs providing specialized training and retraining of medical personnel are needed throughout the region. 4) Commercial aircraft support systemsTechnology absorption has been comparatively extensive in this sector, as shown by the operating statistics (including safety) of Middle Eastern airlines, which remain on a par with major international airlines while local personnel assume more functions. Sales of commercial aircraft and parts in the Middle East were valued at over $1.8 billion in 1982. These sales often determine the award of follow-up contracts for parts and service. Sales of U.S. aircraft in particular have been limited by U.S. foreign policy export controls. 5) Telecommunications More than $3 billion in telecommunications equipment has been sold in the Middle East annually, and Japan became the major supplier by 1980. While U.S. firms have been major suppliers
PAGE 14
12 Annual Report to the Congress for 1984 of advanced technologies such as satellite and multiplex equipment, firms from Western Europe and Japan have provided most of the telephone and telex systems, which have been the central focus of Middle Eastern telecommunication expansion. Demand for telecommunications equipment and services will continue to grow, as seen in cooperation in Arabsat, a regional satellite telecommunications system. U.S. Vulnerability to an Oil Import Curtailment: The Oil Replacement Capability If a large and protracted U.S. oil supply shortfall begins within the next few years, the United States has the technical and manufacturing capability to replace up to 3.6 million barrels per day (MMB/D) of oil with other energy supply and demand technologies within 5 years after the onset of the shortfall. This conclusion is based on OTAs analysis of current manufacturing capacities and technical enduser constraints, as well as peak historical rates for installing various energy technologies; and it assumes a pre-shortfall oil demand of about 16 MMB/D. (Current U.S. oil demand is 15.8 MMB/D, of which 4.8 MMB/D are net imports.) Currently available technologies that can replace the largest amounts of oil are those that: of, and substitute alternative fuels for, oil used for space and water heating, and steam production; and 2) increase, through replacement of existing vehicles, the average fuel efficiency of automobiles and light trucks on the road. The fuel substitution would require, annually, about 2 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 115 million tons of solid fuels (coal and wood) at the end of the 5 years. All of the added natural gas can be made available through increased efficiency of natural gas use in buildings and industry. A large and enduring shortfall and oil price increase would have severe economic consequences for the United States, even with full drawdown of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and available private oil stocks. The magnitude of the economic impacts of an oil shortfall, however, would vary substantially with the rate of investment in oil replacement technologies. Analysis of a shortfall that reduces U.S. oil supplies by 3 MMB/D indicates that if all of the lost oil were replaced over the 5-year period after a shortfall begins, the decline in the gross national product would be 40 percent less than if only half of it were replaced in that time. Further, employment losses would be 30 percent less and oil price increases about half as much with the more rapid rate of replacement as compared to the slower rate. In other words, to the ex-
PAGE 15
Section IiYear in Review 13 tent that the lost oil is not replaced through investments in replacement technologies, oil consumption must be lowered through reduced economic activity and personal consumption. If the economy remains relatively stable and strong, rapidly rising oil prices following onset of a shortfall could provide sufficient incentive to invest in oil replacement technologies at the maximum rate. A stable, strong economy lowers the risk and increases the profitability of such investments, and faster oil replacement improves prospects for stability and growth of the economy. However, any number of factors investor uncertainty about future oil supplies and economic conditions, capital shortages, unfamiliarity with alternative fuels technologies, price controls on natural gas, etc. could limit these investments. In view of the uncertainties about the market response to an oil shortfall, the importance of a stable economy and the difference in economic impacts associated with a rapid versus a slower response, it may be necessary to stimulate investments in oil replacement technologies in order to minimize the economic damage resulting from a shortfall. Although rapid deployment could be achieved without government-mandated conversion of production facilities to supply the oil replacement technologies, advanced planning by Federal and State governments is necessary. A system to monitor directly the rate of investment in oil replacement technologies and the quantity of oil replaced also would have to be established and functioning prior to the onset of a shortfall. A variety of incentives ranging from information and technical assistance, to economic incentives and regulation could be used, as needed, to stimulate investment. Economic regulations that inhibit investment in replacement technologies (e.g., electric utility fuel adjustment clauses and certain price controls) may also have to be removed or modified. For these measures to be most effective, however, a decision would have to be made at the highest level that the Government will intervene if the market is overly cautious. Uncertainty must be removed from the investment climate, and clear signals about the need for investment would be required. In the longer term, declining domestic oil production, accompanied by an expected shift away from oil uses for stationary direct heat, will increase the Nations vulnerability to an oil shortfall. This will occur even if all stationary uses of fuel oil are replaced by alternative fuels and conservation because the decline in domestic oil production is expected to occur at an even greater rate. Only by relying more heavily on coal and biomass for chemical feedstocks, increasing efficiency of natural gas use and in all modes of transportation, and producing synthetic transportation fuels in addition to accelerating the replacement and conservation of stationary uses of oil, can the Nation expect to significantly reduce its vulnerability to an oil shortfall over the next few decades. 38-855 0 85 3 Q L 3
PAGE 16
14 Annual Report to the Congress for 1984 Airport System Development Events in recent yearsairline deregulation, the air traffic controllers strike, and the growth of air travel in a resurgent economyhave &.-=== focused attention on problems of airport capacity. Lack of capacity at major airports, notably during peak travel periods and adverse weather, has been cited as a significant cause of delay and rising costs in providing air service. Airlines and other users of major airports have called on the Federal Aviation Administration and local airport authorities for relief of immediate problems and assurance that adequate facilities will be available to accommodate long-term growth in air travel. The OTA study examines technological, economic, and managerial approaches that could be taken to increase capacity and reduce delay at airports. Technological methods to augment airport runway capacity include: 1) more accurate radar for use in terminal areas, 2) more precise guidance for landing in reduced visibility, 3) improved air traffic control systems to smooth and regulate traffic flow, and 4) methods to detect and monitor wind shear and wake turbulence. These technologies, especially if coupled with reduced aircraft separation standards and revised rules for use of multiple runways, could increase capacity by as much as 30 percent at some airports during adverse weather, when the rate of operations is reduced from that attainable in good visibility. Benefits would vary considerably from site to site since they depend on airspace geometry, runway layout, traffic mix, and prevailing weather conditions. On average, the increase in capacity is likely to be much smaller, probably in the range of 5 to 10 percent. These increases should not be dismissed as insignificant; they would lessen delay where and when it is most likely to occurat major airports in bad weatherand so would benefit a large number of passengers. Another approach would be to build new airports to absorb growing demand. In most cities, however, this is impractical because of scarcity of land, high costs of development, and community concern about noise and land use. OTA found no metropolitan area actively planning to build a major new airport, and it is unlikely that more than one or two such airports will be built before the end of the century. Building new facilities and developing new guidance and control systems are becoming increasingly difficult and yield diminishing capacity gains. Adequate future capacity cannot be assured by technology
PAGE 17
Section I/Year in Review l 15 alone, and it is important to explore approaches that make more effective use of what is already in placeselectively upgrading existing facilities and exploiting surplus capacity at other nearby airports in the region. Two promising solutions of this sort are separate short runways for small aircraft at major air carrier airports and reliever airports for general aviation at convenient locations elsewhere in the metropolitan area. Much of the delay at airports stems from overscheduling of airline flights in morning and early evening hours and the tendency of general aviation to concentrate at these same times. Building new facilities to accommodate these high peaks of demand is often self-defeating since the additional capacity simply results in more peak-period demand and creates the need for more, increasingly expensive, capital investment. An alternative, less capital-intensive, approach is demand management to alter patterns of airport use so that demand can be accommodated within existing capacity. Two basic methods can be used to manage demand: 1) setting landing fees according to the time of day or level of demand, and 2) regulatory or administrative actions to limit the number or type of flights that will be accommodated. Either approach would have the same general effectdemand would be spread more evenly throughout the day, thereby eliminating costly investments in facilities needed only at peak periods, but idle the rest of the time. Delay on the landsidein the terminal building and on roads leading to the airportis as common as airside delay, and equally costly and inconvenient to passengers. In general, the solution to landside problems is not new technology, but better planning and coordination among the various Federal, State, and local agencies, which often have overlapping jurisdictions and conflicting priorities. In cooperation with the Congressional Budget Office, OTA examined the financial condition of U.S. airports and found few funding problems at the top 71 airports that collectively serve over 90 percent of airline passenger traffic. These airports are in good financial condition and enjoy sufficient, often ample, revenues to assure their creditworthiness in the municipal bond market. There has never been a default on an airport bond issuean unblemished record that further enhances airports reputation as soundly financed and managed enterprises. Availability of capital for improvement at major airports is not a significant obstacle, and the locations facing the greatest problems of congestion and delay appear able to finance needed capital investments with only minimal Federal support. The major issues surrounding the current Federal role in airport development concern the level and purpose of capital grants to airports, the criteria of eligibility, and the administration of the program. As alternatives to present policy, OTA examines various ways to retarget Fed-
PAGE 18
16 l Annual Report to the Congress for 1984 eral funds and to shift some administrative and fiscal responsibility for airport improvement programs to the State and local levels. OTA also addresses the question of Federal, State, and local airport planning and provides background information to help evaluate the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems, to be issued by the Federal Aviation Administration in September 1984. The major finding with regard to planning is that there is a need to look at airports from a regional and multimodal perspective, seeking ways to weld them into the overall transportation network. This entails balancing the use of regional airport facilities, reducing the cost and inconvenience of access to airports from within the metropolitan area, and promoting better connection between air and land modes of transportation. High-technology industry is so difficult to define, and so interdependent with other sectors of the economy, that to define Federal policy for regional development based on distinctions between high technology and other sectors would be artificial and possibly misleading. High-technology industries are expected to grow somewhat faster than overall employment over the next 10 years, but because of their relatively small employment base they will directly account for only a small fraction of total employment growth. Their largest employment impacts are likely to come through the diffusion and widespread application of their products by other industries, smokestack and services alike. High-technology industries are more significant from the local perspective because of their impacts on employment and development in particular communities. Over the past 10 or 20 years a few regions, notably Californias Silicon Valley and Massachusetts Route 128 $ have developed strong local economies based on concentrations of microelectronics and computer firms. Todays hightechnology industries seem to be spreading more widely across the Nation, and new development opportunities are being opened by advances in emerging technologies like robotics and biotechnology. Moreover, advanced manufacturing technologies are creating new opportunities for basic industries and the regions where they are concentrated. The growing competition for high-technology industries has generated hundreds of initiatives by State and local governments, universities, and private sector organizations. These groups see their high-
PAGE 19
Section I/Year in Review l 17 technology efforts as logical extensions of traditional economic development activities. Most of the programs are designed to encourage technological innovation and local business development, by mobilizing resources or removing barriers in six general areas: research, development, and technology transfer; l human capital, including education and training; entrepreneurship training and assistance; l financial capital; physical capital; and l information gathering and dissemination. These initiatives are too recent and too varied to evaluate systematically, but in many regions they have resulted in new linkages between government, university, and industry. Experience suggests that these initiatives are more likely to succeed if they build on existing industries and available resources. For most communities, the greatest opportunities may lie in encouraging business development and technological innovation from within, rather than trying to attract hightechnology businesses from other regions. From a national perspective, these State and local efforts may also contribute to the productivity and competitiveness of the entire U.S. economy if they can increase the national level of R&D or quicken the pace of commercialization and diffusion of new technologies. Federal policies have contributed to State and local high-technology initiatives in the past, usually as an indirect result of attempts to achieve broader national goals and purposes. For example, innovation-oriented policiesthose intended to promote R&D and technological change at the national leveloften have significant impacts on economic development in particular regions. Similarly, community and economic development programs such as block grants, business assistance, and education and training programs have sometimes provided the resources for innovative State and local initiatives. Recent changes in Federal policy, such as the treatment of capital gains and joint venture R&D, promise to create a better climate for regional high-technology initiatives. OTA finds no compelling evidence that an extensive new Federal effort, specifically targeted on this aspect of economic development, would be necessary to promote regional high-technology development. However, changes that have been proposed to achieve broader national objectives might provide additional indirect benefits to the extent that they increase Federal awareness of and support for State and local efforts. Better information about the regional impacts of Federal programs, the effectiveness of State and local initiatives, and the regional implications of technological change would be useful to Federal, State, and local groups alike. Improved coordination, among existing Federal programs and with State and local mechanisms, would also be effective in promoting innovation and economic growth through regional high-technology development.
PAGE 20
18 Annual Report to the Congress for 1984 Medical TechnoIogy and Costs of the Medicare Program The use of medical technologies, such as drugs, devices, and medical and surgical procedures, has significantly affected Medicare costs. Medical Technology and Costs of THE MEDICARE PROGRAM 1 --Payments for each enrollee rose 107 percent between 1977 and 1982 an average of 19 percent per year. Although inflation is primarily responsible, nearly one-third of the increase is related to medical technologyboth from expanded use of services (25 percent) and from increases in medical prices above the general inflation rate (3 percent). An important influence on the adoption and use of medical technologies is the Medicare program itself, in part because of its size and scope and in part because other third-party payers often follow its example. Thus, changes in Medicare policies could restrain the growth in Medicare costs by influencing the adoption and use of medical technology. OTA presents Medicare policy options for Congress in four areas: 1) coverage of specific technologies; 2) payment to hospitals; 3) payment to physicians; and 4) approaches to changing incentives, for the adoption and use of technologies, that do not directly involve Medicare payment (e.g., encouraging the development of alternative costeffective health care delivery systems). Medicares coverage policy for specific technologies can influence hospitals decisions about purchasing expensive medical technologies such as diagnostic imaging equipment. Costs could be contained by limiting coverage for certain technologies to selected providers or sites; considering cost as a factor in coverage decisions; providing interim coverage in exchange for data on efficacy, safety, and costs of emerging technologies; and improving the implementation by Medicare contractors of national coverage decisions. Changing coverage policy alone is likely to be of limited value in containing Medicare costs, because of the large number of medical technologies being developed or used and the decentralized administration of the Medicare program. Medicares hospital and physician payment policies have more impact on the adoption and use of medical technologies than its other policies. From 1966 until 1983, Medicare operated under a retrospective, cost-based reimbursement system which provided little incentive for hospitals to limit expenditures on medical technology.
PAGE 21
Section /lYear in Review l 1 9 The hospital payment system was significantly changed by the Social Security Amendments of 1983 (Public Law 98-21) which established a prospective, per case hospital payment system based on Diagnosis Related Groups (DRGs). With DRG payment, hospitals receive a specific amount of money for each patient, based on diagnosis, regardless of the amount or type of services the patient receives. Four possible changes in Medicare hospital payment, not mutuaI1y exclusive, include: the use of alternative prospective payment methods and modifications of the DRG system; changes in capital payment methods; contracting with selected hospitals; and increased patient costsharing for hospital services. Thus far, Medicares DRG payment system extends to inpatient operating costs alone, and capital costs continue to be reimbursed on a cost basis. Continuing this method of capital payment provides an incentive for hospitals to adopt expensive equipment that reduces operating costs even though the total cost per case may be greater. Any cost-containment effort must acknowledge that individual physicians play a central role in determining what services are provided to patients in hospitals and other settings. Medicare payment methods can influence physicians incentives for the use of medical technologies. Two possible changes are: adopting fee schedules or caps on physician payments; and requiring beneficiaries to assume more of their health care costs, either by increasing cost-sharing or reducing the types of benefits that Medicare will cover. Changing Medicares assignment policy, which currently allows physicians to decide whether to accept Medicare payment as full payment, would strengthen the implementation of the other changes, although it might discourage some physicians from treating Medicare patients. Alternative approaches to encourage the appropriate adoption and use of medical technologies, and ultimately save costs, include two general policy mechanisms: fostering competitive behavior by providers; and administrative changes in Medicare (e.g., merging Medicares programs for hospital insurance and for supplementary medical insurance). For example, policies that encourage the use of alternative sites of health care delivery stimulate competition.
PAGE 22
20 Annual Report to the Congress for 1984 International Cooperation and Competition in Civilian Space Activities The space programs of Western Europe and Japan have made enormous technical and organizational advances over the last decade, but the United States has not fully adapted to these changes. In addition, the U.S. Government has not effectively involved private investment in space, except in satellite communications. Changing conditions in the political, economic, and technical aspects of civilian international space activities raise four major concerns for Congress: International competitiveness in space technologies: Although the United States still leads in space research and development, Western Europe and Japan are marketing space-related goods and services in direct competition with the United States. Among other items, Western Europe has developed the Ariane launch vehicle and the SPOT land remote sensing system. Japan competes in selling ground stations for satellites, and is developing an ocean remote sensing system. Role of the U.S. private sector: High capital cost and high technological and economic risk inhibit private investment in space. If future Government policies are well-designed to foster private sector commercialization of space technology, market developments could lead to a wide array of commercial space applications by the 1990s. Access of U.S. firms to international markets: Large parts of the international market for satellite communications equipment and virtually all of the international market for services are closed to international competition. Where open competition exists, U.S. technology continues to dominate the market. Efficacy of U.S. participation in international cooperative space projects: U.S. cooperative space projects continue to serve important political goals of supporting global economic growth and open access to information, and increasing U.S. prestige. Such cooperation should continue to involve the developing countries, especially because they are becoming a significant market for space-related goods and services. *Summary completed July 1984; full report will be published early 1985.
PAGE 23
Section n-Year in Review l 2 1 OTA examined space science and several space technologies at different stages of Government operational status or commercial development: Space Science-Cooperation in space science continues to be a major source of cultural, economic, political, and social benefits for the United States. However, the major driving force behind cooperation is the prospect of sharing costs. Although the United States leads generally in space science, it will face increased competition in certain subfields from the European Space Agency (ESA), Japan, and the U.S.S.R. Because of limited resources, the United States must remain cooperative in space science to remain competitive. Space Transportation-The entry of ESAS Ariane booster into the international launch vehicle market, and the U.S. private sectors interest in selling launch services, require the U.S. Government to reassess its traditional role as sole provider of launch services. Current pricing policy for the Shuttle discourages competition from the U.S. private sector launch industry. Yet, raising prices might discourage the private development of manufacturing or other uses of space. Satellite CommunicationsSince private investment dominates this sector, issues of economic regulation and international trade are paramount. The U.S. Government must decide whether to allow U.S. firms to own transatlantic communications satellites independent of INTELSAT; how vigorously to support the entrance of the U.S. firms into overseas service and equipment markets; how much to spend on research and development to keep U.S. communications satellite technology competitive; and how best to further U.S. telecommunications and foreign policy objectives at the International Telecommunication Unions 1985 ORB meeting on the geostationary orbit. Remote Sensing From SpaceBy 1990, Canada, ESA, France, Japan, and perhaps the Soviet Union expect to deploy ocean or land remote sensing systems. The United States may increase its competitiveness in land remote sensing by transferring Landsat to private hands. However, successful transfer will require a sizable subsidy until a sufficient data market emerges. Joint construction of an international polar orbiting meteorological satellite system with other countries may be desirable. *International Satellite Communications Organization. 38-855 0 85 4 : QL 3
PAGE 24
22 l Annual Report to the Congress for 1984 Materials Processing in Space-More basic and applied research is needed to determine the economic feasibility of manufacturing commercial products in space. Until international commercial competition arises, Europe and Japan should be viewed as valuable partners for international cooperation in materials processing research. As the U.S. private sector becomes more involved in space activities, several Government agencies in addition to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) will have a broader role to play in the overall direction of the Nations space policy. NASA, by itself, is not well-equipped to choose technologies for commercial exploitation or to foster the creation of new commercial technologies. Government decisions about commercial space activities must be based on information from industries about domestic and international markets. These decisions must therefore involve, in addition to NASA, agencies versed in domestic commerce and regulation, international trade, and foreign affairs. The National Commission on Space, authorized in Public Law 98361, could help develop a national consensus on the long-term goals and objectives of the U.S. space program, with input from all interested Government agencies as well as from the private sector. l Passed by Congress on June 28, 1984, and signed by the President on July 16, 1984.
PAGE 25
Section n-Year in Review l 2 3 Acid Rain and Transported Air Pollutants: Implications for Public Policy THE PROBLEM Acid rain, ozone, and fine particles such as airborne sulfate are endangering U.S. resources. These air pollutants have harmed lakes and streams, lowered crop yields, damaged manmade materials, decreased visibility, and may be threatening forests and even human health. However, finding an equitable solution is a major policy challenge. Controlling these pollutants will involve substantial costshigher electricity rates, and in some cases, fewer jobs for miners of high-sulfur coal and financial strain to utilities and industries. Until recently air pollution was considered to be a local problem. Evidence now indicates that winds carry air pollutants hundreds of miles, often crossing State and national boundaries. For example, sulfur pollutants that are deposited over most of the Eastern United States, have typically traveled about zoo to 600 miles. These transported air pollutants are not directly covered by the Clean Air Act, the main Federal air quality law. OTA has synthesized what is known about pollutant emissions, movements, and effects, and presents estimates of potential damage to resources if pollutant emissions are not curtailed. In addition, OTA focuses on the public policy implications of the acid rain problem the geographic distribution of risks and costs, as well as the potential effectiveness of various control options. Acid deposition, commonly called acid rain, occurs when sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxidesreleased primarily from burning of fossil fuelsreturn to the earth as rain, snow, fog, dew, and as dry particles and gases. Acid deposition is high in most of the States east of the Mississippi as far south as Tennessee and North Carolina. Enough acid pollution is deposited throughout this area to harm aquatic life in lakes and streams located in geologically sensitive watersheds. OTA estimates there are about 3,000 lakes and 20,000 miles of streams, scattered throughout the Eastern United States, that are extremely vulnerable to acid deposition or already are acidic. Also, sulfur pollutants accelerate the deterioration of many economically important materials, including iron and steel, zinc, paint, and stone. Sulfate particles in the air are the single greatest factor in re-
PAGE 26
24 l Annual Report to the Congress for 1984 ducing visibility in the Eastern United States, responsible for about half of the decrease in visibility annually and even more during the summer. Though research on the effects of current levels of airborne sulfates and other fine particles on human health is not yet conclusive, there is a reasonable risk that these pollutants may increase mortality rates by a few percent. Some researchers believe there is a negligible effect while others find a significant association, primarily among people with cardiac and respiratory problems. Ozone is produced when nitrogen oxides interact with hydrocarbons. High ozone concentrations extend from the mid-Great Plains States to the East Coast, overlapping much of the region exposed to high levels of acid deposition. Ozone is causing about a 6 to 7 percent loss of U.S. agricultural productivity, overall. Reducing ozone to natural background levels would increase yields of corn and wheat by a few percent, soybean yields over ten percent and peanut yields by one-fourth. Over the past 20 to 30 years, productivity of several species of trees has decreased in parts of the Eastern United States and Europe where high levels of air pollution prevail. Acid deposition, ozone, or a combination of both, as well as other stresses, such as climate fluctuations and disease, are being investigated as possible contributors to this problem. During 1980, about 27 million tons of sulfur dioxide and 21 million tons of nitrogen oxides were emitted in the United States. Approximately 80 percent of the sulfur dioxide and 65 percent of the nitrogen oxides came from the 31 States bordering on or east of the Mississippi River. If energy use patterns and current laws do not change, both sulfur and nitrogen pollutants will remain high for at least the next half centurylong enough to be significant to natural ecosystems. Most of the control programs proposed in recent sessions of Congress have aimed at reducing sulfur dioxide emissions by 8 million to 10 million tons per year below 1980 levels. This level of reduction is likely to protect many sensitive aquatic resources in most areas. Risk of damage to forests, agriculture, materials and health would be reduced, and visibility will improve. However, in areas receiving the highest levels of deposition, some damage may still occur. Such programs, however, are not without cost. Electric utilities account for about three-fourths of the sulfur dioxide emitted in the Eastern United States. Therefore, electricity consumers would ultimately pay a large share of the costs of an emissions control program. Electricity rates would increase an average of 2 to 5 percentrising as high as 10 to 15 percent in a few Midwestern States under the more stringent proposals. If restrictions are not placed on control methods, about 20,000 to 30,000 jobs could shift from Eastern high-sulfur coal producing regions to Eastern and Western regions that mine low-sulfur coal.
PAGE 27
Section n-Year in Review 25 CONGRESSIONAL OPTIONS Transported pollutants pose a special problem for policymakers: balancing the concerns of those who bear the risk of damage with those who will pay the costs of control. Scientific uncertainty about many aspects of the problem complicates the decision of whether or when to control. Unfortunately, additional scientific research will not provide an unambiguous answer in the near future, nor will it ever resolve value conflicts. Four approaches for congressional action on acid deposition and other transported air pollutants are discussed in the report: Mandating emissions reductions to further control the sources of transported pollutants. l Liming lakes and streams to mitigate some of the effects of acid deposition. Modifying the current Federal research program so it provides more timely guidance for congressional decisions. l Modifying existing sections of the Clean Air Act to enable the Environmental Protection Agency, States, and countries to more effectively address transported air pollutants. Legislation to address the problem of transported air pollutants could include options from any combination of the four approaches. If Congress chooses to further control pollutant emissions, a number of interrelated choices must be made, including which pollutant emissions to reduce, from what sources and regions, by how much, and over what time period. Congress must also choose methods to implement the reductions, allocate the costs, and address any undesired secondary consequences of the emissions controls. Sulfur dioxide would logically be included in any control program, since sulfur compounds contribute twice as much as nitrogen compounds to acidic rainfall in the Eastern United States and are more strongly implicated with adverse effects. Because most of the air pollutants are emitted and deposited within a 20to 30-State area of the Eastern United Stateswith sensitive resources distributed throughoutany control program must at least encompass this area. For a nationwide control program, both sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides should be considered. A modest sulfur dioxide control programeliminating 2 million to 5 million tons per yearcould be achieved for about $1 billion per year. This would offset expected emissions increases from utility and industrial growth, and might decrease emissions by a few million tons by 2000. A large-scale program, reducing emissions to 8 million to 10 million tons below 1980 levels, would cost about $3 billion to $6 billion a year.
PAGE 28
26 Annual Report to the Congress for 1984 Such emissions reductions would protect many sensitive resources, though some risk of damage would still be present. If larger reductions in emissions are desired, costs will increase markedly. While the polluter pays philosophy is the traditional approach to environmental regulation, some have suggested that the costs of control be spread to a larger group through such mechanisms as a tax on electricity or emissions. This would lighten the financial burden to the heavily industrialized Midwest. To minimize shifts in coal-mining jobs, controls that allow continued use of high-sulfur coal could be subsidized or mandated. Direct control costs, however, could increase by as much as 25 to 50 percent. The basic framework of the Federal coal leasing programthe legislative mandates and the concept of a tiered structure of land use planning, activity planning, and mine permitting is still workable and capable of ensuring environmental protection. However, recent policy shifts which accelerated the rate at which tracts were made available for lease, and other changes in the programs regulationswhile not producing any evidence of fatal flaws that would totally preclude mine development on recently leased tractshave increased the risk of adverse environmental impacts if some of those tracts are developed. An environmentally (and economically) sound leasing program is an important part of the Nations energy future and of public land management policy. Unless reasonable public expectations about soundness are satisfied, however, the likelihood of an effective and predictable Federal coal leasing program will be reduced. In particular, the planning processes during which tracts are continuously evaluated for their acceptability for leasing have become too unpredictable and unsystematic to assure compliance with the environmental mandate. Further, the high leasing rates of the past 3 years have taxed the resources of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)already strained by field personnel rotations that have resulted in a loss of institutional memory" beyond the point where they could adequately assess the suitability of the tracts proposed to be offered. As a result, data and analyses have been inadequate for making fully informed decisions about the environmental compatibility of the tracts.
PAGE 29
Section I/Year in Review l 27 Recent actions by the Department of the Interior to review the leasing program are a positive step forward. However, OTA has identified a number of measures that could help ensure environmental protection and compliance with the existing statutory mandates, maintain a predictable and stable leasing process, and restore public confidence in the leasing program. These measures are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Reduce and stabilize leasing rates to make the land area to be evaluated in a given period of time more manageable, and allow all participants in leasing, including the industry and affected communities, to plan more effectively. Decentralize decisionmaking authority on tracts and tonnages to be offered and their scheduling to the Regional Coal Team or BLM State Office level, and reorganize leasing regions to match State boundaries. Improve the effectiveness of public participation in planning and development activities, accommodating the concerns of special groups such as Indian tribes, States and communities, and farmers and ranchers. Complete adequate Resource Management Plans by BLM (and the Forest Service), coordinating more closely with other Federal agencies, and with State and local plans to ensure that coal leasing does not undermine the goals of other programs. Improve data and analyses that support planning and leasing decisions. Incorporate guidelines and standards for the adequacy of pre-sale data and analyses into the program regulations for all stages in the leasing process. Develop a workable threshold concept for estimating cumulative impacts and include it in the regulatory requirements for evaluating tract acceptability during land use planning and tract ranking, as well as in the environmental impact statement. 8. Establish policies and procedures for effectively using lease exchanges to protect environmentally sensitive tracts. 9. Evaluate policies and procedures for leasing split estate coal lands (where the Federal Government does not own or manage the surface). 10. Evaluate procedures for environmental assessment of Preference Right Lease Applications to determine if they provide adequate environmental protection and are consistent across regions.
PAGE 30
28 l Annual Report to the Congress for 1984 Computerized Manufacturing Automations: Employment, Education, and the Workplac e Increased use of computer-based automation in manufacturing will aggravate regional unemployment. It can improve manufacturing productivity, product quality, and working conditions. It might have an enormous long-term impact on the number and kinds of jobs available, but it will not generate massive nationwide unemployment over the next decade. In the near term, automations employment effects will be concentrated principally in the East-Northcentral and Mid-Atlantic regions and among certain occupations, such as, metalworking machine operators. Use of automation will gradualIy alter the mix of occupations and skills needed by manufacturers, and may consequently limit the mobility of manufacturing employees. In addition, automation equipment producers employ proportionately fewer production workers than do traditional metal-working industries. Many production workers may not have the skills to move from jobs where automation is used to jobs where it is produced. Thus, there is an immediate need for retraining and job counseling geared to affected persons and regions. In the long run, overall demand will rise for engineers, technicians, maintenance personnel, senior managers, and technical sales and support staff. Demand will fall for machine operators, laborers, lower and middle managers, and clerical personnel. Use of automation is likely to improve physical working conditions, but its effect on psychological aspects of work will depend on how the technologies are implemented. For example, automation has had negative effects such as decreasing employees degree of autonomy and creative input. On the other hand, automation could also improve jobs by increasing the variety of tasks and challenges. U.S. exploration of automations effects on working conditions has barely started. The new types of automation that include the use of computer and communications technologies are becoming increasingly common, but most manufacturers have only begun to explore their potential. The reasons for this include lack of standard techniques for programing and linking computerized devices, high costs of capital, lack of knowhow, and, in particular, organizational resistance to change. New approaches to education, training, and career guidance will be needed to accommodate long-term changes in skill requirements. Suc-
PAGE 31
Section /lYear in Review 29 cessful programs have involved close cooperation between educators, industry, labor, and government, A strong foundation of basic reading, science, and mathematics skills appears increasingly important for all occupations, but estimated levels of functional illiteracy suggest that many prospective employees will not have that foundation. The lack of appropriate curricula, shortages of equipment and technical faculty, and other factors suggest that on the whole, the U.S. instructional system may not now be geared to accommodate potential demands for skills relevant to an age of programmable automation. In addition, few companies or institutions help workers develop the multiple skills often needed for successful use of programmable automation. There is a wide range of policy options for Congress to consider. Congress could choose to continue current Federal roles. Alternatively, further actions could be taken to: strengthen computerized automation research and development (especially in areas of generic research, human factors, and standards); raise employment levels and facilitate mobility among occupations and jobs; assure that automation enhances working conditions or guards against downgrading of working conditions; and make the instructional system more resilient and responsive to demands arising from the spread of automation and the changing occupational mix. The overall success of automation-related policy will depend on the health of the economy and the broader context of macroeconomic policy. Whatever the level of Federal involvement, the most effective strategy would balance actions regarding technology development, working conditions, and employment and training. The uses and impacts of automation are only beginning. It is essential that planning for the future start now. 3 8 855 0 85 5 QL~ 3
PAGE 32
30 Annual Report to the Congress for 1984 Wetlands: Their Use and Regulation Although the overall rate at which the Nations wetlands are being converted to other uses is not alarming, the continued incremental conversion of wetlands, especially in certain inland regions of the country, may have significant adverse ecological effects over the next few decades. Over the next several years, the Federal Government could improve ongoing efforts to manage the countrys remaining wetlands and avert many of these adverse effects. First, the Federal Government could continue or accelerate its ongoing mapping of wetlands, emphasizing those areas under the greatest development pressure. Next, after mapping has been completed in a given region, wetlands could be categorized according to their relative values by policymakers in cooperation with regional groups. Third, existing wetland policies and programs could be tailored or adjusted based on the values of different wetlands. For example, higher value wetlands covered by the 404 program could be more stringently regulated and lower value wetlands less so. And finally, Congress could broaden the scope of different wetland programs (e.g., regulation, acquisition, leasing, etc.) to include the full range of wetland values, rather than continuing to focus on single values, such as wildlife habitat. In the near-term, Congress may also wish to provide additional protection for higher value wetlands that may be subject to agricultural conversion. This could be done through acquisition or easements from the Interior Departments Fish and Wildlife Service, or through leases from the Agriculture Departments Water Bank Program. Acquisition, easements, and leases can provide comparable levels of protection; but, for a given level of funding, many more wetlands can be protected with leases than with easements or acquisition. However, leases only provide temporary protection. To improve its future policymaking capability, more federally supported research is needed for further assessment of the ecological significance of additional wetland conversions. And Federal support could be continued for ongoing efforts to determine recent wetland trends and the effect of major policies and programs on wetlands use. Finally, a coordinating mechanism, such as an interagency working group, would help to ensure that all required activities are accomplished in a timely manner. Existing Federal policies often affect wetlands in opposing ways. Some policies encourage conversions. For example, tax deductions and
PAGE 33
Section I/Year in Review l 31 credits can significantly reduce wetland conversion costs for farmers. Others, such as regulatory and acquisition programs, discourage conversions. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regulatory program, established by section 404 of the Clean Water Act, provides the major avenue of Federal involvement in controlling the use of wetlands by regulating discharges of dredged or fill material into wetlands. For those activities that come under regulation by the Corps, annual conversions are reduced nationwide by about 50 percent, or about 50,000 acres of wetlands per year, primarily through project modifications. Because most activities that occur in coastal wetlands are regulated by the Corps and/or State wetland programs, coastal wetlands are reasonably well-protected. However, many activities, such as excavation, clearing, and drainge for farming, are not regulated by either the Corps or most State wetland programs. These activities were responsible for the vast majority of past conversions, especially in inland areas, where 95 percent of the Nations wetlands are located. Therefore, inland, freshwater wetlands are generally poorly protected. Over the past zoo years, 30 to 50 percent of the wetlands in the lower 48 States have been converted to other uses. Between the mid-1950s and mid-1970s, wetland conversions occurred at a net rate of about 550,000 acres per year. This is equivalent to an annual loss of about one-half of 1 percent of the remaining wetlands. About 80 percent of these losses were due to agricultural conversions. Current rates of agricultural drainage suggest that national conversion rates have declined to about 300,000 acres per year. Vegetated wetlandsmarshes, bogs, swamps, and tundracomprise about 5 percent, or 90 million acres, of the lower 48 States, and nearly 60 percent, or more than 200 million acres, of Alaska. In addition to their recreational benefits and esthetic qualities, these natural areas can provide valuable ecological services such as fish and wildlife habitat, water quality improvement, erosion control, flood control, and food chain support. On the other hand, some wetlands can be converted to other uses by development activities, including agriculture, port expansion, mining, oil/gas recovery, urbanization, and water resource projects.
PAGE 34
32 Annual Report to the Congress for 1984 Technologies to Sustain Tropical Forest Resources Each year, an area of tropical forests the size of Pennsylvania is cleared while only one-tenth that much is replanted. The loss of these tropical forest resources affects people both in the Tropics and in other nations. Tropical forests maintain the productivity of land that cannot support conventional agriculture. Forests provide fuel, food, fodder, medicines, and building materials to the people of the tropical nations. Forests also help maintain soil quality, limit erosion, stabilize hillsides, modulate seasonal flooding, and protect waterways and marine resources. Where tropical forests are cleared, the soil is usually exposed to extreme erosion, high temperatures, and severe weed infestations. Agricultural productivity often declines, then the land is abandoned. Most of this abandoned land will not recover its former productivity. Further, tropical forests contain the worlds greatest diversity of plant and animal life. This diversity is a natural resource important to agriculture, commerce, and industry in all nations. It will become even more valuable as oil and other nonrenewable resources become more scarce and as modern biotechnology develops new uses for plants and animals. As the population of tropical nations doubles to 4 billion over the next 30 years, the need for forest products and services will increase dramatically. To meet these needs, ways to use forests without degrading them must be developed and demonstrated. OTA identifies existing and emerging technologies with the potential to sustain tropical forests productivity. These include farming systems that combine trees with crops or livestock, improved charcoal production, better wood stoves, genetic improvement of trees, new approaches to park design and management, and a variety of forest management systems. Changing technologies alone, however, will not be enough to sustain the tropical forests because the underlying causes of deforestation are institutional, social, and economic. Although many of the needed reforms can only come from the governments and people of the tropical nations, the United States has a role, especially in the areas of research, technology development, education, and resource planning. OTA looks specifically at forests in the U.S. Caribbean and western Pacific island territories. These forests have benefited very little from
PAGE 35
Section I/Year in Review l 33 the increased international awareness of the importance of forest resources. They receive little, if any, management. OTA identifies possible congressional actions to help conserve tropical forest resources including: Continue oversight hearings of the Agency for International Development and multilateral organizations to assure that U.S. development assistance supports sustainable use of forest resources as mandated by the Foreign Assistance Act. Strengthen the U.S. Forest Service institutes and programs in Hawaii and Puerto Rico, and through them support natural resource agencies in Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the western Pacific territories, Maintain low-cost availability of Landsat data and continue to support training of tropical nations personnel in remote-sensing analysis and development planning. Establish U.S. tropical forestry centers of excellence to conduct forestry research and education. Promote international ad hoc committees formed to assist tropical nations in planning long-term forest development. Encourage tropical forestry research that is broadly interdisciplinary and relevant to both conservation and development. Encourage the U.S. private sector to develop and implement technologies that will sustain tropical forest resources.
PAGE 36
34 Annual Report to the Congress for 1984 Nuclear Power in an Age of Uncertainty Without significant changes in the technology, management, and level of public acceptance, nuclear power in the United States is unlikely to be expanded in this century beyond the reactors already under construction. Currently, nuclear powerplants present too many financial risks as a result of uncertainties in electric demand growth, very high capital costs, operating problems, increasing regulatory requirements, and growing public opposition. Despite these problems, some utilities have clearly demonstrated that the difficulties with this technology are not insurmountable. Furthermore, there are national policy reasons why it could be important to have an improved nuclear option in the future. The present generation of reactors suffered from an immature technology and an underestimation by some utilities and their contractors of the difficulty of managing it. These problems need not recur if new reactors are ordered because new designs will incorporate many changes made to correct problems of existing reactors. In addition, only utilities with a demonstrated ability to manage nuclear construction and operation are likely to order them. These changes are essential, but by themselves are probably not adequate to break the present impasse. Construction problems, operating mishaps, and accidents have been too serious for the confidence of the public, investors, rate and safety regulators, and the utilities themselves to be restored easily. Unless this trust is restored, nuclear power will not be a credible energy option for this country. It appears possible, however, that a combination of additional improvements in technology and the way nuclear power is managed and regulated could restore the required confidence. Technological improvements can be very important in that effort. One approach would be to focus research and development on improving current light water reactor (LWR) designs by resolving safety issues and designing standardized reactors optimized for safety and economics. It is possible that even greatly improved LWRS will not be viewed by the public as acceptably safe. Therefore, research and development on alternative reactors could be essential in restoring the nuclear option. Several concepts appear promising, including the high temperature gas-cooled reactor, the PIUS reactor (a concept where an LWRtype core and other critical reactor elements are submerged in a large
PAGE 37
Section IiYear in Review 35 pool of water), and heavy water reactors. All have passive, inherent safety characteristics rather than relying on active, engineered systems to protect against accidents. Special attention should be paid to smaller reactors which have potential for factory fabrication, lower financial risk, and greater safety. Safe and reliable operation of nuclear powerplants is an exacting task, which demands a major commitment to excellence by the utility. If a utility is unable to develop this commitment itself, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Institute for Nuclear Power Operations must generate it. In extreme cases, a utilitys operating license could be suspended until its nuclear operations reflect the required competence, perhaps by employing other utilities or service companies. Similarly, certification of utilities could be considered as a prerequisite for permits for new plants. These drastic steps may be warranted because public acceptance depends in part on all reactors performing well. Several utilities recently have shown that it is possible to meet construction budgets and schedules even under current regulatory procedures. The regulatory process, however, is more unpredictable than necessary, and there is no assurance that safety and efficiency are being optimized. Encouraging preapproved standardized designs and developing procedures and analytical tools for evaluating proposed safety backfits would help make licensing more efficient without sacrificing safety. Legislation may not be required to effect these changes. The improvements in technology and operations described above should produce gains in public acceptance. Additional steps may be required, however, because at present over 50 percent of the public opposes the construction of more reactors. Openly addressing the concerns of the critics and providing assurance of a controlled rate of nuclear expansion might eliminate much of the reason for public disaffection and begin to rebuild a sense of trust. If progress can be made in all these areas, nuclear power will be much more likely to be considered when new electric generation capacity is needed. Such progress will be difficult because many divergent groups will have to work together, and substantial technical and institutional change may be necessary.
PAGE 38
36 l Annual Report to the Congress for 1984 Commercial Biotechnology: An International Analysis The United States currently leads the world in the commercialization of biotechnology, but this countrys preeminence may not continue. A well-developed life science base, the availability of financing for high-risk ventures, and an entrepreneurial spirit have established the United States as a leader in the commercialization of biotechnology. But if Federal funding for basic life science continues to decline, the science base, which supports innovation in biotechnology as well as in other fields, may be eroded. Also, Federal funding of generic applied research and personnel training in the areas of bioprocess engineering and applied microbiology may be insufficient to support rapid commercialization. In fiscal year 1983, the United States spent significantly more on basic biotechnology research than on generic applied research in bioprocess engineering and applied microbiology. The continued availability of financing for new biotechnology firms until they are self-supporting may be another problem. Finally, to maintain a strong competitive position, certain aspects of U.S. health, safety, and environmental regulation and intellectual property law may need to be clarified and modified. Biotechnology, as defined in this report, is the industrial use of recombinant DNA, cell fusion, and novel bioprocessing techniques. Following the first successful directed insertion of foreign DNA into a host micro-organism in 1973, scientists in the United States and other countries recognized the potential for directing living cells to develop new and improved products and processes. Over 100 new firms have been started in the United States in the last several years to commercialize innovations in biotechnology. Additionally, in the United States and abroad, established companies from a broad range of industries are investing in biotechnology. Potential industrial uses of these new techniques include production of new and improved pharmaceutical and animal health products, improvement of commercially important plants, production of chemicals, pollution control, and degradation of toxic wastes. Japan is likely to be the leading competitor of the United States, followed by the Federal Republic of Germany, the United Kingdom, Switzerland, and France. A broad range of Japanese companies have extensive experience in traditional bioprocess technology, and Japan
PAGE 39
Section I/Year in Review l 37 has more bioprocessing plants and bioprocess engineers than the United States. Furthermore, the Japanese Government has targeted biotechnology as a key technology of the future and is financing cooperative interindustry biotechnology projects. The European countries are not commercializing biotechnology as rapidly as either the United States or Japan, However, several large pharmaceutical and chemical companies in the United Kingdom, the Federal Republic of Germany, Switzerland, and France will be competitors in selected product areas. OTA analyzes the level of activity in the competitor countries in the commercialization of biotechnology from three perspectives: l the number and kinds of companies; the markets targeted by industrial R&D; and l the interrelationships among companies and the overall organization of the commercial effort. OTA also evaluates the following 10 factors potentially important to the commercialization of biotechnology in the competitor countries. These factors are listed roughly in order of their current importance: l l l l l l l l l l financing and tax incentives for firms; government funding of basic and applied research; personnel availability and training; health, safety, and environmental regulation; intellectual property law; university/industry relationships; antitrust law; international technology transfer, investment, and trade; government targeting policies in biotechnology; and public perception. 38-855 0 85 6 : QL 3
PAGE 40
. 38 l Annual Report to the Congress for 1984 U.S. Passenger Rail Technologies Foreign experience and current U.S. market factors indicate that any U.S. corridor with totally new high-speed (125 mph and above] rail sys. terns would have difficulty generating enough revenue to cover operating and capital costs. Thus, introduction of high-speed rail service in the United States will probably depend on whether the public benefits are judged sufficient to justify likely public assistance. The technologies for high-speed rail are well understood and, in themselves, present no serious obstacles. OTA examined the experience of foreign countries to assess the outlook for high-speed passenger rail in the United States, but no specific proposals for rail corridors in the United States were evaluated. All foreign high-speed lines have been built with government assistance. The systems generally report favorable financial results with regard to operating costs, though independent audits to confirm this are not available. Analysis of the factors that influence a passengers choice of travel mode suggests that a potential high-speed passenger rail corridor should have some or all of the following characteristics: cities along a route generating major passenger travel flows in the 100to 300-mile-trip range; cities with high population and high population densities; cities with well-developed local transit systems to feed the highspeed line; and a strong reason to travel between cities, generally because one city is a dominant center of commercial, cultural, or governmental activity. High-speed systems require high ridership to meet operating costs. European and Japanese systems are located in corridors with higher population densities than any corridors being considered in the United Statesexcept for the Washington, New York, and Boston Corridor (Northeast Corridor). Both Japan and France had reached capacity on sections of their conventional lines before implementing high-speed service. The lowest cost option for a high-speed rail system, typically used for lower volume operations, is conventional diesel-powered equipment on existing trackthe system operating in Britain. The most expensive option is to build new track and new equipment, as the Japanese have done. This cost, although always higher than that for upgrading track,
PAGE 41
Section I/Year in Review l 39 varies widely depending on terrain, land use, and population density, For example, although the new French high-speed line cost $4 million per mile, the most recently completed links of the Japanese system cost about $35 million to $40 million per mile, The earliest Japanese routes cost about $20 million per mile (in 1979 dollars). OTA also looked into the prospects of magnetic levitation (maglev) technologiesultra-high-speed ground transportation that relies on magnetic suspension instead of conventional steel wheels on the rail and the status of railcar manufacturing industries. Different types of maglev systems for intercity passenger service are being developed independently by the Federal Republic of Germany and by Japan. Although neither system appears to have insurmountable technical obstacles, both require further development and testing to substantiate technical feasibility and to determine capital and operating costs under conditions that fairly reflect those of actual revenue service. Not until 1985 will sufficient information be available from the West German tests to determine how the system will meet cost and performance standards. Japan is seeking to build a new test track and testing advanced technologies, including the superconducting magnets used in their system. All U.S.-owned passenger railcar manufacturers have abandoned the field, and foreign owners are filling U.S. sales. U.S. manufacturers (other than the German-owned Budd Co.) are not likely to reenter the field unless the United States follows the example of Europe and Japan, which sustain their passenger railcar manufacturing industries by ensuring a stable, predictable, and planned market for rail equipment. The U.S. market for railcars is small and uncertain. Most railcar orders for the rest of the 1980s already have been placed, and the market for the 1990s and beyond is not likely to be large enough to support more than a few small U.S. manufacturers.
PAGE 42
40 Annual Report to the Congress for 1984 International Competitiveness in Electronic s Electronics remains a leader among American industries, but U.S. manufacturers face a future in which foreign competitors maybe their technological equals. Without positive action by the Federal Government, the Nations technical superiority will continue to erode, contributing to the decline of U.S. international competitiveness in this and other industries. Today, high-technology U.S. manufacturers of thumbnail-size integrated circuits as well as computers and communication systems remain second to none in both technology and most measures of commercial success. On the other hand, U.S. competitiveness in consumer electronics has declined precipitously. Technical and structural change in electronics will continue to be rapid, creating risks as well as opportunities for both American and foreign firms. By any criterion, electronics is vital to the future of the U.S. economy and for national security. Even so, the Federal Government has done little to help electronics manufacturers. The contrast with industrial policies in countries like Japan is striking. International competitiveness is closely linked to policies with domestic objectives, that is to industrial policywhich OTA uses as a neutral term to denote the collection of regulations, laws, and other policy instruments that affect business and industry. In this sense, the United States has had an industrial policy since its founding. The lesson of electronics, along with sectors like steel and automobiles that OTA has examined previously, is straightforward: future U.S. competitiveness will depend on a mole coherent and consistent approach to matters of industrial policy. In developing a more coherent industrial policy, Congress could choose from among five alternatives. While they overlap, each represents a distinct thrust. The five alternatives are: 1. a strategy that would aim broadly at preserving domestic markets and domestic jobs; 2. protection and/or support for a limited number of industries that the Government judges critical for the U.S. economy or for national security; 3. support for the technological base and infrastructure that underlie American industries; 4. promotion of the global competitiveness of U.S. firms and industries; and
PAGE 43
Section I/Year in Review 41 5. deferral in all possible instances to the private sector when decisions concerning industrial development are to be made. Plainly, a more coherent industrial policy offers no quick fixes for the dilemmas of the U.S. consumer electronics industry, nor any guarantees for the future competitiveness of our microelectronics or computer sectors. Just as plainly, industrial policy is a continuing activity of governments everywhere. In the United States, we can continue to leave industrial policy to the random play of events, or begin to improve the system. The first requisite for more effective policymaking is greater agreement on the role of high-technology sectors like electronics as a driving force for future economic growth. This, in turn, depends on a greater degree of consensus on where the U.S. economy is heading and where it should head. The second requisite is better understanding of how particular Federal laws, regulations, and administrative procedures affect the competitiveness of American industry. This will require a better capability within the Federal Government for analyzing the sources of competitive strength. If a more coherent industrial policy is far from a panacea, it nonetheless offers the best prospects for enhancing U.S. competitivenessin electronics and in other industries, old and new. Making our industrial policies work betterevaluating, linking, and coordinating the many Government measures that make up U.S. industrial policy could pay vast dividends throughout our economy.
PAGE 44
42 Annual Report to the Congress for 1984 An Assessment of Maritime Trade and T echnology The value of world trade to the U.S. economy has increased dramatically in the past two decades, nearly doubling during the 1970s. Although the U.S. ratio of exports to gross national product is still below that of most other industrial countries, it rose from 4.4 percent in 1970 to 8.5 percent in 1980, and could reach 15 percent by 1990. A variety of rapid changes over the past few decades have transformed the maritime industries that are essential to world trade. But U.S. maritime policies have not kept pace with changes in world trade or the maritime industry. They remain aimed at conditions that prevailed in decades past. The U.S. maritime policy framework that exists today is outdated and appears inadequate to address critical maritime problems of national concern. Major new or revised Federal policies are needed if the U.S. maritime industries are to remain healthy in the decades to come. Without policy changes, most segments of the U.S. maritime industry will continue to decline in size and influence. In the past 25 years, the U.S.-flag merchant fleet has changed from the largest and most diverse in the world to a specialized fleet of modest size that is prominent only in the scheduled container-carrying segment of U.S. international trade. Practically all of U.S. petroleum imports and sizable proportions of our exports of coal, grain, and other key commodities are carried by huge foreign-flag fleets owned by U.S. maritime business interests. U.S. shipyards have maintained leadership in complex warship construction but now rarely build large merchant ships. These changes have been accompanied by international political and technological changes that have a significant impact on the economics of shipping and shipbuilding. In recent years, there has been more governmental control of trade and access to cargo than at any time in the past several decades. The changing nature of international marine transportation itself is evidenced by the concentration of businesses in fewer, larger firms; by rapid worldwide transfer of technologies; and by many ship-operating firms offering intermodal rates and services. Because of these changes, a comprehensive and coordinated approach toward new maritime policies is necessary to clarify the national interest, define national objectives, bring effectiveness to Federal programs, and ensure consistency within industry promotion efforts.
PAGE 45
Section /lYear in Review l 4 3 There is no generally accepted U.S. cargo policy because national interests are not defined and strategies for international negotiation have not been developed. Federal policies and practices could have a profound influence on whether U.S.-flag ship operators are treated fairly by other countries and given equal and competitive rights to carry cargo. Lacking policies and strategies, the United States has remained on the sidelines while the rest of the world defines the rules of cargo access. There is widespread agreement that U.S. maritime subsidy programs of the past have been counterproductive to the goal of stimulating a competitive commercial U.S. maritime industry. The present administration eliminated funding for ship construction subsidies and has sought to phase out ship-operating subsidies. However, new policies are needed to substitute for these programs because, without Federal intervention, U.S. maritime industries cannot meet international competition, which benefits from many forms of government support. Before new programs can receive broad support in the United States, the level of Federal promotion needs to be clearly justified by specific national benefits such as the requirement to maintain an adequate defense mobilization base. Such requirements have not been defined. It has been and remains difficult to develop a comprehensive policy that integrates the important aspects of trade promotion, cargo access, maritime, regulation, industry incentives, and maritime research. Federal agencies, lacking a coordinated approach, have often sought conflicting goals. Congress could seek to resolve some of the major conflicts through comprehensive legislation or through combined consideration of a range of legislative proposals. At a minimum, there should be Federal coordination of trade and shipping policies which are often considered separately, both within the U.S. Government and international organizations where the United States has a major role. Those policies can have a direct impact on future international trade and the participation of the United States and its shipping industry in that trade. OTA has found that, although there are both healthy and troubled segments of the U.S. maritime industries, all sectors are becoming increasingly dependent on Federal policy decisions. And, with increasing competition in world trade as well as shipping services to carry that trade, intervention by all governments is more and more prevalent.
PAGE 46
44 Annual Report to the Congress for 1984 Water-Related Technologies for Sustainable Agriculture in U.S. Arid /Semiarid L and s Agriculture in the arid/semiarid United States (generally the 17 Western States) is being increasingly threatened by water-related problems that-are likely to intensify in the future. Western agriculture constitutes a large share of the total income derived from farming and ranching in the United Statesin 1980 the Western contribution was $59 billion or 43 percent of the U.S. farm incomemaking Western agricultural problems of national significance. An estimated one-half of the Western United States already is experiencing local and seasonal water-supply problems. Growing water demands from nonagricultural users plus increased problems of ground water depletion, salt buildup in soils, and water-quality deterioration are causing heightened concern about the sustainability of Western agriculture in its present form. In some areas, improved water management in irrigation may compensate for decreasing availability of affordable water. In other areas, irrigation agriculture may gradually decline and in some cases is likely to cease altogether due to water-related problems. Simultaneously, those agricultural systems based on natural precipitation (dryland and rangeland agriculture) are likely to increase in importance. Existing and emerging technologies have potential for sustaining the long-term productivity of arid/semiarid agriculture. Successful application is site-specific, however, and depends on understanding the hydrologic cycle and other natural processes involved. Complex and changing legal, institutional, and economic issues also affect water use and technology adoption. Incompatible, incomplete, and unsynthesized data make it especially difficult to identify and verify water-related potentials and impacts of particular technologies. An expanded and committed Federal role is fundamental to help sustain long-term agricultural productivity for the Western United States. Some current Federal activities are not effectively advancing this goal. The mountain snowpack has received inadequate Federal attention for its water-producing properties even though that water-source is primarily under Federal management and supplies the principal surface runoff for much of the Western United States. Federal agricultural programs have for the most part focused on production that is largely based on costly inputs including the use of commercial fertilizers and pesticides, frequent tillage, and the use of few, very specialized, annual crops. Already, some Western farmers, ranchers, and researchers are
PAGE 47
Section I/Year in Review l 45 questioning the suitability of these activities for arid/semiarid lands and are experimenting on their own with other technologies to reduce economic risk and maintain productivity. OTA identified a number of congressional actions to promote longterm productivity of Western arid/semiarid agriculture including the following: l l l l l l l l Establish a National Center for Water Resources Research to unite university, private sector, and government water-related research activities and identify solutions to national water problems, particularly those of Western agriculture. Establish a small specialized analytical unite.g., an office of resource analysisto provide Congress with long-range and quantitative evaluations of existing data on renewable natural resources. Tailor and adjust Federal programs to reflect the importance of the Western mountain snowpack for arid/semiarid lands water production. Develop and promote technologies for dryland and rangeland agriculture that regenerate degraded lands and sustain long-term productivity to provide new economic opportunities where traditional irrigation is threatened, Sustain the Federal commitment to water-quality programs including control of nonpoint agricultural pollution and public health research. Establish mechanisms to increase the involvement of Western agricultural water users in research and development of water-related technologies, Carry out Federal responsibilities to ensure that the interests of disadvantaged farmers and American Indians are equitably and fairly represented in public and private sector decisions affecting water availability and use. Assist States in developing computerized water-resources data bases to improve, capacity for local and regional water planning and management for agricultural and other uses. 38-855 0 85 7 : QL 3
PAGE 48
. 46 l Annual Report to the Congress for 1984 Scientific Validity of Polygraph Testing: esearch Review and Evaluation A R The technical memorandum is limited to a critical review and evaluation of prior research. The memorandum does not consider, in detail, other polygraph issues such as utility, ethics, impact on employee morale and productivity, privacy, and constitutional rights. The technical memorandum, instead, focuses on the nature and application of polygraph tests, scientific controversy over polygraph testing, data from field and simulation studies, and factors that affect test validity. Salyut: Soviet Steps Toward Permanent Human Presence in Space The study examines the range of capabilities that the Soviets have already achieved in using men and women aboard the Salyut stations and the directions their program may take in the future. The technical memorandum is part of a larger, continuing OTA assessment of Civilian Space Stations. It includes the result of a workshop held at OTA in December 1982. The memorandum summarizes the requirements and conditions that Congress might want to impose if the Landsat system is transferred to the private sector. The memorandum also summarizes the social, economic, and political benefits of the U.S. remote sensing programs. It is part of a larger assessment of International Cooperation and Competition in Civilian Space Activities. Update of Federal Activities Regarding th e Us e of Pneumococcal Vaccine Describes Federal activities that have taken place since 1979; reevaluates the 1979 cost-effectiveness analysis of vaccination against pneumococcal pneumonia, including new information on vaccine efficacy; and discusses policy implications. Revie W of Postal Automation Strategy: A Technical and Decision Analysis The memorandum contains a review of the United States Postal Service (USPS) decision to utilize single-line optical character readers (OCRs) instead of multi-line OCRs, and includes a comparative technical
PAGE 49
Section I/Year in Review l 47 and economic analysis of the two technologies in the context of the overall postal automation program. Encouraging High-Technology DevelopmentBackground Paper #2 Addresses the factors that influence the creation and location of hightechnology firms and the roles that high-technology industries play in the growth and revitalization of the U.S. economy. Impacts of Neuroscience Neuroscience, research on the nervous system, is already playing a critical role in preventing and treating the diseases of older Americans. The background paper is part of a larger study on Technology and Aging in America, Directed Energy Missile Defense in Space Introduces the new technologies that form the basis of President Reagans proposal to study the possibilities of developing a defense against Soviet nuclear ballistic missiles. It focuses on the so-called Star Wars technologies which propose the interception of missiles in their boost phase by directed energy weapons. It also summarizes the possible roles of these technologies as part of defensive systems, as well as the Soviet countermeasures and other problems which must be overcome. Technology, Renewable Resources, and American Crafts Summarizes technologys effects on craftstraditional and contemporarythat use renewable resources as raw materials. The paper is part of OTAs ongoing monitoring of renewable resource/technology issues for Congress. The Emergence of Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imaging Technology: A Clinical, Industrial, and Policy Analysis Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) is an exciting new diagnostic technology that uses radiowaves and magnetic fields, rather than Xrays, to produce images of the interior of the human body, NMR provides excellent distinctions between different structures and tissues without requiring the injection of potentially toxic contrasting agents
PAGE 50
48 l Annual Report to the Congress for 1984 and it is not affected by bone. This technique offers the possibility of earlier detection and more accurate diagnosis of many ailments. Arms Control in Space Summary of findings and proceedings, of six workshop sessions held by OTA in Washington, DC, on January 30 and 31, 1984, to explore and examine antisatellite (ASAT) weapons as one aspect of space arms control. The proceedings report the viewpoints and ideas discussed during the conference and identify areas of controversy and general agreement.
PAGE 51
Section 111.-Work in Progress More than 25 projects were in progress during fiscal year 1984, including 18 new studies. This section lists the titles of assessments underway or in press, as of September 30, 1984. For a fuller description of these projects, please refer to the current Assessment Activities, OTA-PC-1O5. This booklet may be obtained from OTA by calling OTAs Publishing Office (202) 224-8996. Energy, Materials, and International Security Division Technology and the American economic transition Energy and Materials Program Potential U.S. natural gas availability Load management and generating technologies for electric utilities in the 1990s Technologies for surface mine reclamation on Western Federal lands Industry, Technology, and Employment Program Technologies to reduce U.S. materials import vulnerability Technology and structural unemployment: retraining adult displaced workers Cleanup of uncontrolled hazardous waste sites under Superfund International competition: the services industries International Security and Commerce Program Strategic command, control, communications, and intelligence systems International cooperation and competitiveness in civilian space activities New ballistic missile defense technologies Health and Life Sciences Division Food and Renewable Resources Program Technology, public policy, and the changing structure of American agriculture Technologies to maintain biological diversity Integrated renewable resource management for U.S. insular areas Health Program Evaluation of Agent Orange protocol (mandated study) Preventing illness and injury in the workplace Federal policies and the medical devices industry Status of biomedical research and related technology for tropical diseases Blood policy and technology Medical technology and diagnosis-related groups: evaluating Medicares Prospective Payment System Technology and Indian health care: effectiveness, access, and efficiency Physicians and medical technology: use, cost, and payment methods Technologies for determining mutation frequencies in human beings 49
PAGE 52
50 Annual Report to the Congress for 1984 Biological Applications Program Technology and aging in America Alternatives to animal use in testing and experimentation Reproductive hazards in the workplace Life sustaining technologies and the elderly Disorder causing dementia Science, Information, and Natural Resources Division Communication and Information Technologies Program Information technology R&D: critical trends and issues Information and communication technologies and the office Federal Government information technology: administrative process and civil liberties Intellectual property rights in an age of electronics and information Oceans and Environment Program Managing commercial high-level radioactive waste Protecting the Nations groundwater from contamination Technology for developing offshore oil and gas resources in hostile environments Technologies for disposing of waste in the ocean Science, Transportation, and Innovation Program Civilian space stations and the U.S. future in space Hazardous materials transportation: technology issues
PAGE 53
Section lV.-Organization and Operations Created by the Technology Assessment Act of 1972 [86 Stat. 797], OTA is an agency of the legislative branch of the Federal Government (a copy of the Act is found in app. C, p. 116). OTA 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, appointed by the Speaker of the House, evenly divided by party. In 1984, Cong. Morris Udall (D-Arizona) and Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) 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 composed 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 is required to provide support for assessments; and undertake such additional associated activities as may be necessary. 51
PAGE 54
52 Annual Report to the Congress for 1984 INITIATION, PROCESSING r AND FLOW OF ASSESSMENTS OTAs primary function is to provide congressional committees with assessments or studies that identify the range of probable positive and negative 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 at the request of a majority of the committee members; l the OTA Board; or l 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 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 and materials; international security and commerce; industry, technology, and employment; biological applications; food and renewable resources; health; communication and information technologies; oceans and environment; and science, transportation, and innovation. See chart detailing OTAs organizational structure. 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. 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
PAGE 55
Section /VOrganization and Operations 53 I ? I I Assistant Director Assistant Director Assistant Director and Health and Science, Information, Life Sciences and Natural Security Division Division Resources Division I 4 Energy & Materials Program International Security & Commerce Program Industry, Technology, & Employment Program Food & Renewable t Communication & Resources Program Information Technologies Program Health Oceans & Program Environment Program Biological Applications Science, Transportation, & Program Innovation Program l Oc)erations Division consists of the following units: Administrative Services. Budget and Financial Operations, Information Center, Personnel Office, and Publishing Office. meetings, These interactions provide citizens with access to information and help OTA to remain sensitive to the full array of perspectives, not only of the recognized stakeholders, but also of technically trained and lay persons. 38-855 0 85 8 : QL 3
PAGE 56
54 l Annual Report to the Congress for 1984 OPERATIONS Publishing Activities During fiscal year 1984, OTA delivered 37 published documents to Congress. These included: 17 assessment reports, 5 technical memoranda, 4 background papers, 3 health technology case studies, 1 workshop proceeding, and 7 administrative reports. Requests for OTA Publications During the period September 30 through October 1, 1984, OTAs Publishing Office received an average of 149 telephone and mail requests per day. Additional requests were processed by OTA program offices and the OTA Congressional Relations and Public Affairs Office and are not included in the above statistics. Private Sector Reprinting of OTA Publications To date, 44 OTA publications have been reprinted (in whole or in part) by commercial publishers or private organizations. Among the reports reprinted during the fiscal year were: l l l l Pergamon Press, Inc. (NY) reprinted the following: Commercial Biotechnology: An International Analysis, and Computerized Manufacturing Automation: Employment, Education, and the Workplace; Petrocelli Books, Inc. (NJ) reprinted Computer-Based National Information Systems: Technology and Public Policy; UNIPUB, Inc. (NY) reprinted Acid Rain and Transported Air Pollutants; National Technical Information Service (VA) reprinted Health Case Study 27: Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Technology: A Clinical, Industrial, and Policy Analysis. Sales of Publications Government Printing Office. Sales of OTA publications by the Superintendent of Documents continue to increase. In fiscal year 1984 the number of titles put on sale was 163 and GPO sold 25,176 copies. 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 out print by GPO. During fiscal year 1984, NTIS sold 2,485 copies of OTA reports.
PAGE 57
Section IVOrganization and Operations l 55 Organizational Roster of OTA Staff as of September 198 4 OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR John H. Gibbons, Director Sue Bachtel, Executive Assistant Holly Gwin, Research Analyst Glenda Lawing, Secretary Congressional and Public Affairs Office Mary Procter, Director of CPA Jean McDonald, Press Officer Ellen Mika, Assistant to Press Officer Karen Piccione, Administrative Assistant Eugenia Ufholz, Congressional Relations Officer Medical Services Rose McNair, Resident Nurse ENERGY, MATERIALS, AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY DIVISION Lionel S. Johns, Assistant Director Beth Alexiou, Division Assistant Technology and Economic Transition Henry Kelly, Project Director Linda Long, Administrative Assistant Energy and Materials Program Richard Rowberg, Program Manager Peter Blair, Senior Analyst Thomas Bull, Senior Analyst Alan Crane, Senior Associate Steve Plotkin, Senior Analyst Pidge Quigg, Administrative Assistant Jenifer Robison, Senior Analyst Edna Saunders, Secretary Joanne Seder, Analyst Richard Thoreson, Senior Analyst International Security and Commerce Program Peter Sharfman, Program Manager Douglas Adkins, Senior Analyst Eric Bazques, Analyst Bruce Blair, Analyst Jannie Coles, Secretary Richard Dalbello, Analyst Gerald Epstein, Analyst Martha Harris, Senior Analyst Tom Karas, Senior Analyst Gordon Law, Senior Analyst Nancy Lubin, Analyst Dorothy Richroath, Editorial Assistant Jacqueline Robinson, Administrative Assistant Ray Williamson, Senior Analyst Industry, Technology, and Employment Program Audrey Buyrn, Program Manager John Alic, Senior Analyst Andrea Amiri, Secretary Lance Antrim, Senior Analyst Patricia Canavan, Administrative Assistant Wendell Fletcher, Senior Analyst Kitty Gillman, Senior Analyst Julie Gorte, Analyst Joel Hirschhorn, Senior Associate Karen Larsen, Senior Analyst Kirsten Oldenburg, Analyst HEALTH AND LIFE SCIENCES DIVISION Roger Herdman, Assistant Director Ogechee Koffler, Division Assistant Kerry Kemp, Division Editor Biological Applications Program Gretchen Kolsrud, Program Manager Robert Cook-Deegan, Senior Analyst Gary Ellis, Analyst
PAGE 58
56 l Annual Report to the Congress for 1984 Robert Harootyan, Analyst Timothy Hart, Senior Analyst Linda Rayford, Secretary Sharon Smith, Administrative Assistant Louise Williams, Senior Analyst Food and Renewable Resources Program Walter E. Parham, Program Manager Patricia Durana, Administrative Assistant Nellie Hammond, Secretary Alison Hess, Analyst Michael Phillips, Senior Analyst Susan Shen, Analyst Carolyn Swarm, Secretary Phyllis Windle, Analyst Health Program Clyde J. Behney, Program Manager Anne Kesselman Burns, Analyst Virginia Cwalina, Administrative Assistant Beckie I. Erickson, Secretary Hellen Gelband, Analyst Cynthia King, Analyst Larry Miike, Senior Analyst Brenda Miller, Word Processor/ P.C. Specialist Gloria Ruby, Analyst Jane Sisk, Senior Associate Judith Wagner, Senior Analyst Special Projects Michael Gough, Senior Associate Karl Kronebusch, Analyst SCIENCE, INFORMATION, AND NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION John Andelin, Assistant Director Doris Smith, Division Assistant Communication and Information Technologies Program Rick Weingarten, Program Manager Lauren Ackerman, Research Analyst Prudence Adler, Analyst Marjory Blumenthal, Analyst Elizabeth Emanuel, Administrative Assistant Karen Gamble, Analyst Linda Garcia, Analyst Shirley Gayheart, Secretary Jennifer Nelson, Research Assistant Zalman Shaven, Project Director Jean Smith, Analyst Chuck Wilk, Senior Analyst Fred Wood, Senior Analyst Oceans and Environment Program Robert Niblock, Program Manager William Barnard, Project Director Kathleen Beil, Administrative Assistant Thomas Cotton, Senior Analyst James Curlin, Senior Associate Robert Friedman, Senior Analyst Joan Ham, Analyst Peter Johnson, Senior Associate Daniel Kevin, Analyst Jacqueline Mulder, Secretary Kay Patteson, Secretary Paula Stone, Senior Analyst Science, Transportation, and Innovation Program Nancy Naismith, Program Manager Phil Chandler, Senior Analyst Marsha Fenn, Administrative Assistant Barry HoIt, Analyst Larry L. Jenney, Senior Analyst Edith Page, Analyst Paul Phelps, Analyst Betty Jo Tatum, Secretary Lucia Turnbull, Analyst
PAGE 59
Section /l/-Organization and Operations l 5 7 OPERATIONS DIVISION Bart McGarry, Operations Manager John Bell, Senior Systems Integration Analyst Administrative Services Thomas P. McGurn, Administrative Officer Susan Carhart, General Counsel Alexandra Ferguson, Director of Contracts Edith Franzen, Conference Center Coordinator Bryan Harrison, Office Automation Systems Analyst Jackie McGee, Contracts Assistant Lisa Raines, Attorney/Analyst Budget and Financial Operations Jane Easton, Budget and Finance Officer Joan Camino, Budget and Finance Assistant Carolyn Harris, Budget Specialist and Clerical Assistant Catherine Henry, Budget, Financial, and Systems Analyst Phil Jackson, Management Information Systems Coordinator Ted Wagner, Accounting and Budget Analyst Information Center Martha Dexter, Manager, Information Services Suzanne Boisclair, Information Technician Vermille Davis, Information Technician Leslie Fleming, Information Technician Gail Kouril, Assistant Manager, Information Services Personnel Office William Norris, Personnel Officer Lola Craw, Personnel Specialist Denise DeSanctis, Personnel Specialist Marsha Williams, Administrative Assistant Publishing Office Joe Henson, Publishing Officer John Bergling, Graphic Designer/ Illustrator Kathie S. Boss, Technical Specialist Debra Datcher, Administrative Assistant
PAGE 61
Appendix A Technology Assessment Advisory Council The Technology Assessment Advisory Council (TAAC) was established by OTAs statute, and members are appointed by OTAs Congressional Technology Assessment Board (TAB). The Council advises TAB and the Director on issues and other matters related to science, technology, and technology assessment, Members of TAAC on September 30, 1984, were: Charles N. Kimball, Chairman Dr. Kimball is President Emeritus of the Midwest Research Institute, having previously served there as Chairman of the Board and President. He is a former member of the Board of Directors of Trans World Airlines. He has served on several government scientific commissions and advisory councils and has written extensively for business, management and scientific publications. Dr. Beistline is a private consultant in Fairbanks, Alaska. He is former Dean of the School of Mineral Industry, and also Provost of the University of Alaska. Claire T. Dedrick Dr. Dedrick is Executive Officer of the State Land Commission of California. She is a former member of the State of California Air Resources Board, a former California Public Utilities Commissioner, and has served as Secretary for Resources with The Resources Agency of the State of California. James C. Fletcher Dr. Fletcher is Whiteford Professor of Technology and Resources, University of Pittsburgh. He is former Administrator of NASA, President of the University of Utah, and Vice President for Systems at Aerojet General. S. David Freeman Mr. Freeman is currently a private consultant. He is former Chairman and member of the Board of the Tennessee VaIley Authority. He has headed the energy policy staff of the Presidents Office of Science and Technology Policy; directed the Ford Foundation Energy Policy Project; and served as assistant to the Chairman of the Federal Power Commission 61
PAGE 62
62 Annual Report to the Congress for 1964 Carl N. Hodges Mr. Hodges is Director of the University of Arizona Environmental Research Laboratory and Chairman of the Arizona Solar Energy Commission. He currently serves as a member of the National Academy of Sciences Advisory Committee on Technology Innovation and as a member of the Arizona-Mexico Commission. Mr. Hodges is a Fellow of the AAAS. Rachel McCulloch Dr. McCulloch is Associate Professor of Economics at the University of Wisconsin, currently on leave at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. She has served as a consultant to the Federal Reserve Board; is a former member of the U.S. Cabinet Task Force on Oil Import Control; and presently serves as a member of the Presidential Commission on Industrial Competitiveness. William Jo Perry Dr. Perry is a managing director in the investment banking firm of Hambrecht & Quist, Inc. Prior to joining H&Q, he was the U.S. Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering. He is a member of the National Academy of Engineering. Dr. Perry will succeed Dr. Kimball as TAAC Chairman in 1985. David S. Potter Dr. Potter is Vice President, Power Products and Defense Operations Group at General Motors. He is formerly Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research and Development and Under Secretary of the Navy. He is a member of the National Academy of Engineering. Dr. Potter will serve as TAACS Vice Chairman commencing in 1985. Dr. Thomas is President Emeritus of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center and University Professor at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. He is a former member of the Presidents Biomedical Research Panel and of the Presidents Science Advisory Committee. Dr. Thomas is a distinguished lecturer and author in the medical field. He received the National Book Award in the arts and letters for his book, Lives of a Cell. Dr. Thomas is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine.
PAGE 63
App ATechnology Assessment Advisory Councii l 63 Charles A. Bowsher Mr. Bowsher is Comptroller General of the United States and Director of the U.S. General Accounting Office. Gilbert Gude Mr. Gude is Director of the Congressional Research Service, U.S. Library of Congress.
PAGE 64
Appendix B List of Advisors and Panel Members* ENERGY, MATERIALS, AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY DIVISION Technology and Economic Transition Technology and the American Economic Transition Advisory Panel David S, Saxon, Chair Chairman of the Corporation Massachusetts Institute of Technology Claude Ballard Partner Goldman Sachs William Baumol Department of Economics Princeton University Harvey Brooks Professor John F. Kennedy School of Government Harvard University Richard Crowder Senior Vice President for Strategic Planning and Corporate Risk Officer Pillsbury Co. Thomas G. Denomme Vice President Corporate Strategic Planning Chrysler Corp. Judy Gregory Research Associate Department of Professional Employees AFL-CIO Henry Lichstein Vice Chairman Citicorp/Citibank Mary Jo Manning Partner Wilkes, Artis, Hedrick, & Lane Ray Marshall Professor LBJ School of Public Affairs University of Texas John J. McNamara President Young & Rubicam USA Kathleen OReilly Executive Director Citizens Utility Board Charles F. Sabel Professor Department of Science, Technology, and Society Massachusetts Institute of Technology George M. Scalise Senior Vice President and Administrative Officer Advanced Micro Devices Barbara Starfield Center for Advanced Studies in Behavioral Science Arthur G. Wirth Department of Education Washington University Howard Young Director, Social Security Department United Auto Workers Workshop: Technology and the Health Industry Robert Fischell Applied Physics Laboratory Johns Hopkins University Gordon Gayner OConnor & Hannan Peter J. Goldschmidt Director, Health Services Research and Development Service Veterans Administration Karen Ignagni Assistant Director Department of Occupational Safety, Health, and Social Security AFL-C1O Affiliations are at time of appointment to panel or workshop. 6 4
PAGE 65
App BList of Advisors and Panel Members l 65 David Lederman President Applied Biomedical Corp. John Lind Vice President of Development Massachusetts Hospital Association Don Louriea Department of Preventive Medicine New Jersey Medical School Don Marlowe Director, Division of Medical Engineering Center for Medical Devices and Radiological Health Food and Drug Administration Lawrence Morris Senior Vice President Professional and Provider Affairs Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association William Munier Consultant Lou Nayman Assistant Director Federation of Nurses and Health Professionals Morton L. Patterson Director, Cost Benefit Studies Smith, Kline & French Laboratories Joseph Perpich Vice President for Planning and Development Maloy Laboratories Revlon Health Care Group Wayne Roe Vice President Economic Research and Policy Health Industries Manufacturers Association Harvey Sachs Consultant Edward Sandik Chief, Operation Research Branch National Cancer Institute National Institutes of Health Workshop: Technology Changes and Impacts on the Building Construction Industries Alton S. Bradford Assistant Commander for Engineering and Design Naval Facilities Engineering Command U.S. Department of the Navy Don O. Carlson Editor and Publisher Automation in Housing and Manufactured Home Dealer Magazine David E. Claridge Associate Professor of Civil, Environmental, and Architectural Engineering Building Energy Engineering Program University of Colorado Michael Clevenger Principal Technical Consultant Real Estate Division Xerox Corp. Albert Dietz Professor Emeritus School of Architecture and Planning Massachusetts Institute of Technology Eric Dluhosch Associate Professor of Building Technology School of Architecture and Planning Massachusetts Institute of Technology John P. Eberhard Executive Director Advisory Board on the Built Environment National Academy of Sciences James G. Gross Deputy Director Center for Building Technology National Bureau of Standards U.S. Department of Commerce Harry Mileaf Director of Technology and Product Development Sweets Division McGraw-Hill Information Systems Co. John P. Millhone Director Office of Buildings and Community Systems U.S. Department of Energy Piero N. Patri AIA Whisler-Patri Richard C. Reisman AIA, Associate Whisler-Patri Charles H. Thornton President Lev Zetlin Associates, Inc.
PAGE 66
66 Annual Report to the Congress for 1964 Richard L. Tucker Director Construction Industry Institute College of Engineering The University of Texas at Austin W. R. Wendel President Space Structures International Corp. Raymond P. Whitten Chief, Terrestrial Applications Technology Utilization Office National Aeronautics and Space Administration Workshop: Health Policy Leonard Fenniger Former Vice President for Scientific Affairs American Medical Association Gordon K. Gayer General Counsel Offices of OConnor & Hannon John Newman Director of Strategic Marketing Research General Mills Mary Poulin Research Associate Institute for the Future Michael Riddiough Consultant David Rosenbloom Vice President Health Data Institute Howard Salmon Vice President Center for Health Studies Health Corp. of America Kathy Schoen Research Director Service Employees International Union Gordon Trapnell Expert Consultant Actuarial Research Corp. Kenneth Warner Public Health Research Department of Health Planning and Administration School of Public Health University of Michigan James Webber Management Consultant Gail Wilensky Director of Research Center for Health Information, Research, and Analysis Project HOPE Energy and Materials Program Nuclear Power in an Age of Uncertainty George Dilworth Advisory Panel Manager George Rathjens, Chair Tennessee Valley Authority Director Linn Draper Center for International Studies Vice President Harvard University Gulf States Utilities James K. Asseltine Victor Gilinsky Commissioner Commissioner U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Jan Beyea Fritz Heimann Senior Scientist Counsel National Audubon Society General Electric Co. Richard Dean Leonard Hyman Vice President Vice President General Atomic Corp. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Thomas Dillon Robert Koger Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary Chairman for Nuclear Energy North Carolina Utilities Commission U.S. Department of Energy
PAGE 67
App BList of Advisors and Panel Members 67 Myron Kratzer Vice President International Energy Associates, Ltd. Byron Lee Senior Vice President Commonwealth Edison Jessica Tuchman Mathews Vice President World Resources Institute Arthur Porter Consultant David Rose Professor of Nuclear Physics Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lee Schipper Staff Scientist Lawrence Berkeley Labs James Sweeney Director Energy Modeling Forum Stanford University Eric Van Loon Executive Director Union of Concerned Scientists Workshop: Nuclear Reactor Research and Development Robert Fri, Chair President Energy Transition Corp. John Berga Washington Representative Electric Power Research Institute Merwin Brown Manager for Program Development Gas Cooled Reactor Associates Gordon L. Chipman, Jr. Deputy Assistant Secretary for Breeder Reactor Programs U.S. Department of Energy Thomas Cochran Staff Director Natural Resources Defense Council Richard Dean Vice President, Reactor Programs General Atomics Corp. George Dilworth Assistant General Manager TVA Arthur Fraas Consultant John P. Gibbons Engineer in Charge, Research Philadelphia Electric Daniel Giessing Director of Nuclear Regulation and Safety U.S. Department of Energy Simcha Golan Manager, Nuclear Systems Group Bechtel Group, Inc. Jerry Griffith U.S. Department of Energy Kare Hannerz Senior Scientist ASEA-ATOM Richard Hubbard Vice President MHB Technical Associates Nancy Jeffery Research Assistant Committee on Science and Technology U.S. House of Representatives Paul Kasten Director, Gas Cooled Reactor Programs Oak Ridge National Laboratory Richard Lester Department of Nuclear Engineering Massachusetts Institute of Technology Walter Loewenstein Deputy Director, Nuclear Power Division Electric Power Research Institute Gail Marcus Assistant Chief, Science Policy Research Division Congressional Research Service Library of Congress Roger Mattson Director, Systems Integration Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mark Mills President Science Concepts Keith Paulson Manager, Plant Integrated Systems Westinghouse Electric Corp. Howard Rohm U.S. Department of Energy Charles L. Storrs Director of Advanced Development Combustion Engineering
PAGE 68
68 l Annual Report to the Congress for 1984 John Wett Manager, LMFBR Projects Westinghouse Electric Corp. John Young Vice President International Energy Associates, Ltd. Potential U.S. Natural Gas Availability Advisory Panel William Vogely, Chair Department of Mineral Economics Pennsylvania State University Marc Cooper Research Consultant Consumer Energy Council of America Lloyd Elkins Petroleum Consultant Ed Erickson Professor of Economics and Business North Carolina State University Daniel Grubb Vice President, Gas Supply Natural Gas Pipeline Co. John Haun Professor of Geology Colorado School of Mines Donald Kash Director Science and Public Policy Program University of Oklahoma Harry C. Kent Director Potential Gas Agency Colorado School of Mines Lawrence Moss Energy/Environmental Design and Policy Analysis Roy E. Roadifer Chief Geologist Mobil Oil Corp. Benjamin Schlesinger Principal Energy and Environment Division Booz, Allen & Hamilton, Inc. John C. Sharer Assistant Director Unconventional Natural Gas Gas Research Institute John Weyant Deputy Director Energy Modeling Forum Stanford University Ex Officio: John Schanz Senior Specialist in Energy Research Policy Congressional Research Service Library of Congress U.S. Vulnerability to an Oil Import Curtailment: The Oil Replacement Capability Advisory Panel Rodney W. Nichols, Chair Executive Vice President The Rockefeller University Alvin Alm Deputy Director U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Richard E. Archer Assistant Professor Design Program Southern Illinois University Jan Brinch Energy Analysis and Planning Mueller Associates Nazli Choucri Professor Department of Political Science Massachusetts Institute of Technology Ernest L. Daman Senior Vice President Foster Wheeler Corp. Michael Del Grande Manager, Energy and Environment American Telephone & Telegraph Co. Robert Hemphill, Jr. Associate Director Applied Energy Services, Inc. Brad Holloman New York State Energy Research Development Authority Robert L. Judd Director Governors Office of Appropriate Technology State of California Terry Lash Deputy Director Department of Nuclear Safety State of Illinois Ray Maliszewski Assistant Vice President Bulk Transmission Planning American Electric Power Service Corp.
PAGE 69
App BList of Advisors and Panel Members l 69 Hal Miller, Jr. Vice President for Planning and Rates Transco Energy Co. Roberta Nichols Vice President Ford Motor Co. Christopher Palmer Director, Energy and Environment National Audubon Society Richard A. Rettig Professor Department of Social Sciences Illinois Institute of Technology Walter S. Salant Senior Economist (retired) The Brookings Institution Joanna Underwood Executive Director INFORM Fred Wilson Assistant to the Senior Vice President Texaco, Inc. Herb H. Woodson Director, Center for Energy Studies University of Texas Load Management and Generating Technologies for Electric Utilities in the 1990s Advisory Panel George Seidel, Chair Chairman, Department of Physics Brown University Edward Blum Vice President Investment Banking Division Merrill Lynch Capital Markets Byron R. Brown Consultant Manager Engineering Service Division Engineering Department E. 1. du Pent de Nemours & Co. Bill D. Carnahan General Manger City of Fort Collins Light & Power Mark Cooper Research Director Consumer Energy Council of America Brian E. Curry Director, Capacity Planning Northeast Utilities Janice G. Hamrin Executive Director Independent Energy Producers William B. Harrison Senior Vice President Southern Co. Services, Inc. Eric Leber Director of Energy Research American Public Power Association Paul Maycock President Photovoltaic Energy Systems Charles McCarthy Vice President Advanced Engineering Southern California Edison Anne F. Mead Commissioner New York State Public Service Commission Alan Miller Associate Director World Resources Institute Bruce W. Morrison Vice President Westinghouse Electric Corp. Fred Schweppe Electrical Engineering Department Massachusetts Institute of Technology Jon Veigel President North Carolina Alternative Energy Corp. Workshop #1: Investment Decisions James Stukel, Chair Professor Civil and Mechanical Engineering University of Illinois Edward Blum Vice President Investment Banking Division Merrill Lynch Capital Markets Jack Davey Vice President for Planning and Forecasting Middle South Utilities Scott Fenn Director, Programs on Energy and Electric Utilities Investor Responsibility Research Center, Inc. Jerry Huck Manager for Planning Illinois Power Co.
PAGE 70
70 Annual Report to the Congress for 1984 Sally Hunt Corporate Economist Consolidated Edison Co. Jim Liles Acting Chief, Regulatory Policy Branch Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Lynn Maxwell Staff Chief Power Planning Staff Tennessee Valley Authority Anne F. Mead Commissioner New York State Public Service Commission Charles Mengers Director Research and Testing Division Philadelphia Electric Co. Thomas Mockler Vice President Standard & Poors Corp. Bruce W. Morrison Vice President Marketing of Advanced Systems Westinghouse Electric Corp. James Mulvney Manager, Regional Utility Data System Electric Power Research Institute Dave J. Roberts Manager for Strategic Planning GPU Service Corp. Fred Schweppe Professor Electrical Engineering Department Massachusetts Institute of Technology John L. Seelke Director, Strategic Planning Florida Power & Light Sam Shepard Director Generation Planning Southern Co, Services, Inc. Dwain F. Spencer Vice President Advanced Power Systems Electric Power Research Institute Rodney Stevenson Professor Graduate School of Business University of Wisconsin Carl Weinberg Chief Department of Engineering and Research Pacific Gas & Electric Co. H. D. Williamson Vice President for Planning Hawaiian Electric Co., Inc. David R. Wolcott Project Associate New York State Energy Research and Development Authority Workshop #2: Load Management John Dorsey Chief Engineer Maryland Public Service Commission Bernard Hastings Engineer Interconnection and Load Management Detroit Edison Co. Dick Preston Regional Sales Manager Scientific Atlanta Veronika Rabl Project Manager Load Management Technology Electric Power Research Institute Tom Stickels San Diego Gas & Electric Co. John Tengdin Manager Load Management Products General Electric Co. Kyle Wilcutt Manager Marketing and Technical Services Southern Co. Services, Inc. Workshop #3: Cost and Performance of New Electricity Generating Technologies James W. Bass 111 Project Engineer AFBC Technical Services Section Tennessee Valley Authority Robert A. Bell Vice President Consolidated Edison Inc. Elliot Berman Chief Scientist ARCO Solar Inc. Andrew Varley Commissioner Iowa Commerce Commission
PAGE 71
App BList of Advisors and Panel Members l 71 Chris Bluemle Senior Engineer Southern California Edison Peter B. Bos President Polydyne Corp. J. J. Buggy Manager Fuel Cell Programs Westinghouse Electric Jay Carter, Jr. President Carter Systems Thomas A. V. Cassel President Technecon Consulting Group, Inc. Carel DeWinkel Program Manager Wind Energy Program Wisconsin Power & Light G. P. James Dehlson President Zond Wind Resource Development Charles M. Finch Systems Engineer Solar Programs McDonnel Douglas Astronautics Richard W. Foster-Pegg Consultant Westinghouse Electric Robert Greider Director and Past President Geothermal Resources International Ray Hallett Director Solar Programs McDonnell Douglas Astronautics Walter A. Hansen Senior Technical Advisor Advanced Energy Systems Babcock & Wilcox Robert Lacy Manager Heber Binary Project Department San Diego Gas & Electric Co. Janos Laszlo ASME Congressional Fellow United States Senate Peter Lewis Manager of Energy Utilization R&D public Service Electric & Gas Roger Little President Spire Corp. Paul Maycock President Photovoltaics Energy System William J. McGuirk Manager Research Program Department Arizona Public Service Co. Tom Morton Senior Manager, Process Engineering Advanced Technology Division Fluor Engineers & Constructors, Inc. Lawrence M. Murphy Group Manager, Solar Systems Engineering Solar Energy Research Institute Eric J. Oakes President Pyropower Corp. Nick Patapoff Research and Development Southern California Edison Don I. Plumley Manager Coal Gasification Combined Cycle Program General Electric Co. Ted J. Pollaert Director of Marketing, Synfuels Lurgi Corp. J. Lynn Rasband Manager Planning Department Utah Power & Light Jeff Serfass Executive Director Fuel Cell Users Group Stan Stys Vice President Brown-Boveri Corp. Russell A. Thompson Manager, Business Planning Power Systems Division United Technologies William Vachon President W. A. Vachon & Associates
PAGE 72
72 Annual Report to the Congress for 1984 Henry Vadie Supervisor Tactical Planning, Corporate Planning Houston Lighting & Power Charles J. Warde Vice President Research and Development Energy Development Associates Technologies for Surface Mine Reclamation on Western Federal Lands James J. Stukel, Chair Director, Public Policy Programs College of Engineering University of Illinois George Davis Senior Hydrogeologist S. S. Papadopulos & Associates Tim Gallagher Senior Administrative Assistant Office of Governor Schwinden, Montana L. Thomas Galloway, Esq. Galloway & Greenberg Sheridan Glen Assistant Vice President Arch Mineral Corp. Nick Golder Consultant Pat Holderness Commissioner Routt County, Colorado Carolyn Johnson Staff Geologist Natural Resources Defense Council Frank Kottlowski Director New Mexico Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources George Land Director, Technology Assessment AMAX Coal Co. Cyrus McKell Vice President, Research Native Plants, Inc. Lyle Randen Administrator, Land Quality Division Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality Patrick Sweeney Regional Director Western Organization of Resource Councils Lauri M. Zen Director, Government Affairs Mining and Reclamation Council of America Ex officio: Raymond Fritz Deputy Chief Division of Ecological Services Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Department of the Interior Dan Kimball Air and Water Quality Division National Park Service Al Klein Administrator, Western Technical Center Office of Surface Mining U.S. Department of the Interior Workshop: Environmental Protection in the Federal Coal Leasing Program Dave Alberswerth Resource Specialist National Wildlife Federation Daniel P. Baker Manager, Government Affairs Consolidation Coal Co. Paige B. Beville Senior Permit Specialist Anaconda Minerals Co. Carol Condie New Mexico Archaeological Council Maggie Fox Southwest Region Representative Sierra Club Allan Garnaas Consultant Sheridan Glen Assistant Vice President Arch Mineral Corp. Robert Jackson Director, Corporate Affairs Sunbelt Mining Co., Inc. Dewitt John Assistant Director Colorado Department of Natural Resources August Keller Director North Dakota Energy Development Impact Office
PAGE 73
App BList of Advisors and Panel Members l 73 Laura King Counsel Natural Resources Defense Council Leslie Lehmann Manager, Government and Public Affair Northern Energy Resource Co. Lorin Nielsen Associate Director for Energy and Minerals Utah Department of Natural Resources Charles Rech Land Manager Meridian Land & Minerals Co. Michael Rieber Department of Mining and Geological Engineering College of Mines University of Arizona Charles Roybal Deputy Secretary New Mexico Energy & Minerals Department Mel Schilling Chief, Division of Mining Analysis Western Technical Center Office of Surface Mining Christopher Seglem President Colorado Westmoreland, Inc. Pat Sweeney Regional Director Western Organization of Resource Councils Tom Walker Chief, Division of Solid Mineral Leasing Bureau of Land Management Geoff Webb Legislative Representative Friends of the Earth Mark Welsh Mining Project Colorado Open Space Council Warren White Planning Coordinator State of Wyoming International Security and Commerce Program International Competitiveness in Leonard Dietch Electronics Advisory Panel Vice President, Product Development Katherine D. Seelman, Chair Zenith Radio Corp. Consultant Isaiah Frank Jack C. Acton William Clayton Professor of Executive Vice President International Economics Kennemetal Inc. The Johns Hopkins University Steve Beckman F. Willard Griffith, 11 Research Analyst President and Chief Executive Officer Industrial Union Department GC International AFL-CIO Robert R. Johnson A. Terry Brix Senior Vice President President Engineering and Information Systems Temar Ltd. Energy Conversion Devices, Inc. Richard P. Case Richard A. Kraft Lab Director President IBM Corp. Matsushita Industrial Co. Ruth Schwartz Cowan E. Floyd Kvamme Associate Professor of History Vice President and General Manager SUNY-Stony Brook National Advanced Systems William Kay Dairies Geraldine McArdle Executive Vice President McArdle Associates American Retail Federation
PAGE 74
74 Annual Report to the Congress for 1984 Charles Phipps Vice President SemiConductor Group Texas Instruments, Inc. K. M. Poole Head, Integrated Circuit Planning Department Bell Telephone Laboratories Benjamin M. Rosen Partner Sevin Rosen Management Co. Kate Wilhelm Author Robert B. Wood Director of Research International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Michael Y. Yoshino Professor of Business Administration Harvard Business School Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence Systems (C 3 I) Advisory Panel John S. Toll, Chair President University of Maryland Lew Allen, Jr. General, USAF (retired) Director Jet Propulsion Laboratory Al Babbitt Vice President and General Manager Command Systems IBM Corp. Neil Birch President Birch Associates, Inc. Gerald Dinneen Vice President Science and Technology Honeywell Robert R. Everett President The Mitre Corp. Edward Goldstein Assistant Vice President Financial Management AT&T Co. Arnold Horelick The Rand Corp. William Kaufman Professor of Political Science Massachusetts Institute of Technology Glenn Kent Lt. General, USAF (retired) The Rand Corp. Isaac C. Kidd, Jr. Admiral, USN (retired) Kostas J. Liopiros Consultant William Perry Managing Partner Hambrecht & Quist Jack Ruina Professor of Electrical Engineering Massachusetts Institute of Technology Brent Scrowcroft Lt. General, USAF (retired) Walter Slocombe Kaplan & Drysdale Leon Sloss president Leon Sloss Associates John D. Steinbruner Director Foreign Policy Studies Program The Brookings Institution John Stenbit Vice President Requirements & Group Development TRW Defense Systems Group Jerome B. Wiesner President Emeritus Massachusetts Institute of Technology International Cooperation and Competition in Space Advisory Panel Paul Doty, Chair Director, Center for Science and International Affairs Harvard University Benjamin Bova President National Space Institute Robert Evans Vice President IBM Corp. Robert A. Frosch Vice President, Research General Motors Research Laboratories
PAGE 75
App BList of Advisors and Panel Members l 75 Mireille Gerard Administrator, Corporate and Public Programs American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Ivan Getting Consultant Benjamin Huberman Vice President Consultants International Group Inc. John Mayo Vice President Bell Laboratories Walter McDougall Associate Professor of History Woodrow Wilson Space and Science Division National Air and Space Museum Smithsonian Institution John L. McLucas President COMSAT World Systems Division Martin Menter Brigadier General (retired) Arthur Morrissey Director, Future Systems Martin Marietta Aerospace Fred Raynes Vice President Grumman International Inc. Gary Saxonhouse Professor of Economics University of Michigan Jerome Simonoff Vice President CitiCorp Industrial Credit, Inc. Leonard Sussman Executive Director Freedom House John Townsend President Fairchild Space & Electronics Co. Laurel Wilkening Director Lunar and Planetary Laboratory University of Arizona Elizabeth Young President Public Service Satellite Consortium Technology Transfer to the Middle East Advisory Panel George Bugliarello, Chair President Polytechnic Institute of New York Fouad Ajami Professor School of Advanced International Studies The Johns Hopkins University J. S. Dana Consultant and Former President South Hampton Refining Co. Farouk El-Baz Vice President International Development ITEK Optical Systems Ragaei El-Mallakh Professor International Research Center for Energy and Development University of Colorado James A. Finneran Vice President Worldwide Process Operations M. W. Kellogg Co. Eric Glasscott President Telephone & General Services, Inc. Carl N. Hodges* Director Environmental Research Laboratory University of Arizona Gary Hufbauer Consultant Institute for International Economics J. C. Hurewitz Professor Director of Middle East Institute Columbia University Charles Issawi Professor Near East Studies Princeton University T. R. McLinden Manager, Special Projects Transworld Airlines l Ex-officio member from the OTA Technology Assessment Advisory Council.
PAGE 76
76 Annual Report to the Congress for 1964 Joseph Nye Professor Kennedy School of Government Harvard University Anthony Pascal Consultant The Rand Corp. William H. Pickering President Pickering Associates Corp. William B. Quandt Senior Fellow The Brookings Institution Joseph J. Sisco Consultant Sisco Associates Joseph S. Szyliowicz Professor Graduate School of International Studies: University of Denver Ted Taylor Consultant Appropriate Solar Technology Institute William L. Weirich Medical Advisor Hospital Corp. of America Sam Wells Director International Security Studies Program The Wilson Center Smithsonian Institution New Ballistic Missile Defense Technologies Advisory Panel Guyford Stever, Chair President Universities Research Associates Solomon Buchsbaum Executive Vice President Customers Systems AT&T Bell Laboratories Ashton Carter Research Fellow Center for International Studies Massachusetts Institute of Technology Robert Clem Director of Systems Sciences Sandia National Laboratories Sidney D. Drell Deputy Director Stanford Linear Accelerator Center Daniel Fink President D. J. Fink Associates Inc. Richard L. Garwin IBM Fellow Thomas J. Watson Research Center IBM Corp. Noel Gayler Admiral (U.S. Navy-retired) American Committee on East-West Accord Daniel Graham Lt. General (U.S. Army-retired) High Frontier Colin Gray President National Institute for Public Policy George Jeffs President North American Space Operations David Jones General (U.S. Air Force-retired) Michael M. May Associate Director at Large Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Robert S. McNamara Former Secretary of Defense H. Alan Pike Program Manager Space Stations Lockheed Missiles & Space Co. Robert Selden Associate Director for Theoretical and Computation Physics Los Alamos National Laboratory Marshall D. Shulman Director, Harriman Institute for Advanced Study of the Soviet Union Columbia University Gerard C. Smith President Consultants International Group, Inc. Sayre Stevens Vice President System Planning Corp. John Toomay Major Genera] (U.S. Air Force-retired) Seymour Zeiberg Vice President Research and Engineering Operations Martin Marietta Aerospace
PAGE 77
App BList of Advisors and Panel Members l 77 Workshop: Arms Control in Space* David S. Brandwein Director, Intelligence Analysis Department System Planning Corp. Paul Brown Assistant Associate Director for Arms Control Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Robert W. Buchheim Consultant McGeorge Bundy Professor, Department of History New York University Albert Carnesale Professor, Kennedy School of Government Harvard University Ashton Carter Center for Science and International Affairs Kennedy School of Government Harvard University Richard L. Garwin IBM Fellow Thomas J. Watson Research Center IBM Corp. Alex Gliksman Professional Staff Member Foreign Relations Committee United States Senate Donald L. Hafner Consultant Robert H. Kupperman Executive Director for Science and Technology and Senior Associate Center for Strategic and International Studies Georgetown University Industry, Technology, and Technologies To Reduce U.S. Materials Import Vulnerability Advisory Panel Arden Bement Vice President, Technical Resources TRW, Inc. Edwin Clark Senior Associate Conservation Foundation Steven Maaraene Strategic Programs Los Alamos National Laboratory Michael M. May Associate Director at Large Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Keith Payne Executive Vice President and Director of National Security Studies National Institute for Public Policy John E. Pike Associate Director for Space Policy Federation of American Scientists Victor Reis Corporate Vice President Science Applications, Inc. Walter Slocombe Caplin & Drysdale John D. Steinbrunner Director, Foreign Policy Studies Program The Brookings Institution Henry B. Stelling, Jr. Lt. General (U.S. Air Force-retired) Vice President and Center Director Advanced Development Center Defense Electronic Operations Rockwell International Sayre Stevens Vice President National Security Research Group System Planning Corp. Employment Program Tom Clough Director of Technology Atlantic Richfield Co. Robert G. Dunn Senior Vice President AMAX Metals Group *Several participants were originally invited as alternates for others who could not attend the entire workshop.
PAGE 78
78 l Annual Report to the Congress for 1984 Robert Ellsworth President Robert Ellsworth & Co. Michael E. Fisher Professor of Chemistry, Physics and Mathematics Cornell University Herbert H. Kellogg Professor of Extractive Metallurgy Columbia University Hans Landsberg Senior Fellow Resources for the Future Jessica Tuchman Mathews Vice President World Resources Institute William A. Owczarski Manager, Technical Planning Pratt & Whitney Aircraft Group Walter S. Owen Professor of Materials Science Massachusetts Institute of Technology R. Byron Pipes Director, Center for Composite Materials University of Delaware R. K. Pitler Senior Vice President and Technical Director Allegheny-Ludlum Research Center Dennis Readey Head, Department of Ceramic Engineering The Ohio State University James K. Sebenius Assistant Professor John F. Kennedy School of Government Harvard University Albert Sobey Director, Energy Economics General Motors Corp. Alex Zucker Associate Director Oak Ridge National Laboratory Cleanup of Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites Under Superfund Advisory Panel Martin Alexander, Chair Department of Agronomy Cornell University K. W. Brown Professor of Soil and Crop Sciences Texas A&M University Morton Corn Professor and Director Division of Environmental Health Engineering School of Hygiene and Public Health The Johns Hopkins University Bonnie L. Exner Consultant Governors Lowry Landfill Monitoring Committee State of Colorado Ted Greenwood Associate Professor of Political Science Institute of War and Peace Studies Columbia University Linda E. Greer Science Associate Environmental Defense Fund Robert G. Kissell Senior Consultant Engineering Department E. 1. du Pent de Nemours & Co. Gary E. Kovall Manager, Environmental, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs ARCO Petroleum Products Co. Stephen U. Lester Consultant Citizens Clearinghouse for Hazardous Waste Adeline G. Levine Professor of Sociology State University of New York at Buffalo Randy M. Mott Breed, Abbott & Morgan Norman H. Nosenchuck Director Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste New York State Department of Environmental Conservation James T. ORourke Senior Vice President, Industrial Group Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc. James W. Patterson Professor and Chairman Pritzker Department of Environmental Engineering Illinois Institute of Technology Robert Repetto Senior Associate World Resources Institute
PAGE 79
8 App BList of Advisors and Panel Members 79 Bernard L. Simonsen Vice President, Administration IT Corp. William A. Wallace Director Solid and Hazardous Waste Management CH2M HILL Technology and Structural Unemployment: Retraining Adult Displaced Workers: Advisory Panel Joseph Weizenbaum, Chair Professor Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science Massachusetts Institute of Technology Kathy Alessandro Director of Employment and Training Downriver Community Conference Paul Barton President National Institute for Work and Learning Marc Bendick Senior Research Associate The Urban Institute Barry Bluestone Senior Research Associate and Professor of Economics Social Welfare Research Institute Boston College Paul Boyer Professor History Department University of Wisconsin-Madison Dennis C. Carey Director State and Local Government Consulting Hay Associates Dick Greenwood Special Assistant to the International President International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers Donald Hancock Professor Department of Political Science Vanderbilt University Carol Hollenshead Director of Administrative Services, Planning, and Development School of Nursing The University of Michigan Robert Karasek Professor Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering Engineering School University of Southern California C. Van Kirby Director, Manufacturing Training, North America IBM Corp. Sar Levitan Director Center for Social Policy Studies The George Washington University Robert Machin Manager Human Resources Programs Owens Illinois, Inc. Jill Miller Executive Director Displaced Homemakers Network Vi Traynor Program Manager Vocational Education Services Control Data Corp. Elizabeth Useem Professor Department of Sociology University of Massachusetts Harbor Campus Gary Wuslich Senior Manager Industrial Relations Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.
PAGE 80
80 Annual Report to the Congress for 1984 Commercial Biotechnology: An International Analysis Advisory Panel Michael Hooker, Chair President Bennington College Howard Bremer Patent Counsel Wisconsin Alumni Research Federation Robert Fildes President Cetus Corp. Julian Gresser Professor, Program in Science, Technology, and Society Massachusetts Institute of Technology Ralph Hardy Director, Life Sciences Central Research and Development E. I. du Pent de Nemours & Co. Zsolt Harsanyi Vice President, Biotech Group E. F. Hutton Peter Hutt Covington & Burling David Jackson Scientific Director Genex Corp. William Maxon Group Manager, Fermentation Products Production Upjohn Co. Laura Meagher Acting Administrator North Carolina Biotechnology Center Robert R. Miller Director, International Business Courses University of Houston Dorothy Nelkin Professor, Program on Science, Technology, and Society Cornell University Norman Oblon Oblon, Fisher, Spivak, McClelland & Maier David Padwa Chairman of the Board Agrigenetics David Parkinson Director of Occupational Medicine Program University of Pittsburgh Phillip A. Sharp Professor of Biology Massachusetts Institute of Technology William J. Whelan Chairman, Biochemistry School of Medicine University of Miami John Zysman Director, Roundtable for International Economics University of California, Berkeley Technology and Aging in America Advisory Panel Robert Binstock, Chair Director, Policy Center on Aging Brandeis University Ray Bartus Group Leader of Geriatrics Medical Research Division Lederle Laboratories Robert Berliner Dean, School of Medicine Yale University Robert Butler Chairman, Department of Geriatrics and Adult Education Mt. Sinai Medical Center Robert Clark Associate Professor Department of Economics and Business North Carolina State University Lee Davenport Senior Vice President and Chief Scientist (retired) GTE Corp. Ken Dychtwald President Dychtwald & Associates Caleb Finch Professor of Biological Sciences and Gerontology University of Southern California
PAGE 81
App BList of Advisors and Panel Members l 81 Velma Murphy Hill Director Civil and Human Rights Division Service Employees International Union Robert L. Kane Senior Researcher The Rand Corp. Paul A. Kerschner Associate Director for Programs, Legislation and Development American Association of Retired Persons Maggie Kuhn Founder and National Convener Gray Panthers Matt Lind Vice President Corporate Planning and Research The Travelers Insurance Co. Robert G. Lynch Vice president, Marketing Planning GTE Corp. Mathy D. Mezey Director Teaching Nursing Home Program University of Pennsylvania Hamish Munro Professor of Medicine and Nutrition Tufts University Bernice Neugarten Professor of Education and Sociology Northwestern University Sara Rix Research Coordinator The Womens Research and Education Institute Pauline Robinson Research Professor of Gerontology University of Southern California John Rowe Chief of Geriatrics Beth Israel Hospital Bert Seidman Department of Occupational Safety, Health and Social Security AFL-C1O Jacob Siegel Senior Researcher Center for Population Research Georgetown University Workshop: Human Gene Therapy W. French Anderson Chief, Laboratory of Molecular Hematology National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Lori B. Andrews Research Attorney American Bar Foundation James E. Bowman Professor of Pathology and Medicine University of Chicago John C. Fletcher Assistant for Bioethics Warren G. Magnuson Clinical Center National Institutes of Health Theodore Friedman Professor of Pediatrics School of Medicine University of California at San Diego Ola Huntley Board of Directors Sickle Cell Self-Help Judith A. Johnson Analyst in Life Sciences Science Policy Research Division Congressional Research Service Library of Congress Horace Judson Henry R. Luce Professor Writing Seminars The Johns Hopkins University Henry Miller National Center for Drugs and Biologics Food and Drug Administration J. Robert Nelson Professor of Theology Boston University Nanette Newell Director of Research Administration Calgene, Inc. Robert Nicholas Staff Director Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight Committee on Science and Technology U.S. House of Representatives
PAGE 82
82 l Annual Report to the Congress for 1984 Albert Rosenfeld Consultant on Future Programs March of Dimes Seymour Siegel Ralph Simon Professor of Ethics and Theology Jewish Theological Seminary of America Carol Struckmeyer Genetic Associate and Program Coordinator New Hampshire Genetic Services Program Bernand Talbot Acting Director National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Leroy Walters Director, Center for Bioethics Kennedy Institute of Ethics Georgetown University Alternatives to Animal Use in Testing and Experimentation Advisory Panel Arthur L. Caplan, Chair Associate for the Humanities Hastings Center Perrie M. Adams Professor of Psychiatry Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Research University of Texas Melvin Balk Vice President and Scientific Director Charles River Breeding Laboratories, Inc. Earle W. Brauer Vice President, Medical Affairs Revlon Research Center David J. Brusick Vice President Biological Safety Evaluation Directorate Litton Bionetics Inc. G. Gilbert Cloyd Director Human and Environmental Safety Division Miami Valley Laboratories Procter & Gamble Co. W. Jean Dodds Chief, Laboratory of Hematology Division of Laboratories and Research New York State Department of Health Kurt Enslein President Health Designs, Inc. Alan M. Goldberg Director, The Johns Hopkins Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing Richard M. Hoar Associate Director Division of Toxicology and Pathology Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc. Peter Hutt, Esq. Covington & Burling Connie Kagan Animal Political Action Committee Ronald Lamont-Havers Director, Research Administration Massachusetts General Hospital John McArdle Associate Director Institute for Study of Animal Problems Humane Society of the United States Robert A. Neal President Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology J. Wesley Robb Professor of Religion School of Religion Professor of Bioethics School of Medicine University of Southern California Andrew N. Rowan Assistant Dean for New Programs School of Veterinary Medicine Tufts University Jeri Sechzer Associate Professor Department of Psychiatry The New York Hospital Cornell Medical Center Henry Spira Director Coalition to Abolish the LD50 and Draize Tests Reproductive Hazards in the Workplace Advisory Panel Ruth Faden, Chair School of Hygiene and Public Health The Johns Hopkins University Joan E. Bertin Attorney American Civil Liberties Union
PAGE 83
App BList of Advisors and Panel Members 83 Larry L. Ewing Division of Reproductive Biology School of Hygiene and Public Health The Johns Hopkins University Ronald D. Hood Biology Department The University of Alabama Vilma R. Hunt Professor, Environmental Health Program in Science, Technology, and Society Massachusetts Institute of Technology Larry Johnson Department of Cell Biology University of Texas Health Science Center at Dallas Norman W. Klein Department of Animal Genetics University of Connecticut James E. Lockey Director, Occupational Medical Clinic Rocky Mountain Center for Occupational and Environmental Health University of Utah Medical Center David C. Logan Clinical Toxicologist Corporate Medical Department Mobil Oil Corp. Junius C. McElveen, Jr. Attorney Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue Mary-Win OBrien Assistant General Counsel United Steelworkers of America Neena B. Schwartz Department of Neurobiology and Physiology Northwestern University Judith A. Scott Associate General Counsel United Mine Workers of America Margaret Seminario Associate Director Department of Occupational Safety, Health, and Social Security AFL-CIO Robert C. Spear Department of Biomedical and Environmental Health Sciences School of Public Health University of California, Berkeley M, Anne Spence Professor, Division of Medical Genetics Neuropsychiatric Institute Center for the Health Sciences R. E. Staples Staff Teratologist Haskell Laboratory for Toxicology and Industrial Medicine E. I. du Pent de Nemours & Co. Jeanne M. Stellman School of Public Health Columbia University John R. Wheeler Attorney Standard Oil Co. (Indiana) Food and Renewable Resources Program Water-Related Technologies for William T. Dishman Sustainable Agriculture in U.S. Rancher Arid/Semiarid Lands Advisory Panel Idaho James B. Kendrick, Jr., Chair Harold E. Dregne Vice President Professor Agriculture and University Services Department of Plant and Soil Science University of California, Berkeley Texas Tech University Alton A. Adams, Jr. Chester E. Evans President USDA Research Director (retired) Adams & Associates Larry J. Gordon Wilbert H. Blackburn Director Professor Albuquerque Environmental Health Department of Range Science Department Texas A&M University
PAGE 84
84 Annual Report to the Congress for 1984 Robert M. Hagan Professor Department of Land, Air, and Water Resources University of California, Davis David E. Herrick U.S. Forest Service (retired) Western Agricultural Research Committee Colorado Helen Ingram Professor Department of Government University of Arizona, Tucson Cyrus McKell Director of Research Plant Resources Institute Utah Michael F. McNulty Director Tucson Active Management Area Arizona Department of Water Resources Milton E. Mekelburg President National Association of Soil Conservation Districts Colorado Clifford J. Murino President Desert Research Institute Nevada Alice Parker Farmer/Rancher Washington Cynthia Reed Rancher South Dakota Luis Torres Program Director American Friends Service Committee Northern New Mexico Casey E. Westell, Jr. Director of Industrial Ecology Tenneco, Inc. Texas Norman K. Whittlesey Professor Department of Agricultural Economics Washington State University, Pullman Technologies To Sustain Tropical Forest Resources Advisory Panel Leonard Berry, Chair Research Professor Center for Technology, Environment, and Development Clark University Eddie Albert Conservationist Hugh Bollinger Director Plant Resources Institute Robert Cassagnol Member, Technical Committee CONAELE Robert Cramer Former President Virgin Islands Corp. Gary Eilerts Operations Representative Appropriate Technology International John Ewel Associate Professor Department of Botany University of Florida, Gainesville Robert Hart Agronomist Winrock International Susanna Hecht Assistant Professor Department of Geography University of California, Los Angeles Marilyn Hoskins Lecturer Department of Sociology Virginia Polytechnic Institute Norman Johnson Vice President, North Carolina Region Weyerhaeuser Co. Jan Laarman Assistant Professor Department of Forestry North Carolina State University Chuck Lankester Forester U.N. Development Programme
PAGE 85
App BList of Advisors and Panel Members 85 Robert Owen Chief Conservationist (retired] Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands Christine Padoch Assistant Professor Institute of Environmental Studies University of Wisconsin, Madison Allen Putney Principal Investigator Eastern Caribbean Natural Area Management Program West Indies Lab Jeff Romm Assistant Professor Department of Forestry University of California, Berkeley John Terborgh Professor Department of Biology Princeton University Henry Tschinkel Forestry Advisor Regional Office for Central American Programs Agency for International Development U.S. Department of State Technology, Public Policy, and the Changing Structure of American Agriculture Advisory Panel Frank Baker Director International Stockmens School Winrock International Livestock Research and Training Center James Bonnen Professor Department of Agricultural Economics Michigan State University William Brown Chairman of the Board Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. Frederick Butte] Associate Professor Department of Rural Sociology Cornell University Willard Cochrane Consultant Jack Doyle Director Agricultural Resources Project Environmental Policy Center Marsha Dudden Dudden Farms, Inc. Walter Ehrhardt Blue Ridge Farms Dean Gillette Professor Engineering Department Harvey Mudd College Rogert Granados Executive Director La Cooperative Richard Harwood Director of Research Rodale Research Center Ralph Hofstad President Land-O Lakes Cooperative Charles Kidd Dean, College of Engineering Science, Technology, and Agriculture Florida A&M University Robert Lanphier 111 Chairman of the Board Dickey-John Corp. Edward Legates Dean, College of the Agriculture and Life Sciences North Carolina State University John Marvel President and General Manager Research Division Monsanto Agriculture Products Co. Donella Meadows Adjunct Professor Resources Policy Center Dartmouth College Don Paarlberg Consultant Don Reeves Consultant Interreligious Taskforce on U.S. Food Policy Milo Schanzenbach Schanzenbach Farms
PAGE 86
86 l Annual Report to the Congress for 1984 Workshop #1: Economic Relationships Between Agricultural Technology and Structure Boyd Buxton Research Leader Economic Research Service Department of Agriculture and Applied Economics University of Minnesota B. R. Eddleman National Agricultural Research Planning and Analysis State Agricultural Experiment Stations James W. Richardson Consultant Wesley Sundquist Professor, Department of Agriculture and Applied Economics University of Minnesota Workshop #2: Animal Technology C. Eugene Allen College of Agriculture University of Minnesota Howard Bachrach ARS/USDA Plum Island Animal Disease Center John Campbell North Platte Agricultural Experiment Station Stanley E. Curtis Department of Animal Science University of Illinois James R. Fischer Department of Agriculture Engineering University of Missouri William Hansel Department of Animal Science Cornell University B. I. Osburn School of Veterinary Medicine University of California Wilson G. Pond ARS/USDA Roman L, Hruska US. Meat Animal Research Center Workshop #3: Agricultural Research and Extension George Hyatt Consultant Ronald Knutson Professor, Agricultural and Food Policy Center Texas A&M University System Roy Lovvorn Consultant Fred White Professor, Department of Agricultural Economics University of Georgia Workshop #4: Soil and Water Technology Martin Alexander Professor of Soil Microbiology Department of Agronomy Cornell University Joseph A. Berry Carnegie Institution of Washington Larry L. Boersma Professor of Soil Physics Department of Soil Science Oregon State University C. H. Davis Director of Chemical Division National Fertilizer Development Center Tennessee Valley Authority George R. Foster National Soil Erosion Laboratory Purdue University Charles Francis Department of Agronomy University of Nebraska Richard Harwood Director of Research Rodale Research Center William Liebhardt Rodale Research Center
PAGE 87
App BList of Advisors and Panel Members l 8 7 Workshop #5: Plant Technology J. A. Browning Department of Plant Sciences Texas A&M University Robert Fraley Monsanto Agricultural Co. George Kennedy Department of Entomology North Carolina State University Chester G. McWhorter Chief, Southern Weed Science Laboratory ARS/U.S. Department of Agriculture Delta State Research Center Louis G. Nickell Vice President of Research and Development Velsicol Chemical Co. Workshop #6: Animal Technology C. Eugene Allen Professor College of Agriculture University of Minnesota, St. Paul Howard Bachrach Consultant ARS-USDA Plum Island Disease Center Roger Breeze Director of Research College of Veterinary Medicine Washington State University Keith Brown Professor, Department of Poultry Science Ohio State University John Campbell Professor North Platte Agricultural Experiment Station Dennis Campion Research Leader Animal Physiology Research Richard B. Russell Research Center B. Joe Conlin Extension Dairy Specialist University of Minnesota, St. Paul Larry Corah Extension Beef Cattle Specialist Kansas State University Nicholas Cross President Cattle Code America Stanley E. Curtis Professor, Department of Animal Science University of Illinois, Urbana James R. Fischer Research Leader Department of Agriculture Engineering University of Missouri, Columbia Harold Hafs Vice President Agricultural Research Merck Institute for Therapeutic Research William Hansel Liberty Hyde Bailey Professor of Animal Physiology Department of Physiology New York State College of Veterinary Medicine Cornell University Maynard Hogberg Extension Swine Specialist Michigan State University Alan Holiday Vice-President for Research and Development Farmland Industries Keith Hera Farmer Iowa Ronald Knutson Professor, Department of Agricultural Economics Texas A&M University Sid E. Kunz Research Leader U.S. Livestock Insects Laboratory Charles McGinnis Farmer South Carolina John McKnight, Jr. Farmer Arkansas A. J. Muehling Professor Agricultural Engineering Extension Specialist Agricultural Engineering Department University of Illinois, Urbana John Nye Professor, Agricultural Engineering Department Purdue University
PAGE 88
88 l Annual Report to the Congress for 1984 P. A. Oltenacu Associate Professor of Systems Analysis Department of Animal Science Cornell University B. I. Osburn Professor of Pathology and Associate Dean of Research School of Veterinary Medicine University of California, Davis John Paterson Associate Professor University of Missouri, Columbia Wilson G. Pond Research Leader ARS-USDA Roman L. Hruska U.S. Meat Animal Research Center Rod Preston Thornston Distinguished Professor Department of Animal Sciences Texas Tech University Hoyle B. Puckett Research Leader ARS-USDA University of Illinois, Urbana Allan Rahn Associate Professor Department of Animal Science Michigan State University Dave Reed Director of Clinical Research and Immunology Molecular Genetics, Inc. William Riddle Research Leader Food and Agricultural Economics Battelle Columbus Laboratories Marvin Rohlf Vice President Director of Research and Nutrition Golden Sun Feeds John V. Shutze Head, Extension Poultry Science University of Georgia, Athens Tom Sporleder Professor Department of Agricultural Economics Texas A&M University R. H. Strickler President ROCCO Enterprises, Inc. Roy Van Arsdall Economist ERS-USDA University of Illinois, Urbana Harold Wilcke Consultant Ralston-Purina Workshop #7: Plant, Soil, and Water Technology Delmar Akerlund Farmer Nebraska Martin Alexander Professor of Soil Microbiology Department of Agronomy Cornell University Joseph A. Berry Staff Member Plant Biology Department Carnegie Institution of Washington Larry L. Boersma Professor of Soil Physics Department of Soil Science Oregon State University J. A. Browning Chairman, Department of Plant Sciences Texas A&M University Bill Burrows Manager Product Systems Research Deere & Co. John A. Chapman Vice President Engineering, Irrigation Division Valmont Industries Louie J. Chapman Head, Extension Agronomy Auburn University C. H. Davis Director of Chemical Division National Fertilizer Development Center Tennessee Valley Authority Lynn Forster Associate Professor Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology Ohio State University
PAGE 89
App BList of Advisors and Panel Members 89 George R. Foster Hydraulic Engineer National Soil Erosion Lab Purdue University Robert Fraley Manager Plant Molecular Biology Group Monsanto Agriculture Products Co. Charles Francis Professor, Department of Agronomy University of Nebraska, Lincoln Nicholas M. Frey Director Department of Bio-Technology Research Pioneer Hi-Bred, Inc. Arthur Gerlow Economist Texas A&M University Don W. Graffis Professor, Extension Agronomist University of Illinois, Urbana W. R. Guthrie Vice-President Agricultural Research Butler Manufacturing Co. Robert Hall Assistant Professor Extension Agronomist Plant Science Department Paul Hedin Research Leader Chemistry Research Unit Boll Weevil Research Laboratory Mississippi State University Alan Holiday Vice President for Research and Development Farmland Industries Bobby A. Huey Extension Agronomist University of Arkansas Robert Jolly Associate Professor, Department of Economics Iowa State University George Kennedy Associate Professor, Department of Entomology North Carolina State University John Knepler Manager, Design Engineering DICKEY-john Corp. Ron Lacewell Professor Department of Agricultural Economics Texas A&M University William Liebhardt Assistant Director Rodale Research Center Chester G. McWhorter Chief Southern Weed Science Laboratory Thomas A. Miller Research Leader ERS-USDA Colorado State University Page W. Morgan professor of plant Physiology Department of Plant Sciences Texas A&M University Louis G. Nickell Vice President of Research and Development Velsicol Chemical Co. Paul Nixon Agricultural Engineer Soil and Water Conservation Research Bob Nowatzki Farmer North Dakota James H. Palmer Extension Agronomist Professor of Agronomy and Soils Clemson University Buford Perry Farmer Louisiana William Riddle Research Leader Food and Agricultural Economics Battelle Columbus Laboratories Bill Robertson Farmer Mississippi Robert L. Schafer Research Leader Tillage Research National TilIage Machinery Laboratory U.S. Department of Agriculture Lyle Schertz Economist ERS-USDA
PAGE 90
90 l Annual Report to the Congress for 1984 James W. Searcy Research Manager Stine-Haskell Research Center E. I. du Pent de Nemours & Co. B. Stout Professor Agricultural Engineering Department Texas A&M University E. D. Threadgill Associate Professor Agricultural Engineering Department Coastal Plain Experimental Station University of Georgia Larry Williams Farmer Illinois Workshop #8: Technology, Structure, and Rural Communities Dave Brown Associate Director EDD/ERS/USDA Fred Buttel Associate Professor Department of Rural Sociology Cornell University David Chicoine Department of Agricultural Economics University of Illinois, Urbana Cornelia Flora Department of Sociology Kansas State University Dean MacCannell Professor, Department of Applied Behavioral Sciences University of California, Davis Lyle Schertz Senior Economist NED/ERS/USDA Steve Sonka Associate Professor Department of Economics University of Illinois, Urbana Louis Swanson Assistant Professor Department of Sociology University of Kentucky, Lexington Workshop #9: Credit Policy Peter Barry Professor, Department of Agricultural Economics University of Illinois, Urbana John Brake Professor, Department of Agricultural Economics Cornell University Steve Gabrial Agricultural Economist Economic Research Service U.S. Department of Agriculture Dave Lins Associate Professor Department of Agricultural Economics University of Illinois, Urbana Ronald Meekhof Agricultural Economist Economist Research Service U.S. Department of Agriculture John Penson Professor, Department of Agricultural Economics Texas A&M University Africa Tomorrow: Technological Alternatives to Food Aid Advisory Panel George Burrill President Associates in Rural Development Charles Francis Associate Director of Research Rodale Research, Inc. E. H. Gilbert Director Center for Research on Economic Development University of Michigan, Ann Arbor Thomas Hayden Director, Social Concerns Department Society of African Missions James Henson Director International Programs Development Washington State University Marilyn Hoskins Department of Sociology Virginia Polytechnic Institute Shelly Kessler Consultant Urban Resource Systems, Inc.
PAGE 91
App BList of Advisors and Panel Members l 91 Carl Lindblad Agricultural Post-Harvest Technical Specialist Volunteers in Technical Assistance Sauveur Mahotiere Department of Horticulture Fort Valley State College Gerald Matlock Department of Soils, Water and Engineering University of Arizona, Tucson Robert McDowell Department of Animal Science Cornell University Uzo Mokwunye International Fertilizer Development Center Anita Spring Department of Anthropology University of Florida, Gainesville Health Program Health Program Advisory Committee Sidney S. Lee, Chair President Milbank Memorial Fund H. David Banta Deputy Director Pan American Health Organization Carroll L. Estes Chair, Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences School of Nursing University of California, San Francisco Robert Evans Professor, Department of Economics University of British Columbia Rashi Fein Professor, Department of Social Medicine and Health Policy Harvard Medical School Harvey V. Fineberg Dean, School of Public Health Harvard University Patricia King Professor Georgetown Law Center Joyce C. Lashof Dean, School of Public Health University of California, Berkeley Alexander Leaf Professor of Medicine Harvard Medical School Massachusetts General Hospital Frederick Mosteller Professor and Chair Department of Health Policy and Management School of Public Health Harvard University Norton Nelson Professor, Department of Environmental Medicine Medical School New York University Robert Oseasohn Associate Dean University of Texas Nora Piore Senior Fellow and Advisor Advisor to the President United Hospital Fund of New York Dorothy P. Rice Regents Lecturer Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences School of Nursing University of California, San Francisco Richard K. Riegelman Associate Professor George Washington University School of Medicine Walter L. Robb Vice President and General Manager Medical Systems Operations General Electric Frederick C. Robbins President Institute of Medicine Rosemary Stevens Professor Department of History and of Science University of Pennsylvania Sociology
PAGE 92
92 l Annual Report to the Congress for 1984 Medical Technology and Costs of the Medicare Program Advisory Panel Stuart Altman, Chair Dean, Florence Heller School Brandeis University Frank Baker Vice President Washington State Hospital Association Robert Blendon Senior Vice President The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Jerry Cromwell President Health Economics Research Karen Davis Professor and Chair Department of Health Policy and Management School of Hygiene and Public Health The Johns Hopkins University Robert Derzon Vice President Lewin & Associates Howard Frazier Director, Center for the Analysis of Health Practice School of Public Health Harvard University Cliff Gaus Director Center for Health Policy Studies Georgetown University Jack Hadley Co-Director Center for Health Policy Studies Georgetown University Kate Ireland Chair, Board of Governors Frontier Nursing Service Judith Lave Professor Department of Health Economics University of Pittsburgh Mary Marshall Member Virginia House of Delegates Walter McNerney Professor Northwestern University Morton Miller President National Health Council New York James Mongan Executive Director Truman Medical Center Seymour Perry Senior Fellow and Deputy Director Institute for Health Policy Analysis Georgetown University Medical Center Robert Sigmond Director, Community Programs for Affordable Health Care Blue Cross/Blue Shield Association Anne Somers Professor Department of Environment and Community and Family Medicine Princeton University Paul Torrens Professor School of Public Health University of California, Los Angeles Keith Weikel Group Vice President American Medical International Federal Policies and the Medical Devices Industry Richard R. Nelson, Chair Director and Professor Institute for Social and Political Studies Yale University William F. Ballhaus President International Numatics, Inc. Ruth Farrisey Independent Consultant and Researcher Peter Barton Hutt Partner Covington & Burling Alan R. Kahn Consultant Applied Electronic Consultants, Inc. Grace Kraft Board of Directors Kidney Foundation of the Upper Midwest Joyce C. Lashof Dean, School of Public Health University of California, Berkeley Penn Lupovich Director of Laboratories Group Health Association
PAGE 93
App BList of Advisors and Panel Members l 93 Victor McCoy National Service Director Paralyzed Veterans of America Robert M. Moliter Manager Government and Industry Affairs Medical Systems Division General Electric Louise B. Russell Senior Fellow The Brookings Institution Earl J. Saltzgiver President Foremost Contact Lens Service, Inc. Charles Sanders Vice President E. R. Squibb & Sons Rosemary Stevens Professor Department of History and Sociology of Science University of Pennsylvania Allan R. Thieme President Amigo Sales Inc. Eric von Hippel Associate Professor of Management Sloan School Massachusetts Institute of Technology Edwin C. Whitehead Chairman Technicon Corp. Health and Safety Control Technologies in the Workplace Advisory Panel Morton Corn, Chair Professor, Department of Environmental Health Sciences School of Hygiene and Public Health The Johns Hopkins University Duane L. Block Medical Director Ford Motor Co. Richard F. Boggs Vice President Organization Resources Counselors, Inc. Mark R. Cullen Professor of Statistics Occupational Medicine Program School of Medicine Yale University Philip E. Enterline Professor of Biostatistics School of Public Health University of Pittsburgh Melvin W. First Professor Department of Environmental Health Sciences School of Public Health Harvard University Matt Gillen Industrial Hygienist Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union Melvin Glasser Director Health Security Action Council William J. McCarville Director, Environmental Affairs Monsanto Co. Wilbur L. Meier, Jr. Dean, School of Engineering Pennsylvania State University John Mendeloff Associate Professor Program in Science, Technology, and Public Affairs University of California, San Diego Samuel Milham, Jr. Section Head, Epidemiology Section Washington State Department of Social and Health Services Kenneth B. Miller Consultant Occupational Medicine Ted E. Potter Environmental Manager Shepherd Chemical Co. Milan Racic Director, Safety and Health Allied Industrial Workers Union Mark A. Rothstein Associate Professor West Virginia University College of Law Marilyn Schule Principal Centaur Associates Michael O. Varner Corporate Manager Department of Environmental Sciences American Smelting & Refining Co.
PAGE 94
94 Annual Report to the Congress for 1934 James L. Weeks Industrial Hygienist United Mineworkers of America Roger H. Wingate Executive Vice President (retired) Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. Agent Orange Study Protocol Review Advisory Panel Richard Remington, Chair Vice President for Academic Affairs University of Iowa Margit Bleecker Assistant Professor Division of Occupational Medicine School of Hygiene and Public Health The Johns Hopkins Medical Institutes George L. Carlo George Carlo & Associates Neal Castagnoli, Jr. Professor, Department of Chemistry and Pharmaceutical Chemistry University of California, San Francisco Theodore Colton Professor School of Public Health Boston University Frederic Halbert Delton, MI George B. Hutchison Professor School of Public Health Harvard University Patricia King Professor Georgetown Law Center Lewis Kuller Professor Department of Epidemiology Graduate School of Public Health University of Pittsburgh Claire O. Leonard Assistant Professor Department of Pediatrics University of Utah and Primary Childrens Medical Center Robert OToole Appeals Consultant Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States John F. Sommer, Jr. Assistant Director National Veterans Affairs and Rehabilitation Commission The American Legion John F. Terzano National Membership Director 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. Blood Policy and Technology Louanne Kennedy, Chair Associate Professor Department of Health Care Administration Mt. Sinai School of Medicine Alvin W. Drake Professor of Systems Science and Electrical Engineering Operations Research Center Massachusetts Institute of Technology Thomas C. Drees President Alpha Therapeutic Corp. Tibor J. Greenwalt Director Paul 1. Hoxworth Blood Center University of Cincinnati Medical Center Sylvia Drew Ivie Director National Health Law Program Aaron Kellner President New York Blood Center Sidney S. Lee President Milbank Memorial Fund James W. Mosley Acute Communicable Disease Control Section Department of Health Services Los Angeles County
PAGE 95
App BList of Advisors and Panel Members 95 Sharon Perkins Coordinator, Donor Program Fairfax Hospital, VA Michael B, Rodell Vice President Regulatory and Technical Affairs Ethical Products Division Revlon Health Care Group Rosemary Stevens Professor Department of History and Sociology of Science University of Pennsylvania Scott N. Swisher Presidents Council American Red Cross National Headquarters Martin J. Valaske Medical Director Medical Faculty Associates George Washington University Medical Center William D. White Associate Professor Department of Economics University of Illinois, Chicago Theodore Zimmerman Professor, Department of Immunology Department of Basic and Clinical Research Scripps Clinic and Research Foundation Wolf Zuelzer Executive Director National Hemophilia Foundation Scientific Validity and Reliability of Polygraph Testing Joseph P. Buckley President John E. Reid & Associates Robert Edelberg Professor of Psychiatry and Psychology Rutgers Medical School Frank Horvath Associate Professor School of Criminal Justice Michigan State University David T. Lykken Professor of Psychiatry and Psychology Department of Psychiatry University of Minnesota Medical School Martin T. Orne Professor of Psychiatry Director, Unit for Experimental Psychiatry University of Pennsylvania Medical School Gail J. Povar Assistant Professor of Medicine and Health Care Sciences The George Washington University Medical Center Steve Pruitt Director of Congressional Affairs Public Employees Department AFL-CIO Christopher H. Pyle Associate Professor of Politics Mt. Holyoke College David C. Raskin Professor of Psychology University of Utah Harold Sigall Professor of Psychology University of Maryland George B. Trubow Professor The John Marshall Law School Althea M. l. Wagman Research Associate of Psychiatry NeuroscienceProgram University of Maryland School of Medicine Paul M. Wortman Associate Professor of Public Health Program Director, Institute for Social Research University of Michigan Status of Biomedical Research and Related Technology for Tropical Diseases Advisory Panel Pedro Acha Director of Programming and Operations Coordination Pan American Health Organization George Alleyne Chief Research Promotion and Coordination Pan American Health Organization
PAGE 96
96 l Annual Report to the Congress for 1934 Karen Bell Professional Associate Board on Science and Technology for International Development National Academy of Sciences William Campbell Senior Director Basic Parasitology Merck, Sharpe, & Dohme Richard Cash Director Office of International Health Harvard School of Public Health Barnett Cline Professor and Chairman Department of Tropical Medicine Tulane Medical Center Joseph Cook Program Director Tropical Disease Research The Edna McConnell Clark Foundation Robert Goodland Ecologist Office of Environmental Affairs World Bank Abraham Horowitz Director Emeritus and Special Consultant Pan American Health Organization Dieter Koch-Weser Chairman, Department of Preventive and Social Medicine Harvard Medical School Francisco Lopez-Antunano Coordinator Tropical Disease Programme Pan American Health Organization Arnold Monto Professor, Department of Epidemiology School of Public Health University of Michigan Ruth Nussenkweig Division of Parasitology New York University School of Medicine Richard Riegelman Associate Professor Department of Health Care Sciences The George Washington University Medical Center Gabriel Schmunis Medical Officer Tropical Diseases Programme Pan American Health Organization Thomas Simpson Director Eastern Shore Health District Accomack County Health Department Ronald Vogel Associate Professor Department of Management and Policy College of Business and Public Administration University of Arizona Kenneth Warren Director of Health Sciences The Rockefeller Foundation Medical Technology and Diagnosis Related Groups: Evaluating Medicares Prospective Payment System Advisory Panel John Eisenberg, Chair Associate Professor of Medicine University of Pennsylvania John R. Ball Associate Executive Vice President for Health and Public Policy American College of Physicians Morris Cohen Consultant Department of Medical Methods Research Kaiser-Permanente Medical Program Helen Darling Director, Human Research Studies Government Research Corp. Judith Feder Co-Director Center for Health Policy Studies Georgetown University Susan B. Foote Assistant Professor School of Business Administration University of California, Berkeley Anthony Gigliotti Executive Vice President United Hospital, Inc. Melvin Glasser Director Health Security Action Council Henry Grabowski Professor, Department of Economics Duke University
PAGE 97
App BList of Advisors and Panel Members l 97 Mark Hornbrook Senior Investigator Health Services Research Center Kaiser-Permanente Health Care Program Ronald Hurst Manager, Health Care Planning Caterpillar Tractor Judith Lave Professor, Department of Health Economics University of Pittsburgh Barbara J. McNeil Professor, Department of Radiology Harvard Medical School Heather Palmer Assistant Professor Health Policy and Management Harvard School of Public Health William Rial Consultant Richard Riegelman Associate Professor of Medicine and Health Care Sciences George Washington University School of Medicine Leonard Saxe Associate Professor, Department of Psychology Boston University Stephen Shorten Professor of Hospital and Health Services Management and Organization Behavior J. L. Kellogg Graduate School of Management Northwestern University Donald Sutherland Director Clinical and Instrument Systems E. I. du Pent de Nemours & Co. Bruce VIadeck President United Hospital Fund of New York John E. Wennberg Professor, Department of Community and Family Medicine Dartmouth Medical School James Young Vice President and Medical Director Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Massachusetts Workshop: Inpatient Classification System Mark Hornbrook, Chair Senior Investigator Health Services Research Center Kaiser-Permanente Health Care Program Richard Averill Vice Chairman Health Systems International Meryl Bloomrosen Health Policy Analyst Prospective Payment Assessment Commission Joan Buchanan Operations Researcher Systems Sciences Department The Rand Corp. Paul Campbell Research Manager Health Industry Manufacturers Association Rosanna Coffey Director, Hospital Study Program National Center for Health Services Research Carlton Evans Director Allocation Development Service Veterans Administration Deborah Freund Assistant Professor School of Public Health University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill Paul Gertman Chairman of the Board and Chief Specialist Health Data Institute Phyllis Giovannetti Associate Professor Faculty of Nursing University of Alberta, Edmonton Joseph Gonnella Dean and Vice President Jefferson Medical College Susan D. Horn Associate Director The Center for Hospital Finance and Management The Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions
PAGE 98
98 Annual Report to the Congress for 1984 Julian Pettengill Specialist in Social Legislation Congressional Research Service Library of Congress Douglas Wagner Senior Research Specialist ICU Research George Washington University Sankey V. Williams Associate Professor Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania Patricia Willis Senior Research Analyst Health Care Financing Administration U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Wanda W. Young Vice President Health Care Research Blue Cross of Western Pennsylvania Prospective Payment Assessment Commission Review Panel H. David Banta Deputy Director Pan American Health Organization Kurt Deuschle Professor of Community Medicine Mount Sinai School of Medicine Connie Evashwick Director, Long-Term Care Pacific Health Resources Joanne Glisson Assistant Director for Government Relations Office of the Vice President for Public Affairs Stanford University Spencer Johnson Executive Vice President Hospital Association of New York State Center for Health Initiatives Sidney S. Lee President Milbank Memorial Fund Frank Rhodes President Cornell University Frederick C. Robbins President Institute of Medicine Frank Samuel, Jr. Partner Dickstein, Shapiro & Morin Kerr L. White Consultant Albert P. Williams Director, Health Sciences Program The Rand Corp. Wanda Young Vice President of Health Care Researc Blue Cross of Western Pennsylvania Physicians and Medical Technology Use, Cost, and Payment Methods Advisory Panel John Ball Associate Executive Vice President American College of Physicians Thomas Beauchamp Professor of Philosophy and Senior Research Scholar Kennedy Institute of Ethics Georgetown University Karen Davis 1 Chair, Department of Health Policy and Management School of Hygiene and Public Health Johns Hopkins University Richard C. Dever Fellow and Governor at Large for Florida American College of Surgeons Joseph Eichenholz Assistant Vice President, CIGNA Affiliated Businesses Group Peter Fox Vice President Lewin & Associates Jack Hadley Co-Director Center for Health Policy Studies Georgetown University Ronald E. Henderson Consultant Sidney Lee President Milbank Memorial Fund Jack Meyer Director for Health Policy Studies American Enterprise Institute
PAGE 99
App BList of Advisors and Panel Members l 99 Janet Mitchell Vice President Health Economics Research Vita R. Ostrander President American Association of Retired Persons Thomas Pyle President and Chief Executive Officer Harvard Community Health Plan Uwe Reinhardt Professor, Department of Economics Princeton University C. Burns Roehrig President American Society for Internal Medicine New England Medical Center Jerald Schenken Vice Chairman, Council on Legislation American Medical Association Steven Schroeder Professor of Medicine University of California, San Francisco Jack Shelton Manager, Employees Insurance Department Ford Motor Co. Robert H. Taylor Executive Committee, Board of Directors American Academy of Family Physicians B. Elizabeth Tunney Director, Legislation Retail, Wholesale, and Department Store Union, International Sankey Williams Associate Professor Section of General Medicine Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania Workshop: Use of Immunosuppressive Drugs in Kidney Transplantation Jerome Aroesty Senior Research Scientist The Rand Corp. Enrique D. Carter Acting Director Office of Health Technology Assessment National Center for Health Services Research Hinda Ripps Chaikind Budget Analyst Congressional Budget Office Marianne Deignan Budget Analyst Congressional Budget Office Roger W. Evans Research Scientist Battelle Human Affairs Research Centers Robert D. Gordon Attending Surgeon, Transplantation Presbyterian-University Medical Center Henry Krakauer Special Assistant to Scientific Director National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases National Institutes of Health Calvin R. Stiller Chief, Nephrology and Transplantation University Hospital, Ontario Charles T. Van Buren Associate Professor of Surgery University of Texas Medical School David L. Winter Director, Medical Research Sandoz Inc.
PAGE 100
100 l Annual Report to the Congress for 1984 SCIENCE, INFORMATION, AND NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION Communication and Information Technologies Program Information Technology Research and Development Advisory Panel Roger G. Nell, Chair Center for Advanced Studies in the Behavioral Sciences Geneva Belford Professor Department of Computer Science University of Illinois Steven Bisset President Megatest, Inc. John E. Bryson President California Public Utilities Commission NandKishore Chitre Director Systems Planning Division INTELSAT Ralph E. Gomory Vice President and Director of Research Thomas J. Watson Research Center IBM Corp. John V. Barrington Director COMSAT Laboratories William C. Hittinger Executive Vice President David Sarnoff Research Center RCA Corp. Bruce Lusignan Director Communication Satellite Planning Center Stanford University Donald McCoy Vice President and General Manager CBS Technology Center Ithiel de Sola Pool Professor of Political Science Massachusetts Institute of Technology Paul E. Ritt, Jr. Vice President and Director of Research GTE Laboratories, Inc. Larry W. Sumney Executive Director Semiconductor Research Cooperative Victor Vyssotsky Executive Director Research, Information Sciences Bell Telephone Laboratories Robert E. Wesslund Vice President for Technology Exchange Control Data Corp. George R. White Senior Research Fellow The Harvard Business School Workshop: Software Engineering Richard A. DeMillo Information and Computer Science Department Georgia Institute of Technology George Dodd Department Head Computer Science Department General Motors Research Laboratories Capers Jones Manager of Programming and Technology Analysis ITT Corp. Brian Kernighan Head, Computing Structures Research Bell Laboratories Ann Marmor-Squires Chief Technologist TRW Defense Systems Group Robert Mathis Director ADA Joint Program Office Harlan Mills IBM Fellow IBM Corp. Leon J. Osterweil Chairman Computer Science Department University of Colorado, Boulder C. V. Ramamoorthy Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science University of California, Berkeley Paul Schneck Leader, Information Sciences Division Office of Naval Research
PAGE 101
App BList of Advisors and Panel Members 101 Ben Schneiderman Department of Computer Science University of Maryland Steve Squires Software Technology Programming Manager DARPA/IPTO Terry A. Straeter Vice President and Program Director General Dynamics Electronics Raymond Yeh Professor Computer Science Department University of Maryland, College Park The Effects of Information Technology on Financial Services Systems Advisory Panel Almarin Phillips, Chair Holer Professor of Management The Wharton School University of Pennsylvania Donald 1. Baker Partner Sutherland, Asbill & Brennan Paul Baran Vice PresidentEngineering PacketCable Lynne Barr, Esq. Gaston-Snow & Ely Bartlett Robert Capone Vice President and Director Systems & Data Processing J. C. Penney Co. Kent Colton Executive Vice-President National Association of Homebuilders Richard J. Darwin Manager Financial Industry Systems Group Battelle Memorial Institute Gerald Ely Director Information Systems Division Merrill Lynch Capital Market John Farnsworth Senior Vice President Bank of America Paul Hefner Vice President First interstate Bancard l Now Director, National Science Foundation. Edward J. Kane The Everett D. Reese Professor of Banking in Monetary Economics Department of Economics Ohio State University Jerome Svigals IBM Financial Services industry Marketing IBM Corp. Willis H. Ware Senior Computer Specialist The Rand Corp. Steven Weinstein Vice PresidentCorporate Strategy American Express Milton Wessel Legal Counsel Association of Data Processing Service Organizations Frederick G. Withington Vice President Arthur D. Little, Inc. Computerized Manufacturing Automation Advisory Panel Roy Amara, Chair President Institute for the Future William D. Beeby Former Director Engineering Computing Systems Boeing Commercial Airplane Co. Erich Bloch* Vice President Technical Personnel Development IBM Corp. Barbara A. Burns Manufacturing Technical Group Engineer Lockheed-Georgia Jack Cahall Manager, Training and Development Cincinnati Milacron, Inc. Dennis Chamot Assistant Director Department for Professional Employees AFL-CIO Robert Cole Director Center for Japanese Studies University of Michigan
PAGE 102
102 l Annual Report to the Congress for 1984 Alan E. Drane Manager of Automated Systems Emhart Corp. Audrey Freedman Senior Research Associate The Conference Board, Inc. Sheldon Friedman Director, Research Department United Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW Theodore W. Kheel Office Counsel Battle, Fowler, ]affin & Kheel James F. Lardner Vice President Manufacturing Development Deere & Co. Eli Lustgarten Vice President Paine Webber Mitchell Hutchins, Inc. M. Granger Morgan Professor Engineering and Public Policy Carnegie-Mellon University George J. Poulin General Vice President International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers Bernard M. Sallot Director, Professional and Governmental Activities Society of Manufacturing Engineers Executive Director Robot Institute of America Harley Shaiken Research Fellow Massachusetts Institute of Technology Kevin G. Snell Director, Forward Planning Program and Development Career Works, Inc. Alfred P. Taylor Manager, Factory Automation Plant Services Operation General Electric Co. Philippe Villers President Automatix, Inc. Victor C. Walling, Jr. Coordinator Business Futures Program SRI International Dennis Wisnosky Vice President Industrial Systems Group GCA Corp. Michael J. Wozny Director Center for Interactive Computer Graphics Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Robert Zager Vice President, Policy Studies and Technical Assistance Work in America Institute Federal Government Information Technology: Administrative Process and Civil Liberties Advisory Panel Theodore J. Lowi, Chair John L. Senior Professor of American Institutions Cornell University Arthur G. Anderson Vice President IBM Corp. Jerry J. Berman Legislative Counsel American Civil Liberties Union R. J. Bogumil President IEEE Society on Social Implications of Technology James W. Carey Dean, College of Communications University of Illinois, Urbana Robert L. Chartrand Senior Specialist Congressional Research Service Library of Congress Melvin Day Vice President Research Publications Joseph Duncan Corporate Economist The Dun & Bradstreet Corp. William Dutton Associate Professor of Communications and Public Administration Annenberg School of Communications University of Southern California David H. Flaherty Professor of History and Law Privacy Project University of Western Ontario
PAGE 103
App BList of Advisors and Panel Members 103 Carl Hammer Consultant Robert D. Harris Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis Congressional Budget Office Dale N. Hatfield Dale N. Hatfield Associates Starr Roxanne Hiltz Professor of Sociology Upsala College Kenneth W. Hunter Senior Associate Director Accounting and Financial Management Division U.S. General Accounting Office John C. Lautsch Attorney at Law Edward F. Madigan Data Processing Consultant Data Processing Division Oklahoma Department of Transportation Marilyn Gell Mason Director Atlanta Public Library Joe Skinner Corporate Vice President Electronic Data Systems Corp. Terril J. Steichen President New Perspective Group, Ltd. George Trubow Director, Center for Information Technology and Privacy Law The John Marshall Law School Susan Welch Professor and Chairperson of Political Science Department University of Nebraska, Lincoln Alan F. Westin Professor of Public Law and Government Columbia University Langdon Winner Associate Professor of Politics Crown College University of California, Santa Cruz Intellectual Property Rights in an Age of Electronics and Information Advisory Panel Paul Goldstein, Chair Professor of Law Stanford University Jon A. Baumgarten Partner Paskus, Gordon & Hyman Charles Benton President of the Board Benton Foundation Chairman, Public Media Inc. Stanley Besen Economist The Rand Corp. Stephen Breyer Judge U.S. Court of Appeals Harlan Cleveland Director, Hubert Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs University of Minnesota, Minneapolis Stan Cornyn Senior Vice President Warner Brother Records Oswald H. Ganley Professor and Executive Director Program on Information Resources Policy Harvard University Paul Goldstein Professor of Law Stanford University Gustave M. Hauser Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Hauser Communications, Inc. Mitchell Kapor President Lotus Corp. Robert Lekachman Professor of Economics Lehman College William Lilley, 111 Vice President for Corporate Affairs CBS
PAGE 104
104 l Annual Report to the Congress for 1984 George Minot Senior Vice President CompuServe, Inc. Dorothy Nelkin Professor of Sociology Cornell University James A. Nelson State Librarian and Commissioner Kentucky Department of Libraries and Archives John Shattuck Vice President for Government and Public Affairs Harvard University Ollie Smoot Executive Vice President Computer and Business Equipment Manufacturers Association Patricia Sturdivant Associate Superintendent Houston Independent School District Sherry Turkle Associate Professor of Sociology Massachusetts Institute of Technology Jack Valenti President Motion Picture Association of America Inc. Vivian Weil Senior Research Associate Illinois Institute of Technology Martha Williams Professor of Information Science University of Illinois Workshop: Information Planning Mary Gardiner Jones Consultant Rob Kling Department of Computer Science University of California, Irvine Susan Nycum Gaston Snow & Ely Bartlett John Palmer Director Center for Economic Analysis of Property Rights The University of Western Ontario John Shattuck Vice President for Government Community and Public Affairs Harvard University Joe Stiglitz Department of Economics Princeton University George Trubow John Marshall Law School Willis Ware Corporate Research Staff The Rand Corp. Milton Wessel Consultant Alan Westin Department of Political Science Columbia University Joseph Wyatt Chancellor Vanderbilt University Workshop: Legal Problems in Intellectual Property Andrew Arno Professor of Law University of Hawaii Jon A. Baumgarten Partner Paskus, Gordon & Hyman Jerry Berman Legislative Counsel American Civil Liberties Union Roy Freed Partner Brown, Rudnick, Freed & Gesmer, Counselors at Law Leon Friedman Attorney-at-Law Morton Goldberg Partner Schwab, Goldberg, Price & Dannay Paul Goldstein Professor at Law Stanford Law School Henry W. Jones, 111 General Counsel Ashton-Tate Irwin Karp General Counsel Authors League Mike Keplinger Attorney Advisor Office of Legislative and International Affairs U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
PAGE 105
App BList of Advisors and Panel Members l 105 John Lautsch Chairman ABA Computer Law Division Arthur Levine Partner Levine, Lupo & Lippman Nancy Marshall Chairperson of Copyright Committee American Library Association Christopher Meyer Senior Attorney Copyright Office Library of Congress Melville Nimmer Professor of Law UCLA Law School Ron Palenski Staff Attorney The Association of Data Processing Service Organizations Marybeth Peters Senior Attorney Copyright Office Library of Congress Mary Hutchins Reed Attorney American Library Association Carol Rischer Counsel Association of American Publishers Mark Rotenburg President Public Interest Computer Association Pamela Samuelson Professor of Law University of Pittsburgh Cary Sherman Attorney-at-Law Arnold & Porter Eric Smith Partner Paskus, Gordon & Hyman Ray Weisbond Corporate Attorney Warner Communications Information and Communication Technologies and the Office Advisory Panel Henry C. Lucas, Chair Chairman, Department of Computer Applications and Information Systems Graduate School of Business New York University Charles E. Branscomb Vice President, Telecommunications Communication Products Division IBM Corp. Dennis Chamot Assistant Director Department of Professional Employees AFL-CIO Roger R. Collins Director Integrated Office Systems Training Northern Telecom Inc. Marvin Dainoff Professor of Psychology Miami University Rosalyn L. Feldberg Visiting Research Scholar Henry A. Murray Research Center Radcliffe College Thomas G. Hermann Chairman, Law Office Technology Committee American Bar Association Robert C. Hughes Vice President and Group Manager Business and Office Systems Marketing Digital Equipment Corp. Barbara B. Hutchison Director, Womens Division American Federation of Government Employees Lois Martin Vice President The First National Bank of St. Paul
PAGE 106
106 Annual Report to the Congress for 1984 Vernell K. Munson Manager, Advanced Systems Laboratory Wang Laboratories, Inc. Karen Nussbaum Executive Director 9 to 5: National Association of Working Women Robert M. Peabody Assistant Vice President and Director of Office Automation Mutual of Omaha Randy J. Pile Department Head Product Family Services AT&T Information Services Robert Ellis Smith Editor and Owner Privacy Journal Ralph E. Upton, Jr. Director St. Augustine Technical Center Workshop: Federal Depository Libraries Brian Aveney Director of Research and Development Blackwell North America Henriette Avram Assistant Librarian for Processing Services Library of Congress Richard W. Boss Senior Consultant Information Systems Consulants Inc. Joe Ford Executive Director CAPCON F. W. Lancaster Professor Graduate School of Library and Information Science University of Illinois, Urbana Judy McQueen Consultant Information Systems Consultants Inc. Peter Preksto Vice President INTRAN Patricia Glass Schuman President Neal-Schuman Publishers, Inc. Workshop: Videotext Technology and Transportation Gary Arlen President Arlen Communications Jesse Filkins Senior Attorney Division of Consumer and Community Affairs Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System John Fisher Senior Vice President Bane One Corp. Eric Lee Legislative Director Office of Senator Inouye United States Senate Nancy Miller Analyst Science Policy Research Division Congressional Research Service Library of Congress George Minot Senior Vice President CompuServe, Inc. William Seelinger Manager, Videotex Market Development IBM Corp. Bettie Steiger Vice President of Information Resources Reference Technology Joe D. Wetherington President Global Information Strategies Inc. Workshop: Postal Automation Nicholas Barranca General Manager In-Plant Operations Division U.S. Postal Service Robert Buzard President ElectroCom Automation Inc. Robert Cohen Director of Technical Analysis and Planning Postal Rate Commission
PAGE 107
App BList of Advisors and Panel Members 107 Larry S. Davis Head, Computer Vision Laboratory Center for Automation Research University of Maryland, College Park Warren Denise Director, Office of Mechanization and Facility Development U.S. Postal Service Willis Elmore Group Director U.S. Postal Service Audit Site William Gingras President Friendship Engineering Co. Harold Glass Manager Electronic Design Development Branch Maintenance Division U.S. Postal Service Dana Grubb Electronic Engineer National Bureau of Standards Department of Commerce Robert Hadley Evaluator U.S. General Accounting Office Art Hamburgen Senior Technical Staff Storage Products Division IBM Corp. James V. Jellison Senior Assistant Postmaster General Operations Group U.S. PostaI Service Lynn A. Kidd General Manager Analytical Support Division U.S. Postal Service Jerry Loftus Group Vice President Engineering and Planning The Business Equipment Group Bell & Howell Walter Marable Executive Director Engineering Support Center U.S. Postal Service Aldo Mazzoni President ELSAG, Inc. (U. S.) Ray Morgan Manager Equipment Development Branch U.S. Postal Service Jeryle Mumpower Program Manager Division of Policy Research and Analysis National Science Foundation Robert P. Otten Deputy Director Distribution Department The Readers Digest James E. Pehta Executive Vice President List Processing Co. Robert E. Price Senior Evaluator U.S. Postal Service Audit Site Jacob Rabinow Chief Research Engineer National Engineering Laboratory National Bureau of Standards Herbert S. Schantz Vice President Graham Magnetics, Inc. Israel Sheinberg Group Vice President Recognition Equipment, Inc. Dick Stotler Acting General Manager Automation Systems Division System Development Corp. (Burroughs) Robert Tracy Director of Engineering Pitney Bowes Jacob W. Ulvila Vice President Decision Science Consortium, Inc. Thomas W. Unger Manager, Credit Card Systems Shell Oil Co.
PAGE 108
108 l Annual Report to the Congress for 1984 Ocean S and Environment Program Managing High-Level Commercial Radioactive Waste Advisory Panel Hans Frauenfelder, Chair Professor, Department of Physics University of Illinois Seymour Abrahamson Professor, Department of Zoology University of Wisconsin Frank Collins Consultant Floyd Culler President Electric Power Research Institute J. William Futrell President Environmental Law Institute Edward Goldberg Professor of Geology Scripps Institution of Oceanography University of California Harriet Keyserling Member House of Representatives State of South Carolina Terry Lash Deputy Director Department of Nuclear Safety State of Illinois Jeanne Malchon President Candorcom Corp. Glenn Paulson Vice President for Science National Audubon Society Howard Raiffa Frank P. Ramsey Professor of Managerial Economics Harvard Business School William A. Thomas Consultant American Bar Foundation Mason Willrich Vice PresidentCorporate Planning Pacific Gas & Electric Co. Donald Wodrich Rockwell International-Hanford Operations John Yasinsky General Manager Advanced Power Systems Divisions Westinghouse Electric Corp. Acid Rain and Transported Air Pollutants Advisory Panel Norton Nelson, Chair Professor Department of Environmental Medicine New York University Medical Center Thomas H. Brand Director, Environmental Activities Edison Electric Institute Robert Wilbur Brocksen ManagerEcological Effects Program Electric Power Research Institute Jack George Calvert Senior Scientist National Center for Atmospheric Research David Hawkins Senior Attorney National Resources Defense Council, Inc. Edward A. Helme Staff Director Committee on Energy and Environment National Governors Association Richard L. Kerch Manager, Air Quality Consolidation Coal Anne LaBastille Commissioner Adirondack Park Agency Gene E. Likens Professor of Ecology Section of Ecology and Systematic Cornell University Donald H. Pack Consultant Carl Shy Professor of Epidemiology School of Public Health University of North Carolina Lester Thurow Professor of Management and Economics Sloan School of Management Massachusetts Institute of Technology George H. Tomlinson, II Vice President Domtar Inc.
PAGE 109
. App BList of Advisors and Panel Members l 109 Wetlands: Their Use and Regulation Advisory Panel William H. Patrick, Jr., Chair Director, Laboratory for Wetland Soils and Sediment Louisiana State University Hope M. Babcock Director Public Lands and Public Water National Audubon Society Earl H. Beistline Fairbanks, Alaska (Ex Officio Panel Member) Charles E. Fraser President Sea Pines Co. Donald E. Gilman Alaska State Senator Laurence R. Jahn Vice President Wildlife Management Institute Joseph S. Larson Chairman, Department of Forestry and Wildlife Management University of Massachusetts Stanley L. Lattin Director of Planning and Economic Development Port of Grays Harbor Jay A. Leitch Professor Department of Agricultural Economics North Dakota State University Ralph Manna, Jr. Division of Regulatory Affairs Department of Environmental Conservation State of New York William Manning Manager Safety and Environmental Affairs Louisiana Land & Exploration Co. Eric Metz Wetland Program Manager California Coastal Commission Mark Rey Director, Water Quality Programs National Forest Products Association Laurence Sirens President Maryland Watermans Association Hobart G. Truesdell, 11 President, First Colony Farms Daniel E. Willard Professor of Public and Environmental Affairs Indiana University Assessment of Maritime Trade and Technology Advisory Panel Leslie Kanuk, Chair Professor of Marketing Baruch College Vera Alexander Director, Division of Marine Science University of Alaska Richard F. Brunner Senior Operating Officer Avondale Shipyards, Inc. Paul J. Burnsky President Metal Trades Department AFL/CIO H. Clayton Cook, Jr. Partner Cadwalader, Wickersham, & Taft J. P. Elverdin President Navies Corp. Peter J. Finnerty Vice President for Public Affairs Sea-Land Industries Jack Goldstein Vice President and Economist Overseas Shipholding Group, Inc. R, J. Lowen President Masters, Mates & Pilots of America C. M. Lynch President ARCO Marine Inc. David L. Pearson Chief of Engineering Electric Boat Division General Dynamics Corp. Eugene K. Pentimonti Vice President, Engineering American President Lines, Ltd. Paul F. Richardson Paul F. Richardson Associates, Inc. John P. Scally Manager of Export Transportation General Electric Co. Lawrence A. Smith President Lockheed Shipbuilding Co.
PAGE 110
110 Annual Report to the Congress for 1984 Protecting the Nations Groundwater From Contamination Advisory Panel Thomas Maddock III, Chair Department of Hydrology and Water Resources University of Arizona Harvey Banks Consulting Engineers, Inc. Robert Harris Professor Center for Energy and Environmental Studies Princeton University Allen V. Kneese Senior Fellow Resources for the Future Jay H. Lehr Executive Director National Well Water Association Perry McCarty Chairman Department of Civil Engineering Stanford University James Mercer President GeoTrans, Inc. David W. Miller President Geraghty & Miller, Inc. Michale A. Pierle Director Regulatory ManagementWater Monsanto Co, Lawrence Swanson Director Great Plains Office of Policy Studies University of Nebraska James T. B. Tripp Counsel Environmental Defense Fund Technology for Developing Offshore Oil and Gas Resources in Hostile Environments Advisory Panel Dr. John H. Steele, Chair Director Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute Jacob Adams President Arctic Slope Regional Corp. Lawrence N. Bell Vice President Arco Oil & Gas Co. Charles L. Blackburn Executive Vice President Exploration and Development Shell Oil Co. Sarah Chasis Senior Staff Attorney Natural Resources Defense Council Clifton E. Curtis Executive Vice President The Oceanic Society Gordon Duffy Secretary, Environmental Affairs State of California Walter R. Eckelmann Senior Vice President Sohio Petroleum Corp. William Fisher State Geologist State of Texas Robert Grogan Associate Director for Governmental Coordination Office of the Governor of Alaska Frank J. Iarossi President Exxon Shipping Co. Don E. Kash Director Science and Public Policy Program University of Oklahoma Dan R. Motyka Vice PresidentFrontier Gulf Canada Resources, Inc. C. Robert Palmer Board Chairman and President Rowan Companies, Inc. Stanley Stiansen Vice President American Bureau of Shipping Wallace Tyner Department of Agricultural Economics Purdue University Michael T. Welch Vice President Citibank, N.A. Technologies for Disposing of Waste in the Ocean Advisory Panel Thomas Clingan, Chair School of Law University of Miami
PAGE 111
App BList of Advisors and Panel Members l 111 Walter Barber Vice President for Environmental Compliance Waste Management, Inc. William Bascom Director Southern California Coastal Water Research Project Rita Colwell Vice President for Academic Affairs University of Maryland, College Park A. Myrick Freeman 111 Department of Economics Bowdoin College John Gosdin Director of Natural Resources Governors Office, Texas Zeke Grader General Manager and Counsel Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermens Associations John Hinck National Toxics Coordinator Greenpeace Robert Hope Director, Port of Mobile Alabama State Docks Department Kenneth Kamlet Director, Pollution and Toxic Substances Division National Wildlife Federation John A. Knauss Vice President, Marine Program Graduate School of Oceanography University of Rhode Island William J. Marrazzo Water Commissioner City of Philadelphia Joseph T. McGough, Jr. Commissioner New York City Department of Environmental Protection Mike Norton First Secretary (Science) British Embassy Jerry Schubel Director Marine Sciences Research Center State University of New York at Stony Brook Richard F. Schwer Environmental Consultant Dupont Engineering Department Science, Transportation, and Innovation Civilian Space Stations Advisory Panel Charles E. Fraser Robert A. Charpie, Chair President Cabot Corp. Harvey Brooks Benjamin Peirce Professor of Technology and Public Policy Harvard University Peter O. Crisp President Venrock, Inc. Freeman Dyson Professor Institute for Advanced Study Princeton University James B. Farley Chairman of the Board Booz Allen & Hamilton, Inc. Chairman Sea Pines Co. Program Andrew J. Goodpaster President Institute of Defense Analyses Charles Hitch The Lawrence-Berkeley Laboratory University of California, Berkeley Bernard M. W. Knox Director Center for Hellenic Studies Moya Lear Chairman of the Board Lear Avia Corp. George E. Mueller, Jr. (retired) President and Chief Executive Officer System Development Corp.
PAGE 112
112 Annual Report to the Congress for 1934 Carl Sagan Director of the Laboratories for planetary Studies Cornell University Eugene Skolnikoff Director Center for International Studies Massachusetts Institute of Technology James Spilker president Stanford Telecommunications Inc. Frank Stanton President Emeritus CBS Inc. James A. Van Allen Head Physics and Astronomy Department University of Iowa Workshop: Unit Cost James Albus Chief of Industrial Systems Division National Bureau of Standards William D. Bumgarner Senior Member of the Executive Staff Computer Sciences Corp. Esker K. Davis Pickering Research Corp. James Graham Senior Research Associate John Deere & Co, Technical Center Jack Barrington Senior Vice President Research and Development COMSAT Laboratory Walter Kapryan Director and Senior Technical Advisor Lockheed Corp. Donald H. Novak Project Manager Computer Sciences Corp. William Perkins Director, Strategic Business Management Rockwell International William C. Schneider Vice President Control Systems Activity Computer Sciences Corp. Donald K. Slayton President Space Services, Inc. William C. Stone Research Structural Engineer National Bureau of Standards David Wensley Chief Program Engineer Space Stations McDonnell Douglas Astronautics Co. James E. Wilson Consultant Workshop: Automation and Space David Akin Professor, Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics Massachusetts Institute of Technology James Albus Chief of Industrial Systems Division National Bureau of Standards Michael Arbib Professor Department of Computer and Information Science University of Massachusetts, Amherst Ruzena Bajcsy Professor, Department of Computer and Information Sciences Moore School of Electrical Engineering University of Pennsylvania Michael Brady Professor Artificial Intelligence Laboratory Massachusetts Institute of Technology Rodney Brooks Professor Department of Computer Sciences Stanford University Margaret Eastwood Vice President of Engineering GCA Corp. Charles Fraser Chairman Sea Pines Co. William Isler Program Manager Systems Science Division Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency Steven Jacobson Professor Department of Mechanical Engineering University of Utah
PAGE 113
App BList of Advisors and Panel Members l 113 Henry Lum Acting Manager Office of Computer Science and Electronics National Aeronautics and Space Administration David Nitzan Director, Robotics Department SRI International Marc Raibert Professor, Department of Computer Science Carnegie-Mellon University Carl Ruoff Member of Staff Jet Propulsion Laboratory Roger Schapell Manager, Advanced Automation Technology Denver Aerospace Martin Marietta Corp. Thomas Sheridan Professor Department of Mechanical Engineering Massachusetts Institute of Technology Russell Taylor Manager of Robot System Technology T. J. Watson Research Center IBM Corp. James A. Van Allen Chairman, Department of Physics University of Iowa Workshop: Renewing U.S./U.S.S.R. Cooperation in Space: Problems and Prospects Bernard Burke William A. M. Burden Professor of Astrophysics Department of Physics Massachusetts Institute of Technology Donald DeVincenzi Chief, Biological Research Branch Life Sciences Division NASA Headquarters Thomas M. Donahue Professor Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences University of Michigan PauI Gorenstein Astrophysicist Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory James W. Head Professor Department of Geological Sciences Brown University Martin Israel Associate Director McDonnell Center for the Space Sciences Washington University at St. Louis Charles Kennell Chairman of the Department of Physics University of California, Los Angeles Eugene Levy Director of the Lunar Planetary Lab University of Arizona Harold Masursky Senior Scientist U.S. Geological Survey David Morrison Vice Chancellor for Research University of Hawaii Tobias Owen Professor of Astronomy Earth and Space Sciences Department State University of New York at Stony Brook Fred Scarf Chief Scientist Space & Technology Group TRW Gerald Wasserburg John D. MacArthur Professor of Planetary Sciences California Institute of Technology Airport System Development Advisory Panel Don E. Kash, Chair Director Science and Public Policy Program University of Oklahoma James H. Anderson Director, Office Buildings Division General Services Department E. 1. du Pent de Nemours & Co. Joseph Blatt Consultant Clifford W. Carpenter Manager, Airport Development Boeing Commercial Aircraft Co. Pierre Champagne Director of Airport Planning Transport Canada
PAGE 114
114 Annual Report to the Congress for 1984 H. McKinley Conway President Conway Publications Charilyn Cowan Staff Director, Committee on Transportation, Commerce and Technology National Governors Association Thomas J. Deane Vice President, Operating Facilities Avis Rent-A-Car, Inc. John Drake Professor of Air Transportation School of Aeronautics and Astronautics Purdue University William Garrison Professor Institute of Transportation Studies University of California, Berkeley Aaron Gellman President Gellman Research Associates, Inc. John Glover Supervisor, Transportation Planning Port of Oakland, CA Leonard Griggs Airport Director Lambert St. Louis International Airport Richard L. Harris Vice President, Public Finance First Boston Corp. John Hoyt Principal Project Manager Ralph M. Parsons Co. Jack R. Hunt President Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University Richard Judy Director of Aviation Dade County, FL Alfred Kahn Alfred E. Kahn Associates, Inc. Leonard Martin Vice President, Passenger Services Piedmont Airlines Dorn McGrath Chairman, Department of Urban and Regional Planning The George Washington University Sonny Najera Director, Division of Aeronautics State of Arizona Deceased. Edmund Nelle, Jr. President Butler Aviation International Jan Roskam Ackers Distinguished Professor of Aerospace Engineering University of Kansas William Supak Aviation Director Port of Portland, OR William Wilson Vice President, Properties and Facilities Federal Express Corp. Technology, Innovation, and Regional Economic Development Advisory Panel William C. Norris, Chair Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Control Data Corp. William J. Abernathy* Professor Graduate School of Business Harvard University William F. Aikman President Massachusetts Technology Development Corp. Henry Cisneros Mayor, City of San Antonio, Texas Ella Francis President Parkside Association of Philadelphia Aaron Gellman President Gellman Research Associates, Inc. Don Lee Gevirtz Chairman The Foothill Group, Inc. George W. Haigh President and Chief Executive Officer The Toledo Trust Co. Quentin Lindsey Science and Public Policy Advisor Office of the Governor State of North Carolina Neal R. Pierce Contributing Editor National Journal
PAGE 115
App BList of Advisory and Panel Members l 115 David V. Ragone President Case Western Reserve University J. David Roessner Professor Technology and Science Policy Program Georgia Institute of Technology John Stewart Assistant General Manager Tennessee Valley Authority Ellen Sulzberger Straus President WMCA Radio Alexander B. Trowbridge President National Association of Manufacturers Thomas L. Yount, Jr. Commissioner of Employment Security State of Tennessee Workshop: Standardized Testing Gray Garwood Legislative Assistant The Office of The Honorable Pat Williams U.S. House of Representatives George Madaus Consultant Deborah Stipek The Office of The Honorable Bill Bradley United States Senate William W. Turnbull Distinguished Scholar in Residence Educational Testing Service Alexandra Wigdor Former Study Director Committee on Ability Testing National Academy of Science Eva Baker Director, Human Evaluation Center University of California, Los Angeles
PAGE 116
Appendix C OTA Act 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 an aid in the identification and consideration of existing and probable impacts of technological application; to amend the National Science Foundation Act of 1960; 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 be cited as the "Technology Assessment 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) increasingly 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 to (1) equip itself with new and effective means for securing competent. unbiased information concerning the physical, biological, economic. social, and political effects of such applications; and (2) utilize this information, whenever appropriate, as one factor in the legislative assessment of matters pending before the Congress, particularly in those instances where the Federal Government may be called upon n to consider support for, or management or regulation of, technological applications. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT 6 Sec. 3. (a) In accordance with the findings and declaration of purpose 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 Assessment Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) wshall 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 and to develop other coordinate, information which may assist the Congress. in carrying 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. 116
PAGE 117
. App COTA ActPublic Law 92-484 l 117 Pub. Law 92-48 4 -2 86 STAT. 798 October 13, 1972 Information availability. 81 Stat. 50. Membership. Vacancies, Chairman and vice chairman. (2) where possible, ascertain cause-and-effect relationships: (3) identify alternative technological methods of implementing specific programs; (4) ldentify 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 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 nativities undertaken by the Office may he initiated upon the request of: (1) 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 (3) the Director, in consultation with the Board. (e) Assessment made by the Office, including information, surveys, studies, reports, and findings related thereto, shall be made available to the initiating committee or other appropriate committees of the Congress. In addition, an such information, surveys, studies, reports, and findings produced by the Office may be made available to the public except where-(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 S EC 4. (a) The Board shall consist of thirteen members as follows: (1) six Members of the Senate appointed by the President pro tempore of the Senate, three from the majority party and three from the minority party; (2 six Members of the House of Representatives appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, three from the majority party and three from the minority party; and ( 3) the Director, who shall not be a voting member. (b) Vacancies in the membership of the Board shall not affect the power of the remaining 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 Congress. The vice chairman shall act in the place and stead of the chairman in the absence of the chairman. The chairmanship and the vice chairmanship shall alternate between the Senate and the House of Representatives with each Congress. The chairman during each even-numbered Congress shall be selected by the Members of the House of Representatives on the Board from among their number. The vice chairman during each
PAGE 118
118 l Annual Report to the Congress for 1984 October 13, 1972 -3 Pub. Law 92-484 86 STAT. 799 Congress shall be chosen in the same manner from that House of Congress a Member. other than the House of Congress of which the chairman is l (d) The Board is authorized to sit and act at such places and times during the recesses, and adjourned periods of Congress, and upon l vote of a majority of its members, to require by Subpena or otherwise the attendance of such witnesses and the production of such books, papers, and documents to administer such oaths and affirmations to take such testimony, to procure such printing and binding, and to make such expenditures, as it deems advisable The Board may make such rules respecting its organization and procedures as it deems necessary. except that no recommendation shall be reported from the Board unless a majority of the Board assent. Subpenas maybe issued over the signature of the chairman of the Board or of any voting memher designated by him or by the Board, and ma be served by such T i person or persons as may be designated by such chairman or member. he chairman of the Board or any voting member thereof may administer oaths or affirmations to witnesses. DIRECTOR AND DEPUTY DIRECTOR Sec. 5. (a) The Director of the Office of Technology Assessment shall be appointed by the Board and shall serve for a term of six yearn unless sooner removed by the Board. He shall receive basic pay at the rate provided for level III of the Executive Schedule under section 5314 of title 5. United States Code. (b) In addition to the powers and duties vested in him by this Act. the Director shall exercise such powers and duties may be delegated to him b the Board. (c) The Director may a point with the approval of the Board, a Deputy Director who shall perform such functions as the Directo r may prescribe and who shall be Acting Director during the l beence or incapacity of the Director or in the event of a vacancy in the Office of Director. The Deputy Director shall receive basic pay at the rate $ provided for level I of the Executive Schedule under section 5815 of title 5, United States Code. (d) Neither the Director nor the Deputy Director shall engage in any other business, vocation, or employment than that of serving as such Director or Deputy Director, as the case may be; nor shall the Director or Deputy Director, except with the approval of the Board, hold any office in, or act in an or institution with which the Office makes any contract or other capacity for, any organization, agency, arrangement under this Act, AUTHORITY OF THE OFFICE S EC 6. (a) The Officer shall have the authority, within the limits of available appropriations, to do all things necessary to carry out th e provisions of this Act, including, but without being limited to the authority to(1) make full use of competent personnel and organizations outside the Office, public or private, and form special ad hoc task forces or make other arrangements when appropriate (2) inter into contracts or other arrangements as may be necessary for the conduct of the work of the Office with any agency or instrumentality of the United States with any State, territory, Meetings. Subpena. Appointment. Compensation. 83 Stat. 863. Employment restriction. Contracts.
PAGE 119
App COTA ActPublic Law 92-484 l 119 Pub. Law 92-48 4 -4 October 13, 1972 86 STAT. 800 or possession or any political subdivision thereof t or with any person, firm, association, corporation or educational institution, with or without reimbursement, without performance or other bonds and without regard to section 3700 of the Revised Statutes (41 U.s.c. 5) : (3) make advance, progress and other payments which relate to technology assessment without regard to the provisions of section 8648 of the Revised Statutes 31 U.S.C. 529); (4 accept and utilize the services voluntary and uncompensated necessary for the conduct of the work of the Office and provide transportation and subsistence as authorized by 80 stat. 499; section 5703 of title 5, United States Code, for persons serving 93 stat. 190. without compensation. (5) acquire by purchase, lease, loan, or gift, and hold and dispose of by sale, lease, or loan, real and kinds personal property of all necessary for or resulting from e exercise of authority granted by the Act; and (6) prescribe such rules and regulations as it deems necessary governing the operation and organization of the Office. Recordkeeping (b) Contractors and other parties entering into contracts and other er Agency cooperation. Personnel detail. Membership. arrangements under this section which involve costs to the Government shall maintain such books and related records as will facilitate an effective audit in such detail and in such manner as shall be prescribed b the Office, and such books and records (and related documents and papers shall be available to the Office and the Comptroller General of the United States, or any of their duly authorized representatives, for the purpose of audit and examination. (c The Office in carrying out the provisions of this Act, shall not otself, operate any laboratories, pilot plants or test facilities. (d) The Office is authorized to secure directly from any executive department or aency information, suggestions, estimates, statistics, and technical assistance for the purpose of carrying out its functions under this Act. Each such executive department or agency shall furnish the information, suggestions, estimates, statatistics, and technical assistance directly to the Office upon its request agency may detail, with or without reimbursement, any o its personnel to assist the Office in carrying out its functions under this Act. (f) The Director shall. in accordance with such policies as the Board shall prescribe, appoint and fix the compensation of such personnel as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT ADVISORY COUNCIL Sec. 7. (a) The Office shall establish a Technology Assessment Advisory Council (hereinafter referred to as the A "Council". The Council shall be composed of the following twelve members: (1) ten members from the public to be appointed by the Board. who shall be persons eminent in one or more fields of the physical. biological, or social sciences or engineering or experienced in the administration of technological activities, or who may be judged qualified on the basis of contributions made to educational or public activities; (2) the Comptroller General; and (3) the Director of the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress.
PAGE 120
120 l Annual Report to the Congress for 1984 (1) The Council, upon request by the Board, shall r (1) review and make recommendations to the Board on activities undertaken by the Office or on the initiation thereof in accordance with section 3(d); (2) review and make recommendations to the Board on the findings of any assessment made by or for the Office; and (8) undertake such additional related tasks as the Board may direct. (c} The Council by majority vote, shall elect from its members appointed under subsection (a)(l) of this section Chairman and a Vice Chairman, who shall serve for such time and under such conditions as the Council may prescribe in the absence of the Chairman, or in the event of his incapacity, the Vice Chairman shall act as Chairman. d) The term of office of each member of the Council appointed $11 under subsection (a) 1 shall be four years except that any such member l ppointad to a vacancy occurring prior to the expiration for the remainder of such term. No person shall be appointed for remainder of such term. No person shall be appointed a member of the Council under subsection (a) (1) more than twice. Terms of the members appointed under subsection (a) (1) shall be to establish l rotating membership according to such Board may devise. (e) (1) The members of the Council other than those appointed under subsection (a) (1) shall receive no pay for their Services as members of the Council. but shall be l now necessary travel expenses (or, in the alternative, mileage for use of privately owned vehicles and a per diem in lieu of subsistence at not to exceed the prescribed in sections 5702 and 5704 of title 5, United States Code) j and other necessary expenses incurred by them in the performance of duties vested in the Council, without regard to the provisional of subchapter 1 of chapter 57 and section 5781 of title 5. United States Code, and regulations promulgated thereunder. (2) The members of the Council appointed under subsection (a)(1) shall receive compensation for each day engaged in the actual performance of duties vested in the Council at rates of pay not in excess of the daily equivalent of the highest rate of basic pay act forth in the General Schedule of section 5332(a) of title 5, United States Code, and in addition shall be reimbursed for travel, subsistence, and other necessary expenses in the manner provided for other members of the Council under paragraph (1) of this subsection. Sec. 8. (a) To carry out the objective of this Act, the Librarian of Congress is authorized to make available to the Office such services end assistance of the Congressiona Research Service as may be appropriate and feasible. (b) Such services and assistance made available to the Office shall include, but not be limited to all of the services and assistance which provide to the Congress. (c) Nothing in this section shall altar or modify any services or responsibilities other than those performed for the Office which the Congressional Research Service under law performs for or on behalf Duties. Tom O f Of office. Travel expenses. 80 Stat. 498; 83 stat. 190. 5 USC 5701. Compensation.
PAGE 121
App COTA ActPublic Law 92-484 l 121 86 STAT. 802 Pub. Law 92-48 4 -6 October 13, 1972 Soiemtiflo programs, financing. 92 Stat. 360. 64 Stat. 156; 32 Stat. 365. 42 USC 1873, of the Congress. The Librarian is however, authorized to establish within the Congressional Research Service such additional divisions, groups, or other organizational entities as may be necessary to carry out the purpose of this Act. (d) Services and assistance made available to the Office by the Congressional Research Service in accordance with this section may be provided with or without reimbursement from funds of the Office, as agreed upon by the Board and the Librarian of Congress, UTILIZATION OF THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE S EC 9. (a) Financial and administrative services (including those related to budgeting, accounting, financial reporting, personnel, an d procurement) and such other services as may be appropriate shall be provided the Office by the General Accounting Office. (b) Such services and assistance to the Office shall include, but not be limited to, all of the services and assistance which the General Accounting Office is otherwise authorized to provide to the Congress. (c) Nothing in this section shall alter or modify any services or responsibilities. other than those performed for the Office, which the General Accounting Office under law performs for or on behalf of the Congress. (d) Services and assistance made available to the Office by the General Accounting Office in accordance with this section mav be provided with or without reimbursement from funds of the Office, as agreed upon by the Board and the Comptroller General. COORDINATION WITH THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Sm.. 10. (a) The Office shall maintain a continuing liaison with the National Science Foundation with respect to(1) grants and contracts formulated or activated by the Foundation which are for purposes of technology assessment; and (2) the promotion of coordination in areas of technology assessment, and the avoidance of unnecessary duplication or overlapping of research activities in the development of technology assessment techniques and programs. h (b) Section 3(b) of t e National Science Foundation Act of 1950; A S amended 42 U.S.C. 1862(b)), is amended to read as follows: (b) The Foundation is authorized to initiate and support specific scientific activities in connection with matters relating to international cooperation, national security, and the effects of scientific applications upon society by making contracts or other arrangements (including grants, loans, and other forms of assistance) for the conduct of such activities. When initinted or supported pursuant to requests made by other Federal department or agency, including the Office of Technology Assessment, such activities shall be financed whenever feasible from funds transferred to the Foundation by the requesting official as provided in section 14( ), and any such Nativities shall be unclassified and shall he identified by the Foundation as being undertaken at the request of the appropriate official. ANNUAL REPORT Sec. 11. The Office shall submit to the Congress an annual report which shall include, but not be limited to an evaluation of technology assessment techniques and identification, insofar as may be feasible, of technological areas and programs requiring future analysis. Such report shall be submitted not later than March 15 of each year.
PAGE 122
122 l Annual Report to the Congress for 1984 October 13, 1972 -7 Pub. Law 92-484 STAT, 803 ~ APPROPRIATIONS Sec. 12. (a) To enable the Office to carry out its powers and duties there is hereby authorized to be appropriated to the Office, out of any priated, not to exceed years ending June 80, ch sums as may be necessary (b) Approriations made pursuant to the authority provided in ) subsection (a shall remain l vailable for obligation ture, or for obligation and expenditure for such period or periods as may be specified in the Act making such l ppropriationa. Approved October 13, 1972. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY: HOUSE REPORTS: No. 92-469 (Com e on Science and Astronautics) and No. 92-1436 Cam. of Conference) SENATE REPORT No. 92-1123 Cam. on Rules and Administration) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 118 ( 1972): Fob. 8, considered and passed House. Sept.14, considered and passed Senate, amended. Sept.22, Senate agreed tO conference report. Oct. 4, House agreed to conference report. o
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 E7TO2MAXU_6UXE7S INGEST_TIME 2017-05-24T21:16:36Z PACKAGE AA00055446_00006
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
|